The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 08-15-2006, 01:48 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,899
Didn't the question about legality arise because it was argued that by abdicating, Edward hadn't lost his HRH since he was still a son of George V and hadn't renounced his royal status, just his position as King? Therefore it was argued that George VI had no need to confer an HRH on him because he was already HRH, and as long as he was HRH, his wife was HRH once they married. I've seen it stated in articles about the abdication that George VI went through with this creation of a totally unnecessary HRH simply because in so doing he could refuse to grant the Duchess an HRH, whereas if he'd acknowledged the existing HRH status, he'd have had to specifically draw up letters patent to deny the Duchess the HRH.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 08-15-2006, 03:57 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,132
That is my understanding of the situation.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 08-15-2006, 01:14 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
The 1937 Letters Patent did not change The Duke's status or confer HRH on him. He was already HRH by right of his status as a son of the sovereign. What it did was specifically limit the rank to him alone while denying his wife and children the right to share it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 08-15-2006, 01:18 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Which was illegal and actually was almosy giving carte blanche to morganatic marriage thus denying Wallis her HRH.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 08-15-2006, 01:31 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Which was illegal and actually was almosy giving carte blanche to morganatic marriage thus denying Wallis her HRH.
It wasn't "illegal" because the Sovereign alone has the right to confer or withhold any rank, title or style as fount of honour. However, it certainly was a slap in the face to Wallis.

The morganatic issue is moot because they were married by civil ceremony in France, were not members of the royal family and lived in exile anyway.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 08-15-2006, 05:27 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
David was still a member of the Royal Family surely? I still say it was illegal and that poor woman was denied that style of HRH. It was just viscious, not that it's my place to judge the Queen's father but I still think it was a wrong decision.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 08-15-2006, 07:46 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,899
They weren't married by civil ceremony, they were married by a Church of England clergyman. The Duke was a British citizen; as long as his marriage was legal in Britain, and the King, Prime Minister, and Archbishop of Canterbury didn't dispute that, it fell under British law, and British law doesn't recognise morganatic marriage.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 08-15-2006, 08:04 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
It probably made sense in 1937 with the incredible shock of the Abdication, but the vendetta should have ended by the 1960's. The Queen wasn't going to force her mother into an uncomfortable position over something she probably had mixed feelings about herself.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 08-15-2006, 08:09 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
British law doesn't recognise morganatic marriage.
Well, it did in 1937 and there is no constitutional law on the subject, so I guess morganatic marriage exists if the Government advises the Crown to issue letters patent stating a wife cannot share her husband's royal rank. Once that happens, it becomes law.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 08-16-2006, 12:06 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,899
Morganatic marriage was one of the alternatives suggested by the King for Parliament to consider, as an alternative to abdication. According to biographies of Edward VIII, the morganatic marriage proposal was a non-starter because, unlike some parts of Europe (at least in the 19th century), morganatic marriage wasn't part of British law. When a peer or a royal married, his wife took his rank even if she hadn't been an aristocrat herself, regardless of whether the marriage was a civil one or a religious one.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 08-16-2006, 08:38 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
It was a tricky question because the Crown is above the law and legally there was nothing to stop Edward VIII from marrying Wallis. As the fount of honour and source of all enoblement, the Sovereign cannot be a peer, therefore, the wife of the King is automatically Queen Consort and nothing else.

The question of a morganatic marriage was never seriously considered by Baldwin or the Cabinet because the Government was opposed to Wallis becoming Edward's consort, regardless of her title or rank. While it's true there were no precedents constitutionally, that doesn't mean it couldn't happen if Parliament and the Dominions accepted it. They did not.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 08-16-2006, 09:51 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
We have never recognised morganatic marriage so Wallis should have been given the HRH and she should have been a Princess of the United Kingdom. That was denied to Wallis illegally. Now it means nothing of course, it'd only be three letters more on a tombstone, but the principal remains.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 08-23-2006, 02:59 AM
Australian's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 2,152
This site talks about the 'proof' that Edward and Wallis had a daughter, Elizabeth, who was taken away from them at birth. They thought she had died shortly after birth but was actually taken away. The photos show distinct resemblences.....I dont know.....make of it what you will.
http://we3.org/
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 08-23-2006, 03:20 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,325
Interesting page. But.... Well, as acception of this woman as the child of Wallis and Edward would mean a lot of problems for the BRF, so there won't be an interest in doing any kind of proof from this side.
I'm wondering, too how this woman found out? The webpage says: "God" told her. Hmmmmm......If "God" had only spoken at a time when Wallis was still alive... modern medicine could easily prove a mother-daughter-relationship.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 08-23-2006, 05:45 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,132
I don't understand what problems this child would cause the BRF.

Afterall she was born in 1934 - before they were married, in fact while she was married to another man and that man would be regarded as her father anyway. The child would be illegitimate if not acknowledged as the child or a lawful marriage - a stigma at the time that I doubt Wallis and her husband would have inflicted on her.

In addition Edward abdicated for his heirs and successors so no child of his could claim the throne.

There are others who claim to be his child - one of whom lived on a property near the little town where I grew up (Edward had visited the property on his visit Down Under in the early 20s and the child was born 9 months after this visit). She received cards and letters from BP and other relevant places throughout her life.


I couldn't care less whether or not Edward and Wallis had 20 children - they have no claim due to either being illegitimate if born before the wedding or out of the succession following their 'father's' abdication statement.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 08-23-2006, 06:39 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrissy57
I don't understand what problems this child would cause the BRF.
Who inherited after the duchess of Windsor died? Didn't a part of her estate end up with the BRF?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 08-23-2006, 08:52 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
The Pasteur Medical Institute in France was the primary beneficiary of her estate, which mostly consisted of her jewels and remaining objects and furnishings in their Paris mansion. As we all know, the jewels were auctioned with spectacular success ($40 million).

Mr. Al-Fayed purchased the furnishings from the estate when he took over the lease of the mansion from the City of Paris. He renovated and restored the villa as a kind of museum for a few years, then auctioned everything off so he could live in the home.

With the exception of a few pieces of jewelry to Princess Alexandra, The Duchess of Kent and Princess Michael of Kent, the royal family received nothing from the estate.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 08-23-2006, 09:53 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,899
I think after the Duke died, Earl Mountbatten was involved in trying to get as much of his stuff as possible for the royal family, and I believe one of the Windsor biographies said that the Duchess authorised the return of some things of the Duke's that had particular historical significance. But when Mountbatten started to badger her to leave her jewels to Charles or came up with schemes to leave her money to a specially created charity that would be administered by Charles, she dug in and got her lawyer (who sounds like a reincarnation of a psychotic pit bull) to forbid Mountbatten's visits to her.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 08-23-2006, 10:17 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,097
I had heard that as well Elspeth. From the books regarding the Duke and Duchess, Mountbatten sounds as if he was playing both sides---the Windsors and then the Royal family (King George, the Queen Mother, etc.)

I am sure looking back the whole episode could have been handled better on both sides. Yes, technically the Duchess was denied the HRH but as I mentioned before based upon her previous history (the Duke was after all her third husband) the BRF family had no way of knowing that the marriage was going to last. In fact, based uon a book that I read about the Duchess (the book is at home so I can't cite it now), after Edward gave up so much (throne, fortune and essentially family) for her...she felt an obligation to him. This is not to say she could't leave him if she wanted to but she would have felt extremely guilty.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 08-23-2006, 11:10 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Wallis did leave jewels to Princess Michael did she not? I've seen Princess M sporting a few Wallis gems but I think the majority were actually paste.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abdication, britain, duchess of windsor, duke of windsor, edward viii, king edward viii, wallis simpson


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Duchess Of Windsor Jewellery micas Royal Jewels 200 12-12-2013 10:34 PM
The Duke and Duchess of Windsor Duchess Royal Library 106 07-15-2013 11:49 AM
The Duke of Windsor & Wallis Simpson - 3 June 1937 aussiechick12 Historical Royal Weddings 25 06-26-2013 04:27 PM
Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester and Miss Birgitte van Deurs: 8 July 1972 Scott Royal Weddings 13 07-11-2012 11:17 PM
The Duke And Duchess Of Gloucester: Oct 03-Jan 06 A.C.C. Current Events Archive 132 01-13-2006 09:37 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth birthday bourbon-parma camilla charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria danish royals engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta elena king abdullah king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander olympic games picture thread pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim prince laurent princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess charlene daytime fashion princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess maxima queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia state visit wedding willem-alexander william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:42 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]