Elspeth said:
Times really have changed.
I don't think times changed so much till the day the duchess died. While nowadays Camilla received her HRH-style and Charles could stay first-in-line, Camilla still doesn't feel it is appropriate to call herself The Princess of Wales.
It's still the same way of thinking, IMHO, that led to Camilla's decision not to use the "Princess of Wales"-title and the unwillingness of the monarch to grant Wallis the HRH.
It may or may not be a perception of how the queen sees the situation but it IMHO has to do with the establishment views the role of the monarchy and the Royal family within the British society.
Wallis brought enormous upheaval to a Royal family that had only 19 years before changed the family name formally because of the public perception of Britishness and German ancestry. 19 years is not such a long time for a Royal family. I don't think we, as commoners of today, can imagine what it meant for the Hanovers to change their name. The Hanovers (Welf family) are the oldest noble family of Europe! They can trace back their male line to the very beginning of the Holy Roman empire of Germany - it's as if they could trace back their ancestry to a German version of king Arthur himself. That they acquired Britain through marriage with a Stuart-heiress didn't count much, I guess and that they lost their male-line possessions in Hanover through the same laws about female inheritance (queen Victoria and her uncle, the duke of Cumberland) didn't matter much, either. Albert's Saxon blood is as well of the oldest nobility traceable in Europe - these families along with the Habsburg formed and reigned the center of Europe for a millenium and more.
And now they had to change their name and thus their identity. To give up their European roots to prove they are British. They chose the name of Windsor. Does anyone think it's a coincidence that David got the title of the "duke of Windsor"? I cannot remember exactly how it came to this choice of title but IMHO the name alone has a significance. Maybe it was a signal for all to see that even if Edward was not longer king, he still was the senior male line personage of the Windsor-family. Not just a Royal Duke but as the eldest brother of the king he was "The duke of Windsor".
I can imagine this could have played a role when it comes to the choice of title. But Wallis? As wife of the duke of Windsor, she surely was his duchess. But she was not accepted as wife of the senior Windsor by the family. The Hanoverans as well as the Saxes had a long tradition of granting only minor titles and styles to the wifes they considered morganatic. Why should this have changed only because the Hanoverans/Saxes became the Windsors. So Wallis was "Her Grace" and that was that.
I don't think the queen ever intended to grant her a HRH when this would have been a signal that David and Wallis has still existed on an offcial level where Britian and the Royal House was concerned. I believe after his abdication Edward ceased to be considered a member of the "Royal" family, he only stayed a part of the family which by chance reigned Britain. Which is a great difference, IMHO. Okay, he still had a right to certain privileges as he was a descendant of the electress Sophia but these privileges did not include the woman for whom he had left his position as most senior member of the Royal family.
If I had been Wallis, I'd accepted that out of respect for the Hanoveran/Saxe's historic background. I'd have been glad to be able to share the life of my husband and the same name. IMHO Edward was spoilt and believed so much in his own superiority that he couldn't understand that privileges can be lost if you don't behave according to the rules of the society that award these privileges to you - and that he taught Wallis to think the same. When IMHO it was right that she shouldn't have been a HRH as this would have endangered the standing and perception of the Royal family.
I think she thought about being queen (before the abdication) for a QUICK SECOND....she would have perferred to remain the mistress. The power behind the throne. Let's face it...she had the ear of the King, the jewelery, a majority of London society accepted her as such (King's mistress) why marry him and have to deal with all the drama. The endless obligations, the ceremonies, etc.
I highly doubt the idea of an American born Queen Consort (divorced or otherwise) to have gone down terribly well with the British public. Infact, I still largely feel that would be the case now.
