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
 
  #981  
Old 10-09-2011, 01:05 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
The Duke received approximately 21,000 sterling (later adjusted for inflation) at the time of the Abdication, representing income from War Bonds with principal invested by George VI in 1937 for the value of Balmoral and Sandringham, and a voluntary 10,000 sterling allowance. By the time he died, this amounted to $100,000 annually.

In 1969, The Queen agreed to pay about $30,000 to The Duchess in the event of The Duke's death for the remainder of her life. She honoured this obligation, but later assumed all of The Duchess' expenses when she ran out of cash.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #982  
Old 11-13-2011, 01:53 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 883
Poppies for Wallis?

Seeing the /Queen wearing her poppies today reminded me of something I once read about the Duchess of Windsor. Apparently one of her couturiers presented for her approval a gown with a bunch of silk violets trimming the waist. In high dudgeon, the Duchess hissed, "I never wear artificial flowers!"

So, here's today's unanswerable question: Had Wallis become Queen, would she have worn a poppy?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #983  
Old 11-13-2011, 02:14 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,105
She wouldn't have become Queen but she would have had to have worn a poppy in whatever form she wished else she would have been seriously (if possible) even more disliked.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #984  
Old 11-24-2011, 05:34 PM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 28
My apologies if this has been discussed before. Were there any subsidiary titles for the Duke of Windsor? Usually a Dukedom comes with an Earldom and Barony. I've been unable to find a copy of the actual letters patent of March 8, 1937 that created Prince Edward as The Duke of Windsor. All I can find in the London Gazette is the notice of the Accession Council of Dec. 12, 1936 where the (new) King George VI announces that his first act as King is to make his brother Duke of Windsor. There also is gazetted the letters patent of May 28, 1937 restricting HRH to just the Duke. I've read numerous places that the actual letters patent re: the Dukedom were finalized March 8, 1937 but I've never seen them gazetted or the actual Letters Patent. I'd be fascinated to see if there were subsidiary titles and also if the remainder was the usual "to the heirs males of his body lawfully begotten".

Any comments or info. re: this would be greatly appeciated.

Thanks.
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #985  
Old 11-25-2011, 01:02 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 177
No, I don't think there were any subsidiary titles created for the Duke of Windsor, and I believe it was made clear that his children wouldn't inherit the title, so I suspect the LP didn't have the usual remainder. The only reason he was granted a Dukedom was to keep him from standing for the House of Commons--a Peer can't be in the Commons and they didn't want to take the risk of him getting in there and cause trouble. Or so I've read anyway.

Remember that at that time the abdication was a huge scandal and the RF pretty much exiled him from the Family, so they did the minimum to ensure he stayed out of their way and out of view.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #986  
Old 11-28-2011, 01:59 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
There were no subsidiary titles created with the Dukedom, however, the Letters Patent contained the standard remainder to male heirs of the body. It was generally thought unlikely The Duke would have any children as it was believed he was sterile.

Edward could not have stood for election in the Commons even without a Dukedom. He remained "HRH The Prince Edward" by right of his status as a son of George V and a member of the royal family. Royal Highnesses do not participate in politics under any circumstances.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #987  
Old 11-28-2011, 02:19 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
.

Edward could not have stood for election in the Commons even without a Dukedom. He remained "HRH The Prince Edward" by right of his status as a son of George V and a member of the royal family. Royal Highnesses do not participate in politics under any circumstances.
That is the tradition but not legally binding. Unless he was a member of the House of Lords he was legally a commoner and he could in fact have stood for election to Parliament which would have caused difficulties.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #988  
Old 11-28-2011, 04:05 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
There were no subsidiary titles created with the Dukedom...
Thanks for pointing that out--I just realized that I almost forgot that King George VI later issued separate LPs saying that any issues of the Duke of Windsor would not carry the HRH title, as well as his wife. That's where I got my bad impression of the Dukedom's LP not having male remainder...my mistake. Either way, they took pain to ensure that he would stay out of the way and out of sight as much as possible.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #989  
Old 11-28-2011, 06:54 PM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 28
Interesting. But were the Letters Patent ever gazetted or are the actual Letters Patent available in the archives somewhere? I'd like to see the actual wording but so far have been unable to find them.

Thanks everyone for your responses. Very informative!
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #990  
Old 11-28-2011, 09:15 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside View Post
Interesting. But were the Letters Patent ever gazetted or are the actual Letters Patent available in the archives somewhere? I'd like to see the actual wording but so far have been unable to find them.
Here it is:

Whitehall, May 28, 1937.The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date the 27th day of May, 1937, to declare that the Duke of Windsor shall, notwithstanding his Instrument of Abdication executed on the loth day of December, 1936, and His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act, 1936, whereby effect was given to the said Instrument, be entitled to hold and enjoy for himself only the title style or attribute of Royal Highness so however that his wife and descendants if any shall not hold the said title style or attribute.

(London Gazette, issue 34402, May 28, 1937, p. 1/3429.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #991  
Old 11-28-2011, 09:54 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 177
Thank you very much for the text. So basically it confirm my impression that the HRH style can't be passed to any wives or issues of his. And assuming that the LP for Dukedom of Windsor has the usual male line remainder, I'd assume that the Dukedom of Windsor could be passed down to the eldest son of the Duke of Windsor, correct?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #992  
Old 11-28-2011, 10:31 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
Yes, that's correct. The effect of the Letters was to affirm The Duke remained royal, not withstanding his abdication of the throne, but his wife and children would not hold royal rank.

If The Duke and Duchess had produced children, the eldest son would have eventually become "His Grace The Duke of Windsor", while the other children would have been styled Lord/Lady Windsor. Since The Duke had renounced the rights of succession on behalf of his descendants to the throne, there was no reason for them to be HRH Prince/Princess of the UK.

However, the issue of Wallis' rank was a source of much resentment as The Duke felt it was unfair for his wife to be denied her common law right to share her husband's rank, which certainly had some validity.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #993  
Old 11-29-2011, 12:46 AM
DukeOfAster's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pembroke, United States
Posts: 180
If I am not mistaken the Duchess was given HRH after her death.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #994  
Old 11-29-2011, 01:53 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeOfAster View Post
If I am not mistaken the Duchess was given HRH after her death.

You are mistaken.

There would be no reason to give her a status in death that she didn't have in life.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #995  
Old 11-29-2011, 10:30 AM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Whitehall, May 28, 1937.The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm...
Thanks for this but if you see my original post, the Letters Patent I'm looking for are the ones of March 8, 1937 - the ones that granted the Dukedom of Windsor. The Gazette notice you quote above and of which I was already aware, are regarding the Letters Patent of May 27, 1937, which restrict HRH to just the Duke.

While I appreciate everyone's efforts and while the conversation has veered somewhat into the HRH issue, I'm still curious if anyone can show me the Letters Patent of March 8, 1937, which granted the Dukedom of Windsor. Maybe these were never gazetted and maybe the Letters are sealed by the archives (for 100 years or whatever). If that's the case, why? I'm curious to see the letters beacuse while many (including myself) assume that the Dukedom had the usual remainder, perhaps it didn't. I'll keep digging.

One final thing, many sources list March 8, 1937 as the date the Letters Patent were actually finalized but what's the source of that date? A gazette notice? a newspaper account? Fun stuff!
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #996  
Old 11-29-2011, 11:28 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 177
Gotcha--it'd be very interesting to see the actual LP's text, but I suspect that it'd probably have the usual remainder, but if not, I wouldn't be too surprised either.

I just wondered if they just never got around to gazetting the actual LPs?

Best of luck in your search!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #997  
Old 11-29-2011, 09:30 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
Apparently, based on my research, the Letters Patent creating the Dukedom of Windsor on March 8, 1937 were never published by the London Gazette.

George VI declared at his accession council that he would create his predecessor "His Royal Highness The Duke of Windsor", but the actual creation was not legal until March 1937, when he formally signed the Letters Patent under the Great Seal. Why exactly this happened is unknown.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #998  
Old 11-29-2011, 09:36 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
The Times of London did publish the following ('The Times' of Monday 14 December 1936 p 14):

"[On Saturday] morning the King attended the Accession meeting of the
Privy Council... His Majesty... was pleased to make the following
declaration:

"...My first act on succeeding My Brother will be to confer on Him a
Dukedom and He will henceforth be known as His Royal Highness The Duke
of Windsor.

"Whereupon the Lords of the Council made it their humble request to
His Majesty that His Majesty's Most Gracious Declaration to their
Lordships might be made public, which His Majesty was pleased to order
accordingly".

This creation by declaration of George VI to the Privy Council took place on 12
December 1936.

It should be noted that such declaration from The Sovereign, as fount of all honours, in the presence of his Councillers, is legally binding and Edward's peerage was officially created at that moment.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #999  
Old 11-30-2011, 12:16 PM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 28
Fascinating stuff! Thank you all for your responses.

On another, related note: I've read that The Duke of Windsor was made a GCB in 1936. Did he receive this when he was Prince of Wales, from his father George V who died on Jan. 20 of 1936? Or did he receive this after abdicating on Dec. 11 of 1936, from his brother George VI?

Any info.(including letters patent, gazette notices etc.) would be appreciated regarding this matter.

This is a fascinating forum, I have and am continuing to learn much from other learned members. Thanks so much!
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #1000  
Old 12-10-2011, 08:15 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,732
I believe he lost all of his honours upon abdication, but these were restored by George VI as one of his first acts as King.
__________________

__________________
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 11:34 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 10:37 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman palace pieter van vollenhoven poland pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:13 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]