Duke and Duchess of Windsor (1894-1972) and (1895-1986)

[Denville]

I am afraid that I over reacted to this but I do think that it is nonsensical to say that the "Good royal v Bad Royal thing" is there with Alb Victor and Geo V, or the DOW and Geo VI.
I think Any reasonable historical appraisal of the D of Clarence and Geo V would come out that "Eddy" was a borderline mentally deficient young man who certainly wasn't up to the job of being king, and while G V certainly had his faults which are wellknown, Eddy would probably have been a disaster.
and the same with the D of Windsor and his brother. George VI's faults are known, he had an irritable temper, he wasn't thtat bright, I would imagine that like most peole of his class he was by modern terms racist, but he was streets ahead of his brother in terms of dedication to duty, willingness to work and care for his people.
And iwht Marg and the queen, the queen's faults are known.. she's inclined to ostrich, she's very stiff and shy, and she's rather too conservative.. but she is dutiful and hard working. wheras Margaret has very little that can be said in her favour....

 

[Blog Real]

 

[Nico]

I just finished Hugo Vickers's "Behind closed doors" about the last years of the Duchess of Windsor. It was horrible, to say the least, as Wallis was more or less left alone in a vegetative state (for 9 years !), and clearly abused by her entourage (and her lawyer in particular).
The Duchess was not a saint, far from it, but no one desserves to end in a state like this ...

 

[Tsaritsa]

I am afraid that I over reacted to this but I do think that it is nonsensical to say that the "Good royal v Bad Royal thing" is there with Alb Victor and Geo V, or the DOW and Geo VI.
I think Any reasonable historical appraisal of the D of Clarence and Geo V would come out that "Eddy" was a borderline mentally deficient young man who certainly wasn't up to the job of being king, and while G V certainly had his faults which are wellknown, Eddy would probably have been a disaster.
and the same with the D of Windsor and his brother. George VI's faults are known, he had an irritable temper, he wasn't thtat bright, I would imagine that like most peole of his class he was by modern terms racist, but he was streets ahead of his brother in terms of dedication to duty, willingness to work and care for his people.
And iwht Marg and the queen, the queen's faults are known.. she's inclined to ostrich, she's very stiff and shy, and she's rather too conservative.. but she is dutiful and hard working. wheras Margaret has very little that can be said in her favour....

Denville, I couldn't agree more. David -Edward VII- prior to meeting Wallis, lacked all sense of duty, other than that which gave him pleasure and held his interest. AFTER meeting Wallis his first duty lay in pleasing her and she was his prime interest................however, I don't believe he really ever wanted to be King -way too restricting- and I believe he saw Wallis as a 'get out of jail free' card. It's more than likely that he knew perfectly well he'd never be able to have her and the crown, As for Wallis -certainly more intelligent than David- she probably wondered what all the fuss was about because she didn't have full grasp on how things were done here, and why should she? I don't believe she wanted to be his Queen any more than she wanted to be his wife, but she'd been backed into a corner from which there was no escape. I believe Britain owes her a debt of gratitude. Without her I think Edward VII would have rendered the 'Great' non existent.

 

[Katrianna]

David resented his duties as POW as we all know and have read, his whining letters to his mistresses about the boredom he experienced carrying out duties as he was expected. Then being King he expressed the same feelings because he couldn't carry on without Wallis. David abdicates the Throne and is free to marry, but he soon found out that despite becoming Duke of Windsor (still a Royal) and getting money from the Royal Family to maintain his lifestyle, it wasn't the same as being the King. The "perks" of the office and being a British Royal were essentially much different after his marriage to Wallis and when the Nazis made the offer of placing him back on the Throne as King when they captured England, he wholeheartedly went along with the plan. To be King again, sounded much better now than being just a Duke. Of course, Wallis would be Queen.
My "what if" has always been IF the above scenario had occurred (thank the Lord, it didn't), would the Third Reich have kept it's word to David or if it did, how long would David and Wallis been King and Queen? He would have been a puppet or mere figurehead, but David being an immature, self-centered man, he would have not had a problem with it because he would be the Monarch, but not have the responsibility/duties to carry out the office with a dictatorship calling the shots.
Now my imagination is getting away from me. It turned out that the British Govt. thankfully saw that David needed to be protected not only from himself but that Great Britain needed protection from this very gullible man. He wasn't happy in the Bahamas, but after the Govt. witnessed his coziness with the Third Reich, they couldn't afford to have him anywhere near Europe at that time.

 

[Curryong]

I have difficulty imagining David as a puppet King under the aegis of the Nazis, actually. If they had placed him on the throne I think that he may well have clashed with them immediately. David did have right wing and quite racist views. However, he was still an Englishman, and would have hated the British being enslaved.

David didn't want to be King for a long time (years) before his abdication but that doesn't mean he didn't have pride of race or pride in his dynasty and the British Empire. He was an appeaser not a Nazi, and had after all been King Emperor of a huge Empire built up by the British over centuries, even if he was HOS for only a short while.

I can't see him enjoying taking orders from Berlin, and if you look at the plans the Nazis had for their conquest of Britain, virtually shopping off the entire male population between 17 and 45 to work as slave labourers in Germany and a conquered Russia, the rest working as slaves in war industries in Britain, for instance, I don't think he would have countenanced it for a minute. That is even recognising all his faults, as I do.

http://www.thewarillustrated.info/2...this-was-hitlers-amazing-plan-for-britain.asp

Theres an even worse plan set out for the British set out in William Shirer's 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.'

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

David resented his duties as POW as we all know and have read, his whining letters to his mistresses about the boredom he experienced carrying out duties as he was expected. Then being King he expressed the same feelings because he couldn't carry on without Wallis. David abdicates the Throne and is free to marry, but he soon found out that despite becoming Duke of Windsor (still a Royal) and getting money from the Royal Family to maintain his lifestyle, it wasn't the same as being the King. The "perks" of the office and being a British Royal were essentially much different after his marriage to Wallis and when the Nazis made the offer of placing him back on the Throne as King when they captured England, he wholeheartedly went along with the plan. To be King again, sounded much better now than being just a Duke. Of course, Wallis would be Queen.
My "what if" has always been IF the above scenario had occurred (thank the Lord, it didn't), would the Third Reich have kept it's word to David or if it did, how long would David and Wallis been King and Queen? He would have been a puppet or mere figurehead, but David being an immature, self-centered man, he would have not had a problem with it because he would be the Monarch, but not have the responsibility/duties to carry out the office with a dictatorship calling the shots.
Now my imagination is getting away from me. It turned out that the British Govt. thankfully saw that David needed to be protected not only from himself but that Great Britain needed protection from this very gullible man. He wasn't happy in the Bahamas, but after the Govt. witnessed his coziness with the Third Reich, they couldn't afford to have him anywhere near Europe at that time.

The Duke of Windsor was not "getting money from the royal family to maintain his lifestyle". He got 21,000 Pounds a year from his brother the King, as a compensation for giving up privately owned properties and estates like Sandringham or Balmoral. King George VI was so short of cash that such an arrangement to compensate his brother was the only way to preserve, with as result that still at present-day the Queen can use her most favourite residence, Balmoral, amongst other private domains. So it was not at all an annuity to fund a lifestyle. It was an annuity to pay off the former King as a compensation for handing over his privately owned properties. In the 36 years as Duke of Windsor, he received some 750,000 Pounds, in my eyes that is a bargain for royal estates like Sandringham or Balmoral, which could have been sold by Edward and Wallis for millions in the 1970's.

 

[Denville]

I just finished Hugo Vickers's "Behind closed doors" about the last years of the Duchess of Windsor. It was horrible, to say the least, as Wallis was more or less left alone in a vegetative state (for 9 years !), and clearly abused by her entourage (and her lawyer in particular).
The Duchess was not a saint, far from it, but no one desserves to end in a state like this ...

I don't know of any evidence that she was "left alone", or abused. She had servants who were loyal to her, and took care of her. it is fo course sad that she ended up so ill and unable to have anything like a real life, but that was just bad luck. I'm sure she was well looked after.

 

[Denville]

I I can't see him enjoying taking orders from Berlin, and if you look at the plans the Nazis had for their conquest of Britain, virtually shopping off the entire male population between 17 and 45 to work as slave labourers in Germany and a conquered Russia, the rest working as slaves in war industries in Britain, for instance, I don't think he would have countenanced it for a minute. That is even recognising all his faults, as I do.

Now It Can Be Told! - This Was Hitler's Amazing Plan for Britain - The War Illustrated

Theres an even worse plan set out for the British set out in William Shirer's 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.'

I think he would have been unhappy with it, if british peolple had been enslaved.. but it is possible that if there had been an appeasing King on the throne, conditions mght not have been so bad, as Hitler regarded the British as Aryans and did not really want to fight them. However after having had them put up resistance, and if there was an underground in the UK opposing him, he might have indeed used them as slave labour.
but what couodl David have done, even if he realised his mistakes and hated the whole situation?
If he had put up an opposition, he would probably have just been summarily removed and taken to Germany. They would harldy let him escape from Britan and go away somewhere that he might become a figurehead for resistance.

 

[Curryong]

I would hope that Edward would have asked some questions about the role he was to play as King when the Nazis offered him the position, unless it literally was an offer he couldn't refuse! It is probable that they might have hidden their true intentions for the British from him and he could have felt that he might have been able to help his people as King, even if the situation was dire. Faced with the truth though, I do think Edward would have refused to countenance the measures. What would have happened to him in that case? Imprisonment in a castle somewhere, an accident...who knows. It's all hypothetical anyway.

Hitler did regard the English as Saxon and therefore Teuton but I think his admiration for them ceased when they refused to come to the negotiating table after Dunkirk, then after the Blitz, when an offer was put in a speech Adolf made to his faithful minions in Germany in the last months of 1940. They held out, he thought they were cretins for refusing his offer and I don't think there was too much tolerance or admiration on his part left by the end of 1940.

 

[Nico]

I don't know of any evidence that she was "left alone", or abused. She had servants who were loyal to her, and took care of her. it is fo course sad that she ended up so ill and unable to have anything like a real life, but that was just bad luck. I'm sure she was well looked after.

Nope she was not, just read the book.
Her closest entourage was fired, her butler stole and published intimate papers and her lawyer imitated her signature and sold or donated items without her consent.
Its clearly not "well looked after".

 

[padams2359]

Why would Hitler tell him the truth of his plans when he lied to everyone else about everything? Germany figured "Take England, take the Empire!" 1/4 of the world in one small island. Why do you think they were so determined.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Like so many people in the "better class", all over Europe, there was a certain goodwill for Hitler because "at least it are not the socialists or communists". Many German royals and nobles (and Edward was a German Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, Herzog von Sachsen until the cosmetic change in "Windsor") felt goodwill and understanding for Hitler because of being a dam against those "red herds" which toppled the monarchy in 1918 and because he brought law, order and prosperity after the anarchy of the Weimar Republic.

Hitler managed to outmanoeuvre the hefty and hated burden of the Versailles Treaty. Germany showed the world amazing technical progress, the Berlin Olympics of 1936 were an example of excellent organization, etc. Yes the ongoing crimes against the Jewish were worrying but the organized genocide on people would start during WWII, not in the 1930's, so we must not judge Edward and Wallis, and so many of their fellow British contemporaries, about their attitude towards Hitler, which was "let us give him the benefit of the doubt: is there any alternative?" in the interbellum.

Speculation what he would have done as a puppet King is useless. Edward has abdicated and 100% axknowledged his brother as The King and his niece Elizabeth as the Heir. Period.

 

[wyevale]

I suspect that had Edward been King after 1936, and married to Wallis he may well have abdicated in the run up to War, and moved [with his wife] to the United States. He loved America FAR more than he loved his country of birth..
One thing is certain tho'... Mrs Simpson did us a BIG favour in facilitating his removal from the throne.

 

[Tsaritsa]

I suspect that had Edward been King after 1936, and married to Wallis he may well have abdicated in the run up to War, and moved [with his wife] to the United States. He loved America FAR more than he loved his country of birth..
One thing is certain tho'... Mrs Simpson did us a BIG favour in facilitating his removal from the throne.

Indeed. Perhaps we should erect a statue to her as the woman responsible for saving the "Great" in Britain?

 

[wyevale]

Perhaps we should erect a statue...

I'd certainly 'chip in' !

 

[Curryong]

Noel Coward the composer and playwright, who knew Edward in the 1920s and '30s and was very unimpressed, once said that there should be a statue to Wallis Simpson erected in every town in Britain.

 

[Tsaritsa]

Noel Coward the composer and playwright, who knew Edward in the 1920s and '30s and was very unimpressed, once said that there should be a statue to Wallis Simpson erected in every town in Britain.

Didn't he famously say, of David/Edward "He hates me because I'm queer and because I know he's queer"?

 

[Curryong]

Yes, apparently there were rumours about Edward's sexuality for years but nothing was ever substantiated. I think his appearance may have had something to do with it, very small and pink and white and gold, youthful looking into middle age. Edward actually seems to have been rabidly heterosexual, especially with married women, and personally I discount the gay rumours.

 

[Denville]

I would hope that Edward would have asked some questions about the role he was to play as King when the Nazis offered him the position, unless it literally was an offer he couldn't refuse! It is probable that they might have hidden their true intentions for the British from him and he could have felt that he might have been able to help his people as King, even if the situation was dire. Faced with the truth though, I do think Edward would have refused to countenance the measures. What would have happened to him in that case? Imprisonment in a castle somewhere, an accident...who knows. It's all hypothetical anyway.

Hitler did regard the English as Saxon and therefore Teuton but I think his admiration for them ceased when they refused to come to the negotiating table after Dunkirk, then after the Blitz, when an offer was put in a speech Adolf made to his faithful minions in Germany in the last months of 1940. They held out, he thought they were cretins for refusing his offer and I don't think there was too much tolerance or admiration on his part left by the end of 1940.

|no, probably not. I think he would regard tehm as defeated and despise them. but I don't know if David was the type to ask hard questions. he might have been very pleased to be restored to the throne, to have Wallis as his queen.. and managed to turn a blind eye. He never seems to have learned to hide his apparnet belief AFTER the War, that "Hitler wasn't such a bad chap".. so brains weren't his storng point and admiring right wing dictators was something he was prone to do.. like many other upper class folks.
I think David would have been very happy at least at first to become King again.. then maybe he mgith have felt that as a "pro Hitler king" he could use his limited power to help his people.. but if things didn't go that way, I honestly don't know how much he would have protested. And of course if he did complain too much, he would have problably been removed to Germany to soemting like house arrest, as happened to the Belgian King.

 

[Tsaritsa]

Yes, apparently there were rumours about Edward's sexuality for years but nothing was ever substantiated. I think his appearance may have had something to do with it, very small and pink and white and gold, youthful looking into middle age. Edward actually seems to have been rabidly heterosexual, especially with married women, and personally I discount the gay rumours.

Please allow my psychology background to emerge momentarily! His boyish 'pinkness' was very likely the result of have developed orchitis after a prepubescent bout of mumps. It could arguably have resulted in emotional as well as sexual retardation. You refer to him being "rabidly heterosexual" but who, of his lovers, was going to say he was rubbish in the sack? The onus would have fallen on their own prowess. I would never dismiss latent homosexuality. I also feel that Wallis's sexuality was, shall we say, interesting?

 

[Curryong]

Actually I have read that several of his more obscure lovers, in various parts of the Empire, did hint that Edward wasn't up to much in the sack, Speedy Gonzales, if you get what I mean. When I wrote 'rabidly' I didn't mean that he was lover of the century, just that he had many sleeping companions (often willing married ladies) wherever he travelled, and no homosexual lover has ever come out of the woodwork to tell tales.

 

[Denville]

It ha nothing to do with his sexual performance, it has to do with his sexual orientation. And I agree that he slept with women, not men.

 

[Tsaritsa]

It ha nothing to do with his sexual performance, it has to do with his sexual orientation. And I agree that he slept with women, not men.

No, it certainly wouldn't have had an effect on his libido, but I think 'dear' Noel could have sensed something in him that he'd have preferred was kept hidden.

 

[Denville]

I think that Coward just wanted to believe that Edward was homosexual...
if he had been, I think it woudl have come out by now, just as it has that George D of Kent had male as well as female lovers. and it hasn't.

 

[duchessrachel]

I read Philip Ziegler's authorized biography about King Edward VIII (Duke of Windsor) and I am about to read "That Woman" about the Duchess of Windsor. In the process of reading Kenneth Rose's biography on George V, I found out about the "gland" problem that the royal family felt that Duke of Windsor had. It was not even mentioned in the authorized biography. I am currently reading the Bradford book on George VI and have found that the description of the Abdication crisis gives greater detail than the authorized biography by Ziegler did, or at least I learned more details. I am truly fascinated ("appalled" is a better word) by the Duke of Windsor. Can anyone recommend anymore books on him that are trustworthy -- not just gossip? Thanks.

 

[Curryong]

I very much enjoyed 'Edward VIII: Road to Abdication' by Frances Donaldson. It was greatly admired when it came out and it was one of the first books I ever read about the Abdication, (though it deals with his whole life.)

In defence of some of these biographies, you aren't going to get ALL the details of a person's life, even in the authorised ones, in one book. That's why it's always best to get a more rounded picture from several different sources. I count on Zeigler actually, for a really full account of the Abdication and many other events of Edward's life because it's so well researched.

By the way, I don't know whether you read 'Prince Charmless', an extract from the Daily Fail that was posted earlier in this thread. It's a very interesting extract from a view of David by one of his long time and closest aides.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...damning-portrait-Edward-VIII.html?mrn_rm=als1

This is an elderly page I've just found which I've posted below which gives some of the books written about the Duke and Duchess. Put some titles in on Google and see what comes up about them, I'd suggest! .

Letters between the two of them are always fascinating as well. I've read 'Letters from a Prince' also on that list which were letters to Freda Dudley Ward 1918 -21. I think you'll find that book very interesting in revealing parts of Edward's character when in love.

I doubt you'd be able to get an affordable copy now anywhere unfortunately, but the book 'The Green Baize Door' by Ernest King on the list is by Edward's personal servant, who was with him for a very long time. I read it long, long ago and it gave another point of view on the complexities of Edward VIII.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2ZPWS3X

 

[duchessrachel]

I very much enjoyed 'Edward VIII: Road to Abdication' by Frances Donaldson. It was greatly admired when it came out and it was one of the first books I ever read about the Abdication, (though it deals with his whole life.)

In defence of some of these biographies, you aren't going to get ALL the details of a person's life, even in the authorised ones, in one book. That's why it's always best to get a more rounded picture from several different sources. I count on Zeigler actually, for a really full account of the Abdication and many other events of Edward's life because it's so well researched.

By the way, I don't know whether you read 'Prince Charmless', an extract from the Daily Fail that was posted earlier in this thread. It's a very interesting extract from a view of David by one of his long time and closest aides.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...damning-portrait-Edward-VIII.html?mrn_rm=als1

This is an elderly page I've just found which I've posted below which gives some of the books written about the Duke and Duchess. Put some titles in on Google and see what comes up about them, I'd suggest! .

Letters between the two of the are always fascinating as well. I've read 'Letters from a Prince' also on that list which were letters to Freda Dudley Ward 1918 -21. I think you'll find that book very interesting in revealing parts of Edward's character when in love.

I doubt you'd be able to get an affordable copy now anywhere unfortunately, but the book 'The Green Baize Door' by Ernest King on the list is by Edward's personal servant, who was with him for a very long time. I read it long, long ago and it gave another point of view on the complexities of Edward VIII.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2ZPWS3X

Thank you so much. I will look at those sources. It is so interesting how reading different books gives a broader perspective. I think I am going to try to find Lascelles entire book.

 

[duchessrachel]

I very much enjoyed 'Edward VIII: Road to Abdication' by Frances Donaldson. It was greatly admired when it came out and it was one of the first books I ever read about the Abdication, (though it deals with his whole life.)

In defence of some of these biographies, you aren't going to get ALL the details of a person's life, even in the authorised ones, in one book. That's why it's always best to get a more rounded picture from several different sources. I count on Zeigler actually, for a really full account of the Abdication and many other events of Edward's life because it's so well researched.

By the way, I don't know whether you read 'Prince Charmless', an extract from the Daily Fail that was posted earlier in this thread. It's a very interesting extract from a view of David by one of his long time and closest aides.

Prince Charmless: A damning portrait of Edward VIII | Daily Mail Online

This is an elderly page I've just found which I've posted below which gives some of the books written about the Duke and Duchess. Put some titles in on Google and see what comes up about them, I'd suggest! .

Letters between the two of the are always fascinating as well. I've read 'Letters from a Prince' also on that list which were letters to Freda Dudley Ward 1918 -21. I think you'll find that book very interesting in revealing parts of Edward's character when in love.

I doubt you'd be able to get an affordable copy now anywhere unfortunately, but the book 'The Green Baize Door' by Ernest King on the list is by Edward's personal servant, who was with him for a very long time. I read it long, long ago and it gave another point of view on the complexities of Edward VIII.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2ZPWS3X

Thank you so much. I will look at those sources. It is so interesting how reading different books gives a broader perspective.

 

[duchessrachel]

I did a bit of sleuthing and found a very interesting reputable source (The Telegraph) to confirm that David did indeed threaten suicide should Wallis ever leave him. Not only does this mention that threat but this is an excerpt from a book called "That Woman: A Life of Wallis Simpson, Duchess of Windsor" by Anne Sebba. It was also made into a documentary that was shown on British channel 4 (I'm presuming as I don't know British channels) called "Wallis Simpson: the Secret Letters".

Its a very interesting read I think and gives a good insight into Wallis while she was going through her divorce from Ernest Simpson.

Wallis Simpson's secret letters to her ex-husband - Telegraph

I am currently reading that book and something interesting stood out to me last night as I was reading. I am at the part where they are going through their divorce and it is talking about how the situation between Wallis and David got out of control. It said that she had told Ernest at the beginning of the affair with David that the fling was okay because it would not last forever. My first thought was how could Ernest have possibly been okay with his wife having an affair?!? This book does talk about him being a staunch Monarchist so could he have been a little flattered that the King found his wife desirable? I have read before that there were men who did not "mind" their wives being mistresses of a king because of the favor the husbands received at court as a result of it. Was this Ernest's attitude?