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
 
  #1041  
Old 10-13-2012, 09:36 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,150
From my grandmother--who would have been in her late 40s at the time of the Abdication--I didn't get the sense that the disappointment was as much with Edward VIII marrying an American as with him considering his own desires more important than his duty as King. I think that people felt betrayed by him; and although there wasn't any great love on people's part for Wallis, she wasn't the one who offended nearly as much as he was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine J View Post
I don't think anyone cared that she was divorced but her being an American was ever so tender a thing for my royalist grandparents. Closest I ever saw them to being "treasonous" in respect to their stated opinion of the (then) Monarch was over those two.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1042  
Old 10-14-2012, 10:06 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359
Edward VIII had access to the Private Jewels of the Monarch for about a year. His mother Queen Mary kept a large amount of the larger pieces until her death, and QE II had been on the thrown for about a year. Queen Mary probable did more for the collection than anyone else. What happened during that year? Did Mrs. Simpson have access to some of them? KE8 was known for giving her large pieces of jewelry through out his life. The reason I wondered is that I just finish watching the 1978 BBC mini-series Edward & Mrs. Simpson. Are there some really old pieces that have not been seen in years and may have cruised to The Bahamas? He could never refuse her anything. I guess I I'm just wondering "What happened to the Queen's Jewels in the year that there was No Queen?
Queen Mary kept all of the royal collection after her husband's death and was careful to ensure the jewels remained out of her son's hands. However, Edward did have a large collection of unset gems and some older pieces that were re-set into new jewels for Wallis. These were gifts from the Indian princes during his tours of the Raj as Prince of Wales.

Most of the jewels he gave to Wallis were purchased from Cartier and Van Clef & Arpels.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1043  
Old 10-14-2012, 10:49 AM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 606
If Edward had ever given Wallis anything that ever once belonged to the royal family, Queen Mary would have come knocking and gotten it back.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1044  
Old 10-14-2012, 05:51 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 388
Was there anything that Wallis was required to return to the crown upon her death?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1045  
Old 10-14-2012, 06:09 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359 View Post
Was there anything that Wallis was required to return to the crown upon her death?
I really don't think so.. at least I've not heard or read anything about effects being returned to the crown. As far as I know, everything David gave her was his own personal gift and none of it belonged to the crown.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1046  
Old 10-14-2012, 11:09 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359
Was there anything that Wallis was required to return to the crown upon her death?
The Duchess did return some items after The Duke died at Lord Mountbatten's request on behalf of The Queen. These included The Duke's military uniforms and orders, his Garter robes, the coronet used to crown him Prince of Wales, and some paintings. The rest of his property was inherited by The Duchess.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1047  
Old 10-14-2012, 11:13 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla
If Edward had ever given Wallis anything that ever once belonged to the royal family, Queen Mary would have come knocking and gotten it back.
Indeed! Queen Mary did give The Duke a beautiful necklace of natural pearls set with a diamond clasp in 1949 as a gift for Wallis. This was the only time she ever made any kind of gesture towards her.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1048  
Old 10-15-2012, 06:50 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 388
Was he still a Knight of the Garter? Did he ever participate after abdicating?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1049  
Old 10-15-2012, 09:59 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by padams2359
Was he still a Knight of the Garter? Did he ever participate after abdicating?
The Duke remained a Knight of the Garter but obviously could not participate in the ceremonies as he lived outside of Britain.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1050  
Old 11-12-2012, 02:35 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,656
Very nice picture of The Prince of Wales Brooch. Shame it never made it back to the current Prince of Wales-
About the British Royals
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1051  
Old 11-12-2012, 03:06 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425


Camilla (and Diana before her) has a pretty much identical one so I doubt she has lost any sleep over the particular piece.
Reply With Quote
  #1052  
Old 12-08-2012, 02:42 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,656
Do anyone know what ever happened to The Duke of Windsor's 1911 coronet that he was inevested Prince of Wales in?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1053  
Old 12-08-2012, 03:48 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Do anyone know what ever happened to The Duke of Windsor's 1911 coronet that he was inevested Prince of Wales in?
From what I've been able to find, when Edward VIII abdicated and moved to France, he took his coronet with him. It was returned to the Crown upon his death in 1972. It is on display in the Jewel House of the Tower of London. This is the reason that a new coronet had to be made for Charles' investiture as The Prince of Wales.

From Wiki:

At George's own coronation in 1911, the crown was worn by his son, Edward, the next Prince of Wales. When as King Edward VIII he abdicated in 1936 and as the Duke of Windsor went into exile in France, he took the coronet with him. It remained abroad until his death in 1972. A new new Prince of Wales' coronet had to be manufactured for the investiture of Charles, Prince of Wales in 1969. After Edward's death the Coronet of George, Prince of Wales was returned to the United Kingdom, where it is now on display in the Jewel House at the Tower of London.

Coronet of George, Prince of Wales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1054  
Old 12-08-2012, 03:54 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,656
Oh okay. Thanks for letting me know, Osipi.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1055  
Old 12-08-2012, 03:58 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,656
I actually like his coronet:
The Oddment Emporium, Edward VIII on the day of his investiture as...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1056  
Old 12-23-2012, 03:28 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 75
I was reading The Queen's 1996 Letters Patent regarding divorce wives of Princes of the UK. I noticed the Duke of Windsor was mentioned in the patent. It read:


"And Whereas His late Majesty King George VI by his Letters Patent dated the 27th day of May in the 1st year of his Reign did declare that despite his exclusion from the succession the Duke of Windsor should continue to hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness but that his wife and children if any and the children of his sons should not be so entitled"


I may have missed something... but why would the Duke of Windsor's sons children (his grandchildren) be mentioned in the Letters Patent regarding royal rank? His father King George V decreed that only the children of the sovereign, the children of the sons of the sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales would be titled Prince/ss and Royal Highnesses. Naturally, Edward's hypothetical grandchildren would be great grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line not entitlting them to princely status.

Can someone explain, please?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1057  
Old 12-23-2012, 04:50 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHThePrince View Post
I was reading The Queen's 1996 Letters Patent regarding divorce wives of Princes of the UK. I noticed the Duke of Windsor was mentioned in the patent. It read:


"And Whereas His late Majesty King George VI by his Letters Patent dated the 27th day of May in the 1st year of his Reign did declare that despite his exclusion from the succession the Duke of Windsor should continue to hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness but that his wife and children if any and the children of his sons should not be so entitled"


I may have missed something... but why would the Duke of Windsor's sons children (his grandchildren) be mentioned in the Letters Patent regarding royal rank? His father King George V decreed that only the children of the sovereign, the children of the sons of the sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales would be titled Prince/ss and Royal Highnesses. Naturally, Edward's hypothetical grandchildren would be great grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line not entitlting them to princely status.

Can someone explain, please?
The Letters Patent you refer to were issued in May 1937 which was about a month before The Duke of Windsor (title that was created for him after he abdicated) married Wallis Simpson. It just was to clearly state that although as a son of a monarch, he was entitled to the title and style of a royal highness, it was his alone. At that time, it was very possible that if David and Wallis married, there could be children. Essentially what George VI was saying is that the title and style of royal highness rested with him alone.

It was a rankling point with David and Wallis. He did insist though that their staff address Wallis as "your highness".
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1058  
Old 12-23-2012, 05:12 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
The 1917 LPs say that the male line grandchildren of a king are HRH Prince/Princess and Edward VIII had been a king and so his male line grandchildren were entitled to be HRH Prince/Princesses.

The 1917 LPs didn't consider the children of a king who abdicated and so to ensure that there was no way that any male-line grandchildren of Edward's could claim the HRH Prince/Princess styling the 1936 LPs excluded them from that entitlement, along with Wallis's entitlement to HRH.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1059  
Old 12-23-2012, 07:15 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The 1917 LPs didn't consider the children of a king who abdicated and so to ensure that there was no way that any male-line grandchildren of Edward's could claim the HRH Prince/Princess styling the 1936 LPs excluded them from that entitlement, along with Wallis's entitlement to HRH.
Wasn't it LPs of 1937? From what I've read, George VI issued the LP in May which was very close to the wedding date of David and Wallis in June 1937.

Ahhhh someone taught me to be a stickler for the facts.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1060  
Old 12-23-2012, 07:23 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHThePrince View Post
I may have missed something... but why would the Duke of Windsor's sons children (his grandchildren) be mentioned in the Letters Patent regarding royal rank? His father King George V decreed that only the children of the sovereign, the children of the sons of the sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales would be titled Prince/ss and Royal Highnesses. Naturally, Edward's hypothetical grandchildren would be great grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line not entitlting them to princely status.

Can someone explain, please?
The 1937 Letters Patent were meant to ensure that none of Edward's descendants, and especially not his wife, could have the use of royal styles and titles.

As for his grandchildren, even though Edward VIII abdicated, he had still been a reigning Monarch, meaning his potential male-line grandchildren would have indeed been grandchildren of a Sovereign. Or, at the very least, they could attempt to claim the style of Royal Highness. George VI was probably advised to the possibility and ensured there was no loophole left.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Wasn't it LPs of 1937? From what I've read, George VI issued the LP in May which was very close to the wedding date of David and Wallis in June 1937.
Ahhhh someone taught me to be a stickler for the facts.
And admirable trait.
The Letters Patent regarding the styles and titles of the spouse and descendants of the Duke of Windsor was indeed issues in May of 1937.
__________________

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
birth bourbon-parma 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 engagement 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 picture of the month pieter van vollenhoven pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:39 PM.

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]