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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I believe that the women of the Royal Family also needed ‘respectable’ clothing, yet they abided by the rationing rules like their subjects did.

You can't really compare Queen Elizabeth or Queen Mary wearing their timeless conservative clothes with the Duchess of Windsor, who had to be dressed to the nines always in the latest fashion if she wanted to be noticed.
 
You can't really compare Queen Elizabeth or Queen Mary wearing their timeless conservative clothes with the Duchess of Windsor, who had to be dressed to the nines always in the latest fashion if she wanted to be noticed.
While Queen Mary was a sartorial dinosaur, not her choice though, by the end of her husband's reign (just compare her to Queen Elisabeth on the State Visit to Belgium) Queen Elizabeth dressed very fashionable for the late 1930s although she chose other designers that her sister-in-law. Crinolinesque dresses and an interpretation of mid 1800s style was all the rage in the years leading up to WWII.

Correction: Seems like the point of your post went over my head. Sorry [emoji85]
 
Last edited:
One thing that stands out is that all of these people kind of showed what kind of stuff they were made of during the WWII years. There's reports of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor being sent to the Bahamas (mostly for political reasons), moaning about what they couldn't easily access and perhaps getting around rationing and the importance of the high life to them.

On the other hand, we see a King George VI and Queen Elizabeth who were going through the war years with their people. The Queen with her stamina who was able to say after Buckingham Palace was bombed "I am glad we have been bombed. Now we can look the East End in the eye." She also refused the offers of moving her daughters away from London. "The children will not leave unless I do. I shall not leave unless their father does, and the king will not leave the country in any circumstances, whatever."

While the Duke and Duchess were bemoaning the lack of things that they wanted and were finding ways around it, we had the then Princess Elizabeth receiving rationing coupons from all over for her wedding dress (which were returned, of course, to sender).

People tend to resonate with people in the public eye and that is still true today. The differences in the character of the different members of the British royal family can clearly be shown in the examples I've shown. Those that are primarily concerned about self and status and prestige tend to end up on the "naughty" list while those that actively show that they care about the people around them are on the "nice" list and respected and admired.

It is how these people displayed their own character and their concerns and their outlook on life that promotes what we still think of them today. Yeps. The UK found the best possible king for the time of WWII in King George VI and the stalwart Queen Elizabeth.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/sep/13/queen-mother-biography-shawcross-luftwaffe

The Shawcross biography of the Queen Mother is definitely a "must read" and is an extensive (and heavy) look into this era.
 
One thing that stands out to me every time I read about the Duke and Duchess is how little either one anticipated the consequences of their actions. Again and again, both seemed to be almost entirely focused on the moment at hand with little sense of even the short term future. Their fixation was "how can we enjoy ourselves right now", "how is the world 'out to get us' right now," "how can we get the most attention right now," never seeming to think of how others might react or how they might actually be sabotaging themselves.

Time after time, they managed to finagle something that seemed good in the short term and then were shocked-shocked!-to discover that the fun or the money (or the good press) didn't automatically last forever or that selfish choices might inspire other people to react unfavorably. Neither truly understood that power, wealth and other people's good graces are all things that have to be maintained.
 
One thing that stands out to me every time I read about the Duke and Duchess is how little either one anticipated the consequences of their actions. Again and again, both seemed to be almost entirely focused on the moment at hand with little sense of even the short term future. Their fixation was "how can we enjoy ourselves right now", "how is the world 'out to get us' right now," "how can we get the most attention right now," never seeming to think of how others might react or how they might actually be sabotaging themselves.

You're measuring them by yardsticks that don't fit. :ermm: They were not intellectuals, not particularly well educated, not imaginative. They did live their lives day-to-day, in a kind of survival mode, until after the war when a certain 'normalcy' and regularity could be achieved. They knew the lay of the land by then. And it was about them. So what? That's who they were, and they had good reason to feel at bay with the world. It's pretty simple from my view. :cool:

I've decided that we here have different motives in discussing historical figures. I have no interest in personally liking an historical personage, certainly do not want to engage in hatred of them (the dead). Never that, should never happen, in my book. I do try to understand these figures in the context of their time, not my time, with my 20/20 vision (if I fancy I have that). That's a very different perspective. I try to see through the hysteria some personages have generated in their time. Last thing I want to do is retread the same myths that engulfed the individuals in their lifetimes, which I think is done a lot with Wallis.

So I'm inclined to see Wallis differently than her times saw her, and that means the QM comes under scrutiny, because she seems to have led the charge against Wallis in many ways. It's a very curious thing imo. Something going on there that has nothing to do with a husband's early death. JMO.
 
Last edited:
I have hardly ever seen posters come on to the historical threads her at TRF and try to measure any royals, let alone the Windsors by the mores of the mid twentieth century.

Many people posting here are history buffs, several people have history degrees, taken as either a major or a minor, and have a deep understanding of the period encompassing the Windsors lifetime. Many have read quite a number of books about the Windsors. Nor does any poster IMO indulge in hatred of the dead, except perhaps on the Diana threads on occasion.

Nor do I believe did Loonytick do anything of that kind. You refer to 'myths', Lady Nimue, and to people adhering to them. Do you have anything to counter the facts put forward in many, many books about the Windsors and the BRF, for instance of involvement with known Nazi sympathisers before and during the war?

Do you have any documentation, for instance, to counter the fact that the Duke of Windsor lied to his brother in 1937 about his financial position for monetary advantage, a known fact, which upset his brother deeply when he found out the truth and IMO exacerbated the dislike the Queen Mother felt for both Windsors when she remembered how Bertie had been duped?

Do you have anything to support known facts collected by intelligence agencies that Wallis was cuckolding her husband and making a fool of the POW by being intimate with a car salesman at the time of her affair with David?

As I asked you in the QM threads, if you have anything to contribute as to why the Queen Mother supposedly 'hated' Wallis (which I don't believe she did, as, until Queen Mary's death the BRF were all unanimous in supporting her stance against Wallis) then can we please have sources to go to in the way of biographies with footnoted documentation on this, something that we can check?

Because, IMO, vague 'feelings' that 'something' personal was behind the QM's dislike of Wallis is not enough. I believe that if an assertion is made like that, then according to the rules of TRF it ought to be backed up with a verifiable source.
 
Last edited:
You're measuring them by yardsticks that don't fit. :ermm: They were not intellectuals, not particularly well educated, not imaginative. They did live their lives day-to-day, in a kind of survival mode, until after the war when a certain 'normalcy' and regularity could be achieved. They knew the lay of the land by then. And it was about them. So what? That's who they were, and they had good reason to feel at bay with the world. It's pretty simple from my view. :cool:

I've decided that we here have different motives in discussing historical figures. I have no interest in personally liking an historical personage, certainly do not want to engage in hatred of them (the dead).

I certainly don't hate these two or need to personally like them. I'm interested in seeing how they fit into their time and place. And one thing I find interesting is how little they seemed to pay attention to the lay of the land, so to speak.

Intellect has nothing to do with it, really. They just didn't engage in basic "if I do this, x will likely happen" thinking that most humans through time have done, which lead to them being continually surprised by the consequences of their actions.

Like you, I don't buy into the popular image of Wallis as some evil, scheming thing. I think it's more that she didn't really bother to look very far beyond what was right in front of her face. I don't get the sense that she intended to make anyone's life difficult. At the same time, I don't get the sense that she cared one way or the other about what ripple effects she might set into motion or how others would be impacted. She just seems to me to have been a simple sort of...careless. Which is it's own kind of selfishness.

But honestly, there are any number of instances in which any dolt could have seen the obvious writing on the wall, yet those two seemed utterly surprised.

They lived in a time and place in which divorce was considered shameful across all segments of their society. Wallis herself had experienced first-hand how poorly people thought of divorcees. Any rag and bone man pushing a cart around the East End could have told you that there'd be a lot of fallout to the idea of a royal marrying a twice-divorced woman. Yet those two seemed perplexed by just how upset people were at the idea of him marrying her.

David came of age in the midst of a fundamental shift in royal life for the BRF. George V had recognized like no monarch before the importance of good PR. He didn't want to be associated with their WWI enemy; he didn't want them to be at risk of the uprising and assasination that had brought down his cousin and friend Tsar Nicholas. So he changed their name to Windsor and and placed great value on keeping the middle and lower classes on the side of themonarchy. He created the concept of what we now call "royal work" (frequent public appearances bringing them into contact with Britons of all walks of life as opposed to living a life of leisure behind palace walls and holding patronages in name only). He insisted that the BRF, or at least its public face, be one of loyalty, duty and wholesomeness. He drove home to his children than their future depended on that approach. David may not have liked it, but he was taught very clearly what would and wouldn't fly in that context. If he'd given any real thought to the matter, he'd have known there was absolutely no possibility for a British king to abdicate and then remain on English soil enjoying all the trappings of a prince with none of the responsibilities. Yet that is exactly what he seemed to think would happen when he stepped away from the throne.

Then there's the visit to Germany. I think it is important to remember that Germany and the UK were not officially enemies yet. The visit happened in 1937, when there was still a real possibility that the appeasement argument would win the day in UK. They didn't declare war until 1939. That said, anyone with any basic sense of current events could have seen that it was a very delicate situation. The Duke and Duchess just sort of barreled their way in like the proverbial bull in the china shop. Even if they had ultimately turned out to have been on the same side as the official UK position on Germany, there was no way that bypassing the Foreign office to stage their own, rogue, quasi-royal visit would have ever had a positive reaction from the powers that be. David, of all people, should have been able to anticipate how insulted everyone at Buckingham Palace, Downing Street and Westminster would have been...and that insulting them would come with uncomfortable consequences for himself and his wife. But whether it was about the attention, the chance to thumb his nose at London, or actual political beliefs, he couldn't seem to look beyond the momentary thrill of taking matters into his own hand.

In all of these situations, the pair did not seem to grasp that they were the ones who had pushed themselves further and further into "the outs." They wanted an HRH for her, they wanted to have some kind of life in London's social scene, but their own actions kept jettisoning any chance of rebuilding bridges and getting what they wanted. Theirs is a story of self-sabotage as much as it is one of being shunned and disposed of by the BRF.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I agree w/para 2. I think she understood that if she walked away from him it would be she, not he that looked bad. After all, sans Wallis, the family could very well take him back on some terms and play her up as the villain. Which they were capable of at the time. If not the family, then the courtiers that did such an excellent job hacking away at the Wales' for fun and profit (JMO and off topic, but they showed their colors to be puce and petty back then).


I've always admired him for his lack of that trait. Sooner or later, we all get bugged by friends/loves. It's a mark of some kind of substance that he didn't feel/vent (which?) that in his own letters. Of course, he vented to her about the Royal Family. But that's another thing.
True I think they would BOTH look bad if the marriage had ended.. which is partly why they did stick it out, because having ditched his throne for a woman, HE would look bad if he coudln't then make the marriage last.. and she would alsos look bad,.
But I'm sure that she would have still had her friends and supporters, and she would have possibly gone on calling herself HRF (There was no mechanism to take that away from her and it would have been difficult to stop her usng it if she wanted to...) and likely found a new husband.
She hung out with "café society" in France and elsewhere, the MOSLEYS were their good friends.. I'm sure she would have still had a place in that society....if she had really found the marriage impossible.
However when all was sadi and done, she had great wealth, the "romance!!" of being the "woman he gave up his throne for", a royal husband, and a man who adored her..
There was no real reason to leave. I think she found the doting adoring a bit oppressive at times and found him rather dull, but she kew when she was well off and she stayed.
 
You can't really compare Queen Elizabeth or Queen Mary wearing their timeless conservative clothes with the Duchess of Windsor, who had to be dressed to the nines always in the latest fashion if she wanted to be noticed.
Why did she have to be dressed to the nines??
 
I certainly don't hate these two or need to personally like them. I'm interested in seeing how they fit into their time and place. And one thing I find interesting is how little they seemed to pay attention to the lay of the land, so to speak.

Intellect has nothing to do with it, really. They just didn't engage in basic "if I do this, x will likely happen" thinking that most humans through time have done, which lead to them being continually surprised by the consequences of their actions.

Like you, I don't buy into the popular image of Wallace as some evil, scheming thing. I think it's more that she didn't really bother to look very far beyond what was right in front of her face. I don't get the sense that she intended to make anyone's life difficult. At the same time, I don't get the sense that she cared one way or the other about what ripple effects she might set into motion or how others would be impacted. She just seems to me to have been a simple sort of...careless. Which is it's own kind of selfishness.

Nicely said, loonytick. :flowers: I agree overall with just some slight caveats. ;)

Regarding the consequences of actions, I do think that few people live with that kind of prescience. Just the way I see it.

P.S. loonytick, what does your name signify? ?
 
Nicely said, loonytick. :flowers: I agree overall with just some slight caveats. ;)

Regarding the consequences of actions, I do think that few people live with that kind of prescience. Just the way I see it.

P.S. loonytick, what does your name signify? ?

My name doesn't really signify anything other than desperation. Years ago when I was signing up for some other website I couldn't find a name with meaning for me that wasn't already taken. I decided to just try something silly but easy to remember, that was the first thing that came to my head, and so I went with it. I think it's kind of dumb, but it's always available, so it's become my go-to handle.

As for the Duke and Duchess, nobody can ever see the future clearly of course. But they didn't seem to take notice (or care to take notice) of things that I think most people in their position would have identified as being really, really obvious. And honestly, how many people in the world are as consistently, as thoroughly self-centered as those two were, at least for the first decade or so of their marriage? They weren't the only selfish people the world has seen, they aren't the only example of selfish royals, but they were certainly far more myopic than anyone I've ever known.
 
My name doesn't really signify anything other than desperation. Years ago when I was signing up for some other website I couldn't find a name with meaning for me that wasn't already taken. I decided to just try something silly but easy to remember, that was the first thing that came to my head, and so I went with it. I think it's kind of dumb, but it's always available, so it's become my go-to handle.

Funny. ;) So I would guess.
 
You can't really compare Queen Elizabeth or Queen Mary wearing their timeless conservative clothes with the Duchess of Windsor, who had to be dressed to the nines always in the latest fashion if she wanted to be noticed.
No, but you can compare the needs of Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret in that they matured through the war years and nice clothes and nice lingerie are every bit as important for two royal Debs as for Wallis in her own Salon.

Since wardrobes are kept for years I think more than a few evening and gala gowns got the chop during the war years to recycle into necessities for the Princesses.

For anyone wanting to read up on David and Wallis, it's not a bad idea to go back to the beginning of this thread and start reading. The first entries are in 2003 and a lot of information was available after the death of the QM. Not least from the FBI.
 

What?? What is he inspirational for???

My As for the Duke and Duchess, nobody can ever see the future clearly of course. But they didn't seem to take notice (or care to take notice) of things that I think most people in their position would have identified as being really, really obvious. And honestly, how many people in the world are as consistently, as thoroughly self-centered as those two were, at least for the first decade or so of their marriage? They weren't the only selfish people the world has seen, they aren't the only example of selfish royals, but they were certainly far more myopic than anyone I've ever known.

I think that they were - certainly not very well up on how the RF was likely to regard them, when they had behaved as they did. For a "serious" RF like the British one, the worst thing is dereliction of duty. Q Mary said to Ed that "so many men had given up their lives" in service of their country in the war, and he was being asked to make a lesser sacrfiice.
Or had they even chosen to give up the throne but to lead a quiet life wherever they went, I think they might have been forgiven. But they led a lavish lifestyle and seemed to feel that they should be allowed to return to britian in a little while and "lead a royal life" there as and when it suited them. but yes, they just did not seem to see this. They went on leading the life of Luxury. They visited Hitler when it was getting a bit dubious.. they didn't want to do anyting during the war that would inconvenience them too much... and even after the War, Edward still said that "he didn't think Hitler had been such a bad chap"...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The NPG display has a very early portrait of David in First World War uniform. He wasn't allowed on the Front Line, so not a war hero. Heaven knows what he is the inspiration for. A Prince that turned into a frog? An adored King who let his country down? The article doesn't really explain it.
 
Regarding the issues that Wallis would have been dealing with in her time and place: I am struck that some see taking those constraints into account is seen as 'revisionist'.

Recently I saw a screening of the 1940's film 'The Parradine Case'. It's an Alfred Hitchcock/David O Seznick film. It was my first viewing and I confess to having been muddled by the plot line, until we viewed it a second time with the commentary supplied by two film historians (I think they were), and so much fell into place (like the fact that about 16 minutes of crucial scenes had been deleted between the first showing and subsequent showings, major mistake).

We watched all the special features, which were many interviews, and the backstory for the film was fascinating, especially the film commentary. I am mentioning this because the film historians laid out the patriarchy (of the time) that Hitchcock/Selznick were displaying in the film. (Wallis did not have any power of herself, only in relation to the man she was connected to).

Most interesting were the comments about the 'heroine' (stretching the term) and her predicament: how sex/gender power roles were being played out. There is a scene where the powerful judge gropes the wife of the barrister, for example. There is the revelation that it was understood that Ethel Barrymore's character had been driven mad in the confines of her marriage to the judge. There is the mention of the sexual arousal the judge felt when sentencing a woman to death. (A lot of these really explosive declinations were part of the 16 minutes of scene deletions, interesting in itself).

Back on issue: I know there are many who feel the politics of the Duke and Duchess couple is the major point to focus on. However, none of that makes sense unless the whole of the British aristocracy, and society at large in general at the time, is analyzed. The Duke and Duchess were not outliers in that regard at all. What Hitler was peddling in Germany had resonance in factions in Britain, and the US (for sure). How much of all that Wallis believed herself, and how much she was caught up in it because of her connection to David (who would have for sure had those views as part of the BRF) is unknown to me, but I would not be inclined to indict Wallis out-of-hand, though she was a 'southern belle' and I assume she had the biases of her upbringing inbred in her regarding race and class. (I am even less interested in whether or not she was personally likable, though evidence was she was, she carried their social whirl, not him).

I view Wallis as more sinned against than sinning. I do not view that as 'revisionist', just stepping back and looking at the context of Wallis' female world back then, which was pretty constrained. We easily state that Wallis could have declined marriage to David (from the perspective of our relatively free western perspective now almost 80-90 years on), but in fact I don't think Wallis had a choice. Not really, if she wanted to live a half-way decent life.

Interesting story however you slice it. :flowers:
 
Last edited:
The more I learn about the couple, the more I feel little at all about Wallis and exasperated with David.

I don't think Wallis was a good person, but I certainly don't think she was the scheming monster people often paint her to be. I don't hold her responsible for the decision to take political steps (although she certainly had political opinions I find unsavory) or responsible for, well, much of what went...if not wrong, then uncomfortable. She was a woman who loved luxury, she could bloviate when she was in the mood, but mostly I think she was was along for the ride with a man she found dashing.

David, on the other hand, should have known when he was playing with fire. Just being political at all wasn't a good idea. Had he ostentatiously cozied up to FDR instead, it still would have been a stupid move on his part.

But I think you're right that it's important to understand that his meeting with Hitler came at a time before the majority of folks outside of Germany were able to see the Nazi party for the horror that it was. Partly it was a matter of not being willing to look with fully open eyes at what was happening, partly it was a matter of the reports making it into international news not giving a clear picture of how bad things were already were for German Jews, part of it was not caring too much about what happened to Jews (remember, people of the time were well used to not paying any mind to pogroms...Jim Crow...all sorts of violent inequities against minority groups). The big fear of the moment was Communism, and all too many folks--especially in the aristocracy, who had seen their Russian royal friends deposed, killed, or run out of the country by Bolsheviks--were so focused on the possibility of it spreading across Europe that their evaluation of Hitler pretty much only consisted of asking "can he stop the advance of the Reds?" and reaching the conclusion "people are working in Germany again, he's stopped folks there from talking about redistribution of wealth, so...looks like he can!"

Of course, the tricky thing about evaluating historic figures from the relatively comfortable and knowledgeable position of the present is that, on the one hand, it's only fair to evaluate them for making decisions based on what they knew at the time. David couldn't know that Hitler would invade neighboring nations, much less that he would murder millions of people in concentration camps. He and Wallis can't be held responsible for understanding that side of him yet. But it's also important to recognize what warning signs were there and what people like the Duke and Duchess of Windsor chose to be blind to, chose to ignore, chose to not consider serious or problematic. That's how we learn to (hopefully) do a better job than they did of spotting the "monsters" and heading them off at the pass rather than helping them get a terrible degree of power.
 
even well after the War, when the Final Solution was well known, David "didn't think Hitler was all that bad".....
 
The more I learn about the couple, the more I feel little at all about Wallis and exasperated with David.

I don't think Wallis was a good person, but I certainly don't think she was the scheming monster people often paint her to be. I don't hold her responsible for the decision to take political steps (although she certainly had political opinions I find unsavory) or responsible for, well, much of what went...if not wrong, then uncomfortable. She was a woman who loved luxury, she could bloviate when she was in the mood, but mostly I think she was was along for the ride with a man she found dashing.

David, on the other hand, should have known when he was playing with fire. Just being political at all wasn't a good idea. Had he ostentatiously cozied up to FDR instead, it still would have been a stupid move on his part.

But I think you're right that it's important to understand that his meeting with Hitler came at a time before the majority of folks outside of Germany were able to see the Nazi party for the horror that it was. Partly it was a matter of not being willing to look with fully open eyes at what was happening, partly it was a matter of the reports making it into international news not giving a clear picture of how bad things were already were for German Jews, part of it was not caring too much about what happened to Jews (remember, people of the time were well used to not paying any mind to pogroms...Jim Crow...all sorts of violent inequities against minority groups). The big fear of the moment was Communism, and all too many folks--especially in the aristocracy, who had seen their Russian royal friends deposed, killed, or run out of the country by Bolsheviks--were so focused on the possibility of it spreading across Europe that their evaluation of Hitler pretty much only consisted of asking "can he stop the advance of the Reds?" and reaching the conclusion "people are working in Germany again, he's stopped folks there from talking about redistribution of wealth, so...looks like he can!"

Of course, the tricky thing about evaluating historic figures from the relatively comfortable and knowledgeable position of the present is that, on the one hand, it's only fair to evaluate them for making decisions based on what they knew at the time. David couldn't know that Hitler would invade neighboring nations, much less that he would murder millions of people in concentration camps. He and Wallis can't be held responsible for understanding that side of him yet. But it's also important to recognize what warning signs were there and what people like the Duke and Duchess of Windsor chose to be blind to, chose to ignore, chose to not consider serious or problematic. That's how we learn to (hopefully) do a better job than they did of spotting the "monsters" and heading them off at the pass rather than helping them get a terrible degree of power.
Pefectly analyzed I think.... very interesting and it sounds so true !:flowers:
 
even well after the War, when the Final Solution was well known, David "didn't think Hitler was all that bad".....

True.

I don't think we can analyze his German visit before the war as being any sort of action taken to smooth the way for genocide. However, in a separate matter, his stated opinions after the war, when he knew full and well the truth of the Nazi regime, are, while a separate thing, awful.

There are so many layered reasons why UK and Commonwealth dodged a bullet when he chose to abdicate. So, so many!
 
How ‘needy’ King Edward left Wallis Simpson trapped: Documentary claims divorcee was victim of an 'obsessed' monarch desperate to make her his queen – despite her 11th hour call begging him NOT to abdicate


  • Channel 5 show looks at how Wallis pleaded with Edward to end relationship
  • During one phone call, Edward threatened to kill himself if the American left him
  • Experts described the King's need for her as 'pathological' and 'obsessional'
  • Wallis wrote emotional letters to her ex-husband Ernest following their split
  • Biographer says she did not want to be 'saddled' with 'needy child' Edward

How ‘needy’ King Edward left Wallis Simpson trapped | Daily Mail Online
 
In the right picture, Wallis does look becoming. :flowers: I say that to counter the views that she was plain, even 'ugly'. Just recently on another thread I saw a short video clip of Wallis laughing. I was amazed. I did not recognize her initially. She looked like a charming young woman. Her smile was dazzling. Brief insight into what her attraction was for men: animated, not posed, and she clearly was appealing, radiating a charisma.
 
I'm not really in the habit of praising Wallis S. However, though she wasn't conventionally beautiful, (huge mole and jaw) I do think Wallis was very 'alive', witty and animated, which did attract people. She apparently also had lovely blue eyes and glossy hair. She was chic, dressed well and was always well presented.
 
I really don't think she was attractive at all. Maybe she had a charm in person that made up for her bony plain figure and face.. but its hard to see it. I think she was interesting to British upper class society when she came into it, as an American.. but I've never heard of her being funny or clever or witty, which might make up for the lack of great physical beauty. The QM grew plump and lost her looks but she was a very pretty girl.. and while I wouldn't say she was very clever, she did seem to have a charm and liveliness and joie de vivire that made people find her attractive..
 
Back
Top Bottom