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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I can't see that David would ever be content to keep his mouth shut if he had permanent access to a political office so I agree with you, I think they were right to have concerns. As ever with this discussion, I think of what Princess Margaret said when someone asked her about the death of the Duchess of Windsor in 1986, "It wasn't her we didn't like, it was him".
 
I'm not sure if he wuodl have done much. I thnk he was too fitful, to have say gone to the trouble of standing for parliament etc. But I can understand that the RF feared that he might, purely to embarrass them. Which suggests that they didn't have a good opinion of him by then, and I don't know if it was all due to the Abdication. I think that his character did deteriorate, and when he got inot a relationship with Wallis who was pretty selfish and had lilttle idea of Britsih RF ways to restrain her, he got more selfish.
Its true he was bored with their life abroad but I think that he kind of realised that he wasn't really welcome in England and perhaps never would be again...
 
I don't think that Wallis was selfish per se. Most accounts from those who met her describe her as warm and generous. The Royal Family's relationship with Wallis can't just be seen through the very biased eyes of the Queen Mother. From the early days of her relationship with the King right through to her widowhood, Wallis enjoyed friendly relationships with other members of the Royal Family including the Duke and Duchess of Kent, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and even the Prince of Wales and the Princess Royal.

Wallis is a pretty integral character in understanding why the Royal Family changed as it did in the 1950s. The Duke of Gloucester for example gave the Queen Mother a pretty stern ticking off when she tried to rebuke him for visiting the Duke and Duchess when he was in Paris. Well...why shouldn't he? I think the Queen Mother often assumed it was "her" family and not the Royal Family and she couldn't understand why people like Princess Marina or even Princess Alice (Athlone) didn't refuse to meet Wallis or even to socialise with her post-abdication when she'd obviously "killed the King".

The fact is, the Queen Mother was a little delusional. Stress may have contributed to George VI's illness yes but I'm sure smoking 120 cigarettes a day didn't exactly help matters along. Wallis was brash and outspoken, she wasn't deferential and she did enjoy being the centre of attention. But so did the Queen Mother. She expected other members of the Royal Family to simply do as she said on family matters and whilst the Queen was happy to indulge her mother to keep the peace, even the Queen couldn't tell her uncle that he was banned from ever visiting his brother for as long as the Duke of Windsor lived. Neither did I think she ever really felt the need to. In allowing the Queen Mother to call the shots when he was King, George VI actually set her up to fail because once she was just a Queen Dowager she had absolutely no influence in terms of position and could only rely on family loyalty. Which most extended members of the Windsor clan never felt they owed her anyway.

Historical figures are never heroes or villains. They're human beings with all the flaws and foibles, positives and negatives that we all have. Wallis may have irritated the servants and forgotten to curtsey but that doesn't make her selfish or wicked as the Queen Mother wanted us all to believe. And I think that as time went on, even the Queen Mother got over all that herself. Once the Duke was dead, she sent flowers and Christmas cards to Wallis when she never had before and she no longer complained when members of the family visited Wallis in Paris before her illness took hold.

If Princess Marina was happy to be in Wallis' company, I think that's a fairly decent gauge of the fact that the Royal Family never made any attempt to restrain Wallis because she didn't need restraining. "We Four" may have made certain attempts to keep her at arms length and took out some pretty sensible insurance against her running off with husband #4 with an HRH in tow but realistically, this idea of Wallis being a homewrecker or a wicked woman is rooted in a bitter family feud that was totally avoidable. The Queen Mother needed someone to demonise for the loss of her husband and her position. She chose Wallis. In reality, the only person she should have blamed was David.
 
Last edited:
I think that Edward VIII was made a royal duke primarily because he was the son of a King. As I mentioned in a previous post, he was introduced as His Royal Highness Prince Edward when he made his abdication speech. To me this shows that whatever disappointment and ill will that was felt by TPTB, Edward was allowed to maintain his royal status after he abdicated. IMO it is not a big leap to deem that a son and brother of a monarch would be granted a royal dukedom.
 
Last edited:
One thing that stands out for me to this day is that when it came to King Edward VIII's abdication of the throne and its aftermath, I believe the best thing the powers that be could have done is what they did regarding titles, exile out of the UK and pretty much ostracization by members of the family, it put deep emphasis on the seriousness of the situation.

Perhaps David thought that with abdicating, he'd just turn the "duty" stuff over to his brother and be able to marry Wallis and continue to live as he always had with the rights and privileges of a prince of the UK. This attitude, in and of itself, tells me that the seriousness and the impact of his abdication didn't register with him in full measure. The very fact that for years afterwards he continued to insist his wife be addressed as "Your Royal Highness" and afforded the respect due to a HRH, tells me that he was a man that wanted the rights and privileges and the perks of being royal without the responsibilities. Things didn't go exactly as he wished them to go and he suffered the consequences and bemoaned them forever after. The man wanted his cake and eat it too.

It was this example of a man taking his duties and responsibilities so lightly that boosted and instilled an even more solid sense of duty and service and responsibility in those that followed in David's footsteps. Especially with WWII hovering on the horizon at the time. That is the silver lining in an otherwise very black cloud on British history.
 
The man wanted his cake and eat it too.

This is so spot on Osipi. David really was selfish in a way that Wallis was not. It's telling that even when he petitioned the government for jobs after the Second World War, it was only ever a role that was based in entertaining or hosting parties. He was a vain man of reasonable intelligence but little substance. And your quote equally relates so well to what he did as King. He wanted to make changes but the effort was too much and so he never followed through, preferring just to show off instead. He wanted to interfere in politics but he didn't want to put in the leg work when the government welcomed his suggestions and gave him proposals for gradual reform. He was ultimately unsuited for life as a member of the Royal Family and he paid the price for his selfishness. We know that he had regrets later in life which he blamed others for. But David blaming the Queen Mother for making his life unbearable post abdication is just as ridiculous as the Queen Mother blaming Wallis for the death of George VI.
 
I think there was a very real concern this instability would permanently damage the monarchy, perhaps even bring it down. They wanted David and Wallis well away from them (and they were forever in exile from England except for a few visits as I recall).

Yes I do see David as a man who wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Bit unrealistic I think.

LaRae
 
Airbourne did you mean David was ignorant as to the consequences?


LaRae
 
I think that there were strong feelings and suspicions about Wallis that led to her not being given HRH styling when she married Edward, I get that but I think that as years passed Wallis proved that she was not going to besmirch her royal position in the ways originally thought, and therefore IMO (and I am not an admirer of the Windsors), the rationale for not giving her HRH styling moved from understandable to petty, vindictive and/or scapegoating.

Exactly so. :sad: I agree. The populace fell into line behind this spin.

It's important to note that the government of the day was at odds with the Palace on this issue. The government had no issue with Wallis being styled 'HRH' as they simply saw it as a courtesy title but they were well aware that the King was being pushed to deny Wallis the style by his wife and by his mother. For that reason, they asked Lord Wigram and the Attorney General Sir Donald Somervell to see if there could be any possibility of a legal challenge in the courts if Wallis was denied her style, rank and title which she would usually enjoy as the wife of a Prince of the United Kingdom and/or a Royal Duke.

Gaudete, thank you for your entire post (though I've excerpted but a part). :flowers: It is how I have always understood it.

The animus towards Wallis (on the face of it) is perplexing to me. The reason given for the Queen (at the time) having animus was because it impacted her husband's life span, but of course that is not logical, because in 1936/37 there was no way to know how long the new King would live, yet still there was animus, so the animus has had to originate from some other cause.

I know of one cause floated that gets serious, vehement push-back to the point of ridicule. It's a curious tale. :ermm:

The Royal Standard wasn't draped over Wallis' coffin. There was only a wreath from the Queen.

Even to the bitter end. :sad:
 
Last edited:
Elizabeth might not have been able to tell the length of her husband's life, but she did know he was a nervy, highly strung man, a stutterer, who had also suffered from stomach ulcers in World War One. He was never particularly robust.

She knew Bertie was a worrier and conscientious. This was not someone who would bear the burdens of kingship lightly. Elizabeth is reported to have replied to a remark about Edward looking younger since the Abdication with the remark 'Yes, look who has the dark lines under his eyes now!'
 
Last edited:
Elizabeth might not have been able to tell the length of her husband's life, but she did know he was a nervy, highly strung man, a stutterer, who had also suffered from stomach ulcers in World War One. He was never particularly robust.

She knew Bertie was a worrier and conscientious. This was not someone who would bear the burdens of kingship lightly. Elizabeth is reported to have replied to a remark about Edward looking younger since the Abdication with the remark 'Yes, look who has the lines under his eyes now!'

I agree with your assessment. I think George VI was a much better King for Britain than Edward VIII, so the country and world benefited from the abdication. But there is no question being King, especially during the war, took its toll on Bertie.
 
Women were/are often accused of exploiting men for selfish purposes (power, wealth, status). Perhaps to Queen Elizabeth, Wallis was the easy scapegoat. It was more acceptable to blame the outsider, a woman, seen by a few as a vamp, a social nobody--than to blame either the Duke or the King (the Duke for abdicating, the King for smoking his way into an early grave).

I do wonder (speculate?), however, if forcing the abdication was as much related to the government's distrust of Edward VIII as it was related to his proposed marriage. If there was distrust in 1936, it was certainly demonstrated to be well-founded in the later part of the 30's and during the war.
 
I can't see that David would ever be content to keep his mouth shut if he had permanent access to a political office so I agree with you, I think they were right to have concerns. As ever with this discussion, I think of what Princess Margaret said when someone asked her about the death of the Duchess of Windsor in 1986, "It wasn't her we didn't like, it was him".

Loving your posts, Gaudete! :flowers: Great historical context, as in below.

I don't think that Wallis was selfish per se. Most accounts from those who met her describe her as warm and generous. The Royal Family's relationship with Wallis can't just be seen through the very biased eyes of the Queen Mother. From the early days of her relationship with the King right through to her widowhood, Wallis enjoyed friendly relationships with other members of the Royal Family including the Duke and Duchess of Kent, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and even the Prince of Wales and the Princess Royal.

Wallis is a pretty integral character in understanding why the Royal Family changed as it did in the 1950s. The Duke of Gloucester for example gave the Queen Mother a pretty stern ticking off when she tried to rebuke him for visiting the Duke and Duchess when he was in Paris. Well...why shouldn't he? I think the Queen Mother often assumed it was "her" family and not the Royal Family and she couldn't understand why people like Princess Marina or even Princess Alice (Athlone) didn't refuse to meet Wallis or even to socialise with her post-abdication when she'd obviously "killed the King".

When assessing an historical figure one has to look at how those around the person responded to them, and in Wallis' case she definitely was sufficiently interesting to warrant (repeated) visits. Even Charles! That says something in my book.

Some have rationalized an animus because she was 'ugly'. :sad: What to say? Large jaw and large mole.....mannish......yet another confirmation of the 'good looking' bias. (A now deceased princess who was 'pretty' remains iconic imbued with ersatz sainthood, yet this princess' personal relationships were routinely shredded to pieces by same, and she actively attacked the BRF, yet she is adored: bias regarding looks imo).

The fact is, the Queen Mother was a little delusional.

Interesting idea. :cool: I am more inclined to lend credence to the idea floated that she had something of a crush on David. Even David spoke of it. Her motives were complex.

Wallis was brash and outspoken, she wasn't deferential and she did enjoy being the centre of attention. But so did the Queen Mother. She expected other members of the Royal Family to simply do as she said on family matters

Interesting comparison. :flowers: Perhaps they were too much alike! Ha!

Historical figures are never heroes or villains. They're human beings with all the flaws and foibles, positives and negatives that we all have. Wallis may have irritated the servants and forgotten to curtsey but that doesn't make her selfish or wicked as the Queen Mother wanted us all to believe.

Thank you for so saying! :flowers:

And I think that as time went on, even the Queen Mother got over all that herself. Once the Duke was dead, she sent flowers and Christmas cards to Wallis when she never had before and she no longer complained when members of the family visited Wallis in Paris before her illness took hold.

People do move on but what I have noticed is the public do not, or the public story/myth/legend remains static. :sad:

If Princess Marina was happy to be in Wallis' company, I think that's a fairly decent gauge of the fact that the Royal Family never made any attempt to restrain Wallis because she didn't need restraining. "We Four" may have made certain attempts to keep her at arms length and took out some pretty sensible insurance against her running off with husband #4 with an HRH in tow but realistically, this idea of Wallis being a homewrecker or a wicked woman is rooted in a bitter family feud that was totally avoidable. The Queen Mother needed someone to demonise for the loss of her husband and her position. She chose Wallis. In reality, the only person she should have blamed was David.

Beautifully summed up! Thank you! :flowers:
 
Lady Nimue/Gaudete loving your posts. I too believe Queen Mother had something of a crush...and whatever her reasons, played It to the hilt.
 
Technically, the Duke had the right to sit in the House of Lords as a peer of the realm but AFAIK no member of the Royal Family had exercised the right to actually attend and contribute to sittings since Edward VII as Prince of Wales. And even then that only happened occasionally.

They did, down until Edward, all formally take their seats. They didn't speak of course.

Lord Snowdon remained an active member of the Lords, as a life peer, after the 1999 reforms but he was the exception and had already divorced Margaret by then.
 
I thought I remembered some kind of ceremony whereby they attended once but I knew they didn’t contribute to debates. One can’t really see how it would have worked, even 20 years ago.
 
:previous: It never ceases to annoy me when people try the "rehabilitate" a historical figure. They invariably allow the social mores of current society to "assess and judge" a situation.

Just observe those who seem determined to find the reason the QM loathed Wallis. Yes, she blamed them for the added stress on her husband and even though we all know now that smoking causes cancer, they most certainly did not then. In fact, soldiers rations included cigarettes!

However, we do know that many people smoked to ease stress and Bertie's stress levels escalated with his brother's dereliction of duty. He was pushed into a life he was totally unprepared for, filled with public duties and speeches, a lifestyle he had avoided as much as he "properly" could instead of enjoying a family lifestyle with his "we four".

The abdication changed everything and the QM mourned the loss of that loving and secure life, with every move her husband made scrutinised because there were those who thought he was mentally unfit, as were all people who stammered. There were even those in the government and civil service who explored the possibility of declaring Bertie unfit and crowning his younger brother.

Bertie was not the only one whose life was badly affected. Prince Henry, Duke of Glouster was a career military man and his career hit the ultimate speed bump. He could not leave the country when the king did and needed to be protected to ensure that should something happen to the King before Princess Elizabeth turned eighteen, he would be able to stand as Regent until she reached her majority.

Prince George also had to clean up is act as his lifestyle would have shocked the people of the UK, with lovers of both sexes and cocaine addiction. He too had to raise his profile once the war was certain because nobody could know who would live and die and one of the three brothers had to survive for the monarchy.

To say that Bertie's younger brothers were unimpressed by the way their bother's dereliction of duty affected their lives is an understatement. The entire house of Windsor was in turmoil and if the sentiment was "but for Wallis", it was only to be expected. King George V's two youngest sons led a pretty happy life which also came to a screeching halt with the Abdication.

The King was the king and his Queen came to represent the house of Windsor's anger and disgust at David's betrayal, because that is what it was, a betrayal of everything they stood for.

No, I don't think the QM's teenage crush on the POW lasted past her social debut. He was the dashing hero of the age and WWI and the crush of half the teenage girls in the country. Meeting him as a grown woman and hearing about his debauchery probably didn't endear him to a well brought up aristocrat. Wallis pillorying her, her family and lifestyle would not have endeared her to either Elizabeth or Queen Mary, actions that would come back to haunt her.
 
Last edited:
Whilst David’s brothers were undoubtedly disappointed and shaken by his decision to abdicate, nobody could pretend that they carried on the vendetta in the way the Queen Mother did. The Duke of Gloucester visited him often in Paris, Marina had no issues with writing to Wallis occasionally and the Princess Royal seemed to be able to let bygones be bygones. The Queen Mother’s loss was not unique or special and plenty of heads of state had a very stressful war (far more so than Bertie’s) and came through the other side.

George VI’s problems were no doubt related to a weak constitution and the stress of unique times. But 120 cigarettes a day is hardly a light intake and anyone who has that sort of habit is bound for an early grave. Very sad yes and I’m sure the QM was devastated. But we can’t deny that she also mourned her position just as much as her husband and Wallis wasn’t the only victim of her insecurities.

The government got over it. The people got over it. Many within the Royal Family got over it. For the Queen Mother, it became a lifelong obsession. That doesn’t make Wallis a saint, neither does it make the QM a demon. It simply means that the old tripe that’s been trotted out for decades about this poor sweet old widow who did so much for Britain and selflessly carried on like a royal martyr despite some wicked American tart killing her husband should be probably re-examined.

I agree with you in that I don’t think the QM ever seriously thought much romantically about David but Wallis certainly intimidated her. Almost every other woman intimidated her. She didn’t like Marina, she was frosty towards Alice, she practically struck Princess Mary off every guest list. The only people she seemed to like were those who never answered back and let her have her own way. Which wasn’t in Wallis’ character.

Wallis had her flaws but so did the Queen Mother. And I’m sorry but I can’t buy into that 1950s sentimental nonsense that the abdication killed George VI and it was all Wallis’ fault. She told David to stay, she left the country and tried to cut all ties, why should she take the blame for his persistence?

Ultimately she lost far more than anyone else. We do see things differently today. We’re more accepting and tolerant. And nobody can rewrite history of course. But we can absolutely see past the Baldwin propaganda of a chocolate box lid. The Queen Mother was no angel. She wasn’t the only victim in the situation as much as she liked to pretend she was. And her 40 year campaign against the Duchess of Windsor was quite sad to be honest. Almost as sad as her constant digs against Marina or Alice, certainly as bitter as her treatment of her youngest daughter and without doubt just as damaging as her interfering in the marriage of her grandchildren.
 
I should also add that it was David who put the Duke of Kent into rehabilitation and paid huge sums to recover incriminating letters the Duke had sent to his many lovers. David was many things but he was extremely good to George Kent and Marina remained ever grateful for that.
 
:previous: I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing Wallis not doing a hatchet job on Queen Elizabeth the QM. Please take up your cause in the correct thread where we can continue to debate the person that was the QM to your heart's content.
 
I’m not sure what you mean. There’s no evidence to suggest that Wallis ever returned fire with such fervour as the QM sent her way. For one thing she never had the chance.

And we can hardly assess the relationship between the QM and Wallis without considering what kind of woman the QM was. Or Wallis for that matter.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you in that I don’t think the QM ever seriously thought much romantically about David but Wallis certainly intimidated her. Almost every other woman intimidated her. She didn’t like Marina, she was frosty towards Alice, she practically struck Princess Mary off every guest list. The only people she seemed to like were those who never answered back and let her have her own way. Which wasn’t in Wallis’ character.

Interesting insight. :sad:

Wallis had her flaws but so did the Queen Mother. And I’m sorry but I can’t buy into that 1950s sentimental nonsense that the abdication killed George VI and it was all Wallis’ fault. She told David to stay, she left the country and tried to cut all ties, why should she take the blame for his persistence?

You touch upon what puzzles me: why Wallis is the focus of so much blame?

Ultimately she lost far more than anyone else.

Totally agree with you on this. Her life as she knew it and expected to continue living it was shattered, and without her permission. :ermm:

We do see things differently today. We’re more accepting and tolerant. And nobody can rewrite history of course. But we can absolutely see past the Baldwin propaganda of a chocolate box lid. The Queen Mother was no angel. She wasn’t the only victim in the situation as much as she liked to pretend she was. And her 40 year campaign against the Duchess of Windsor was quite sad to be honest. Almost as sad as her constant digs against Marina or Alice, certainly as bitter as her treatment of her youngest daughter and without doubt just as damaging as her interfering in the marriage of her grandchildren.

Inexplicable to me unless one factors in other motives. JMO.

I’m not sure what you mean. There’s no evidence to suggest that Wallis ever returned fire with such fervour as the QM sent her way. For one thing she never had the chance.

And we can hardly assess the relationship between the QM and Wallis without considering what kind of woman the QM was. Or Wallis for that matter.

Exactly so. Thank you for being willing to flesh out the dynamics. :cool:
 
:previous: It never ceases to annoy me when people try the "rehabilitate" a historical figure. They invariably allow the social mores of current society to "assess and judge" a situation.

Just observe those who seem determined to find the reason the QM loathed Wallis. Yes, she blamed them for the added stress on her husband and even though we all know now that smoking causes cancer, they most certainly did not then. In fact, soldiers rations included cigarettes!

However, we do know that many people smoked to ease stress and Bertie's stress levels escalated with his brother's dereliction of duty. He was pushed into a life he was totally unprepared for, filled with public duties and speeches, a lifestyle he had avoided as much as he "properly" could instead of enjoying a family lifestyle with his "we four".

The abdication changed everything and the QM mourned the loss of that loving and secure life, with every move her husband made scrutinised because there were those who thought he was mentally unfit, as were all people who stammered. There were even those in the government and civil service who explored the possibility of declaring Bertie unfit and crowning his younger brother.

Bertie was not the only one whose life was badly affected. Prince Henry, Duke of Glouster was a career military man and his career hit the ultimate speed bump. He could not leave the country when the king did and needed to be protected to ensure that should something happen to the King before Princess Elizabeth turned eighteen, he would be able to stand as Regent until she reached her majority.

Prince George also had to clean up is act as his lifestyle would have shocked the people of the UK, with lovers of both sexes and cocaine addiction. He too had to raise his profile once the war was certain because nobody could know who would live and die and one of the three brothers had to survive for the monarchy.

To say that Bertie's younger brothers were unimpressed by the way their bother's dereliction of duty affected their lives is an understatement. The entire house of Windsor was in turmoil and if the sentiment was "but for Wallis", it was only to be expected. King George V's two youngest sons led a pretty happy life which also came to a screeching halt with the Abdication.

The King was the king and his Queen came to represent the house of Windsor's anger and disgust at David's betrayal, because that is what it was, a betrayal of everything they stood for.

No, I don't think the QM's teenage crush on the POW lasted past her social debut. He was the dashing hero of the age and WWI and the crush of half the teenage girls in the country. Meeting him as a grown woman and hearing about his debauchery probably didn't endear him to a well brought up aristocrat. Wallis pillorying her, her family and lifestyle would not have endeared her to either Elizabeth or Queen Mary, actions that would come back to haunt her.

Edward VIII's betrayal and dereliction was due to him not being able to marry the woman of his choice. I think that the guy was mentally warped and of dubious character but I don't judge him harshly for making the decision to give up the throne if he couldn't marry the woman he wanted to.
 
Last edited:
It's only my opinion I'm presenting of course but here's how I see it.

Without straying too far off topic (I use this only as an example), when I was at school we were still being taught about Kings & Queens to a kind of whig history model. Queen Mary I was an evil blood thirsty tyrant who persecuted anybody who wasn't a Roman Catholic and then the glorious Virgin Queen swept in and saved us all from the dark days of an intolerant divided England and made us great. Except....she didn't. Queen Mary never dragged us back to Rome kicking and screaming in the flames, Elizabeth I's policies were far more divisive than those of her elder sister and if we look at head count alone, more English people died under Elizabeth and her successors than ever were put to death under Mary. Yet today, schools still teach their pupils about Bloody Mary and Gloriana. Monarchy is 90% myth and the reason it survives is because of it's great mystery.

But as time goes on and more sources become available, we the people have a chance to see what they, the Sovereigns, knew to be true at the time. Elizabeth I wanted to be regarded as the very first great English Queen. Mary's legacy was bastardised and perverted to suit her agenda. We have lapped it up because it sounds good. There's a romanticism to it, there's a patriotism to it. But most of it wasn't actually true. So it is with this case. There are facts which do not change but the things Wallis knew and the things the Queen Mother knew are now (mostly) open to us all to examine. We know what sort of a person Wallis was based on documents that our ancestors wouldn't have seen in 1936. We also know what sort of a person the Queen Mother was based on documents that our own generation didn't see until just a few years ago.

The abdication was the biggest constitutional crisis since the English Civil War. Especially considering that just three years later, we went to war again. But what concerns me is that we're all too keen to buy into another version of whig history. King George VI and Queen Elizabeth were Gloriana, Wallis and David bloody and wicked. And that simply isn't true. There were no saints, no devils. Only real people in extraordinary situations. Might it not be time to look at the entire picture and to accept that the Queen Mother had her shortcomings just as much as Wallis did?

Wallis is everything a modern woman is expected to be. She was confident, she was outspoken, she took an interest in politics and other matters which had previously been the domain of smokey dining rooms once the ladies had departed. She saw herself as being equal to her husband, not subservient. She was determined to be more than just a decoration. Did she succeed? Sadly I don't think she did. Was she in any way remarkable other than her marriage to the Duke? No, I don't think she achieved very much. But she certainly wasn't the woman whig history would have us believe. It served the establishment well to cast her in the role of a loose woman with ideas above her station, who sank her claws into a King and drove an innocent man to his death because of the sheer stress of it all.

Again, none of that is true. Wallis had been married twice. Her first marriage was a disaster because her husband was a drunk, an abusive bully. Her second marriage ended because she fell for someone else and Ernest wasn't exactly the most loyal of husbands either. Her third marriage tore a family apart and threatened the stability of an institution unrivalled in the world but how much of that can really be her fault? She begged David not to abdicate but by that time, more factors came into play. The government wanted him gone on any pretext. Wallis was just a convenient excuse. As Lady Mosley said, "Her greatest achievement was to keep him happy for all those years even when she wasn't particularly happy herself". Wallis died a lonely little old lady surrounded by strangers. The Queen Mother was cast in the role of a great Queen and a loyal and devoted consort from 1952 and kept that myth going until she was buried with great pomp and circumstance beloved by millions of people. Whig history served the Queen Mother well but I see no reason to continue to accept it as the official account of events. None of us were there, we have to bear in mind historical context - but Wallis, the evil Queen? I don't buy it.
 
It never ceases to annoy me when people try the "rehabilitate" a historical figure. They invariably allow the social mores of current society to "assess and judge" a situation.

I don't see a 'rehabilitation' taking place, rather we have more historical information about Wallis. We have her letters, we have memoirs, etc. All these go to shed more light, not 'rehabilitate'. It almost starts to look like anything remotely showing understanding (even compassion) towards Wallis is a 'slap'. Why? :huh:

Just observe those who seem determined to find the reason the QM loathed Wallis. Yes, she blamed them for the added stress on her husband and even though we all know now that smoking causes cancer, they most certainly did not then. In fact, soldiers rations included cigarettes!

Personally, I find 'loathing' someone to be an extreme reaction. :sad: There needs to be substantial reasons for 'loathing'. Personal reasons. You give the 'politically correct', long stated reason for the 'loathing' (connected to the husband). I don't think that reason explains 'loathing'. JMO.

Anyway, that's what historians do: look with 'new eyes' on long past individuals and events to see what insights hindsight gives. Why not? History is a fable convenu anyway. The stories we tell ourselves have their own societal purposes. My ears perk up whenever I hear a tale of a 'scarlet woman'. Consider that David likely had far more sexual experience than Wallis, yet it is Wallis who gets branded as the libertine, never David. :huh: Why is that?
 
Last edited:
It's only my opinion I'm presenting of course but here's how I see it.

Without straying too far off topic (I use this only as an example), when I was at school we were still being taught about Kings & Queens to a kind of whig history model. Queen Mary I was an evil blood thirsty tyrant who persecuted anybody who wasn't a Roman Catholic and then the glorious Virgin Queen swept in and saved us all from the dark days of an intolerant divided England and made us great. Except....she didn't. Queen Mary never dragged us back to Rome kicking and screaming in the flames, Elizabeth I's policies were far more divisive than those of her elder sister and if we look at head count alone, more English people died under Elizabeth and her successors than ever were put to death under Mary. Yet today, schools still teach their pupils about Bloody Mary and Gloriana. Monarchy is 90% myth and the reason it survives is because of it's great mystery.

Well said, and pertinent! :flowers:

But as time goes on and more sources become available, we the people have a chance to see what they, the Sovereigns, knew to be true at the time. Elizabeth I wanted to be regarded as the very first great English Queen. Mary's legacy was bastardised and perverted to suit her agenda. We have lapped it up because it sounds good. There's a romanticism to it, there's a patriotism to it. But most of it wasn't actually true. So it is with this case. There are facts which do not change but the things Wallis knew and the things the Queen Mother knew are now (mostly) open to us all to examine. We know what sort of a person Wallis was based on documents that our ancestors wouldn't have seen in 1936. We also know what sort of a person the Queen Mother was based on documents that our own generation didn't see until just a few years ago.

The nut and kernel of this discussion methinks. We have more information.

The abdication was the biggest constitutional crisis since the English Civil War. Especially considering that just three years later, we went to war again. But what concerns me is that we're all too keen to buy into another version of whig history. King George VI and Queen Elizabeth were Gloriana, Wallis and David bloody and wicked. And that simply isn't true. There were no saints, no devils. Only real people in extraordinary situations. Might it not be time to look at the entire picture and to accept that the Queen Mother had her shortcomings just as much as Wallis did?

What is puzzling is to even approach a sympathetic rendering of Wallis' 'predicament' (and I see it that way) is seen by some as an assault against the Queen Mother, which must not be allowed to stand.

BTW this conversation may have different content but it's dynamics are very familiar. Anyone actively engaged in the current political debate will recognize the dynamic. :sad:

Wallis is everything a modern woman is expected to be. She was confident, she was outspoken, she took an interest in politics and other matters which had previously been the domain of smokey dining rooms once the ladies had departed. She saw herself as being equal to her husband, not subservient. She was determined to be more than just a decoration. Did she succeed? Sadly I don't think she did. Was she in any way remarkable other than her marriage to the Duke? No, I don't think she achieved very much. But she certainly wasn't the woman whig history would have us believe. It served the establishment well to cast her in the role of a loose woman with ideas above her station, who sank her claws into a King and drove an innocent man to his death because of the sheer stress of it all.Again, none of that is true.

I may not agree with your conclusion on Wallis' life, but definitely agree regarding all the bolded. Well said. :cool:

Wallis had been married twice. Her first marriage was a disaster because her husband was a drunk, an abusive bully. Her second marriage ended because she fell for someone else and Ernest wasn't exactly the most loyal of husbands either. Her third marriage tore a family apart and threatened the stability of an institution unrivalled in the world but how much of that can really be her fault? She begged David not to abdicate but by that time, more factors came into play. The government wanted him gone on any pretext. Wallis was just a convenient excuse.

Sadder words. :sad:

As Lady Mosley said, "Her greatest achievement was to keep him happy for all those years even when she wasn't particularly happy herself". Wallis died a lonely little old lady surrounded by strangers. The Queen Mother was cast in the role of a great Queen and a loyal and devoted consort from 1952 and kept that myth going until she was buried with great pomp and circumstance beloved by millions of people. Whig history served the Queen Mother well but I see no reason to continue to accept it as the official account of events. None of us were there, we have to bear in mind historical context - but Wallis, the evil Queen? I don't buy it.

Such a sad, sad story. She did not deserve the way her end came about. :sad:
 
Elizabeth and Wallis. Bette and Joan. Catherine and Meghan? The press have a thing about two strong women who might be competition with each other and it tends to get embroidered over time until we forget who they really were and just end up with catty bitchy myth.
What is puzzling is to even approach a sympathetic rendering of Wallis' 'predicament' (and I see it that way) is seen by some as an assault against the Queen Mother, which must not be allowed to stand.

It's a natural reaction. For so long, we've been told to loathe Wallis and to feel absolutely awed by the Queen Mother because it forces us to pick a side and to like one or dislike the other. The QM was fantastic when it came to crafting a public image and she really did cement a reputation so sickly that her true nature can sometimes shock and make people feel uncomfortable.

But there is much I like in Wallis and much I like in the Queen Mother and vice versa. We no longer live in a world of absolutes, as much as many would like us to. Wallis undoubtedly made mistakes. Her affair with Ribbentrop. Her naiveté when she thought she had David under control and could call off the relationship at any time. Her belief that she could ever give him a life that rivalled what he'd once known. But she also achieved. Not in the ways a modern women with her outlook and opportunities might, but for her time she did something quite remarkable. She supported her husband and made him happy, not an easy task given his nature. She accepted what people thought of her and lived with it. She knew she was cast in the role of a scarlet woman, and set herself a higher standard to prove that she was dignified, elegant and worthy of her rank as a Duchess. Were the Duchess of Windsor alive today....well. There's a debate for another time perhaps.

But the same is true of the Queen Mother. She crippled her family in a way that had consequences for the monarchy that far outstripped the scandal of the abdication. She drove her youngest daughter to drink and despair, she divided father and son and she became a metaphor for excess and for delusions of grandeur at a time when most Britons couldn't afford to heat their homes. And yet....she supported her husband in a way very few could. She became a beacon of hope and of courage during the Second World War. She became an icon, someone who represented the very best of the best generation of Britain. And she gave us a Queen who today shares that same unconditional love given to the Queen Mother 50 years ago by the people. Quite remarkable.

After the Duke died, the QM began sending Wallis bouquets for her birthday with notes that read "In Friendship". Whether she meant it or not, now both women have gone on to their eternal reward, I like to think that they'd welcome a little truth and that the old pantomime of Wallis the Villain and Betty Bowes-Lyon the Angel could be reviewed a little.
 
:previous: Brilliant summation, Gaudete. :flowers: Clear and balanced. Thank you.
 
Now seems as a good a time as any to share this, though it may have been shared before (in which case I apologise!). I've heard the audio many times but never seen the video.

 
Let's not forget that Wallis was the convenient excuse given by the government of the day to get rid of a totally unsatisfactory King. If she hadn't come along they would have removed him anyway as he was not up to the job in many ways. Remember that from April onwards in 1936 they had stopped sending him the most sensitive documents as they couldn't trust him with the information and as the year wore on more and more even less sensitive documents were withheld due to his indiscretions. They had made the decision by the end of the summer that he had to go - the question then was 'how to get rid of him' and along came Wallis - a godsend.
 
Back
Top Bottom