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
 
  #1241  
Old 08-07-2016, 08:12 AM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 240
What could have happened if Edward decided ..... Yes! I want to be King, in fact I am King and No! I will not give up Wallis!

Life partners wasn't a term in use at the time but as he wasn't married, mistress doesn't seem quite right.

Could his hand have been forced if he was determined, regardless to have it all, in that sense?
__________________

__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #1242  
Old 08-07-2016, 06:14 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
What could have happened if Edward decided ..... Life partners wasn't a term in use at the time but as he wasn't married, mistress doesn't seem quite right.

Could his hand have been forced if he was determined, regardless to have it all, in that sense?
If he hadn't married Wallis, I don't think anything would have happened. But then would her husband play ball? I think he was fed up and wanted a divorce.. and if the affair had become known to the public, I think it was hard to keep it quiet. If he had been a bachelor king and Wallis, with a husband in the background, had been his "lady friend"- in private, provided it was discreet, I think that it would have been Ok, The Yorks were there to provide heirs....
But he wanted to marry Wallis..and I think he didn't really want to be King that much...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1243  
Old 08-07-2016, 06:50 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,034
IIRC his father, the King, famously said he would be in ruins within a year of his death (and it proved true).

I don't think Bertie wanted to be King ....especially under the circumstances. I don't think the government was too keen on the idea either.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1244  
Old 08-07-2016, 06:58 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
No of course George VI didn't want to be king. The Abdication was a terrible trauma for the RF. but I believe that David was advised that he could keep seeing Wallis discreetly and his attitude was that he wanted to marry her.
SO I don't think he would have agreed to the idea that he and Wallis should be "life partners" in private..
offhand I can't remember whether he was willing to consider a morganatic marriage...
Reply With Quote
  #1245  
Old 08-07-2016, 07:37 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,210
Yes, Edward wanted to marry Wallis. He made that very clear.

You also have to remember the social mores of the time as well. Although there were plenty of discreet affairs among the upper classes, some of them long term, people would have very much disapproved of just 'shacking up'. And it could have been disastrous if a very long term affair had been discovered by ordinary people. A few years was bad enough!

Although British newspapers remained silent it was already said that in places like Liverpool and Southampton the news had dribbled out about Wallis by the mid-1930's. Businessmen and travellers to the US and stewards and crew on the big liners had access to American magazines and newspapers.

Plus, as has been said, for how long would Ernest Simpson have put up with the scorn and joking of people of his own class? Would he have wanted to have been shackled to Wallis for years simply to allow her affair with the King to continue? What if he'd turned nasty (unlikely, I know) and sued for divorce on the grounds of her adultery?
Reply With Quote
  #1246  
Old 08-07-2016, 07:51 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Edward did ask about the possibility of a morganatic marriage and the government told him that wasn't a possibility in Britain as that concept didn't exist.

It should also be remembered that the government were determined to get rid of him as an unsuitable king - Wallis was the excuse and not the reason per se. Edward was indiscreet e.g. leaving official documents marked 'for your eyes only' or 'highly confidential' lying around and Wallis even raised the content on these documents with people at dinner or other places.

If it wasn't Wallis some other excuse would have been found to remove him as King.
Reply With Quote
  #1247  
Old 08-07-2016, 10:36 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,034
From what I have read Churchill (and others) was in favor of a Morgantic marriage but Edward refused. He wanted her to have the titles and rights.

That's how all the documentaries about him I've seen have said it and any books about that era have portrayed it.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1248  
Old 08-08-2016, 12:57 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 3,438
As UK has no morganatic law, such a marriage would require a legal change. And it wasn't a simple matter of parliament approval. The PM's of the 5 dominions of the time had a say. Like with the change in succession recently had to be signed off by the commonwealth. The 5 dominions of the time were Canada, NZ, South Africa, Australia and the Irish free state. Yes, they only need consult in those days but they could have caused serious political backlash. Irish free state was absolutely opposed, not recognizing divorce. Our PM, William Mackenzie King was no happier,saying Canadians liked Edward but any marriage was unacceptable and appealed to Edward to put duty first. South Africa and Australia were also opposed. The only Dominion PM who supported a morganatic was Michael Savage of NZ.

Churchill was not PM at the time, Stanley Baldwin was. Churchill didn't come to office until 1940. In fact, Neville Chamberlin came in between. Churchill did in fact support the king but had little power (he refused to sitt on discussion counsel and originally was opposed). He went into polititcal exile after as even his own party practically saw him as an anarchist. It was his voice against Germany which brought him back and to power.

Baldwin, the house of Commons, Archbishop of Canterbury, 4 dominion PMs, and trades union all opposed. Even Labor and liberal backed the view of Conservative Baldwin. For all Churchil and Beaverbrook's campaigning, only 40 MP's could be mustered in support.


Basically even if Edward would accept such a compromise, it was never offered.
Reply With Quote
  #1249  
Old 08-08-2016, 09:12 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,034
Just saying according to the documentaries I've seen and info I've read Churchill (yes I know he wasn't PM) floated the idea to Bertie and it was refused...they didn't go any further with getting approval etc. No need.



LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1250  
Old 08-08-2016, 06:21 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Yes, Edward wanted to marry Wallis. He made that very clear.

Y
Plus, as has been said, for how long would Ernest Simpson have put up with the scorn and joking of people of his own class? Would he have wanted to have been shackled to Wallis for years simply to allow her affair with the King to continue? What if he'd turned nasty (unlikely, I know) and sued for divorce on the grounds of her adultery?
That's the point of a gentleman's agreement! I agree that it wasn't really a very likely solution because the story had leaked out.
BUT lots of royals had had long running affairs with women of the upper classes, and the woman's husband usually quietly led his own life, and appeared occasionally to escort her..
I think it might have worked say 10 or 20 years earlier but I think that Simpson did want a divorce anyway to marry the other woman he was with, whom he later married.
I dont beleive there would have been "scorn" for Simpson, among people who mght have seen him as making a bit of a sacrifice to keep the royal set up intact. He had a mistress, he had his own life, he wasn't giving up that much by letting Wallis have her affair. Other husbands of royal mistresses did the same, went on with tehir own lives, were there from time to time wiht thier wives and everyone knew the score... but that was when royal liaisons were not really DEFINITELY known about among the public.

Im sure most of the public knew of Ed VII's affairs, but because the ladies were married, there was deniablity and anyone who chose NOT to think the worst, could make themselves believe that there was nothing to worry about.
I think Wallis had imagined the affair with the POW as lasting a few years, and then her going back to her marriage, and going on with her life.. not Edward being totally in love with her and wanting her as a permanent fixture...

But I think it would only have worked if the public had been unaware of it and Simpson had been willing to stay married to Wallis for several more years at least, and W and Ed could have spent thier time together in private.
Reply With Quote
  #1251  
Old 08-08-2016, 06:34 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Just saying according to the documentaries I've seen and info I've read Churchill (yes I know he wasn't PM) floated the idea to Bertie and it was refused...they didn't go any further with getting approval etc. No need.



LaRae
It wasn't really a situation the Establishment wanted, but I thought that David considered it briefly.. At 40 odd, Wallis was childless and it wasn't likely that she would have children. Im sure she and David were not keen on being parents. So if she had had a lesser title and more or less avoided public life, possibly the public would have accepted that, and the heirs would eventually be the York children. But he wanted her to be queen etc and I think he felt that "either he got his way, and she WAS titled Queen and shared his life," or if it wasn't allowed, he would get out of the job of being King which he was finding diffcult to cope with.
Reply With Quote
  #1252  
Old 08-08-2016, 07:51 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 3,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Just saying according to the documentaries I've seen and info I've read Churchill (yes I know he wasn't PM) floated the idea to Bertie and it was refused...they didn't go any further with getting approval etc. No need.



LaRae
He didn't let it drop.He campaigned literally days before the abdication. Bertie He had even less say than David. Even if Bertie approved, parliament had to. He didn't 'float an idea', parliament did, Churchill originally turned down a chance to be involved. He didn't bow out, he was crushed (a whole 40 MP supported him) and almost ended his career. This was not some tea time talk with Bertie.
Reply With Quote
  #1253  
Old 08-09-2016, 12:43 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
So you're saying that the Duke of York (or George VI as he became) was more pro the idea of a morganatic marriage than anyone except perhaps Churchill?
I know Ed wasn't keen on the idea, and probably the Powers that be were relieved to find a way of getting rid of him because he was increasingly unreliable and they were worrying about his selfish thoughtless behavour. But had he NOT been so bad, and had he been willing to consider Morganatic marriage, It might have been a solution. True it was not part of the usual culture of the BRF, but times change.
If he and Wallis had had a morganatic marriage, and he was willing to do his job as King, it would have been a possible way out of the dilemma. She would have not had much of a public role, and since she was around 40, I think that she would have been OK with the "children not taking the royal rank" because there would not have been children...
But it was probalby for the best that Ed refused to consider it...
Reply With Quote
  #1254  
Old 08-09-2016, 08:01 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,650
One thing I found with having a very involved discussion with a gentleman on these forums is that when it came to the abdication of Edward VIII, it wasn't taken lightly nor was it a couple of phone calls here and there and sharing of opinions and ideas. It was a first for the monarchy of the UK and everyone involved, The Royal Family, the courtiers and statesmen and the members of Parliament and was very much a back and forth and an urge to get it done and get it done right and pretty much written in stone.

I went back and found some of the documents that have been archived from that time that shows the length and breadth of the different issues that had to be addressed to show just how involved it all was. Some serious stuff here.

The drafting of the letters patent of 1937

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #1255  
Old 08-09-2016, 10:56 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
Of course it was. It was a crisis beyond anything that had been happening in the RF for centuries. Had Ed not ben such a terribly "soul-less" selfish man, perhaps a morganatic marriage might have been a way of working it out, but he was.. and Mrs S was little better.
Reply With Quote
  #1256  
Old 08-09-2016, 11:18 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,650
All in all though, I think it all worked out for the best. David was not the kind of person that was really given to duty to crown and country but more of a man that saw things the way he wanted them and wouldn't give an inch. In my eyes, he was kind of a narcissist personality. In the long run, the UK was much better off with the solidarity that King George VI and Queen Elizabeth gave the nation during WWII.

David and Wallis then were free to go and live their lives the way they wanted it to be and lived happily (for the most part) ever after.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #1257  
Old 08-09-2016, 01:06 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Of course it was. It was a crisis beyond anything that had been happening in the RF for centuries. Had Ed not ben such a terribly "soul-less" selfish man, perhaps a morganatic marriage might have been a way of working it out, but he was.. and Mrs S was little better.
You use term morganatic marriage but there is no any such legal understanding in British law. The marriage of the Duke of York to a Scottish Earl's daughter would have been considered morganatic in some German Houses but there is simply no such rule in the UK.

The problem here mainly was the King engaging into a marriage with a person whom has been married before to other men, not the fact that she was of unequal standing. Was Wallis an unmarried lady without history, she could have been consort to Edward VIII indeed.

80 years later two future Kings are married to commoners, one of these a divorcée with children out of her previous marriage. Whatever all objections were, never that the partners were not equal, as this was and is simply no requirement in the UK.
Reply With Quote
  #1258  
Old 08-09-2016, 11:33 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
All in all though, I think it all worked out for the best. David was not the kind of person that was really given to duty to crown and country but more of a man that saw things the way he wanted them and wouldn't give an inch. In my eyes, he was kind of a narcissist personality. In the long run, the UK was much better off with the solidarity that King George VI and Queen Elizabeth gave the nation during WWII.

David and Wallis then were free to go and live their lives the way they wanted it to be and lived happily (for the most part) ever after.
In that sense yes, it was the best thing. He was "lacking" in something, as other people put it, the sort of thing one tends to call "a soul".. I suppose a conscience might not be quite the right word...
I meant that if he had just wanted to Marry Wallis and the main objection to her was her 2 previous marriages (even though that was a big and serious objection at the time), and if he had been more conciliatory, I think that maybe marriage to her, with a firm undertaking that she would not take part In public life, (I think the question of children was moot) and that she would have a lesser title, might have satisfed the public and the establishment.
But he was increasingly unwilling to do his job as King.. not just in terms of making a marriage to a suitable lady, but also in slacking at his work, and being irresponsible with the way of leaving papers out and being careless about how he talked and who he talked to...
and I think that because of this the RF and politicos were getting worried about him and he seemed more unstable, in the year or so he was king..and also his chosen bride was selfish and careless too, and had little understanding of English life or the role of a King..
So All in all, the crisis, while terrible for the RF and stressful for the government at the time, began to look like a heaven sent opportunity to get rid of him..
and he himself DID seem to get more bullish and selfish, I think refusing any compromise and insisting that he wouldn't just keep Wallis as his mistress or consider a morganatic marriage.. or even waiting for a while... because in some ways he knew he did not want the role or the duty of being King...

I don't think though that they were all that happy afterwards. I think that Wallis had never really loved him the way he loved her, and was rather bored with him and with the aimless life they had.. and so was he.. He had nothing to do but socialise, look for something to do, and spend time with her.. and she seemed rather fed up with that and flirted with at least one other man . But they were rather stuck with each other.. They coudldnt separate, and say it had all been for nothing..
Reply With Quote
  #1259  
Old 08-10-2016, 12:01 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 3,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
So you're saying that the Duke of York (or George VI as he became) was more pro the idea of a morganatic marriage than anyone except perhaps Churchill?
I know Ed wasn't keen on the idea, and probably the Powers that be were relieved to find a way of getting rid of him because he was increasingly unreliable and they were worrying about his selfish thoughtless behavour. But had he NOT been so bad, and had he been willing to consider Morganatic marriage, It might have been a solution. True it was not part of the usual culture of the BRF, but times change.
If he and Wallis had had a morganatic marriage, and he was willing to do his job as King, it would have been a possible way out of the dilemma. She would have not had much of a public role, and since she was around 40, I think that she would have been OK with the "children not taking the royal rank" because there would not have been children...
But it was probalby for the best that Ed refused to consider it...
NO. I was responding to Pranter who claims Churchill broached the idea witth Bertie and when the DOY was opposed, dropped it. Not sure what about 'commiting political suicide' led you to think I meant Bertie. He had no political career to speak of Clearly it was Winston campaigning to the bitter end that.

The simple point: it wasn't a way out as you put it. David could have been all for it, would never matter. A morganatic marriage required a change in laws. And the government made it clear that would never happen. It was discussed, vetoed by 4/5 dominions, house of commons, the church and 3 political parties.
Reply With Quote
  #1260  
Old 08-10-2016, 12:03 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,210
I think Edward remained in love with Wallis (perhaps obsessed might be a better word) all his life. I don't think Wallis was ever passionately in love with Edward, but she was excited by his attentions and the jewels he gave and the way sections of London Society took her up after she became his mistress. Events overtook her, I think, and no, she didn't know how things worked in Britain.

Afterwards--I certainly think he was terribly bored. His day by day routine had gone. He may not have liked it very much but it had been an anchor. I read once that he asked a French acquaintance how did he occupy his time? He spoke about his 'routine', taking the dogs for a walk, waiting for Wallis to come back from the hairdressers, sitting with her while she had a French lesson. He gardened, played golf a lot. They often entertained, after the war went to the US on the big ocean liners, picked up friends from the international set. I think Wallis was bored with Edward really, although I believe she was fond of him.

However, what was she going to do? She was famous (or infamous) all over the world, she was a Duchess, and all in all, lived a very nice lifestyle. Wallis had never really had a career so I think her life after marriage didn't impact her as much as it did Edward.
__________________

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: 2 (0 members and 2 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
Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester and Miss Birgitte van Deurs: 8 July 1972 Scott Royal Weddings 16 11-10-2016 10:31 PM
Duchess of Windsor Jewellery micas Royal Jewels 201 07-14-2015 12:18 PM
The Duke of Windsor and Wallis Simpson - 3 June 1937 aussiechick12 Historical Royal Weddings 26 05-01-2015 12:42 PM
Books on The Duke and Duchess of Windsor Duchess Royal Library 106 07-15-2013 12:49 PM
The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester Current Events 1: October 2003-January 2006 A.C.C. Current Events Archive 132 01-13-2006 10:37 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style countess of wessex's eveningwear coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events danish royal family duarte duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece jean kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine fashion princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes fashion queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 spanish queen state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:41 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises