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

[Iluvbertie]

Henry VIII married quite a few times after his coronation. Edward III also married. Richard II married twice (the second time was a purely political move, though, and his bride was only 8). Henry IV, V, and VI all married after theirs, as did Edward VI and Henry VII.

I think you meant Edward IV not Edward VI. Edward VI never married and died aged 16. Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville.

 

[wbenson]

Oops. That is what I meant.

 

[Marsel]

I just found this picture of the Duke of Windsor (Edward, Prince of Wales at the time) from 1920.
Next to Prince Edward (second from left in the picture) is Louis Francis Victor Albert Nicholas Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma (left) and two officers from HMS Renown.

The picture is taken on a tarpon fishing expedition during a Royal Tour of New Zealand.

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/3294826.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=C06051C8BA2A5A2C796DF449FAE5DA5C


I have rarely seen a picture of Prince Edward (and the Earl of Mountbatten, come to that), looking so relaxed, happy and at ease.

 

[Sir_knight]

King Edward VIII

I have just finished reading his official biography and I must admitt that my views of him have somewhat changed. At first I would have thought he was a Pro Nazi and a weak minded fool. Now however I feel that perhaps he was both misunderstood and in my view abused by the so called establishment. It has led me to perhaps think that he may have been a very great King and a mordern one at that. His govonership of the Bahamas seems to justify that to me.

What do the folk here think about the King that never was?

 

[Dierna23]

Very interesting! Well, I was always interested in David (Edward VIII.) and I have read several books about him, including his own memoirs. IMO it wasn't a highlight from him to visit Hitler on the Obersalzberg, but I doubt he was a Nazi. As you said, I think, he was misunderstood and of course establishment disliked him in one way.

I think, he would have been a modern monarch, well fitted to the 20th century. And I never thought, that he was a fool or something, but sometimes you could think, he never really wanted to be King. I'm not sure about that.

 

[Jeniann]

I don't think it was as much that he didn't want to be King but that he didn't want to be the kind of King Stanley Baldwin and the like wanted him to be. Which was how his father and brother were. I think his ideal was more along the lines of what his grandfather had done, except much more modern and in touch with the people. But still being able to go home at night to his friends and parties and the woman of his choice. Also, like his grandfather he wasn't a fan of the dispatch boxes they sent him and preferred to talk things over with people rather than sit around doing paperwork.

 

[iowabelle]

I think he was too self-indulgent to have been a good king. I don't think he possessed the work ethic... a monarch's life isn't going to be one long party with cocktails.

 

[Iluvbertie]

...he wasn't a fan of the dispatch boxes they sent him and preferred to talk things over with people rather than sit around doing paperwork.

The problem with that is that the boxes are the real work of the monarch.

David wanted the glory without the work side of things.

He was a disaster and thankfully the government were able to get rid of him in a fairly non-controversial way.

I find it interesting that Dorothy L Sayers in one of her Peter Wimsey stories refers to Peter Wimsey having to go to Paris to rescue some documents that Edward had left lying around there. Big deal you say but her last Wimsey stories were published in 1939 so even that early after the abdication his lack of security about official documents was well enough known to be referred to in a fictional work.

He didn't seem to understand what a constitutional monarch's role was (just like his grandfather who at least, having interferred e.g. over negotiations with the French, left it to the Foreign Office to finalise). Edward VIII felt that he was more a monarch in the form of the early George's - i.e. that he actually had a say. Victoria, under Albert's guidance, had established a truly constitutional monarch - one with no real power and one who simply had the right to advise, warn and be consulted. Edward was prepared to do that and made controversial and even political statements, which he had no right to do as that was something he simply wasn't allowed to do.

 

[Dierna23]

Well, I disagree with some of the posts here. He wasn't only a "party-prince". Remember all his travellings round the world and british empire when he was still a young Prince of Wales, which he did not for his own pleasure but for the crown. Its unfair to call him fool, useless or even more worse things only because he enjoyed nightlife from time to time, was often dressed well and so one. He was very popular I think - until the abdiction of course. Well, you can say, he left his duty too easily when he abdicated - everyone I think has his own oppinion about this case. But after all I read you can't call him a lazy hedonist only...

He didn't seem to understand what a constitutional monarch's role was (just like his grandfather who at least, having interferred e.g. over negotiations with the French, left it to the Foreign Office to finalise).

Thats right and he didn't WANT to be a constitutional monarch in the old fashioned sense.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Thats right and he didn't WANT to be a constitutional monarch in the old fashioned sense.

Actually he wanted to be a constitutional monarch in the old fashioned sense of the early Hanoverians - having a say - whereas the role of the monarch had moved to symbolic only and he wanted to take it back to a place it hadn't been for over a century (sense William IV had agreed to swamp the House of Lords to get the Reform Bill passed in 1832). Edward had an inflated opinion of the role of the monarch and his importance to the political system. He wouldn't accept that a true constitutional monarch in the twentieth century said nothing and read and signed documents.

 

[Dierna23]

Hmm... I'm not sure. Of course he didn't want to be a King like his father and I think also not like Queen Victoria. Edward VII may have been quite exemplary to him, I've read it in Davids memoirs. His reign maybe would have had a similar style like his grandfathers, more like the early Hanoverians... Most of all I think, he would have refreshed the monarchy.

 

[Roslyn]

He wouldn't accept that a true constitutional monarch in the twentieth century said nothing and read and signed documents.

His father sometimes said things. He was very vocal when he met Gandhi at Buckingham Palace in 1933, telling him Britain would have no truck with Indian "terrorism", and that he was going to see that a stop was put to it. HM told him he held him responsible, and as Gandhi was leaving said, "Remember Mr Gandhi, I won't have any attacks on my Empire". At the time David was chatting to some Indian Princes and one murmured to David, "This will cost you India".

It's in the book I'm currently reading: "Indian Summer", about the end of the Empire, which also tells us that in 1920 David was seriously thinking of tossing it all in and marrying divorcee Freda Dudley-Ward, and in one letter to her said, "who knows how much longer this monarchy stunt is going to last". Doesn't sound like he had a high opinion of the family business at that time.

 

[MARG]

I believe David was good to go as King, as long as it didn't interfere with his lifestyle. Let's face it, love him or loath him, he really was just a middle-aged play-boy with too much money and too many women until he chased one who caught him! Even then he thought he could have his cake and eat it.

The "norm" for the everyday man was much the same as that enjoyed by the Duke and Duchess of York and their family. Marriage, home, hearth and children and David, the elder, was not planning on slowing his carousing in the forseeable future.

When informed of the consequences of his intended actions, the only thing David excelled at was screwing as much money out of not just the government, but his own family, by fair means or foul! He literally "sold" his birthright for what he later came to realise was a mess of pottage! He married, didn't have any children, and lived a lonely and bitter life yearning for what he had lost, or in his case, thrown away!

 

[Roslyn]

I'm still not sure what I think of David. I find him an interesting character, and one who would have made an interesting monarch if Mrs Simpson hadn't been in his life. I like to think he would have done a good job when it came to the crunch, like Edward VII, but I need to read more about him.

 

[branchg]

Edward was a very flawed character who demonstrated much selfishness and lack of commitment to duty. This went back long before Wallis Simpson came along. She was the convenient excuse he needed to rid himself of the responsibilities he had long resented, rather than embraced, as his purpose in life.

His attitude and character were completely at odds with being a constitutional monarch. When the time came, he showed no hesitation in giving up the throne and dumping the responsiblity on his brother, The Duke of York.

 

[Russophile]

This is so crazy, but coming out of Costco on Tuesday there was a dapper older gentleman dressed all in white at the entrance. He looked more than a little in passing like David and I couldn't help but smile at him and he smiled back, his sad, sweet smile so like David it was enchanting. I can see what the ladies found so appealing in David Windsor if this pretender was just a smidge like the real thing!

 

[Dierna23]

That's cool! I understand it as well.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think, the view on David is a bit manipulated from the press, media and several books and movies. I wonder, if we today would see him as a not dutiful person, if he had never abdicated and ruled for a quite while. Do you get me? I mean, the abdication itself made him to a prime example for a foolish, selfish, not dutiful person in the eyes of most people. I don't know. I stand by my word: I think he was a diligent young man when he was Prince of Wales. Kings and Queens in the end are human beings and no one is without mistakes as long as he's from flesh and blood...

 

[branchg]

In his world and time, there was only one purpose...to do your duty. It was his duty to be King and to accept the sacrifices necessary to carry out his solemn oath as monarch.

This was why Queen Mary could never accept his choice or his wife. In her mind, the throne came first and nothing else but doing your duty mattered. To ask the nation, the Dominions and the royal family to accept a twice-divorced American woman as his consort or morganatic wife in 1936 was outrageous and ridiculous.

 

[MARG]

I think, the view on David is a bit manipulated from the press, media and several books and movies. I wonder, if we today would see him as a not dutiful person, if he had never abdicated and ruled for a quite while. Do you get me? I mean, the abdication itself made him to a prime example for a foolish, selfish, not dutiful person in the eyes of most people. I don't know.

Huh? Ruled for a while and then . . . . . . doesn't marry Wallace? doesn't marry at all? marries some bright young deb and/or drops dead? If he had ruled we wouldn't be having this discussion.

For me, when I debate something historical, it is essential that I see it "in it's correct time and place". Without that anchor I can postulate anything I want and it really has no relevance to the actual event.

I mean, the abdication itself made him to a prime example for a foolish, selfish, not dutiful person in the eyes of most people. I stand by my word: I think he was a diligent young man when he was Prince of Wales. Kings and Queens in the end are human beings and no one is without mistakes as long as he's from flesh and blood...

Diligent? Apart from News Reel footage of the PofW at pre-arranged events such as Edward's frequent, and popular, visits to depressed areas wilst living an opulent almost profligate private life, and reading the Newspapers, the average man or woman in the street saw little of the Royals although David's playboy lifestyle got a lot more coverage in the society pages, unlike his his admiration for Mussolini. Even more so with the arrival of the twice married Wallis.

I believe the British were rather proud of their handsome and dashing Prince of Wales, they even sangs songs about his amorous proclivities "I danced with a man who's danced with a girl who's danced with the Prince of Wales." ... and considered his behavior to be the normal sowing of wild oats. I don't think any of them thought for one moment he could or would go on living that sort of life as "The King".

Yes he was flesh and blood but he was expected to honour his duty. He didn't! Bear in mind that thousands of ordinary subjects were expected to honour theirs in 1939. They did!

 

[Dierna23]

Huh? Ruled for a while and then . . . . . . doesn't marry Wallace? doesn't marry at all? marries some bright young deb and/or drops dead? If he had ruled we wouldn't be having this discussion.
For me, when I debate something historical, it is essential that I see it "in it's correct time and place".

Well, its a bit difficult to explain for me what I really ment. You're of course right with your last sentence. I only ment with my statement that with the whole "abdiciton-thing" it seems that EVERYTHING he did before is seen in this light. Isn't it the cause most people just say: "He abdicated, he was a fool." And thats not how I'd say it.

Diligent? Apart from News Reel footage of the PofW at pre-arranged events of Edward's frequent, and popular, visits to depressed areas wilst living an opulent almost profligate private life, and reading the Newspapers, the average man or woman in the street saw little of the Royals although David's playboy lifestyle got a lot more coverage in the society pages, unlike his his admiration for Mussolini. Even more so with the arrival of the twice married Wallis.

Well, apart from all the parties and opulent lifestyle he managed it to circle the world in a few months for his empire... And tell me a royal which doesn't lead an privileged life in which they may be sometimes profilgated. What about todays Harrys and Willams lifestyle? You may say, times have changed and they aren't quite popular for that also. I just think, they're young, they have to "carry the heavy weight of burden" all their life. Not everyone can be as dutiful as HM (which is excellent).

I know, that all aren't really serious arguments and I don't want to argue. I know, Edward VIII. is a red rag for most people, most monarchists. I only have a slightly different view on him. I wouldn't say, that he was not a bit foolish. Yes, he wasn't a prime example, was eccentric and maybe many more things but I think, he did a few good things also. And excuse me, but it isn't that easy for me to accomplish my thoughts in a language which isn't my first language. Maybe for that I shouldn't say anything here about this issue...

 

[Zonk]

Honestly, I think the abdication was a clarification for a lot of people (those familiar with the Duke of Windsor's personality....i.e. those who worked for the British government and his family) that David was not the right person to be King.

As previously mentioned, David was extremely popular as Prince of Wales. It was a highly romanticized, dashing Prince who toured the world and the slums and stated that "something must be done." But the fact remains is when the chips where down, he bailed. Yes, the media and time were not fair to David or Wallis but as previously mentioned to Queen Mary, duty was everything. Her devotion to duty affected the relationship she had with her childern. She simply couldn't not understand why to David, it wasn't the same. From her mindset, what I get is this...people have died (British soldiers had died in World War I and were soon to be heavily hit in World War II, to be to make sure that all of Britian was free, for God, King and Country) and all you need to do is give up this woman (when so many have given up their lives) and you can't do that? I am sure she couldn't understand it.

Looking back, in 2009 I am sure many of us simiply don't get it. But 1936 was a very very different time. Heck...in regards to the crowning of George VI there was some concerns that people would be LISTENING TO THE RADIO IN PUBS AND WOULDN"T TAKE OFF THEIR HATS! That's the kind of world 1936 was.

IMO David was just plain spoiled. Yes, its wrong that you can't marry the woman you love. Yes, everyone is being TOTALLY mean to you...if you love her why shouldn't you honor your love with an official confirmation in church letting everyone know this. If he was David Jones, he could have done this but he wasn't. And yes it was wrong that your wife was denied the HRH title but AGAIN its 1936...she had already had two husbands and was on her third. The British establishment had never seen anything like Wallis before.....for all they know she could have married David, been divorced in three years and you got a divorced Duchess running around Europe that you can't control with jewelery that had belong to the Royal Family for years! I am sure to many he simply lost his mind!

You can't come to the party and eat the food (by enjoying the wealth and priviliges of being royal) and when they want you to pay (by doing your duty and providing a heir) you can't complain that you don't like the rules.

 

[Russophile]

The British establishment had never seen anything like Wallis before.....

But they had, Zonk, there were lots of American heiresses in Europe and England marrying poor nobility only to get divorced and the title to go run around Europe partying. . .
It think that's what they were afraid of: It all came home to roost in the guise of Wallis.

 

[Zonk]

True...but lets agree that's different to have random ex British nobility running around Europe than an ex Princess of Wales, or ex Queen of England, Empress of India. '

George V dies in December of 36, and Edward VIII is talking about marrying her right away before his coronation.....Wallis had a lot of negatives 1) two living ex husbands 2) she's an American and 3) she is not young...married twice and no kids?! It was a recipe for disaster.

 

[Russophile]

It is different which is why they flipped out. (The Establishment) With good reason.
Though she was a hell of a hostess. I have a Fannie Farmer cookbook which is what she went from for all her parties, per her bio. "The Heart has it's reasons."

Wouldn't that be funny if somebody made up a movie called Wallis and Wendy? And they cooked their way through Fannie Farmer and attributed saving their pickle of a life to Wallis??

 

[Iluvbertie]

True...but lets agree that's different to have random ex British nobility running around Europe than an ex Princess of Wales, or ex Queen of England, Empress of India. '

George V dies in December of 36, and Edward VIII is talking about marrying her right away before his coronation.....Wallis had a lot of negatives 1) two living ex husbands 2) she's an American and 3) she is not young...married twice and no kids?! It was a recipe for disaster.

George V actually died in January 1936 and Edward reigned from January until December 1936.

During that year he did some of the duties associated with the King but increasingly was causing concern to the government because of his attitude.

The British press were keeping quiet about his relationship with Mrs Simpson so the British public didn't really know about it until the press broke its silence rather late in the piece - after a lot of the decisions had been made (the government realised the need to get rid of him, the king has sought the PMs advice on marriage, the divorce hearings were undersay etc).

By the time the general public were informed the decision was already virtually made.

Of course there were a lot of people who did know what was going on but the general public didn't.

His choice of wife was a godsend to the government as it was an excuse to get rid of an unsatisfactory king that the public would accept rather then cause a major constitutional crisis that could very easily have seen Britain become a republic in 1936.

This is my view of events based on research, study at uni, personal letters sent by family members in Britain to my grandmother and her family here from the early 1920s onwards about him and a personal opinion.

 

[Zonk]

Thanks for the correction of the dates!

Yes, Wallis for all intents and purposes was a godsend. World history would be SO different today if he had been allowed to marry Wallis.

 

[Iluvbertie]

He was allowed to marry her.
He wasn't allowed to marry her AND keep the throne - thank goodness.

I have nothing against her as a spouse or even as a Queen Consort but I do thank God that He sent her so that the British government could get rid of a totally unsiutable king. (In earlier times the powers that be have simply murdered the king but by 1936 that wasn't seen as the best way to do things - but then again maybe that is what would have happened with no Wallis).

 

[CordeliaFitzgerald]

Whilst waiting for approval on my registration to go through, I read through all the pages of this lively discussion.

I don't remember how or when I first found about David and Wallis, but I've been fascinated by them for years. I have no idea I enjoy them so much, but I do. I will agree with those who say they were all fluff and no substance, but my! What fluff they are! The clothes, the jewelry, the homes! Even the thought of living in that luxury makes me drool with envy.

I don't own that many books on these two, but the two I own I love dearly: The Windsor Style by Suzy Menkes. I used to get it out from the library all time before I finally realized it was time to find a copy on ebay. I paid dearly for it, but it was worth every cent. The other is Legendary Brides by Letitia Baldridge which features a section on D&W's wedding.

To summarize my opinions of the various discussions: Whether or not their love lasted, I do admire the loyalty they had for one another. I do think they each appreciated each other. I think the exile was unfair. In the early years, it's understandable why the RF wouldn't want them in England, but by the 1960s, David and Wallis should have been allowed back. Keeping exiled their entire lives was just way too harsh of the RF.

I don't think Wallis is the devil incarnate. Flawed? Yes. Could she have had more substance? Yes, but I imagine if I was getting the treatment she got, I'd probably go the freebies and haughty way too.

Unrelated to the discussions: I just love looking at photographs of them in the 1930s and 1940s. They look so youthful and chic! At the risk of sounding extremely shallow, I think David looks quite swoonworthy in those checked suits he wore! Without a doubt, they were the Best Dressed People ever!

 

[MARG]

And excuse me, but it isn't that easy for me to accomplish my thoughts in a language which isn't my first language. Maybe for that I shouldn't say anything here about this issue...

If this is English as a Second Language, I can only hang my head it shame. You express yourself exceptionally well and are a very welcome addition to this forum.

I know, that all aren't really serious arguments and I don't want to argue. know, Edward VIII. is a red rag for most people, most monarchists. I only have a slightly different view on him. I wouldn't say, that he was not a bit foolish. Yes, he wasn't a prime example, was eccentric and maybe many more things but I think, he did a few good things also.

I quite agree, we don't want to argue but we on these threads seem to enjoy robust debate, so don't be shy, your opinions are as good as anyone elses, and are more reasoned than a lot.

 

[Lady Meg]

Bessie Wallis Family

Yes, there were people who had multiple marriages after their coronation. What I read somewhere is that the Prime Minister at the time was not a huge supporter of Edward or Bessie. Also there was something about the two being secret sympathizers of the Nazi party. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone has any information on Bessie Wallis family history. Turns out I am a relative and would like to see if there are anymore connections to royalty through her.