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

[Russophile]

From Greg King: The Duchess of Windsor: The Uncommon Life of Wallis Simpson, when informed that David had already abdicated.

"Wallis was stunned. David had assured her that he would not abdicate; now he had done just that without bothering to inform her until it was too late. she had worried endlessly, tried to remove herself over and over again from the situation, been prepared to sacrifice her own desires and future happiness, to keep him on the throne. "I think ultimately she felt very, very betrayed by the abdication," a friend later declared. "She rarely spoke about that period of her life, but once, she did admit that she was more than a little put out at having her future essentially determined for her."

[Roslyn]

I'm currently reading Diana Mosley's The Duchess of Windsor. It confirms Wallis was quite prepared to withdraw from the relationship if it would stop him from abdicating, but was torn by her wish to provide him with the help and support for which he had come to rely upon her. He had made up him mind some time before the actual Abdication that he was going to marry Wallis as soon as her divorce was finalised, and he was a determined man. She wept while listening to his radio broadcast.

In his own way he was a caring man. He tried to draw attention to the plight of the unemployed Welsh miners. I think he worked hard at his duties as PoW, but not everyone is cut out to be King and David was one of them.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Menarue

The understanding I am talking about is not the feelings of the public for her it was the very strong feeling of loyalty and tradition that surround the British royal family, I don´t think that she understood ever what royalty meant. She gave the Queen mother a nickname, Cookie, said she had no class. She visited the then Duke and Duchess of York (later King George VI and Queen Elizabeth) at Balmoral and suggested removing a hill and some trees to better the view.....

Cookie? Cookie! No Class! Could anything have been more insulting to the Queen because Wallace was never noted for her tact and diplomacy. I bet she heard every little insult, which begs the question: if she didn't think the Queen of England had any "class", did she think that she was far superior and thus fit to be the next Queen?

If she held the Queen in contempt, how much more would she have felt that the Duke and Duchess of York were "provincial" and definitely not have any class whatsoever. It also showed that the Duke and Duchess of York would have had more than one reason to hold her in contempt.

I didn't understand why they never had children, but it seems that David always intended his brother to succeed him, just not that soon.

[attaininggrace]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

The British have been fed decades of propaganda about how perfect Bertie and Elizabeth were and what monsters Edward and Wallis were; it isn't until fairly recently that books and articles sympathetic to the Duke and Duchess have really started to appear. The Queen Mother has always been portrayed in the media as a sweet and harmless national granny figure, whereas the truth appears to be somewhat less sugar-coated. As Idriel said, the truth is almost certainly somewhere between the two extremes, but in Britain one side has been free to present its version and the other side hasn't.

I can't agree with this, Elspeth. The other side has always been free to present its version. There have been more sympathetic stories lately, however.

I am Australian. My mother has a very bad opinion of Edward and Wallis. She remembers his tour and how he offered to help the Welsh miners and how disillusioned people were when he abdicated. She thinks that he was quite pro-Nazi and no good and that Wallis was a gold-digger who wanted to be Queen. I am a bit more sympathetic, but not much!

Regards,
Attaining Grace
bookaddiction

[Jeniann]

Originally Posted by MARG

I didn't understand why they never had children, but it seems that David always intended his brother to succeed him, just not that soon.

I don't think they could have children, though I'm not entirely sure they wanted them either way. If he'd stayed on as King, I certainly think Elizabeth would've still been Queen, perhaps a bit later on though. He probably would've never married, opting for the Elizabeth I method and refusing to marry anyone but Wallis. I have trouble seeing him marrying a suitable royal virgin anyway. Not really his type.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Jeniann

I don't think they could have children, though I'm not entirely sure they wanted them either way. If he'd stayed on as King, I certainly think Elizabeth would've still been Queen, perhaps a bit later on though. He probably would've never married, opting for the Elizabeth I method and refusing to marry anyone but Wallis. I have trouble seeing him marrying a suitable royal virgin anyway. Not really his type.

I do remember a quote Wallis gave over a game of bridge. Someone had asked about her and David having children and she had replied that he wasn't "Heir conditioned."

[Polly]

My own, historically prejudiced view, is that Wallis Simpson is one of the most maligned persons of C20.

I noted, particularly, that the most disreputable stories pertaining to her did not surface until after her death when the reporters and purveyors of attacks upon her could not be challenged in law.

My grandparents, who were au fait with events at the time, always insisted that animosity towards Wallis was predicated on the fact that she was (gasp!) an American, and secondly, that HM, The Queen Mother, had an irrational dislike of her.

Be that as it all may, the fact is that poor Wallis died as unhappily as any human being could.

It's always puzzled me as to why Wallis is always portrayed as an attack on the Throne and stability, and not her husband, who was raised to know better.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Polly

My own, historically prejudiced view, is that Wallis Simpson is one of the most maligned persons of C20.

I share your view.

It's always puzzled me as to why Wallis is always portrayed as an attack on the Throne and stability, and not her husband, who was raised to know better.

Same reason Camilla is blamed for the breakdown of Charles & Diana's marriage. Same reason Eve was blamed for Adam taking the apple. Same reason Moslem women are expected to keep their charms covered. Women are either madonnas or they're whores. I.e., the simple old fashioned double standards and sex discrimination inherent in a patriarchal society.

[Russophile]

Well I disagree with that. It was a most unfortunate situation for Wallis because she was already on her 2nd marriage. 2 marriages have gone wrong, didn't bode well for the success of a 3rd. And whether it was luck or the fact that she simply could NOT EVER divorce David, it's hard to say. I don't think we'll ever know.
I do agree that she's been maligned, but then again, I'm looking at her from 2008 eyes and not 1938 eyes. Strictures were a lot different back then.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

I share your view. I.e., the simple old fashioned double standards and sex discrimination inherent in a patriarchal society.

Me, I think we have more to worry about from the matriarchal side. Those throwing rolls in the supermarket were not men. I believe women are harder on women, and the fact that neither the Queen nor the Duchess of York liked Wallace backs that theory. If the Queen and Duchess had backed the relationship (pigs might fly) I believe that Balwin and the government would have caved.

[branchg]

It was impossible for a King to marry a twice-divorced woman in 1936 and retain the throne. It wasn't acceptable to the British public at the time and the monarchy has to have the consent of the people to survive.

But I do think the vendetta should have ended with time. Wallis was certainly unfairly maligned for what was ultimately The Duke's own decision to put his own selfish interest before his duty. Not giving her the proper rank of HRH as the wife of a son of the Sovereign after thirty years of marriage was very unfair.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by branchg

It was impossible for a King to marry a twice-divorced woman in 1936 and retain the throne. It wasn't acceptable to the British public at the time and the monarchy has to have the consent of the people to survive.

Sorry, I think I got a little carried away by the sexual politics and forgot that every situation must be viewed in it's time and place. Yes, Wallace was unfit (and I use that word advisedly) to be Queen. We know that the US secret service was watching her, so too were the British. Not only was she a divorcee, but she had a documented habit of cheating on her spouses, and, if reports are to be believed, on David both before and during the marriage. That would have put a giant question mark over the legitimacy of any issue.

Originally Posted by branchg

But I do think the vendetta should have ended with time. Wallis was certainly unfairly maligned for what was ultimately The Duke's own decision to put his own selfish interest before his duty. Not giving her the proper rank of HRH as the wife of a son of the Sovereign after thirty years of marriage was very unfair.

The government and the King were obviously kept informed of the social liaisons of both the Duke and the Duchess. I don't think they did anything to try to tone down their lifestyle or their politics.

Question: Do we know for sure that they wanted to reestablish ties with the rest of the BRF? Or could it be that two strong willed women would not and could not give an inch?

[Russophile]

That goes in for a lot of conjecture. I think both of those strong women would have done it for their families sake but neither wanted to make the first move.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

Same reason Camilla is blamed for the breakdown of Charles & Diana's marriage. Same reason Eve was blamed for Adam taking the apple. Same reason Moslem women are expected to keep their charms covered. Women are either madonnas or they're whores. I.e., the simple old fashioned double standards and sex discrimination inherent in a patriarchal society.

I think there's also an element of the group coming together to blame the outsider. Much better for the monarchy if poor David was portrayed as rather innocent and gullible and in the clutches of an adventuress than to hint that he was a self-centred weakling who wasn't suitable to become King and didn't particularly want to anyway. The latter would cast some doubt on the ability of the system to deliver a worthwhile head of state, but the former would place the blame firmly outside the system.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Russophile

I do remember a quote Wallis gave over a game of bridge. Someone had asked about her and David having children and she had replied that he wasn't "Heir conditioned."

I have read in more than one book that the then POW had mumps around age 20, which well might have rendered him sterile.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I think there's also an element of the group coming together to blame the outsider. Much better for the monarchy if poor David was portrayed as rather innocent and gullible and in the clutches of an adventuress than to hint that he was a self-centred weakling who wasn't suitable to become King and didn't particularly want to anyway. The latter would cast some doubt on the ability of the system to deliver a worthwhile head of state, but the former would place the blame firmly outside the system.

Good points.

I haven't read any biographies of David, but just finished Diana Mosley's biography of Wallis and am now interested and want to read more about both of them (David & Wallis, I mean, though Diana Mosley's interesting in her own right). I was particularly interested to read that shortly before he died, George V said to Queen Mary (in the presence of Lady Algernon Gordon-Lennox, who told Maybell, Lady Airlie, who immediately noted it down) "I pray to God that my eldest son will never marry and have children and that nothing will come between Bertie and Lilibet and the throne". I know George V was a stern man and distant father, and seemed to dislike the very popular David. I can't help wondering how much his poor relationship with his father affected his attitude to his "duty" and the abdication. I find him interesting and am not sure yet whether I agree he was a weakling. He does seem to have been self-absorbed, but I think it took a lot of courage to abdicate.

[Russophile]

"A King's Story: The Memoirs of the Duke of Windsor"

Is a good place to start.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

George V said to Queen Mary (in the presence of Lady Algernon Gordon-Lennox, who told Maybell, Lady Airlie, who immediately noted it down) "I pray to God that my eldest son will never marry and have children and that nothing will come between Bertie and Lilibet and the throne". I know George V was a stern man and distant father, and seemed to dislike the very popular David. I can't help wondering how much his poor relationship with his father affected his attitude to his "duty" and the abdication.

George V and Queen Mary knew David had contemplated renouncing his right to the throne in order to marry Wallis, which he had expressed to his private secretary, who duly passed it on to Lord Wigram. By then, the relationship was well-known in court circles and there was already growing concern for the monarchy, given the King's declining health.

David was too afraid to approach his father with the idea and he may have believed he could have his cake and eat it too. Once he was King (which he knew would not be long), he may have thought the Government could be persuaded given his popularity with the public. In this, he was to be greatly mistaken.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

He does seem to have been self-absorbed, but I think it took a lot of courage to abdicate.

I disagree. He had no choice but to abdicate and it would have shown greater courage to accept a lesser sacrifice (giving up Wallis) in order to fulfill his duty to be King.

[Elspeth]

He could have waited till after his coronation to announce his intention to marry Wallis. It seems as though everyone thought his position would have been more secure then, although I'm not quite sure why. Whether it was romance, honesty, or a genuine desire to renounce the throne that made him insist on resolving the issue as soon as possible seems to depend on who's telling the story.

As for having no choice but to abdicate, Beaverbrook was telling him he could ask for a morganatic marriage, Churchill was telling him to stick to his guns and everything would be all right, and Baldwin seemed to be trying not to tell him anything till he really had to. The only person who was insisting that he would have to abdicate if he wanted to marry Wallis was his private secretary, who he didn't trust.