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

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

I don't understand what problems this child would cause the BRF.

Who inherited after the duchess of Windsor died? Didn't a part of her estate end up with the BRF?

[branchg]

The Pasteur Medical Institute in France was the primary beneficiary of her estate, which mostly consisted of her jewels and remaining objects and furnishings in their Paris mansion. As we all know, the jewels were auctioned with spectacular success ($40 million).

Mr. Al-Fayed purchased the furnishings from the estate when he took over the lease of the mansion from the City of Paris. He renovated and restored the villa as a kind of museum for a few years, then auctioned everything off so he could live in the home.

With the exception of a few pieces of jewelry to Princess Alexandra, The Duchess of Kent and Princess Michael of Kent, the royal family received nothing from the estate.

[Elspeth]

I think after the Duke died, Earl Mountbatten was involved in trying to get as much of his stuff as possible for the royal family, and I believe one of the Windsor biographies said that the Duchess authorised the return of some things of the Duke's that had particular historical significance. But when Mountbatten started to badger her to leave her jewels to Charles or came up with schemes to leave her money to a specially created charity that would be administered by Charles, she dug in and got her lawyer (who sounds like a reincarnation of a psychotic pit bull) to forbid Mountbatten's visits to her.

[Zonk]

I had heard that as well Elspeth. From the books regarding the Duke and Duchess, Mountbatten sounds as if he was playing both sides---the Windsors and then the Royal family (King George, the Queen Mother, etc.)

I am sure looking back the whole episode could have been handled better on both sides. Yes, technically the Duchess was denied the HRH but as I mentioned before based upon her previous history (the Duke was after all her third husband) the BRF family had no way of knowing that the marriage was going to last. In fact, based uon a book that I read about the Duchess (the book is at home so I can't cite it now), after Edward gave up so much (throne, fortune and essentially family) for her...she felt an obligation to him. This is not to say she could't leave him if she wanted to but she would have felt extremely guilty.

[BeatrixFan]

Wallis did leave jewels to Princess Michael did she not? I've seen Princess M sporting a few Wallis gems but I think the majority were actually paste.

[Lady Marmalade]

Hi Sam,

According to what I have read, yes she did leave a few pieces to Princess Michael.

As for Lord Louis....I agree, he seemed to be playing both sides and I often wonder just how much of a pain in the neck he was in some instances with these types of dealings.

Other than the fact the Her Grace was buried at Frogmore next to HRH, does anyone have any specific details regarding her funeral as to who went?

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade

Hi Sam,

According to what I have read, yes she did leave a few pieces to Princess Michael.

As for Lord Louis....I agree, he seemed to be playing both sides and I often wonder just how much of a pain in the neck he was in some instances with these types of dealings.

Other than the fact the Her Grace was buried at Frogmore next to HRH, does anyone have any specific details regarding her funeral as to who went?

Wikipedia says that Queen Mum, HM, Prince Charles and Princess Diana all went to both the funeral service and the funeral.

[BeatrixFan]

Hi Nicole darling - glad I was right about that. I know that the majority of the Royal Family were present. The Kents and the Gloucesters were definately there and I think that the only one who actually refused flat out to go was Princess Margaret but I could be wrong.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I think after the Duke died, Earl Mountbatten was involved in trying to get as much of his stuff as possible for the royal family, and I believe one of the Windsor biographies said that the Duchess authorised the return of some things of the Duke's that had particular historical significance. But when Mountbatten started to badger her to leave her jewels to Charles or came up with schemes to leave her money to a specially created charity that would be administered by Charles, she dug in and got her lawyer (who sounds like a reincarnation of a psychotic pit bull) to forbid Mountbatten's visits to her.

The Duchess did return the Duke's Garter robes, military insignia and uniforms, royal orders and a few other items to the royal family after his death. She detested Lord Mountbatten's campaign to gain control over her money and eventually told Maitre Blum to get rid of him.

She was (temporarily) charmed by Charles and his courteous attention to her at the Duke's funeral and was very touched by a letter he wrote to her afterwards. But it didn't last too long.

[Zonk]

I have read conflicting stories in two books about the Duchess and senior members of the royal family. One book has that Elizabeth, Phillip and Charles were kind to her when her husband died and the other has that they were ambivalent and bordered on the point of rudeness. As Elspeth said, I am sure the truth is probably in the middle.

Either way, she did have a decent relationship with the Kents. As they were the children of David's favorite brother George. So I am not surprised that she left jewelery to his children and/or their wives.

[BeatrixFan]

In this new book by the Queen Mother's old equerry, he says that she used to send flowers to the Duchess on her birthday, for Christmas and on the anniversary of David's death. She also wrote to Wallis regularly and her letters were always signed, "With Love - Elizabeth".

[branchg]

I think The Queen Mother felt sorry for The Duchess after The Duke died and tried to show some kindness to her. But I doubt the animosity between them ever really changed.

[Warren]

an extract from "Wallis, Secret Lives of the Duchess of Windsor" by Charles Higham, 1988.

The funeral:

The Lord Chamberlain flew to Paris to escort her body home and the Duke of Gloucester met them at the airport for the journey to Windsor. At Windsor the castle was closed to the public and a guard of honour saluted.

There was a private service in St George's Chapel attended by 175 people including most of the Royal Family, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough, the American Ambassador, and Princess Ann-Mari von Bismarck. The coffin was flanked by the Military Knights of Windsor in scarlet and gold uniforms. The coffin lay in the same position and place of honour as King George V, King George VI, Queen Mary and the Duke of Windsor. At the end of the service the coffin was taken in full procession to where she was buried beside the Duke [in the Royal Family's private grounds at Frogmore].

[branchg]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Hi Nicole darling - glad I was right about that. I know that the majority of the Royal Family were present. The Kents and the Gloucesters were definately there and I think that the only one who actually refused flat out to go was Princess Margaret but I could be wrong.

Princess Margaret was there, along with all the senior members of the royal family. Only The Queen, Prince Charles and Princess Diana were present for the burial ceremony, along with close friends of The Duchess.

[BeatrixFan]

Really? I did read in Majesty that she wasn't but they've been known to make mistakes before so thankyou for pointing that out.

[Debbies]

Wallis' and Edward's proximity with Nazism is not at all new to historians and is regarded not only as a major cause for the abdcation - although WS' status of divorcee was a sufficient reason for that at the time - but also as the primary reason for their exile.
I agree that for long in the UK only one of the two sides has been free to give his view, but in such cases information coming from a Country is crossed with diplomatic files and documentation held by other governments involved in World War II.

I still remember a UNI lesson in Rome led by Prof. Pastorelli about 15 years ago, when he was the curator of the archives of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
It is still very clear in my notes his statement that "due to the Duke and Duchess of Windor's proven relationship with the Nazism, they were no longer allowed to set foot in the UK" (until their respective funerals, of course).

I am currently reading a book that gives a more in-depth and interesting perspective: "Making friends with Hitler" by historian Ian Kershaw.

It provides documental evidence of the disappointed reaction of the Nazi Government to the news of the abdication and mentions Von Ribbentrop's comments.

Joachim Fest's comprehensive biography of Hitler should also contain more evidence.
I would be interested in reading some more comments from those who read history books on this subject.

[Wallis]

Originally Posted by Debbies

Wallis' and Edward's proximity with Nazism is not at all new to historians and is regarded not only as a major cause for the abdcation - although WS' status of divorcee was a sufficient reason for that at the time - but also as the primary reason for their exile.

I still remember a UNI lesson in Rome led by Prof. Pastorelli about 15 years ago, when he was the curator of the archives of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
It is still very clear in my notes his statement that "due to the Duke and Duchess of Windor's proven relationship with the Nazism, they were no longer allowed to set foot in the UK" (until their respective funerals, of course).

I am currently reading a book that gives a more in-depth and interesting perspective: "Making friends with Hitler" by historian Ian Kershaw.

It provides documental evidence of the disappointed reaction of the Nazi Government to the news of the abdication and mentions Von Ribbentrop's comments.

Joachim Fest's comprehensive biography of Hitler should also contain more evidence.
I would be interested in reading some more comments from those who read history books on this subject.

Yes, I agree with this. Although I love Wallis Simpson, I hated her admiration of Nazism. However, I also read in the Diana Mosley book, "The Duchess of Windsor" that there has been a long history of white supremacy in Wallis' family. Her family was what is known in the United States as landed gentry. They have a long line of Southern ancestors who owned both land and slaves. Her grandmother hated Northerners and black people. In addition, Edward loved his German roots. As a future king, he was taught various languages but he was only really able to learn German well. Diana Mosley also suggested that the Duke hoped to be reinstated as king if the Germans won the war. Lastly, Diana Mosley and her husband were also admirers of Hitler. Towards the end of her life, she was interviewed and asked if she felt she was mistaken for admiring Nazism. She said no. When the interviewer asked her opinion of the millions of Jews killed, she replied that everyone suffers, that all groups and races had endured horror at one point or another. Although I should be angry at this remark (I am Latina and my husband is Jewish), I must say that her response is honest and true. I hope I haven't offended anyone.

[BeatrixFan]

I don't see that Wallis's politics were that bad. Alot of people admire bits of Nazism, by which I mean, someone can admire the Nazi's foreign policy but can despise the Holocaust but it doesn't mean they are a Nazi. I think that's where this came from - Wallis and David admired the way Hitler governed but they didn't admire everything he did and of course, they wouldn't have known about the Holocaust just as nobody else knew until after the war.

[chrissy57]

In 1936 the majority of the world admired Hitler because of the way he had taken the Germans out of the depression.

Other countries that were still suffering were envious of what he had done.
By 1939 the situation had changed markedly particularly after he invaded the non-German section of Czechoslavakia.


The only British politician speaking out against Hitler, through most of the 30s was Churchill and he was on the outer with the powers that be at the time and wasn't being listened to all that much.

[branchg]

They were both quite conservative and didn't seem to mind Fascist regimes ruling with an iron fist. I doubt they embraced the destruction of Europe or the Holocaust at the hands of Hitler, but they weren't particularly accepting of Jews either.

Ironically, they were never enamoured of the French either, particularly when Socialism became prominent in the late 50's and early 60's. Privately, they were both pretty critical and condescending of the French Republic, although they received many privileges from the Government.