Duke and Duchess of Windsor (1894-1972) and (1895-1986) - Page 5

Lady Marmalade · #81 07-18-2006, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

Yes, the Duchess is buried next to the Duke at Frogmore.

Most royal biographers agree the notion that Elizabeth fancied Edward was totally false. She had no particular interest in him, although she was fond of him personally, and he certainly had no interest in her.

By all accounts, The Queen Mother was angry at the Duke and Duchess for the burden of duty imposed by the Abdication. When George VI died at a relatively young age, she became even more bitter (although he died from smoking, as did The Duke of Windsor later).

After the Duke's death in 1972, she relented a bit in her view of Wallis, but she never wavered in her view that the Duchess was not worthy to be a Royal Highness.

Thank you for your assistance with my question, branchg. :)

There is a new book, "The Women of Windsor", which chronicles some of this as well.

**Elspeth** · #82 07-18-2006, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

Yes, the Duchess is buried next to the Duke at Frogmore.

Most royal biographers agree the notion that Elizabeth fancied Edward was totally false. She had no particular interest in him, although she was fond of him personally, and he certainly had no interest in her.

I think we may still be too close to the events for anything really objective to be known for sure. We've been fed one-sided propaganda for so long - which may or may not also be the truth - that we can't help but see things through that rather biassed lens.

Quote:

By all accounts, The Queen Mother was angry at the Duke and Duchess for the burden of duty imposed by the Abdication. When George VI died at a relatively young age, she became even more bitter (although he died from smoking, as did The Duke of Windsor later).

After the Duke's death in 1972, she relented a bit in her view of Wallis, but she never wavered in her view that the Duchess was not worthy to be a Royal Highness.

I just wish I was young enough to be around in 100 years time when we may start getting a more balanced view of those days. The Queen Mother has been surrounded by the most carefully crafted positive image-making imaginable, and the circumstances around the abdication have been subjected to the same ruthless spin as so many other things designed to show the current monarchy in the most favourable possible light. Something tells me that the truth is a lot more complex.

Wallis · #83 08-14-2006, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I think we may still be too close to the events for anything really objective to be known for sure. We've been fed one-sided propaganda for so long - which may or may not also be the truth - that we can't help but see things through that rather biassed lens.

I just wish I was young enough to be around in 100 years time when we may start getting a more balanced view of those days. The Queen Mother has been surrounded by the most carefully crafted positive image-making imaginable, and the circumstances around the abdication have been subjected to the same ruthless spin as so many other things designed to show the current monarchy in the most favourable possible light. Something tells me that the truth is a lot more complex.

I agree. I have the book, "The Duchess of Windsor" by Diana Mosley. She was also known as Diana Mitford (one of the famous Mitford sisters) and Diana Guiness (sorry about the spelling) of the famous ale family. She left her lovely first husband to marry that cad Mosley who was not only a fascist but also married to one of the famous Curzon sisters.

Well, she states in her book that alot of the rumors about the Duchess of Windsor were just not true. Some of the things she states are:
1. The Duchess was not an adventuress. She respected her second husband but unfortunately did not feel passion for him. She felt passion for her lst husband, Win Spencer, who unfortunatley abused her and for the Duke of Windsor. She married her second husband Earnest Simpson for security and stability after being abused by her first husband.

2. She was not a gold digger. She tried to get a job because she wanted something to do and her own financial independence. Unfortunately, she was rejected. One job was to work at a fashion magazine but after writing the essay and submitting the application, she lost.

3. She did not care about royal titles. The Duke was more hurt about the rejection of the HRH title than the Duchess. The Duke as also angry because it was illegal and had he challenged it, he would have won. But the Duchess begged for peace.

4. The Duchess did not want him to abdicate. She did not want such a huge burden placed on her.

5. Finally, one thing that Diana Mosley admits is that the Duchess was obsessed about money. After growing up having to be supported by other family members, the Duchess wanted her husband to have money of his own. So she pushed and pressed the Duke to get a good settlement from the royal family. She also pressured the Duke to keep his purse strings tight and not give money away so freely, something that angered Fruity Metcalfe who served as his equerry. But Fruity was also a free loader. He married up by marrying Alexandra Curzon and he never got a decent job to maintain her in the standards she was accustomed to. He was forever dependent on her wealth, which is why she cheated on him left and right. But according to Diana Mosley, the Duke and Duchess did not receive free things. They had to pay for their clothes and life style. What they didn't pay was taxes because France refused to tax them.

So yes, there are a lot of misconceptions. But I tend to believe the word of someone like Diana Mosley who was part of their inner circle or as they were referred to the "incorrigable coterie". Diana Mosley was also not a great fan or friend of the Duchess but she did love and admire the Duke.

**Zonk** · #84 08-14-2006, 12:59 PM

I haven't read by Diana Mitford but I have read some other books and I would guess is that the truth is somewhere in between.

Taking consideration the time that all these events happened, I can certainly understand the apprehension of the Royal Family in regards to Wallis marrying the Prince of Wales. While I am sure they didn't know all the facts of her two marriages, the fact is that she had been married twice before and the concept of a divorced women marrying into a royal family was not something that was "done." Of course, if they are probably rolling over in their graves thinking about what has happened since then.

With that in mind, while it was certainly petty and illegal, I can understand why they would hold the HRH from Wallis. In their mind, once they were married and if they happened to divorce, would she still be HRH, Mrs. Alan Jones (just a possible name of a 4th husband). As Queen Elizabeth said, we don't want a HRH Duchess all over the continent. I am just paraphrasing that...but it was something similar. Of course, history has shown that things are often repeated. When Diana divorced, the Queen rightfully took the HRH from her. I am sure, the Royal Family in 1936 didn't even think that if the Wallis/Edward marriage didn't work out...we will just take the title back.

I put more of the blame on Edward. I am sorry..I understand he was in love but he was just SELFISH. Just the little things he did prior to giving up the throne in regards to Wallis showed that he couldn't see or think straight. As Queen Mary said (again just paraphrasing) if men can die for their country (in regards to WWI) surely he can give up one woman. Poor George VI was torn between the love of his wife and the love for his brother. I can understand how Queen Elizabeth could feel bitter that the stress of runnning the country prematurely killed her husband (of course...all that smoking didn't help). I mean lets face it...he was not groomed to be King...but he did an excellent job anyway. It turned out the way it was supposed to do. Things happen for a reason.

branchg · #85 08-14-2006, 07:51 PM

The rank of HRH is entirely at the will of The Sovereign as the fount of honour. Although the 1917 Letters Patent of George V generally governs the rank, title and styles of the royal family, The Sovereign can issue new letters patent at any time modifying them.

Wallis was legally denied the rank of HRH by George VI in 1937. There was never a legal argument for The Duke to stand on because the will of the Crown is expressed by letters patent and royal rank is not a constitutional right defined under parliamentary law. If the King says you cannot be a Royal Highness, that's it.

Diana was a different situation because her rank arrived with marriage and departed with divorce, so The Queen didn't "take" anything away because she was not HRH in her own right. The Queen also issued letters patent stating a former wife of a son of the sovereign would not be entitled to the rank of HRH upon divorce.

**Elspeth** · #86 08-15-2006, 01:48 AM

Didn't the question about legality arise because it was argued that by abdicating, Edward hadn't lost his HRH since he was still a son of George V and hadn't renounced his royal status, just his position as King? Therefore it was argued that George VI had no need to confer an HRH on him because he was already HRH, and as long as he was HRH, his wife was HRH once they married. I've seen it stated in articles about the abdication that George VI went through with this creation of a totally unnecessary HRH simply because in so doing he could refuse to grant the Duchess an HRH, whereas if he'd acknowledged the existing HRH status, he'd have had to specifically draw up letters patent to deny the Duchess the HRH.

chrissy57 · #87 08-15-2006, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Didn't the question about legality arise because it was argued that by abdicating, Edward hadn't lost his HRH since he was still a son of George V and hadn't renounced his royal status, just his position as King? Therefore it was argued that George VI had no need to confer an HRH on him because he was already HRH, and as long as he was HRH, his wife was HRH once they married. I've seen it stated in articles about the abdication that George VI went through with this creation of a totally unnecessary HRH simply because in so doing he could refuse to grant the Duchess an HRH, whereas if he'd acknowledged the existing HRH status, he'd have had to specifically draw up letters patent to deny the Duchess the HRH.

That is my understanding of the situation.

branchg · #88 08-15-2006, 01:14 PM

The 1937 Letters Patent did not change The Duke's status or confer HRH on him. He was already HRH by right of his status as a son of the sovereign. What it did was specifically limit the rank to him alone while denying his wife and children the right to share it.

BeatrixFan · #89 08-15-2006, 01:18 PM

Which was illegal and actually was almosy giving carte blanche to morganatic marriage thus denying Wallis her HRH.

branchg · #90 08-15-2006, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Which was illegal and actually was almosy giving carte blanche to morganatic marriage thus denying Wallis her HRH.

It wasn't "illegal" because the Sovereign alone has the right to confer or withhold any rank, title or style as fount of honour. However, it certainly was a slap in the face to Wallis.

The morganatic issue is moot because they were married by civil ceremony in France, were not members of the royal family and lived in exile anyway.

BeatrixFan · #91 08-15-2006, 05:27 PM

David was still a member of the Royal Family surely? I still say it was illegal and that poor woman was denied that style of HRH. It was just viscious, not that it's my place to judge the Queen's father but I still think it was a wrong decision.

**Elspeth** · #92 08-15-2006, 07:46 PM

They weren't married by civil ceremony, they were married by a Church of England clergyman. The Duke was a British citizen; as long as his marriage was legal in Britain, and the King, Prime Minister, and Archbishop of Canterbury didn't dispute that, it fell under British law, and British law doesn't recognise morganatic marriage.

branchg · #93 08-15-2006, 08:04 PM

It probably made sense in 1937 with the incredible shock of the Abdication, but the vendetta should have ended by the 1960's. The Queen wasn't going to force her mother into an uncomfortable position over something she probably had mixed feelings about herself.

branchg · #94 08-15-2006, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

British law doesn't recognise morganatic marriage.

Well, it did in 1937 and there is no constitutional law on the subject, so I guess morganatic marriage exists if the Government advises the Crown to issue letters patent stating a wife cannot share her husband's royal rank. Once that happens, it becomes law.

**Elspeth** · #95 08-16-2006, 12:06 AM

Morganatic marriage was one of the alternatives suggested by the King for Parliament to consider, as an alternative to abdication. According to biographies of Edward VIII, the morganatic marriage proposal was a non-starter because, unlike some parts of Europe (at least in the 19th century), morganatic marriage wasn't part of British law. When a peer or a royal married, his wife took his rank even if she hadn't been an aristocrat herself, regardless of whether the marriage was a civil one or a religious one.

branchg · #96 08-16-2006, 08:38 AM

It was a tricky question because the Crown is above the law and legally there was nothing to stop Edward VIII from marrying Wallis. As the fount of honour and source of all enoblement, the Sovereign cannot be a peer, therefore, the wife of the King is automatically Queen Consort and nothing else.

The question of a morganatic marriage was never seriously considered by Baldwin or the Cabinet because the Government was opposed to Wallis becoming Edward's consort, regardless of her title or rank. While it's true there were no precedents constitutionally, that doesn't mean it couldn't happen if Parliament and the Dominions accepted it. They did not.