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

[Lady Marmalade]

I think Wallis knew exactly what she was getting into. I am sure she loved David, but the proof is in the pudding.

For all the damage and scandal at that time she deserved NOT to be called HRH.

[BeatrixFan]

Are any of the Royal Family ever deserving of the style of HRH? That's what makes you a monarchist or a republican I guess.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade

I think Wallis knew exactly what she was getting into. I am sure she loved David, but the proof is in the pudding.

For all the damage and scandal at that time she deserved NOT to be called HRH.

I don't think she loved him at the time of the Abdication. If anything, I think she was flattered by his attention, but would have been happy to move on with her life. Once he abdicated, she had no choice but to see it through.

Given the shock and dismay of a former king marrying a twice-divorced woman at the time, I don't think George VI had much choice but to deny her royal rank. But by the 1960's, The Queen should have rectified the matter.

[Zonk]

And admit that her father was wrong...that wouldn't have happened.

Both the Duke and Duchess were victims of their times. I am sure there was enough blame (Queen Mother, Queen Mary and the DUke and Duchess). As someone mentioned before..times were different. Heck if you were divorced, you were sure to lose all connections and people treated you as a pariah! Can you imagine someone who was married and divorced twice marrying into the Royal Family. Based on her track record...I am sure they thought she was going to do the same thing to David. As I recall reading somewhere...no one wanted a thrice divorced HRH running around the continent.

[Avareenah]

Originally Posted by branchg

Given the shock and dismay of a former king marrying a twice-divorced woman at the time, I don't think George VI had much choice but to deny her royal rank. But by the 1960's, The Queen should have rectified the matter.

Regardless of the Queen's personal opinion on this, she would never have rectified this when Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, was alive. Obviously after she died in 2002, it was too late...

[Lady Marmalade]

Originally Posted by branchg

I don't think she loved him at the time of the Abdication. If anything, I think she was flattered by his attention, but would have been happy to move on with her life. Once he abdicated, she had no choice but to see it through.

Given the shock and dismay of a former king marrying a twice-divorced woman at the time, I don't think George VI had much choice but to deny her royal rank. But by the 1960's, The Queen should have rectified the matter.

I think she loved him but was not in love with him. I think maybe she was in love with the idea of being queen perhaps..the trappings of royalty.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Zonk

And admit that her father was wrong...that wouldn't have happened.

Most accounts have stated The Queen was willing to grant the style by 1967, but her mother remained adamantly opposed. She wasn't going to force The Queen Mother into an uncomfortable position.

[Zonk]

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade

I think she loved him but was not in love with him. I think maybe she was in love with the idea of being queen perhaps..the trappings of royalty.

I must disagree with that assessment. I think she thought about being queen (before the abdication) for a QUICK SECOND....she would have perferred to remain the mistress. The power behind the throne. Let's face it...she had the ear of the King, the jewelery, a majority of London society accepted her as such (King's mistress) why marry him and have to deal with all the drama. The endless obligations, the ceremonies, etc.

Based upon what I read..and some of it hasn't been exactly favorable to her..I will admit that. She was pretty shocked that he was going to give it up...I think he made that decision without really talking to her about it.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade

maybe she was in love with the idea of being queen perhaps..the trappings of royalty.

I'm not sure of that. I would have thought Wallis to have been well aware that if she were to marry david, she would not be Queen. The prospect of her attaining that role was always (as far as I can tell) in the red.

And with no offence intended to our American members at all I highly doubt the idea of an American born Queen Consort (divorced or otherwise) to have gone down terribly well with the British public. Infact, I still largely feel that would be the case now.

[Elspeth]

I remember reading a quote from a politician who said something along the lines that the upper classes didn't mind that she was divorced but minded that she was American whereas the working classes didn't mind that she was American but minded dreadfully that she was divorced.

Times really have changed.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I remember reading a quote from a politician who said something along the lines that the upper classes didn't mind that she was divorced but minded that she was American whereas the working classes didn't mind that she was American but minded dreadfully that she was divorced.

Times really have changed.

hehe...you have to love the British.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

hehe...you have to love the British.

Ah! But thats what makes the British ... well British!

Unfortunately I don't think that David or Wallis factored that into their lives, as they were seen to be somewhat trendy movers and shakers. And the British people ... they just stand firm!

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Times really have changed.

I don't think times changed so much till the day the duchess died. While nowadays Camilla received her HRH-style and Charles could stay first-in-line, Camilla still doesn't feel it is appropriate to call herself The Princess of Wales.
It's still the same way of thinking, IMHO, that led to Camilla's decision not to use the "Princess of Wales"-title and the unwillingness of the monarch to grant Wallis the HRH.

It may or may not be a perception of how the queen sees the situation but it IMHO has to do with the establishment views the role of the monarchy and the Royal family within the British society.

Wallis brought enormous upheaval to a Royal family that had only 19 years before changed the family name formally because of the public perception of Britishness and German ancestry. 19 years is not such a long time for a Royal family. I don't think we, as commoners of today, can imagine what it meant for the Hanovers to change their name. The Hanovers (Welf family) are the oldest noble family of Europe! They can trace back their male line to the very beginning of the Holy Roman empire of Germany - it's as if they could trace back their ancestry to a German version of king Arthur himself. That they acquired Britain through marriage with a Stuart-heiress didn't count much, I guess and that they lost their male-line possessions in Hanover through the same laws about female inheritance (queen Victoria and her uncle, the duke of Cumberland) didn't matter much, either. Albert's Saxon blood is as well of the oldest nobility traceable in Europe - these families along with the Habsburg formed and reigned the center of Europe for a millenium and more.

And now they had to change their name and thus their identity. To give up their European roots to prove they are British. They chose the name of Windsor. Does anyone think it's a coincidence that David got the title of the "duke of Windsor"? I cannot remember exactly how it came to this choice of title but IMHO the name alone has a significance. Maybe it was a signal for all to see that even if Edward was not longer king, he still was the senior male line personage of the Windsor-family. Not just a Royal Duke but as the eldest brother of the king he was "The duke of Windsor".

I can imagine this could have played a role when it comes to the choice of title. But Wallis? As wife of the duke of Windsor, she surely was his duchess. But she was not accepted as wife of the senior Windsor by the family. The Hanoverans as well as the Saxes had a long tradition of granting only minor titles and styles to the wifes they considered morganatic. Why should this have changed only because the Hanoverans/Saxes became the Windsors. So Wallis was "Her Grace" and that was that.

I don't think the queen ever intended to grant her a HRH when this would have been a signal that David and Wallis has still existed on an offcial level where Britian and the Royal House was concerned. I believe after his abdication Edward ceased to be considered a member of the "Royal" family, he only stayed a part of the family which by chance reigned Britain. Which is a great difference, IMHO. Okay, he still had a right to certain privileges as he was a descendant of the electress Sophia but these privileges did not include the woman for whom he had left his position as most senior member of the Royal family.

If I had been Wallis, I'd accepted that out of respect for the Hanoveran/Saxe's historic background. I'd have been glad to be able to share the life of my husband and the same name. IMHO Edward was spoilt and believed so much in his own superiority that he couldn't understand that privileges can be lost if you don't behave according to the rules of the society that award these privileges to you - and that he taught Wallis to think the same. When IMHO it was right that she shouldn't have been a HRH as this would have endangered the standing and perception of the Royal family.

[Avalon]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

I don't think times changed so much till the day the duchess died. While nowadays Camilla received her HRH-style and Charles could stay first-in-line, Camilla still doesn't feel it is appropriate to call herself The Princess of Wales.
It's still the same way of thinking, IMHO, that led to Camilla's decision not to use the "Princess of Wales"-title and the unwillingness of the monarch to grant Wallis the HRH.

I don't think that is the case, Jo. Camilla doesn't use the title "The Princess of Wales" of respect to the first wife of The Prince of Wales and mother of his children, not because she doesn't feel it is appropirate. Camilla certainly deserves and has that title.
In case of Wallis, she simply did not have that title, so she could not use it. If she did have it, I assume she would use it without feeling it is inappropirate.
Times have changed.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by MARG

Ah! But thats what makes the British ... well British!

Unfortunately I don't think that David or Wallis factored that into their lives, as they were seen to be somewhat trendy movers and shakers. And the British people ... they just stand firm!

I agree Marg

Gotta love the (us) Brits.lol.

[iowabelle]

Originally Posted by Queen Marie

Are there any portraits of the Duchess of Windsor out there?
I've always thought she was a great beauty, but there just aren't enough pictures of her around.

The Duchess a great beauty? You must be thinking of some other duchess (I always thought she looked like an unattractive transvestite). But the woman had great style. (I once knew a man who knew her when she was married to her first husband, and this lovely gentleman had beautiful things to say about her, so I'm not totally anti-Wallis, I just don't like some of the things she did.)

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

The Duchess a great beauty? You must be thinking of some other duchess (I always thought she looked like an unattractive transvestite). But the woman had great style. (I once knew a man who knew her when she was married to her first husband, and this lovely gentleman had beautiful things to say about her, so I'm not totally anti-Wallis, I just don't like some of the things she did.)

I found this. http://www.nndb.com/people/921/00011...on-1-sized.jpg

Seems she was rather attractive when she was young, but she didn't improve with age.