The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #181  
Old 12-21-2015, 05:44 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
It is very well possible that the Prince of Wales had deep but platonic friendships, precisely because he was the Prince of Wales and always and ever had the prying eyes of his parents and their spies (the Household) in his back. I can not believe the Prince of Wales lying between the legs of Lady A and the Lady B. He never had the reputation of a womanizer and was a far cry from his grandfather King Edward VII, in that aspect.
Edward VII did not have as many women as people are lead to believe.

Relationships with married women was deemed more suitable than with single women. A single woman's reputation could tarnish her chances of a suitable marriage. An illegitimate child would destroy a woman's life, whereas a married woman could pass the child as her husband's.

Edward VIII had a difficult relationship with both of his parents from the time he was a child.

When the war broke out Edward wanted to join but was forbidden.
He was extremely embarrassed when he was forced to present medals to the men that had actually served in the war.

His relationship with his father deteriorated because of this. Edward was sent to America where he was warmly received and where he enjoyed his time with the Americans.

IMO, Edward's choice of women was both because of the practice of having married women as intimates and Edward deliberately choosing the women that would upset his parents the most.

Wallis was a twice divorce American.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 12-21-2015, 11:51 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
It is very well possible that the Prince of Wales had deep but platonic friendships, precisely because he was the Prince of Wales and always and ever had the prying eyes of his parents and their spies (the Household) in his back. I can not believe the Prince of Wales lying between the legs of Lady A and the Lady B. He never had the reputation of a womanizer and was a far cry from his grandfather King Edward VII, in that aspect.

Edward VIII has a reputation of having been a womanizer, and it's not hard to believe that he was engaged in relations with Ladies A and B.

More famous affairs include that of Parisian courtesan Marguerite Alibert, Freda Dudley Ward (wife of William Dudley Ward), Lady Furness (wife of the Viscount Furness), and of course Wallis.

I've seen a few different suggestions as to why neither Wallis nor Edward had children (with each other or other lovers).

One is that the mumps Edward had as a teen made him infertile, which is a possibility. I've also seen it suggested that Edward didn't (or couldn't) engage in forms of intercourse that would lead to procreation (this was in Anne Sebba's biography of him). For Wallis it has been suggested that she may have had an abortion in China during the 20s (or thereabouts), which left her unable to have children. Or that she was actually a hermaphrodite, and therefore unable to conceive.

That's all just pure speculation of course. It's known fact that Wallis married 3 times and that Edward had a number of lovers prior to his marriage (I've also seen it said that Wallis had lovers other than her husbands as well), but any explanation as to why neither have any acknowledged children (and in Wallis' case it's probably safe to assume she had no children at all), is pure speculation. I tend to think it's likely that neither wanted children (or at least not with the partners they were with when children were likely), and used some form of birth control (which would have been available).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 12-21-2015, 11:57 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,425
I think he would've went on to do the job, with Wallis by his side.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 12-22-2015, 12:56 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,193
According to letters that are still extant, in the very early 1920's Freda Dudley Ward thought for a short while that she was pregnant and Edward was very excited at the prospect.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 01-21-2016, 09:12 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,005
I think he would have continued, had there been a more liberal cabinet, with Wallis as Princess Consort and with no children (if they had any) in the line of succession. Then QEII would have been Queen today anyway, although not from 1952.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 01-21-2016, 09:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard View Post
I think he would have continued, had there been a more liberal cabinet, with Wallis as Princess Consort and with no children (if they had any) in the line of succession. Then QEII would have been Queen today anyway, although not from 1952.
Yes, I agree that Elizabeth II would still have been monarch today. However, the question of a King wanting to marry a twice-divorced woman would raise eyebrows even today and the question went far beyond whether the Cabinet was liberal or not.

Social mores were very different in the 1930's and the British public (when they found out) were not impressed. Besides British public opinion the Prime Ministers of the realms in the Empire were consulted. From memory none of them wanted a Queen Wallis. Since the War the opinions of Canada, New Zealand, Australia etc had become important, in a crisis of this magnitude especially so.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 04-23-2016, 04:01 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 3,415
If Edward died on the same time line, Elizabeth would have been queen in 1974, celebrating her 42nd anniversary on the throne this year. She would have had four children at her coronation. Her children would have been Charles 26, Anne 24, Andrew 14 and Edward 10. All of her grandchildren would still have had Granny the queen, Peter born 3 years later.

The royal Dukes would have changed at the coronation. The current Duke of Gloucester would have been Duke at the time likely (his father died six months after Edward).

Watching the tribute, with Charles and Anne at the coronation so small and playing with their mother's train, it's hard to imagine her coronation being years later. Even Edward would have been too old for that mischief. Watching the home videos, I am sure the queen would have loved more time. She had many years of her childhood with her parents as Duke and Duchess, spending holidays with her grandparents in Scotland (maternal). Even Charles got very little of his mother pre-queen, anne as well, the other two were born to a queen.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 04-23-2016, 04:22 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
If Edward died on the same time line, Elizabeth would have been queen in 1974, celebrating her 42nd anniversary on the throne this year. She would have had four children at her coronation. Her children would have been Charles 26, Anne 24, Andrew 14 and Edward 10. All of her grandchildren would still have had Granny the queen, Peter born 3 years later.



The royal Dukes would have changed at the coronation. The current Duke of Gloucester would have been Duke at the time likely (his father died six months after Edward).



Watching the tribute, with Charles and Anne at the coronation so small and playing with their mother's train, it's hard to imagine her coronation being years later. Even Edward would have been too old for that mischief. Watching the home videos, I am sure the queen would have loved more time. She had many years of her childhood with her parents as Duke and Duchess, spending holidays with her grandparents in Scotland (maternal). Even Charles got very little of his mother pre-queen, anne as well, the other two were born to a queen.

If the Queen isn't Queen until 1974, there probably wouldn't be such a large gap between Anne and Andrew. Her becoming Queen in 1952 played a big part in why there is a 10 year age difference between Anne and Andrew. Any additional children after Anne are probably born sooner than when Andrew and Edward are in 1960 & 1964.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 04-23-2016, 11:50 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,872
If Edward VIII had remained King and was sovereign in the 1950s, might Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip have had more children during the 50s? Princess Anne was born in 1950 with no other brothers or sisters born in the decade of the 50s.
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 04-24-2016, 12:11 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
I suspect that is so, since becoming Queen so suddenly, and so young, placed demands on her time that would not have meshed well with being pregnant and giving birth and raising young children.

Elizabeth was a young woman of her time, with a not particularly independent nature, who was used to doing what she was told by men, and was pressured by the older men who surrounded her who no doubt metaphorically patted her on the back and told her to be a good girl and do what was expected of her, which meant performing as monarch in the way her father had, and not revealing any feminine "weaknesses". She could not be seen to give priority to family. I don't fully understand why, since what would they do? Replace her? I don't think that was really likely to happen; they just wanted to keep the little woman in her place. As she grew into the job, she took some power back for herself.

That's my assessment, anyway.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 05-09-2016, 04:45 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,930
Please note that a number of posts and responses have been deleted as they were off-topic. This thread is to discuss theoretically who would been monarch today had Edward VIII not abdicated. It is not for promoting speculative publications or to speculate on the mental or physical health of members of the Royal Family.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 05-09-2016, 10:39 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,872
If Edward VIII had been the monarch until 1974 and his brother Prince Albert The Duke of York would have been living, he, Albert, would have been the King. However, do you think he, Albert, would have reigned with the name of George VI?
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 05-09-2016, 11:01 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,193
Yes I think so. He was christened Albert Frederick Arthur George, and none of Bertie's other names had ever been used by any (non mythic) English or British kings. In theory British monarchs can choose any regnal name they like (within reason) but Bertie was very much a traditionalist and if he had succeeded his brother in 1972 I'm sure he would still have been King George.

Strange to think that if Bertie had remained in good health Charles and his siblings would probably have led a much more private life up to the 1970's as children of the heir to the heir to the throne than did in fact happen.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 05-09-2016, 11:30 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
I disagree. There really isn't a trend of British monarchs having chosen a name other than their given name as the name they reigned under, nor even the consorts, particularly if they were already known by their given name in the public.

Edward VII changed his name despite being known as Albert Edward publicly (and Bertie in private) before hand, but I think that was more due to his relationship than anything else. Queens Victoria and Mary both went by their second names as Queens (both using their second names), but Victoria had long used her second name, and Mary (who had gone by the double barrelled Victoria Mary) had been told she needed to drop a name and didn't want to use her husband's grandmother's name.

The first two George's I believe had double barrelled names, dropping their second names when they came onto the throne.

And there was a Robert of Scotland (I can't remember if it was II or III) who was born John but deliberately changed his name to emphasize a link with Robert the Bruce instead of John Balliol.

But other than that, there really weren't any other British monarchs who reigned under a name other than their given name. Which is big - there's some 85 English/Scottish/British monarchs since William the First and Kenneth MacAlpin. And of the English and British monarchs, the only one to be born heir apparent was Edward I (who may be a First, but who wasn't the first English monarch so named). I think similar can be said of the Scottish monarchs once they started using primogeniture, but they didn't use primogeniture for the first 200 years or so.
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 05-10-2016, 12:00 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,193
The main reason for that is though that in Britain medieval and later Kings right down to the 18th century weren't usually given a string of names, just one, by which they were known.

So you think Bertie would have reigned as King Albert I, even though he was a traditionalist to his backbone? Edward VII didn't reign as King Albert Edward and it has been said that George of York refused to rename himself Albert at his grandmother's request.

The only reason Bertie was named Albert was because he was born on the anniversary of the Prince Consort's death, and his parents wanted to appease Queen Victoria, as they thought she might be upset that he had the temerity to do so. There's some evidence that King George V grew weary of the dynastic requirement laid down by Victoria that all male descendants should have Albert in their names and all female ones Victoria.

Bertie was close to his father and I think that he would have wished to honour him. Albert wasn't really an English name. It became popular because of the Prince Consort, a man Bertie had never met. George was a Hanovarian name, it's true, but it also reaches right back into English history and myth, with the tale of St George and the Dragon, the national Saint.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 05-10-2016, 12:17 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
I do think he would have reigned as Albert I under different circumstances. It's not an issue of tradition. There is no tradition of changing your name to use an existing one, not in British culture (it would be different if we were taking about Danish royals; had Bertie been in line to the Danish throne I'm certain he would have gone with Christian or Frederick).

Bertie may have gotten the name Albert because of his birthday, but it was still his name up until he became King - it was the name he was known publicly by, and it was the name that his nickname came from. The reason he chose to rule as George wasn't because of tradition - there was no tradition of British monarchs ruling under different names - or specifically honour his father (who he didn't have the best relationship with), but to soothe the public in a period of crisis.

There wouldn't have been reason for Bertie to change his name had he come to the throne under other circumstances. There wasn't a long standing tradition of British monarchs being George, or alternating between Georges and Edwards, nor a tradition of taking a different name upon coming to the throne, nor was he known by the public by any other name (and what he was known by privately was a nickname based on his first name). Nor was there even really negative connotations with his first name - sure it didn't have the most English of origins, but it was a popular name in Britain following Victoria and Albert's marriage (even today, it's the 84th most popular name in the UK).
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 05-10-2016, 01:01 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,193
Victoria was Alexandrina Victoria though, wasn't she, and was known as Drina as a child to her family. She chose to drop the Alexandrina as Queen because it really wasn't English. Albert too had the first name of Franz, which he never used, so there was a tradition in the royal family of dropping certain names.

The future King Edward VII was known as 'Bertie' to his family and as 'Prince Bertie' in London Society for most of his life. It didn't stop him from dropping the Albert when he came to the throne, and that wasn't in a time of crisis.

Prince Bertie of York was somewhat afraid of his father as all King George V's sons were, but the relationship between his father and himself was 110% better than his brother Edward had. King George recognised Bertie's better qualities as he matured as well, paid him compliments and hoped that he would inherit the throne.

Albert may be a popular name but so is George, and even before Prince George's birth this was so. There is a tradition in England however of a few names predominating over the centuries, Henries, Edwards, Georges, and I believe that Bertie would have decided to honour his father and his Hanovarian heritage had he come to the throne.

Let's not forget that Albert was very much the second son for much of his life. Had his parents had the gift of seeing into the future then no doubt he would would have been christened Albert George instead of having the George tacked on to the end. Then, like his grandfather, he would quietly have dropped the Albert, as Edward did.

I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I just can't see Bertie planning to reign as Albert I, at any age or in any circumstances.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 05-10-2016, 03:03 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 3,415
Victoria didn't chose to reign as Victoria because Alexandrina was not English. Neither name was in fact, and that was intentional. Her Uncle the regent refused to allow the baby to have any traditional British royal names, vetoing any of the ones common in their family. He was the one who chose Alexandrine for her, in honor of her godfather Tsar Alexander. Victoria's parents always called her Victoria, and it was her preferred name, no surprise she chose to use it. Victoria was no more a British name, coming to the Uk through her German mother. Alexandrine in fairness had more British routes, at least in Scotland.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 05-10-2016, 10:57 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
The main reason for that is though that in Britain medieval and later Kings right down to the 18th century weren't usually given a string of names, just one, by which they were known.

So you think Bertie would have reigned as King Albert I, even though he was a traditionalist to his backbone? Edward VII didn't reign as King Albert Edward and it has been said that George of York refused to rename himself Albert at his grandmother's request.
In what year did Queen Victoria request that Prince George of York rename himself Albert?
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 05-10-2016, 11:38 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,193
Don't know. Knowledge of it comes through a story of Jimmy Thomas, a Minister in the Ramsay Macdonald government of the 1920's. Thomas was a Labour man, born in poor circumstances, but he became a great friend of King George V's. He would tell the King dirty jokes which King George, as a bluff ex navy man, enjoyed. He and the King enjoyed their chats and this story of Victoria trying to persuade her grandson to change his name (presumably to Albert) is one Thomas later told.

It's known that Victoria wasn't happy with the name 'George' for a British prince. She protested when the Prince of Wales informed her of his son's names that it had only come in with the Hanovarians.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abdication, duchess of windsor, duke of edinburgh, duke of windsor, edward viii, line of succession, princess elizabeth, styles and titles, titles, wallis simpson


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Difference Between Regent and Monarch? Melania Royalty Past, Present, and Future 14 10-09-2016 08:06 AM
Best future European monarch The Watcher Royal Chit Chat 83 08-27-2013 07:30 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll fox news grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander marriage member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel 2016 nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles prince constantijn princess eugenie eveningwear princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania revolution royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:40 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises