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
 
  #21  
Old 08-05-2008, 04:12 PM
Odette's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 2,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmpressRouge View Post
Wallis was in her early forties when she married the Duke of Windsor, so it was still possible (though very unlikely) to have a child, age-wise. However, she didn't have any children with any of her other husbands so it was unlikely that she would with the Duke. Speculation has it that she wasn't able to conceive because of a botched abortion in the 1920s. Similar speculation surrounds why Empress Josephine wasn't able to conceive with Napoleon.
I had read I believe in "The woman he loved" that she was unable to have children.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-05-2008, 04:23 PM
Avicenna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North of Lake Constance, Germany
Posts: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowabelle View Post
I was thinking that some of the Diana mania might not have happened if Elizabeth had succeeded in the 1970s. There would have been interest in Elizabeth still in 1981 and Diana might have seemed less intriguing to the public. Too bad, Diana might have found it an easier road.
Plus it might have been a more private life for all of the children of QEII. They probably wouldn't have been so much in the spotlight from early on.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-05-2008, 04:26 PM
Odette's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 2,481
Or she could devote more time to them since she would not have the heavy duty of the Queen to tend to.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-05-2008, 04:43 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Yes, I agree with you, Odette. Or perhaps the Queen might have completed her family earlier in the 1950s, rather than waiting so long to have Andrew and Edward. And the Duke of E. could have continued his naval career as he had hoped. I imagine that would have contributed to greater stability in that marriage. (And we wouldn't have had the DoE's comment about being a "bloody amoeba.")
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-05-2008, 07:01 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
I think that 'stability' is the one thing the marriage of EIIR and the DoE is not lacking. Hello.. 60th anniversary last year?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-05-2008, 07:12 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Well, there were rumours of rifts in the marriage back in the 1950s and early 1960s, I assume at least partly because the Queen had such a high profile. But she would have been heir presumptive from the time of her father's death (assuming he died before his elder brother, which might not have been the case had he not had to endure the pressures of being head of state during World War II), so she would always have been of interest to the media.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-05-2008, 08:00 PM
EmpressRouge's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,294
Philip is a real "man's man." Likes to be in control, dominant which was not really possible once Elizabeth became sovereign and him consort. He's kind of the opposite of Charles who is much more comfortable around female friends. Elizabeth let Philip make all decisions regarding children's education to "compensate" for his inability to have a career/official role as consort.
Then again, if Edward VIII had continued to rule, Elizabeth might not have had a throne to inherit. Given Edward's pro-German tendencies and Wallis's pro-Nazi sympathies, I cannot imagine what Britain might look like if Edward VIII had been king and fully cooperated with Hitler.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-05-2008, 08:26 PM
Avicenna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North of Lake Constance, Germany
Posts: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmpressRouge View Post
Then again, if Edward VIII had continued to rule, Elizabeth might not have had a throne to inherit. Given Edward's pro-German tendencies and Wallis's pro-Nazi sympathies, I cannot imagine what Britain might look like if Edward VIII had been king and fully cooperated with Hitler.
Excellent point to be raised. Worth to think about it.

Though I do not think Hitler would have made it even in case of a British cooperation. His goal was from the very beginning the Lebensraum in the East, namely Russia. And similar to Napoleon, I believe he would have failed. It helped Stalin of course that the Japanese were not attacking Siberia. Consequently he could transfer some of the forces stationed there to the European part of Russia. Big advantage for the Russian leader.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-05-2008, 08:34 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiromaso View Post
If Edward VIII didn't marry a non-Anglican in 1936 and stayed on his throne till 1972 (when he died), who would be the UK monarch today assuming nothing else change other than the fact that he didn't abdicate?
I dont believe being non anglican was the sticking point about Wallis, rather the divorced issue. However, this is a moot point as far as this premise. Whether non anglican or non divorced, I assume that your point is if he had not married Wallis. It's quite possible he would have married another lady and had children, rendering the current BRF HRH duke and duchess of X. ALthough I have read that Edward as POW had had mumps, which could have rendered him sterile. But, unless I am having a senior moment, I believe that the then Duke of York contracted the mumps at the same time, and he managed to sire 2 daughters.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-05-2008, 09:57 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Looks like a few things need to be corrected...

Quote:
assuming he died before his elder brother, which might not have been the case had he not had to endure the pressures of being head of state during World War II
He died of lung cancer due to smoking. While it is potentially (though baselessly) arguable that he may have smoked more during WWII, he still would have predeceased Edward.

Quote:
Then again, if Edward VIII had continued to rule, Elizabeth might not have had a throne to inherit. Given Edward's pro-German tendencies and Wallis's pro-Nazi sympathies, I cannot imagine what Britain might look like if Edward VIII had been king and fully cooperated with Hitler.
"The monarch reigns but does not rule." To put it another way, the monarch lends their power to the government of the day to use as it rules the country. Churchill would never have even appeased Hitler, much less cooperated. Hitler's goal was to rule as much of the world as he could get his hands on--this included the UK.

Quote:
I dont believe being non anglican was the sticking point about Wallis, rather the divorced issue.
Bingo. Not just divorced, but not exactly, how shall I put this? Not quite a lady. Also American.

Quote:
I assume that your point is if he had not married Wallis. It's quite possible he would have married another lady and had children, rendering the current BRF HRH duke and duchess of X
Highly unlikely. The man gave up a throne to be with her. For the sake of argument, though, if he had had children with another woman, EIIR would still currently be Duchess of Edinburgh, Charles would be Earl Merioneth, etc.

Quote:
But, unless I am having a senior moment, I believe that the then Duke of York contracted the mumps at the same time, and he managed to sire 2 daughters.
It's the age at which you contract mumps that is the issue. If memory serves, it's when it's right at the beginning of puberty that sterility can result.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-05-2008, 10:19 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Looks like a few things need to be corrected...



He died of lung cancer due to smoking. While it is potentially (though baselessly) arguable that he may have smoked more during WWII, he still would have predeceased Edward.
Not necessarily. They both smoked, they both died of smoking-related cancers, but a very significant difference was that the Duke of Windsor led a far more stress-free life than George VI. It's quite possible that George VI would have lived a decade or two longer if he'd had the easy life that the Duke of Windsor had, and it's quite possible that the Duke of Windsor would have lived a shorter life if he'd had the stresses of kingship to contend with. Since we don't know one way or the other, this isn't a factual matter that requires correction, Mr. Know-it-all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-05-2008, 10:34 PM
Empress's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 3,123
Quote:
I assume that your point is if he had not married Wallis. It's quite possible he would have married another lady and had children, rendering the current BRF HRH duke and duchess of X Highly unlikely.
Quote:
The man gave up a throne to be with her. For the sake of argument, though, if he had had children with another woman, EIIR would still currently be Duchess of Edinburgh, Charles would be Earl Merioneth, etc.
Not likely, given that the Duke of Edinburgh was created because he married the future Queen. If he were to marry just the daughter of a royal prince, as Elizabeth would have been if her uncle had not abdicated, it is unlikely that Philip would have given up his title of Prince of Greece and Denmark, and Elizabeth would now be Princess Philip of Greece and Denmark, and perhaps some other title that her uncle MIGHT have granted. As it stands Philip was only created the Duke of Edinburgh because at that time he no longer had a title of his own, and to marry the future Queen, he needed a preferably British title.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-05-2008, 11:52 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmpressRouge View Post
Then again, if Edward VIII had continued to rule, Elizabeth might not have had a throne to inherit. Given Edward's pro-German tendencies and Wallis's pro-Nazi sympathies, I cannot imagine what Britain might look like if Edward VIII had been king and fully cooperated with Hitler.
I wonder if those pro-German tendencies might have been less pronounced in a reigning Edward VIII. I think it's a possibility that some of it was just defiance towards the government that wouldn't let him reign. Although, it's not like George VI and Elizabeth were exactly bastions of anti-Nazi fervor before 1939 (when, of course, they had to become so if they weren't, at least publicly).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-06-2008, 12:03 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Since we don't know one way or the other, this isn't a factual matter that requires correction, Mr. Know-it-all.
I thought insults weren't allowed here?

Hmm, I guess it's okay when an admin does it!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-06-2008, 12:05 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Although, it's not like George VI and Elizabeth were exactly bastions of anti-Nazi fervor before 1939 (when, of course, they had to become so if they weren't, at least publicly).
Well, except for things like calling Philip "the Hun" and quotes like "Germans, don't ever trust them".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-06-2008, 12:07 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,235
That was after the war.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-06-2008, 02:43 AM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
I think one of the main objections to Edward marrying Wallis (I am saying one of them) was the fact that when he first approached his Prime Minister and others with the idea of marrying Wallis was that at that very time she was still married to Mr Simpson.
It may not be seen as anything special in these times but it was considered very bad behaviour back then. Wallis was ambitious, she had Edward under a steel thumb without him really noticing, she didn´t have any real idea of what being a King meant and she was one who should have been corrected and had the difference between reign and rule explained to her.
If he had stayed, what would HM be? A very happy country gentlewoman with lots of horses and dogs as she told her governess very early on.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-06-2008, 04:45 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
I thought insults weren't allowed here?

Hmm, I guess it's okay when an admin does it!


You were not insulted. However, when you make a post that appears to some to be condescending, you should expect someone to make a comment about that. Admin included.


I don't think any of the admin here would knowingly break one of their own rules, seeing as it would be hypocritical of them to do so, all the while warning others for doing the same. Unlike other forums I belong to, the admin/moderators here don't play like that. For that I'm grateful, and you should be too.


/end off-topic
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-06-2008, 09:50 AM
Jeniann's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Virginia Beach, United States
Posts: 57
I think Elizabeth II would still be Queen. Wallis couldn't have children and I don't think Edward would've married and had kids with someone else as long as he was still in love with her. Only if she ran off with Guy Trundle or her car crashed into a tunnel in Paris or something, maybe then he might get involved with another woman, but as someone said before he may not have been able to have kids either. Besides, it always seemed to me he wasn't interested in suitable virgins of marriageable age, not his type really so there may have been another Wallis later on.
__________________
What's the worst that I can say?
Things are better if I stay.
So long and goodnight.
So long and goodnight...
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-06-2008, 11:54 AM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeniann View Post
I think Elizabeth II would still be Queen. Wallis couldn't have children and I don't think Edward would've married and had kids with someone else as long as he was still in love with her. Only if she ran off with Guy Trundle or her car crashed into a tunnel in Paris or something, maybe then he might get involved with another woman, but as someone said before he may not have been able to have kids either. Besides, it always seemed to me he wasn't interested in suitable virgins of marriageable age, not his type really so there may have been another Wallis later on.
Another Wallis ?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abdication, duchess of windsor, duke of windsor, edward viii, line of succession, styles and 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
Best future European monarch The Watcher Royal Chit Chat 83 08-27-2013 06:30 PM
What is the difference between a Regent and a Monarch? Melania Royalty Past, Present, and Future 10 01-01-2012 03:26 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman picture of the month poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:32 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]