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
 
  #61  
Old 08-09-2008, 05:43 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
Here is something interesting through. Round about 1967 the legal firm where my uncle was working in London was requested by Buckingham Palace to look into the legal implications of a divorce between the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, especially in regard to where the children go. So even if they weren't thinking about it, someone at Buckingham Palace was crossing their t and dotting their I.
In 1967 the marriage of Princess Margaret had seriously hit the rocks, according to biographies. If she contemplated divorce back then (she finally divorced in 1978), it could have been the case that Buckingham Palace looked into the problems of a divorce of a marriage legalized under the Royal Marriages Act. Probably they were not sure if a new Act was required dealing with a divorce. Of course in that case all avenues would be checked before any new Act could become law, including the divorce of the monarch. IMHO, of course.
__________________

__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-03-2008, 04:55 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,718
I'm wandering off on a tangent here, but this seems to be the most appropriate place to post a bit of trivia I think gives an interesting insight into the Australian mindset at the time of The Abdication.

Our local paper reports today that two of five fig trees planted by local schoolchildren in 1935 to commemorate the Silver Jubilee of George V have been cut down because they were in a dangerous condition due to disease. The two remaining trees are healthy. Why are only two left? Well........each tree was planted in honour of a Royal visit to Australia. The one planted in honour of the 1920 visit of the Prince of Wales (as he then was) was removed in 1936 following the abdication!!! The locals obviously had strong feelings about the subject.

__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-03-2008, 07:36 AM
chaz's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: sherman texas, United States
Posts: 266
I believe(may be wrong) Edward was childless. If so wouldnt it still be ElizabethII? Chaz
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-03-2008, 01:15 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
Yes, assuming he still married Wallis, remained king and childless, Elizabeth II would still have become queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-07-2008, 10:13 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I'm wandering off on a tangent here, but this seems to be the most appropriate place to post a bit of trivia I think gives an interesting insight into the Australian mindset at the time of The Abdication.

Our local paper reports today that two of five fig trees planted by local schoolchildren in 1935 to commemorate the Silver Jubilee of George V have been cut down because they were in a dangerous condition due to disease. The two remaining trees are healthy. Why are only two left? Well........each tree was planted in honour of a Royal visit to Australia. The one planted in honour of the 1920 visit of the Prince of Wales (as he then was) was removed in 1936 following the abdication!!! The locals obviously had strong feelings about the subject.

That's pretty sad; it wasn't the tree's fault. That's a bit like British people going around kicking dachshunds during the war.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-08-2008, 03:22 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
That's pretty sad; it wasn't the tree's fault. That's a bit like British people going around kicking dachshunds during the war.

Aussies did that as well, and changed place names etc.

My grandmother actually meet the Duke on his 1920 trip and helped him plant a tree as she was the youngest child at the school to lose a father in the Great War. She was just 7 when her father died and no one else at her school was younger than that when, or if, their father was killed.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-08-2008, 08:48 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,423
My grandmother had a souvenir book of the Prince of Wales's 1920 visit to Australia. I remember being surprised at the pictures of the huge and adoring crowds he attracted; he was very much the "Prince Superstar" of his time as Diana was the "Princess Superstar" of hers.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-09-2008, 08:07 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: london, United Kingdom
Posts: 5
If Edward VIII had remained as king, it means Wallis Simpson would have to have been given up. He probably would have married and had children and maybe kept Wallis as a mistress - much more acceptable than marrying her. The queen would probably have married some horsey aristocrat like herself, as Prince Philip and his uncle would not have been interested in her if she wasnt heiress presumptive. Just my thoughts on the scenario.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-10-2008, 03:27 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: somewhere, Netherlands
Posts: 378
Are you suggesting that Philip married Elisabeth because she was to be the Queen?? Hardly something to be looking forward to for the sort of man Philip is. He has had to play second fiddle all his life, if he didn't love her he would never have done that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-10-2008, 03:32 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,532
The only way that Elizabeth wasn't going to marry Philip was if she never met him. She has clearly only ever loved one man in her life and that is Philip. He is also not so shallow as to have given up his own chance for a fulfilling career to marry a woman he didn't love - he loves her as well.

This is my opinion of course, based on years of reading and watching these two together, including some very telling body language.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-10-2008, 03:34 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by prince nathan View Post
If Edward VIII had remained as king, it means Wallis Simpson would have to have been given up. He probably would have married and had children and maybe kept Wallis as a mistress - much more acceptable than marrying her. The queen would probably have married some horsey aristocrat like herself, as Prince Philip and his uncle would not have been interested in her if she wasnt heiress presumptive. Just my thoughts on the scenario.

I don't think Edward would have married anyone. If he was going to marry to have children he would have done so in his 20s not wait until he was over 49.

He would have kept Wallis as his mistress and simply never married allowing his brother to be his heir, until George VI died.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-10-2008, 11:31 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by prince nathan View Post
If Edward VIII had remained as king, it means Wallis Simpson would have to have been given up. He probably would have married and had children and maybe kept Wallis as a mistress - much more acceptable than marrying her. The queen would probably have married some horsey aristocrat like herself, as Prince Philip and his uncle would not have been interested in her if she wasnt heiress presumptive. Just my thoughts on the scenario.
I doubt Edward would have been willing to give her up for long. More likely, he would have accepted the advice of his supporters, including Churchill, to allow his Coronation to take place first, then slowly pursue the marriage option over time. He was too afraid of losing her, so he refused that course of action.

Philip has always said his relationship with Lord Mountbatten was overstated and exaggerated, while ackowledging that Charles and The Queen were actually closer to Mountbatten than he was. I don't think he married her for any other reason than he recognized her good character and saw a role in providing strength to her future duty as Queen.

The Queen Mother was not enthusiastic about Philip because his family was essentially Teutonic and Russian, an affront to her strong feelings about both because of World War I. She would have preferred Elizabeth marrying a Scottish or English aristocrat.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-14-2008, 05:24 PM
pinkie40's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 423
Had Lord Mountbatten not been such a driving force or nature, I would somehow like to believe HMTQ would have married Lord Porchester. One cannot discount Lord Louis' meddling the Duke of Windsor, HMTQ and Prince Charles. One can endlessly speculate how the last century would have been different if Lord Louis had minded his own affairs.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-14-2008, 05:36 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
I doubt Edward would have been willing to give her up for long. More likely, he would have accepted the advice of his supporters, including Churchill, to allow his Coronation to take place first, then slowly pursue the marriage option over time. He was too afraid of losing her, so he refused that course of action.
He also said that he didn't want to be crowned under false pretences, which is what that would have amounted to. Unfortunately, that sort of honourable behaviour didn't fit the narrative that Baldwin, the Archbishop, and Queen Elizabeth were trying to construct so it doesn't seem to have been emphasised.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-18-2008, 10:46 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 28
I don't think Edward would have married Wallis Simpson if he had not been about to be crowned King.

He knew her "unsuitability" and he been involved in relationships before with married women and obviously marriage wasn't something on his mind.

Regarding the children question, I have read that Wallis was born neither male nor female and the decision was taken to surgically make her a female. She then had female characteristics but did not have a womb or ovaries.

I believe also that Edward thought that the will of the people and his popularity would enable him to marry Mrs Simpson when it became inevitable.

It is interesting to wonder how history would have been altered if Edward had of assumed his birthright. He was a known Nazi sympathizer and in many ways is portrayed as a "weak" individual. You wonder if he could have worked with Churchill and held England together during the blitz.

Sandra
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 06-18-2011, 08:56 PM
IloveCP's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Palm Springs, United States
Posts: 4,927
It would be interesting to see him marry Ingrid of Sweden.She was of course fertile and would have gave him children.Let's say she would have given birth to Margrethe and her two other children with him.Margrethe would have become queen of Britian.Frederik and Mary would be Prince and Princess of Wales.And Elizabeth and her children would be minor roles in the royal family and live more simple lives.

And plus,no one would make a big deal of the recent royal wedding!

Oh,what would history change...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 06-22-2011, 10:21 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by spratsmum View Post
I don't think Edward would have married Wallis Simpson if he had not been about to be crowned King.

He knew her "unsuitability" and he been involved in relationships before with married women and obviously marriage wasn't something on his mind.

Regarding the children question, I have read that Wallis was born neither male nor female and the decision was taken to surgically make her a female. She then had female characteristics but did not have a womb or ovaries.

I believe also that Edward thought that the will of the people and his popularity would enable him to marry Mrs Simpson when it became inevitable.

It is interesting to wonder how history would have been altered if Edward had of assumed his birthright. He was a known Nazi sympathizer and in many ways is portrayed as a "weak" individual. You wonder if he could have worked with Churchill and held England together during the blitz.

Sandra
Do you have a source for the "neither male nor female" statement. From what I understand, Edward's equipment never matured. I can't remember where I read that, so take it with a couple grains of salt.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 06-22-2011, 02:10 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
This may be more appropriate for the Duke and Duchess of Windsor thread, but I believe Edward suffered an illness in childhood which could have arrested his sexual development. Although the information is not first hand, obviously, this theory was raised by observers who pointed to his slight figure, lack of body hair, etc.

The only thing I have ever heard or read about Wallis was her large hands. There have been cases of hermaphroditism, where one is born with both sex organs, but I don't know that this applies to her, although it may have been bandied about by others.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 06-22-2011, 09:36 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 353
Given the times and the lack of reliable birth control, it can be assumed that Wallis was barren. She didn't have children in any of her marriages.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 06-22-2011, 09:51 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos View Post
This may be more appropriate for the Duke and Duchess of Windsor thread, but I believe Edward suffered an illness in childhood which could have arrested his sexual development. Although the information is not first hand, obviously, this theory was raised by observers who pointed to his slight figure, lack of body hair, etc.

The only thing I have ever heard or read about Wallis was her large hands. There have been cases of hermaphroditism, where one is born with both sex organs, but I don't know that this applies to her, although it may have been bandied about by others.
I can't say I am an expert on either of these theories, but they are eye catching.
__________________

__________________
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
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria duchess of cambridge engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games ottoman pom pregnancy president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:04 PM.

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]