The Abdication: December 11, 1936


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Yes, Edward was legally a citizen of the UK.

When Edward abdicated he had no way of knowing that he wouldn't be allowed to return to England to live with his wife. I think his dealing over the finances sealed that deal (he claimed to have no money but apparently had one million pounds saved up from his time as PoW). Once that came to light, I think all bets were off.

As such, the BRF (or really the King and the government) used the financial statement as a way to forbid Edward and Wallis from living in England. Do what we want or we won't give you any money kind of deal.

In addition, George VI was leery of having a 2nd court in England and considering that Edward didn't understand the implications of him no longer being the number one son, I can understand that feeling. For examples, you can use the tour of Germany, interview with the Daily Herald where he stated he would be fine coming back as President of an English Republic, giving advice that was in direct conflict with the British ministers, demanding recognition from the BRF about Wallis status before Paris fell, etc. He really was his worst enemy. So his actions contributed to his not being able to return to England.

George VI once remarked, "that all his predecessors had succeeded to the throne after their predecessors had died. Mine is not only alive but very much so."
 
That is what I meant though, if he had 1 million BPS at his disposal in 1936, why would he need the BRF or the British government to give him anything?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
According to the books I have read, Edward had always a fear of not having enough money. Which is odd, since he became Prince of Wales in 1910 and had access to the Duchy of Cornwall for 25 years. I don't think he put much aside and probably spent a lot on the women in his life.

I am not sure if you are familiar with Edward, but after George V died and they were doing the reading of the will, he was very distressed to learn that his father didn't leave him much (I believe just Balmoral and Sandringham). He left money to his other children (Albert, Harry, George and Mary) and Edward felt that he was due money as well. The solicitor stated that George V had assumed that Edward had saved money from the Duchy.

But yes a million pounds in 1936, must have been like 25 million in todays money if not more. But Edward liked to live large.

And honestly, I can see why he didn't think he wouldn't be able to live in England but of course his activities proved why he couldn't come back. And Edward was never able to be critical of his actions, it was always someone else;s fault. Selfish really.
 
And think, would Edward want to live in the country where he was once the #1 man? Think how galling that would be, after decades of having people cater to your whims and having everything done for you or at your pleasure merely because you asked or because of who you were, and now it is all gone and you are third rate? It would be different if Edward really wanted to be off the throne in order to live simply with the woman he loved. But that was not why he left and i don't think his pride, ego and selfishness would allow him to live in England.
 
:previous:Its funny that you mention that....in the Battle Royale, Wallis and Edward are in England (I think this is the first time she has been back since the Abdication but they aren't met by members of the BRF), and upon their return to England, Edward comments that he only gets 6 bars of God Save the King. Apparently, the monarch received the full treatment of the entire song, but other members only the first six bars. He says, "I'd rather got used to the full treatment."

Just one example how life changed for Edward.
 
Vasillisos Markos said:
I don't think he could be legally estopped from living in England. But the reality of the situation, in which his wife was denied any royal status, and the royal family having nothing to do with either of them, and the public opinion seeming to be against her, all probably persuaded the Windsors to live outside the country.
Click to expand...

I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, that the payments made by George VI to the Duke of Windsor were somehow connected with the Windsors' freedom to live in the UK. (George VI was forced to pay the Duke for Balmoral and Sandringham as they were left to Edward by George V as personal property not connected with the Crown.) Obviously, the intention was for both properties to remain with the head of the Royal Family, so one could argue that the Duke of Windsor should not have used them as leverage. Especially considering how he lied about his financial situation right after the Abdication and George VI agreed to pay him the amount agreed upon - but on the basis of the false information that the Duke had provided.

After the death of George VI, the "allowance" paid yearly was still paid, but cut in half by the new Queen Elizabeth II, if memory serves me correctly. To get back to the actual thread topic, the Abdication Crisis - was it Winston Churchill who once said that every village in England should erect a statue of thanksgiving in honour of Mrs. Simpson, as she played such a huge role in keeping the ship of state on a correct course? (I'm paraphrasing, here.) It sounds like Churchill, tongue-in-cheek but breathtakingly accurate at the same time!

Interestingly, Winston Churchill actually supported Edward VIII's pursuit of marriage to Mrs. Simpson. He said to his wife, "why shouldn't the King marry his cutie?", to which Clementine Churchill replied, "because England doesn't want a 'Queen Cutie'". Churchill even dressed up the Abdication speech for Edward. He did see his mistake before much time had passed. At the Coronation, he told Clementine that he could see that "it would never have done". This is one of the reasons George VI and Queen Elizabeth were hoping for Lord Halifax to replace Chamberlain as PM instead of Churchill; they remained hesitant of Winston Churchill because they remembered his early support of Edward. However, according to both their official biographers, it did not take Churchill very long to establish himself in their confidence and to win their affection.
 
As a brief aside, I posted this amusing anecdote about Winston Churchill and Clementine on the thread devoted to Princess Margaret. It seems apropos in light of your comment about Sir Winston which Aliza posted above:

Margaret spoke with Elizabeth Longford, a biographer of the Queen, in the 1980s and told her that the application by law of the Royal Marriages Act was never explained to her and Townsend. If it had been, Margaret felt that they would have understood from the start the hopelessness of the situation and Townsend would have departed with no major tragedy.

Of course many people were enchanted by the prospect of a love match, including Winston Churchill, who at first thought the idea smashing! When it was pointed out to him that others did not see the situation in the same light, Clementine reportedly said, "Winston, if you are going to begin the Abdication all over again, I'm going to leave! I shall take a flat and go and live in Brighton." Churchill came to his senses and felt he could not recommend consent to the marriage unless Princess Margaret renounced all her royal rights.
 
Gotta love Clementine...Because England doesn't want a Queen Cutie!

Truer words were never spoken.
 
It was a historical effrontery knowing of his brother's neurological problems for Edward to abdicate and not be literate in what his duty was and what was expected of him.His fondness for the Third Reich was abhorrent.It has been said that Wallis has some sexual hold over him from techniques she had learned when in China .. and had visited houses of ill repute to become sexually literate.Personally I feel that Edward was weak man...and that he did not have much of a clue how things worked.. in politics and government...Therefore it is better that he abdicated... because George was a better man and beloved king. His abdication was just the beginning because later apparently he encountered unsavoury characters and stories abound about troubles.
 
Not being overly literate in the life and manner of Edward VIII, I do have to remark a bit on how "abhorrent" it was for him to support the Third Reich. Its been said that 20/20 vision is always present in hindsight and this applies here. From what I know, it was general knowledge that Hitler was regarded as having great ideas, good plans and seemed to want to benefit the people and a LOT of people supported his outward ideas. It wasn't just in his own camps.. it was worldwide. Charismatic is a good word to use for how he presented his ideas and goals and people bought into it. I believe it wasn't until the end of the war in Europe that the full scope of the genocide and inhumanities were ever brought to the public's knowledge. Edward and Wallis got caught up in the "spin" that Hitler so much wanted to present and found willing takers in this couple. At that time, Churchill could even probably have understood the "spiel" but questioned. We don't know.

As for Wallis and a sexual hold. I think that's pure fiction but in the manner of a courtesan perhaps she did know what to do? She was also in her own way charismatic when it came to David. She "may" have had lessons in how to "please" a man if she herself couldn't consumate a relationship due to the rumors she was AIS and hence never had sex with her prior 2 husbands. Its all hearsay and rumor. By all counts, no matter what, they were together till death did they part. She was the love of David's life enough that he committed to her and she to him. What their practices were in private is just that.. their own.

Yes, I do think that looking at the persona of Edward VIII he was weak. Being the PoW and all that it afforded him he considered it all his due right. As its been stated that he's never excelled in learning about the constitutional monarchy he'd one day ascend to, perhaps as PoW he'd just assumed there'd be people that would do it for him. When faced with real choices, the ones he opted for were the ones that suited his own best interest at the moment. I really don't think that he realized how much ostracism he would receive though and that probably was a thorn in his side.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There were certainly many people supported and admired Hitler in the 30s and I have no problem with that. I do have problems with people who continued to support him from late 38 or early 39 onwards - from the invasion of Czechoslavakia - earlier than that as horrible as some of his actions were I can understand people looking the other way and accepting him as he was bringing about an economic miracle in Germany.

Edward and Wallis were certainly in that camp - those who thought he had some good ideas but it isn't clear when, or even if, they ever changed their minds. Churchill was on the outer with regard to being heard in the corridors of power during these years and one of the reasons was the fact that he was so opposed to Hitler from the get-go.

Hindsight is indeed 20-20 as many people forget that Churchill wasn't actually at the centre of government in these years - as he was seen as a warmonger amongst pacifist governments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iluvbertie said:
Edward and Wallis were certainly in that camp - those who thought he had some good ideas but it isn't clear when, or even if, they ever changed their minds.
Click to expand...

Being totally not very informed and literate of the history of WWII and the politics that formed that era, my point to make about Edward and Wallis is that they followed the "in" thought of the day. Perhaps it was the crowd they hung around with.. perhaps not. I really don't see from what I've read that either of them were much concerned about the state of the world but rather where the next "fashionable" party was to be and who would be there. I think in the older times, David would be described as a "fop" And for those needing a definition..

Fop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I think, as he ticks all the requisite boxes, the description fits him to perfection!!!
 
On several occasions I have quoted Wallis as saying that no man had touched her below the Maginot Line, for which I now offer profuse apologies. The line to which she made reference was the Mason Dixon, and will probably have greater meaning to those of you with greater geographical knowledge than I.
 
The Mason-Dixon Line is the line that separates the Northern States from the Southern States in the USA and was the dividing line, generally, during the Civil War. Since Wallis Warfield was from a Confederate or Southern leaning family, it would make sense that she would use that phrase instead of "Maginot Line".

But, these rumours spread in many books on the Duchess of Windsor (that she remained a virgin all her life; that she had an unusual physical "set up" below the waist; that she was even some sort of "hermaphrodite" have all been laid to rest by the Duchess' doctor, Dr. Jean Thin, who after reading this misinformation one too many times finally came forward and stated on the record that the Duchess had entirely normal reproductive organs, internally and externally, was clearly a "married woman", etc. Not only did Dr. Thin state that he had examined the Duchess many times himself, but he also had access to the medical records of the hysterectomy the Duchess underwent in the US in the 1950's.

Ergo, this theory falls the way of the infamous "China dossier", which has never been seen directly, but rather reported on with the usual specification of gossip of people not having seen it themselves, but hearing about it from someone who did! There is no record of this information in the Royal Archives at Windsor (it was allegedly researched for King George V) nor anywhere else. Most biographers have concluded it never existed.

IMHO, I believe people resorted to creating these myths or believing them because they needed a reason they could understand as to why the beloved Prince of Wales of the 1920's had abdicated for a very plain looking American divorced woman. His action was extraordinary, therefore there needed to be an extraordinary reason for it to happen. It is similar to how many people believe there was some "conspiracy" or "something off" in the manner of death of Diana, Princess of Wales; it's just hard to accept that a lady of her stature could die in something as ordinary as a drunk driving crash... :sad:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The official use of the Mason-Dixon Line pre-dates the Civil War by about 40 years, coming into official use with the Missouri compromise of 1820.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aliza, I have read that Dr Thin and the infamous "Chinese Dossier" are questionable-maybe time will reveal all. I am more interested in why Wallis would feel it necessary to reveal this "truth" about herself. I've never had the impression that she was a woman who liked to share confidences and whilst she may have been many things, I don't believe she was stupid, but it would be stupid of her to expect that anybody would believe a twice married woman to be a virgin. Thankyou for explaining the Mason-Dixon, now I can clearly see the relevence of her statement even though the reason for it is less so!!!
 
Iluvbertie said:
The official use of the Mason-Dixon Line pre-dates the Civil War by about 40 years, coming into official use with the Missouri compromise of 1820.
Click to expand...

It actually dates from before that. Mason and Dixon were surveyors who surveyed parts of the boundaries of the Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware colonies in the 1760s. The Missouri compromise line was a parallel farther to the South. (And the Mason-Dixon line was entirely in the Union during the Civil War, although many if not most Marylanders weren't entirely thrilled with that. The state song of Maryland still to this day has lyrics referring to Abraham Lincoln as a "despot" and a "tyrant.")
 
That is why I said 'official' use with the Missouri Compromise as the term was an unofficial one before that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jaya said:
It was a historical effrontery knowing of his brother's neurological problems for Edward to abdicate and not be literate in what his duty was and what was expected of him.
Click to expand...
OK, I'll bite. What neurological problem are you referring too? :ermm:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The stutter for one thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you think Edward VIII was whistling "Dixie" when he went south of the Mason/Dixon line?:whistling: Sorry, couldn't help myself:lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aliza said:
IMHO, I believe people resorted to creating these myths or believing them because they needed a reason they could understand as to why the beloved Prince of Wales of the 1920's had abdicated for a very plain looking American divorced woman. His action was extraordinary, therefore there needed to be an extraordinary reason for it to happen. It is similar to how many people believe there was some "conspiracy" or "something off" in the manner of death of Diana, Princess of Wales; it's just hard to accept that a lady of her stature could die in something as ordinary as a drunk driving crash... :sad:
Click to expand...
Exactly. They obfusicate history. THey did that to Cleopatra, they did that to Anne Bolyn and they did it to Wallis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iluvbertie said:
That is why I said 'official' use with the Missouri Compromise as the term was an unofficial one before that.
Click to expand...

The line of the Missouri Compromise and the Mason Dixon Line are two different lines.

Since this thread is about the Abdication and Wallis Windsor was under discussion, I chose to define the Mason Dixon line in a manner that Wallis herself would have been likely to describe it. As she was a post-Civil War child, and if she made that remark about "never being touched below her Mason Dixon Line" then obviously she also saw it as a line that expressed a major delineation between North and South, whether geographically or anatomically speaking.:ROFLMAO:

Tsaritsa, while I am familiar with that alleged quote from the Duchess of Windsor, I don't remember to whom she supposedly made it. Since I don't have easy access to all of my library currently (I just moved houses:bang:) I would be most appreciative if you could refresh my memory about to whom she said that, when and where, of course, only if you can do so without hunting through books - I don't want to make any work for you!:flowers:
 
Aliza, other than the latest bio from Vickers, I must have read everything written about her BUT I'm notoriously bad at remembering authors!!! However, before you give up in total despair of me, the "bible" I use for constant reference is the Zeigler bio Edward V111. I recall that she told Baba Metcalff on the wedding morning that she had been married twice but had not had sexual intercourse. The conversation regarding the Mason-Dixon line, if not a part of that conversation, was said to the Herman Rogers and now that memory has been triggered it makes sense, because I imagine them to have been closer to her than others. On the whole, I don't feel that she shared intimicies so maybe both comments were a veiled way of saying that she felt trapped. Hope this has helped.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
George VI didn't have neurological problems. A stutter is not a neurological problem; it is a speech impediment. George had ailments all his life but one of them (his stomach problems) were not his fault; and his knock knees were "fixed".
 
If a future monarch married today a twice divorced woman,people would praise him for being open-minded and brave despite social standards (the near case of Haakon of Norway when he married a single mother).Then the things were very different and the couple was in a way punished for their forbidden love.
 
New here...but not to history of royalty. I've read all of the bios on Edward VIII, watched all the movies, just watched the miniseries "Edward and Mrs. Simpson" this weekend. It just seems to me that Edward was living completely in his own world, fostered by Wallis, if he actually believed he would be allowed to marry a divorced woman and remain king. Divorce was so frowned upon at the time, he knew well that his mother and father never recognized a divorced woman, even if she was the injured party. I believe he was taken in by Wallis, who had no real idea about the King's role, or lack thereof, in government of the UK, and she really believed as King, he could do what he wanted and make or break the rules. I think it came as a great shock to her when she finally learned otherwise. But goodness, the level of Edward's naivety is almost comical...of course he was egged on by Winston and a few others to encourage his dream, but still-he actually thought his family, including his mother would attend the wedding after he abdicated? What world was this man living in? His mother was so ashamed, she could barely hold her head up. I think he lived his whole life in a kind of dreamy bubble, and was almost always annoyed when he had to actually work. What a great relief for history, in my opinion, that he did not remain King a moment longer than he did. His brother was magnificent with regards to the needs of the country at war and God only know what would have happened if Edward had been in reign; if Wallis whispered in his ear good things about Hitler, he would have been spouting the same opinions in public, given half a chance. I never believed she was sincere about "bowing out" either, as she knew, and said, he would never give her up, so what harm to her in making the statement? But I don't think that the life she ended up having, depsite the luxuries, was at all what she had in mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy
Replies
6
Views
1K
Tatiana Maria
T
Q
Is this interesting?
Replies
5
Views
2K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
521
Tatiana Maria
T
ashelen
Queen Elizabeth's Bodyguard
Replies
0
Views
418
ashelen
ashelen
T
Ingrid Seward's newest book on the British Royal Family "My Mother and I"
Replies
3
Views
1K
tommy100
T

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom