According to the Reluctant King, page 149:
In September of 1936, King George V had a conversation with Eric Savill who was in charge of Windsor Park and the adjacent Crown Lands. Savill told him that he had recently been approached by the Prince of Wales, who wished to acquire Fort Bevedere form the Crown as his personal property, giving as his reason the somewhat implausible one that according to Wigram's report of the conversation, "the day may come when a republic will be declared in this country and he will have nowhere to live unless Belvedere is his own private property."
Apparently the King saw thru this ruse, as both Sandringham and Balmoral would pass to him on his father's death as private property. Moreover, the King pointed out, if a republic were to be declared, then the Prince would certainly not be able to live in England and his private property confiscated. Also since Belvedere was not private family property but part of the Crown Lands, it could not be sold without the sanction of Parliament and the passing of a Bill to allow Crown Lands to see it. Apparently Edward was told on his death, the property would be would have to pass to his successor and could not be bequeathed to any private individual.
This was intending to warn the Prince off the plan, since the King clearly suspected that his son intended to give or leave the Fort to Wallis.
------------
In regards to the Fort, I think George VI did make concessions regarding the financial settlement with Edward in good faith. But since it appeared that Edward didn't do the same, he definitely (and rightfully so) held off letting Edward and Wallis use the Fort as a base. But since it was/is (I think it was finally sold) a Crown Property it was his to do as he wished.
Many thanks, Zonk, for that info. I have read "The Reluctant King" and apparently, I need to do so again, as I seem to have forgotten the particulars involved regarding the attempts by EVIII to keep "The Fort".
I completely agree with you that George VI had every right and indeed made the correct choice regarding The Duke of Windsor returning to Fort Belvedere. It would have been a focal point for anyone loyal to the "old regime" and was certainly situated uncomfortably close to Windsor Castle. Bottom line though - David lied considerably about his assets and deserved no consideration from George VI after he was found out.
I believe Fort Belvedere sat empty for some few years, was used as offices during the ensuing war, and then some Harewood cousins of HM took up residence for a period of time. The Emir of Dubai lived there in the mid-seventies and after he decamped, Galen and Hilary Weston moved in. From my searching on the net, it appears to remain Crown Property, but I, like you, have read several times that it was sold outright a few years ago. If anyone can clarify this, it would be much appreciated.
I remember in the "crisis years" of the early and mid 1990's, how a departing member of the BRF (who shall go unnamed as there is no relation with the topic of this thread, but you'll recognise the quote) was called by a former courtier of HM to be "vulgar, vulgar, vulgar"; the Duke of Windsor's life, he can also be summed up by one word, IMO - he was selfish, selfish, selfish - and that is that.
I deplore efforts made, particularly on the western side of the Atlantic, to romanticise the Abdication Crisis. Yes, it turned out for the best by a long way, but the successes of George VI and his Queen Consort do not wipe away the fact that Edward walked away from his duties - something even Queen Victoria did not do after Prince Albert's death, although she certainly withdrew from showing herself publicly for many years. There is nothing romantic about a King running away from all of his duties in order to fulfil a personal desire. Leaving aside my opinion that Wallis was just his excuse, the irony is that even she wanted to keep their relationship private and non-legal. So he did not even take HER wishes into account as a man truly in love would have been careful so to do.
Selfish... Coming from George V and Queen Mary, one wonders just "where" Edward "came from". I have read that the only time Diana, Princess of Wales saw HM The Queen cry was at the interment of the Duchess of Windsor. Considering this was fifty years after the Abdication, it really demonstrates how the BRF looked upon Edward's actions and I can only imagine HM was utterly relieved that it was finally all over. One wonders if thoughts of how different her own life would have been if Edward had done his duty were also going through her mind. WE are grateful to have Elizabeth as Queen Regnant all these years; sometimes one forgets her personal desire was to be a "lady living in the country, with lots of horses and dogs". Fortunately for us, HM did have the sense of duty lacking in her uncle and we have been truly blessed by HM's reign as well as that of HM's parents.
Had Edward succeeded to marry Wallis morganatically and been crowned King, his well-known (though not atypical of many circles in England in the thirties) sympathy for the nazis would have not allowed the BRF to be the focal point for Country and Empire to rally round as they were able to do with George VI and Queen Elizabeth. If Edward had caused a Constitutional crisis by forcing the issue and rejecting the advice of his PM, thereby prompting the resignation of the Cabinet, there would have been even greater harm done to the Monarchy. In either case, I truly believe if he had not bowed out when he did - we would no longer be speaking of a Monarch as Head of State in the UK; the UK would have long been a Republic by now and certainly the sometimes tenuous ties that bind the Commonwealth would have also broken apart long ago. It is an excellent topic to discuss when one wishes to demonstrate how one man's actions can change the world to a very large degree...