The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2241  
Old 08-07-2020, 01:15 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
I do wonder what Wallis would have made of what Lascelles & co were saying. I don't for one second imagine that she thought David/Edward would renounce the throne, either as Prince of Wales or as King, for her. I think she was genuinely fond of him, but presumably she expected that, like Freda Dudley Ward and Thelma Furness, she'd have her time as his mistress, with all the kudos that that entailed, and that hopefully she could remain part of his inner circle once he either found someone else or was pressurised into making a suitable marriage.


The Abdication was best for the country, but I wonder if Wallis felt that it was best for her.
yes I'm sure she didn't think of his giving up the throne for her but when she realised how obsessed he was, I think that she felt it was preferable to be the wife - even a morganatic wife of a king.. than to be David's mistress or ex and the wife of a not that well off man.. And then when she realized she was not going to be able to Marry him with him keeping the rank of king, she was keen enough to have the role of "romantic wife for whom he gave up his throne" provided they had plenty of money...
Reply With Quote
  #2242  
Old 08-07-2020, 03:10 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post

The will was read, to the assembled family, in the hall at Sandringham. I, of course, was not present; but, coming out of my office, I ran into him striding down the passage with a face blacker than any thunderstorm. He went straight to his room, and for a long time was glued to the telephone.
Thanks for this.

I understand that the new king found out to his horror that he had been left nothing in the late king's will. I wonder who he was calling?

Later edit: other than Sandringham & Balmoral of course. I meant not left any cash like his four siblings.
Reply With Quote
  #2243  
Old 08-07-2020, 03:25 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Thanks for this.

I understand that the new king found out to his horror that he had been left nothing in the late king's will. I wonder who he was calling?
I woudl imagine Wallis...
Reply With Quote
  #2244  
Old 08-07-2020, 03:36 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I woudl imagine Wallis...
Yes that makes sense. Or his lawyer to contest.
Reply With Quote
  #2245  
Old 08-07-2020, 09:08 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bordertown, Australia
Posts: 212
It's not unusual for the heir to be left nothing in a will - he or she will inherit everything for their use if not actual ownership anyway. David should not have been surprised by this at all nor taken it as a sign of malice from his father but it's typical that he did.
Reply With Quote
  #2246  
Old 08-07-2020, 09:26 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,147
The article goes on to say it was Wallis he was calling, (I believe all the chief Royal residences had switchboards in those days and the operators would have known who was calling who.) Lascelles states the phone call went on for a considerable time.

IMO George V did not leave him anything as Edward had had disposal of Duchy of Cornwall funds since he reached the age of 21.
Reply With Quote
  #2247  
Old 08-07-2020, 09:42 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,147
The article, link posted upthread in post #2235, goes on...

'His brothers were left a very large sum — about three-quarters of a million in cash; he was left nothing, and was precluded from converting anything (such as the stamp collection, the racehorses, etc.) into ready money.

It was, doubtless, a well-intentioned will; but, as such wills often do, it provoked incalculable disaster; it was, in fact, directly responsible for the first voluntary abdication of an English King.

Money, and the things that money buys, were the principal desiderata in Mrs Simpson’s philosophy, if not in his, and, when they found that they had been left the Crown without the cash, I am convinced that they agreed, in that interminable telephone conversation, to renounce their plans for a joint existence as private individuals, and to see what they could make out of the Kingship, with the subsidiary prospect of the Queenship for her later on.

The events of the next ten months bear out this supposition; for, throughout them, he devoted two hours to schemes, great and small, by which he could produce money to every one that he devoted to the business of the State.

Indeed, his passion for ‘economy’ became something very near to mania, despite the fact that his private fortune, amassed while he was Prince of Wales, already amounted to nearly a million — which sum he took with him, of course, when he finally left the country.

It was substantially increased by the considerable sums which his brother paid him for his life interest in the Sandringham and Balmoral estates, so that, by the time he married, having no encumbrances, no overhead charges and no taxes to pay, he was one of the richest men in Europe — if not the richest.'
Reply With Quote
  #2248  
Old 08-07-2020, 09:42 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Member - in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 17,267
Just by being heir to his father, the king, David already was in line to inherit far more than anyone else that George V could leave to his siblings and his family. I believe that being upset at being left nothing in George's personal will just showed how greedy and grubby and "entitled" David was. Then to actually (as presumed) to get on the phone and commiserate with Wallis over being "left out", that showed me the side of David that was totally and completely dependent on Wallis for everything and anything.

David was a man of weak character and there are many incidences that prove this to be true. The UK certainly dodged a bullet with Edward VIII abdicating as I don't believe he had the fortitude or stamina or resolve to handle what was to come with WWII.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #2249  
Old 08-07-2020, 09:59 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,147
Yes, Osipi he was dependent, and angry about the will. I've read elsewhere, perhaps in the original article perhaps in my bio of Edward VIII, that during the reading of the will, as the various legacies were innumerated Edward asked several times 'And where do I come in?'
Reply With Quote
  #2250  
Old 08-08-2020, 05:35 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
The article goes on to say it was Wallis he was calling, (I believe all the chief Royal residences had switchboards in those days and the operators would have known who was calling who.) Lascelles states the phone call went on for a considerable time.

IMO George V did not leave him anything as Edward had had disposal of Duchy of Cornwall funds since he reached the age of 21.
I thnk it was obvious it was Wallis. She was concerned and so was he about the money issues.. because they wanted as much as they could lay their hands on. Can't imagine that David would have tired to overturn the Will, but he was clearly angry and upset to find that his father hadn't left him anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
The article, link posted upthread in post #2235, goes on...

'Hi
Money, and the things that money buys, were the principal desiderata in Mrs Simpson’s philosophy, if not in his, and, — if not the richest.'
Lascelles really has his knife into Wallis doesn't he? And also to David. I think he seems to have the attitude that David was bad, and Wallis was even worse and made him more selfish.
Reply With Quote
  #2251  
Old 08-08-2020, 02:42 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post

'His brothers were left a very large sum — about three-quarters of a million in cash; he was left nothing, and was precluded from converting anything (such as the stamp collection, the racehorses, etc.) into ready money.


. his private fortune, amassed while he was Prince of Wales, already amounted to nearly a million — which sum he took with him, of course, when he finally left the country.
£750'000 would be worth tens of millions today. Off topic I know but why was the Duke of Kent's widow so poor by royal standards I wonder.

David had duchy income for a good twenty years. Off topic again (I shall get into trouble ) but it makes you wonder how much the present Prince of Wales has managed to put away over the last fifty.
Reply With Quote
  #2252  
Old 08-08-2020, 02:55 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Member - in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 17,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
£750'000 would be worth tens of millions today. Off topic I know but why was the Duke of Kent's widow so poor by royal standards I wonder.

David had duchy income for a good twenty years. Off topic again (I shall get into trouble ) but it makes you wonder how much the present Prince of Wales has managed to put away over the last fifty.
I can't tell you how much Charles has managed to put away from his time as The Prince of Wales but I can make a comparison between Charles and his predecessor PoW, David.

David saw the duchy income as his own to do what he pleased with. Charles, on the other hand, has worked tirelessly over the decades to actually leave the Duchy of Cornwall even more sustainable for future PoWs that are to follow. One example would be Highgrove, itself. Highgrove, itself, doesn't belong to the PoW but rather to the Duchy of Cornwall. David *took* from the duchy. Charles has *improved* it.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #2253  
Old 08-08-2020, 03:17 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,214
There is criticism of the duchy as an entity & legitimate questions to be had over what happens to its surpluses. Not to mention questions over whether the heir really needs such a vast income. He does maintain himself in some style.

But I agree with your point that his stewardship is very different from the last duke.
Reply With Quote
  #2254  
Old 08-09-2020, 01:27 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
£750'000 would be worth tens of millions today. Off topic I know but why was the Duke of Kent's widow so poor by royal standards I wonder.

David had duchy income for a good twenty years. Off topic again (I shall get into trouble ) but it makes you wonder how much the present Prince of Wales has managed to put away over the last fifty.
What was left was £750,000 in total to Edward's brothers, that is, £250,000 each for the Dukes of York, Gloucester and Kent.

I can remember being surprised when reading that in the original document. £250,000 was of course an unbelievable amount of money to the vast majority of British people in the hungry Thirties but not such a vast sum for King's sons, even at the time. US multi-millionaires' children would probably have scoffed at the amount.

I believe both Gloucester and Kent bought country houses and small estates with some of their inheritance. Probably the new King used his to partly pay for Sandringham and Balmoral when he purchased them later from Edward.
Reply With Quote
  #2255  
Old 08-10-2020, 05:47 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,214
Yes you're right there were plenty of far wealthier people at the time than George V. That said a quarter of a million is £18 million today (if the site I looked at is accurate) so I'm still puzzled as to why Marina was so relatively hard up. Death duties I suppose? She was housed for free in London eventually as well.

Coppins was inherited.
Reply With Quote
  #2256  
Old 08-11-2020, 12:55 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,147
I think wealth is a question of degree with royalty. I looked things up in my bio of George and Marina and it became clear that, except for a brief period, reports of Marina's poverty have been greatly exaggerated.

The difficulties arose for Marina largely between 1943 and 1953. George, a fit youngish man, had made a will locking in his personal wealth in trust for his children as adults. As well, his Civil List allowance of £25,000 a year died with him in 1943.

At the time there was no provision for Royal widows on the Civil List. Queen Mary and King George VI (not particularly wealthy himself as a wartime King) helped Marina with undisclosed sums each year. The end of the war and post-war period coincided with boarding school fees and expenses for Edward their son, then Alexandra the only daughter. Later for Michael as well of course. And Edward went into the Army, not a cheap process in a smart regiment.

In 1953, Marina's Civil List provision was restored and increased by £25,000. The new Queen gave £5,000 a year as well as a large apartment at Kensington Palace next door to the Athlones. Marina had a full staff there, including footmen.

George had earlier (before the war) wished to dispose of Coppins and buy something a bit larger. To that end a lot of Victorian silver, antique furniture, paintings etc left to the couple by Princess Victoria (George's aunt) had been kept, but in the 1950s Marina sent them for sale. That brought in £40,000. Later she sold a quite valuable painting, presumably for extra financial security, which garnished another £50,000. So Marina was never in any sense slumming it.
Reply With Quote
  #2257  
Old 08-11-2020, 05:57 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I think wealth is a question of degree with royalty. I looked things up in my bio of George and Marina and it became clear that, except for a brief period, reports of Marina's poverty have been greatly exaggerated.

The difficulties arose for Marina largely between 1943 and 1953. George, a fit youngish man, had made a will locking in his personal wealth in trust for his children as adults. As well, his Civil List of £25,000 a year died with him in 1943.

At the time there was no provision for Royal widows on the Civil List. Queen Mary and King George VI (not particularly wealthy himself as a wartime King) helped Marina with undisclosed sums each year. The end of the war and post-war period coincided with boarding school fees and expenses for Edward their son, then Alexandra the only daughter. Later for Michael as well of course. And Edward went into the Army, not a cheap process in a smart regiment.

sense slumming it.
I've not read much about Marina, but the little I've seen about her, I don't find her a sympathetic character.. I think she cried poverty... and wasn't all that badly off...
Reply With Quote
  #2258  
Old 08-11-2020, 06:50 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 4,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I've not read much about Marina, but the little I've seen about her, I don't find her a sympathetic character.. I think she cried poverty... and wasn't all that badly off...
Off topic but to me Marina was the perfect princess. Very popular with the public she was always duty first but not a snob. Her sense of duty lives on in her children Edward and Alexandra who continues to serve the Queen even in their eighties.
I just bought a book about Marina & George in a second hand book store that I can't wait to start reading once I'm done with Queen Mary.
Reply With Quote
  #2259  
Old 08-11-2020, 06:51 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 11,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
Off topic but to me Marina was the perfect princess. Very popular with the public she was always duty first but not a snob. Her sense of duty lives on in her children Edward and Alexandra who continues to serve the Queen even in their eighties.
And what about Michael?
Reply With Quote
  #2260  
Old 08-11-2020, 07:03 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 4,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biri View Post
And what about Michael?
Michael has no official role and has had to support himself throughout his adult life. He does seem delighted to and ready to help out when required.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abdication, britain, duchess of windsor, duke of windsor, edward viii, king edward viii, wallis simpson


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 10 (0 members and 10 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
Duchess of Windsor Jewellery micas Royal Jewels 221 08-17-2022 09:44 AM
The Duke of Windsor and Wallis Simpson - 3 June 1937 aussiechick12 Historical Royal Weddings 36 01-11-2022 05:29 PM
Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester and Miss Birgitte van Deurs: 8 July 1972 Scott Royal Weddings 17 08-15-2018 01:49 AM
Books on The Duke and Duchess of Windsor Duchess Royal Library 106 07-15-2013 12:49 PM
The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester Current Events 1: October 2003-January 2006 A.C.C. Current Events Archive 132 01-13-2006 10:37 PM




Popular Tags
abdullah ii africa albert prince consort all tags arcadie arcadie claret austria caribbean caroline charles iii claret current events danish royal family death denmark duarte pio duchess of kent edward vii emperor naruhito empress masako espana garsenda genealogy general news grace kelly grimaldi hamdan bin ahmed harry history identifying india introduction king charles king philippe king willem-alexander leopold ier louis mountbatten matrilineal monaco monarchy mountbatten official visit order of precedence portugal prince albert monaco prince christian princess of orange queen queen alexandra queen camilla queen elizabeth queen ena of spain queen margrethe ii queen mathilde queen maxima queen victoria republics restoration royal initials royal wedding silk spanish history spanish royal family state visit switzerland tiaras visit william wine glass woven


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:32 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2023
Jelsoft Enterprises