Duke and Duchess of Windsor (1894-1972) and (1895-1986)

[Prinsara]

Edward Fox was quite brilliant as David. If he didn't get a BAFTA for it, he ought to have.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=H9c1Sp19e7s

It was a controversial series at the time because Wallis was still alive.

Edit: here's the part where she comes in.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=_jHbyQS3ZlA

[CyrilVladisla]

Wallis and Edward attended the unveiling of the Queen Mary Plaque in London in 1967.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roZyok-oTBU

[LuizaBloom]

Do we know what zduke of Windsor relationship with his brothers was like post abdication? I have read that he was particulary close with Duke of Kent in 1920s. I am wondering if they kept in contact afterwards. What was Duke of Kent opinion on Wallis?

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Curryong

‘Appearing to be Prince Charming’ indeed. However, by the time things became serious between them I’m sure Wallis grew to realise that David was really a seething mass of neuroses and complexes, which had to be catered to. What made it worse was that he had few inner resources or intellectual curiosity and in consequence was easily bored.

I bet that there were several times in the early years of their marriage that Wallis wished she was back in her old life with Ernest. There’s only so much dog-like devotion a person can take!

I think she was OK wiht his dog like devotion... if she snapped at him, it was what he fundamentally expected... and he convinced himself that in spite of everyting she was devoted to him too and that if she snapped at him it was for his own good

[Alison H]

Originally Posted by LuizaBloom

Do we know what zduke of Windsor relationship with his brothers was like post abdication? I have read that he was particulary close with Duke of Kent in 1920s. I am wondering if they kept in contact afterwards. What was Duke of Kent opinion on Wallis?

We can't know what went on behind closed doors, or even over the phone, but I think lines were firmly drawn and the Royal Family were on one side and the Duke and Duchess of Windsor on the other.

[Claire]

To be honest - I am really looking forward to seeing if the current Duke of Kent covers his father's relation and indeed his own relationship with the Duke of Windsor in his book.

[Alison H]

I doubt he himself really had a relationship with him. He was a baby at the time of the Abdication, so he can't have any recollections of time with his uncle before then, and I can't imagine Princess Marina having much contact with the Windsors after her husband's death, even if she did beforehand - she's known to have been rather snobby and wasn't even very impressed with the perfectly respectable Katharine Worsley, never mind with Wallis Simpson.

I doubt he'll want to rock the boat by coming out with any startling revelations about the Windsors: I would think he'll just say something about his father being very saddened by the whole thing.

[Blog Real]

A six-month-old Wallis with her mother, Alice Warfield.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_Warfield.jpg

Photos Wallis Simpson and Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor:
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-du...-35111245.html

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-du...-35111298.html

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-du...-31891844.html

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-wa...129252523.html

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Alison H

I doubt he himself really had a relationship with him. He was a baby at the time of the Abdication, so he can't have any recollections of time with his uncle before then, and I can't imagine Princess Marina having much contact with the Windsors after her husband's death, even if she did beforehand - she's known to have been rather snobby and wasn't even very impressed with the perfectly respectable Katharine Worsley, never mind with Wallis Simpson.

I doubt he'll want to rock the boat by coming out with any startling revelations about the Windsors: I would think he'll just say something about his father being very saddened by the whole thing.

Agree. The Duke of KEnt is a fairly conventional royal and I can't see him saying anything about the private lives of his family, or rows within it.

[Alison H]

Agreed. He's not Prince Harry! It'll probably be a lot about his work with the All England Club and his various charities.

[_Heather_]

Originally Posted by Alison H

Agreed. He's not Prince Harry! It'll probably be a lot about his work with the All England Club and his various charities.

Agreed. That does not, however, dampen my enthusiasm in the slightest. I'm actually kind of excited to read this one.

[Blog Real]

King Edward VIII was the target of an assassination attempt in 1936.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fMeDW2kR84

[angieuk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ment-ring.html

I believe if their relationship had not ended in marriage; she would have found someone else sooner or later.

I never believed it was a love match on both sides.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by angieuk

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ment-ring.html

I believe if their relationship had not ended in marriage; she would have found someone else sooner or later.

I never believed it was a love match on both sides.

this doesn't seem to be about the Windsors?

[angieuk]

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wallis-Love...s%2C68&sr=1-19

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Untitled-Wa...ks%2C68&sr=1-2

Enjoyed reading these 2 books.

[Curryong]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jai9vSq2i-o

Lady Alexandra Metcalfe (‘Baba Blackshirt’) the wife of Edward’s devoted ADC, ‘Fruity’, speaks on the BBC in 1977 about her memories of King Edward VIII.

[MissPeach77]

I know back in the day divorce was looked upon much differently then today. If it weren't, then King George wouldn't have had to abdicate the throne to marry Wallis Simpson, while right now King Charles sits on the throne as a divorcee, married to a woman who is also a divorcee.

My question is, despite the times back then of divorce being more taboo, why was King George ever made to abdicate to marry Wallis Simpson? Wasn't a good part of the reason that Henry the VIII split from the Catholic Church, and The Church of England was ulitmately formed, due to the fact that Henry VIII wanted the church to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and the Pope refused to do it. Without an official annulment, he couldn't get married again. The Pope refused to grant the annulment on grounds of Catholic doctrine: marriage is for life and there was no theological reason to dissolve this one. Henry therefore named himself head of the church in England and annulled the marriage himself.

I mean the religion of the royal family was basically formed by a King wanting to dump one wife and move on to another. I don't know why Edward was so ostracized for wanting to marry a divorcee.

[Prinsara]

As was stated in your previous line of questioning, the Anglican church of the time did not recognize divorce, a separate issue from annulments. The sovereign is the Head of the Church. It would have been socially and theologically impossible for Edward VIII to marry a divorced woman and reign in 1937. The entire government would have resigned. In addition, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand were consulted, and all said they would not support a marriage, so there would also have been a serious international crisis.

The easiest explanation is the King wanted a way off the throne, and she was it.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by MissPeach77

I know back in the day divorce was looked upon much differently then today. If it weren't, then King George wouldn't have had to abdicate the throne to marry Wallis Simpson, while right now King Charles sits on the throne as a divorcee, married to a woman who is also a divorcee.

My question is, despite the times back then of divorce being more taboo, why was King George ever made to abdicate to marry Wallis Simpson? Wasn't a good part of the reason that Henry the VIII split from the Catholic Church, and The Church of England was ulitmately formed, due to the fact that Henry VIII wanted the church to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and the Pope refused to do it. Without an official annulment, he couldn't get married again. The Pope refused to grant the annulment on grounds of Catholic doctrine: marriage is for life and there was no theological reason to dissolve this one. Henry therefore named himself head of the church in England and annulled the marriage himself.

I mean the religion of the royal family was basically formed by a King wanting to dump one wife and move on to another. I don't know why Edward was so ostracized for wanting to marry a divorcee.

King George wasn't made to abdicate - King Edward was.

Why?

Divorce was a great excuse but the government wanted to get rid of a King who was clearly unsuited to the role. There were a number of tests set to test his suitability e.g. on one occasion a document was given to the King with 'top secret' information ... which was actually false I believe ... but two days later it was being discussed in Germany. On many occasions papers from the red boxes came back with coffee stains and often the content was discussed in dining rooms across London ... sadly including ones at which people like the German Ambassador were present.

How to remove him was the issue that the government had to deal with and then Wallis was dropped into their laps ... when she applied for her second divorce and the claim that the King was going to marry her.

The government got the Archbishop of Canterbury involved to claim that he couldn't crown the King if he was married to a twice divorced woman. There was actually nothing in the laws that said a divorced person couldn't be the monarch or that a monarch couldn't be married to a divorced person.

Wallis being divorced was the escape that the government needed to remove a King who, if not already a traitor, was close to it by the end of 1936.

[Sister Morphine]

Originally Posted by MissPeach77

I know back in the day divorce was looked upon much differently than today. If it weren't, then King George wouldn't have had to abdicate the throne to marry Wallis Simpson, while right now King Charles sits on the throne as a divorcee, married to a woman who is also a divorcee.

My question is, despite the times back then of divorce being more taboo, why was King George ever made to abdicate to marry Wallis Simpson? Wasn't a good part of the reason that Henry VIII split from the Catholic Church, and The Church of England was ultimately formed, due to the fact that Henry VIII wanted the church to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and the Pope refused to do it. Without an official annulment, he couldn't get married again. The Pope refused to grant the annulment on grounds of Catholic doctrine: marriage is for life and there was no theological reason to dissolve this one. Henry, therefore, named himself head of the church in England and annulled the marriage himself.

I mean the religion of the royal family was basically formed by a King wanting to dump one wife and move on to another. I don't know why Edward was so ostracized for wanting to marry a divorcee.

George VI didn't abdicate. Edward VIII did. He also didn't have to abdicate. He had three choices; keep the crown and ditch Wallis, ditch the crown and keep Wallis, or marry her anyway and deal with the constitutional crisis that was sure to erupt.

He chose to abdicate because 1) he probably saw it as the best chance to save the monarchy and his family and 2) he was selfish and never showed any interest in being king and saw this as a way out. Also, the sovereign, be they male or female, is the Defender of the Faith and the head of the Church of England. He couldn't be King, anointed by the Church, and marry a divorcee, particularly since divorcees couldn't and still can't be married in the CoE. Hence why neither Charles nor Anne's second marriages were celebrated in the CoE. Anne married in the Church of Scotland, which permitted divorcees to remarry, and Charles had a civil wedding with an Anglican blessing afterward.