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

[Heavs]

Originally Posted by MissPeach77

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.

In addition to what others have said, that's also a fairly reductive way of looking at 500 years of ecclesiastical and societal history in England. The Church Henry founded wasn't even the church his daughter Elizabeth left it let alone later. Nor is the RC church of today the same as it was in 1533.

Also during this time English/UK monarchs moved away from being absolute monarchs to constitutional ones. Several other monarchs would probably have unilaterally declared their marriages annulled if they could have.

[Curryong]

One of the main reasons why Edward was ostracised for wishing to marry Wallis Simpson was that she wasn’t divorced at the time the two of them started their affair. She continued in fact to live with her husband Ernest Simpson for years after the affair began.

The middle and working classes in England between the wars would have regarded that as disgraceful behaviour on all counts. They especially disliked the idea of divorce, and as both classes made up the majority of the British population as a whole their views had to be taken into account. There were also the views of the Realms to be considered.


Wallis’s nationality to a certain extent and her past history were held against her by those in the know. Also the fact that she had been married not once but twice, with both husbands living. She was regarded by many as an adventuress.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Sister Morphine

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.

Incorrect - divorcees can marry in the CoE. That was changed in 2002.

They can't marry in the CoE if, in the opinion of the officiating minister, the divorce/s was/were caused by the relationship of the marrying couple.

My minister would happily have married Charles and Camilla in the CoE as he didn't believe that their affair contributed to the breakdown of either of their marriages - believing they were broken before their affair started.

The AoC had to also deal with the public's view and so advised a civil ceremony with a CoE blessing, which to all intents and purposes was a CoE marriage ... the words spoken at that ceremony were straight from the CoE marriage service.

[Carin]

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.

No-one was forced to abdicate the throne to marry Wallis Simpson. Edward VIII (not George VI who was the new King) CHOSE to abdicate the throne and chose to marry Wallis.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Carin

No-one was forced to abdicate the throne to marry Wallis Simpson. Edward VIII (not George VI who was the new King) CHOSE to abdicate the throne and chose to marry Wallis.

He was 'forced' to abdicate. The government had decided by the middle of the year that he had to go. The fact he wanted to marry a divorced who was in the process of a second divorce gave them the excuse they needed without causing too many issues and without telling the people the sorts of things he was doing that was close to, if not treason.

He was allowed to say he 'chose' to abdicate but the reality was that he was going to be forced out one way or another.

[CyrilVladisla]

Originally Posted by Curryong

One of the main reasons why Edward was ostracised for wishing to marry Wallis Simpson was that she wasn’t divorced at the time the two of them started their affair. She continued in fact to live with her husband Ernest Simpson for years after the affair began.

The middle and working classes in England between the wars would have regarded that as disgraceful behaviour on all counts. They especially disliked the idea of divorce, and as both classes made up the majority of the British population as a whole their views had to be taken into account. There were also the views of the Realms to be considered.


Wallis’s nationality to a certain extent and her past history were held against her by those in the know. Also the fact that she had been married not once but twice, with both husbands living. She was regarded by many as an adventuress.

I did not realize that Wallis's nationality of being an American was held against her. Did the nobility hold this against her?

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

I did not realize that Wallis's nationality of being an American was held against her. Did the nobility hold this against her?

I've read and heard many times that the upper classes couldn't stand the prospect of an American Queen and the lower classes couldn't stand the thought of a divorced one.

[Denville]

I think that's true, that working class people would disapprove of divorce, (they could not afford to get divorcd) and upper class people felt that as an American she was not quite quite and would not understand royal life.

[Alison H]

Quite a few American women had married into the British aristocracy. The Countess of Grantham in Downton Abbey is a famous fictional example! Real life examples include Jennie Jerome and Consuelo Vanderbilt. The Warfields of Baltimore weren't in their social league, admittedly, but I think an American woman might have been accepted had she not been a divorcee, and also not been having a full-on relationship with the Prince of Wales before they were married.

It would have been unexpected, but, had the Prince of Wales announced that he wanted to marry one of the Vanderbilts, say, and there had never been a breath of scandal attached to the woman concerned, I think the marriage would have been accepted.

[Iluvbertie]

The marriage might have been accepted but then the government would have found another way to remove Edward. The government was determined he had to go and Wallis was simply the excuse they found.

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by Alison H

It would have been unexpected, but, had the Prince of Wales announced that he wanted to marry one of the Vanderbilts, say, and there had never been a breath of scandal attached to the woman concerned, I think the marriage would have been accepted.

Yes it would have been accepted because there could be no legal or rational argument against it but from my reading (and hearsay) on the subject, I think many of the upper classes and aristocracy would have loathed having to curtsey/bow to an American as their Queen, however scandal-free her background.

[Blog Real]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

The marriage might have been accepted but then the government would have found another way to remove Edward. The government was determined he had to go and Wallis was simply the excuse they found.

Yes, I also agree that the government would rather have George VI and Elizabeth on the throne (as later happened).
Wallis was their excuse to get Edward off the throne.

[Denville]

there is no evidence that I know of, that the PTB /govt wanted to get rid of Edward at that stage. Wallis was the main reason. She was not acceptable to the public - or the upper classes, really. and at that stage the Church would not have accepted a divorced woman as queen...

[Alison H]

There were concerns about his political views, but there was never any suggestion of getting rid of him. How could there have been? It wasn't 1688. There was no way that they could have removed him. I think some people were probably very relieved when he chose to abdicate to be with Wallis, but she wasn't an excuse to get rid of him. She just wasn't acceptable to the society of the time. Divorce wasn't socially acceptable in 1936, for anyone, and especially the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

People might not have been overly keen on an American queen, but they would have accepted her, had she not been divorced and not been his mistress.

[Denville]

I think that upper class people would have been judgy over an American qqeen, even if she was single, a quiet type and from a well bred well to do family... because the upper crust esp the ladies would think "How come an American has got him? Why not one of us?
and they mgiht think that an Americna would never quite fit in with the RF... but

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Alison H

There were concerns about his political views, but there was never any suggestion of getting rid of him. How could there have been? It wasn't 1688. There was no way that they could have removed him. I think some people were probably very relieved when he chose to abdicate to be with Wallis, but she wasn't an excuse to get rid of him. She just wasn't acceptable to the society of the time. Divorce wasn't socially acceptable in 1936, for anyone, and especially the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

People might not have been overly keen on an American queen, but they would have accepted her, had she not been divorced and not been his mistress.

There were discussions among government ministers and other members of the government (my great-uncle was one at the time) and it was on how to remove him. There was even discussion about revealing his lack of care about state secrets or finding some excuse to show him unsuitable. Then Wallis sued for her second divorce and they had their excuse.

It was certainly being discussed among ministers and others (not at any 'official meeting' of course) from about Easter and certainly by the summer of 1936.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Alison H

Quite a few American women had married into the British aristocracy. The Countess of Grantham in Downton Abbey is a famous fictional example! Real life examples include Jennie Jerome and Consuelo Vanderbilt. The Warfields of Baltimore weren't in their social league, admittedly, but I think an American woman might have been accepted had she not been a divorcee, and also not been having a full-on relationship with the Prince of Wales before they were married.

It would have been unexpected, but, had the Prince of Wales announced that he wanted to marry one of the Vanderbilts, say, and there had never been a breath of scandal attached to the woman concerned, I think the marriage would have been accepted.

The aristocracy is different ball game than the monarchy when it came to that, some members of the aristocracy were simply marrying for money. Royals could and did befriend, have affairs with some upper crust Americans as many have done, but marry at that time, unlikely.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

There were discussions among government ministers and other members of the government (my great-uncle was one at the time) and it was on how to remove him. There was even discussion about revealing his lack of care about state secrets or finding some excuse to show him unsuitable. Then Wallis sued for her second divorce and they had their excuse.

It was certainly being discussed among ministers and others (not at any 'official meeting' of course) from about Easter and certainly by the summer of 1936.

But Edward was involved iwth Wallis long before he became king.

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by Denville

there is no evidence that I know of, that the PTB /govt wanted to get rid of Edward at that stage. Wallis was the main reason. She was not acceptable to the public - or the upper classes, really. and at that stage the Church would not have accepted a divorced woman as queen...

Make that a multi divorced non upper class American woman.

Edward VIII would have been her third husband. And her two prior husband's were still alive.

[Denville]

wallis was upper class, and well of course her 2 husbands were still alive.. that was why she was divorced from them and not widowed.