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

[Wisteria]

Originally Posted by Lady Meg

I can also see that a lot of people dislike Bessie.. so therefore I will embrace my true heritage and switch over..

Excuse me asking but what is your true heritage?

I agree that the problem with Bessiewallis was not a question of liking her, it was a question more of what she did to the British Crown, but as IluvBertie said she ended up, by no fault or credit of her own, doing everyone a very good turn indeed, a very unsatisfactory King was turned into a frivolous international party goer which seemed to suit him much better, even though to the end of his days he had the saddest face I have ever seen.

[Russophile]

Wasn't it sad? I think he longed for his country and that had a lot to do with it.

[Lady Meg]

Originally Posted by Wisteria

Excuse me asking but what is your true heritage?

Apparently I'm not allowed to talk about heritage on here. I got in trouble for that over in the Kate and William forum. Anyway, I don't know much about the whole Bessie and Edward scandal.. I'm new to this.. I just found out about all this a few weeks ago. What was wrong with Edward being King? Was he just not raised to be King or what? Wikipedia doesn't really go into depth about these kind of things.. lol.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

Lady Meg, here's a website for you. Wapedia - Wiki: Wallis, Duchess of Windsor. This source claims that Wallis is related to Barak Obama and Harry S. Truman, as well as actor Robert Duvall. Don't know how reliable this is, but it's a start.

She's related to Barack Obama? Anyone care to work out how?

Originally Posted by Russophile

No, a lot of us don't dislike Bessie Wallis but felt that she was inappropriate to sit on the throne of England. She was a harbinger of fashion and bon mots. A hoot, actually. I wish I would have met her.

Bessie was a nice enough woman and I certainly do not blame her for falling in love. But she was just not right to be queen or princess consort.

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

I don't dislike her.

I thank her for taking him away and allowing a man who knew what it meant to be royal - duty before self - to become a wonderful king and then allowing us to have the marvellous queen that we have had for nearly 60 years.

Well said, if Bessie hadn't of fallen in love and the Duke abdicated we wouldn't have the queen we have today.

Originally Posted by Lady Meg

So they have absolutely NO power? Then what do they need them for? lol.

They are for ceremony, something to be proud off. Something to talk about.

Originally Posted by Lady Meg

Apparently I'm not allowed to talk about heritage on here. I got in trouble for that over in the Kate and William forum. Anyway, I don't know much about the whole Bessie and Edward scandal.. I'm new to this.. I just found out about all this a few weeks ago. What was wrong with Edward being King? Was he just not raised to be King or what? Wikipedia doesn't really go into depth about these kind of things.. lol.

Edward was raised to be king thats the point, after his father died he was meant to be king. He was the stronger of the two sons and given more focus he was taught to be king, Bertie wasn't. He was the spare, bit like Harry.

Edward could not have been king and been married to a woman who had been divorced twice, it just didn't happen. His mother would have died of shock if he even suggested it.
He had to choose between love or the throne.

[Zonk]

Time to be get back on topic!

This thread is not about William and Kate, ancestry, the role of Parliament, etc.

Any and all off topic posts will be deleted without notice.

Zonk
British Forums Moderator

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Lady Meg

Apparently I'm not allowed to talk about heritage on here. I got in trouble for that over in the Kate and William forum. Anyway, I don't know much about the whole Bessie and Edward scandal.. I'm new to this.. I just found out about all this a few weeks ago. What was wrong with Edward being King? Was he just not raised to be King or what? Wikipedia doesn't really go into depth about these kind of things.. lol.

Well first of all , Meg, you need to make sure you have access to an excellent public library because some books you won't find. Then start with Walli's autobiography: The Heart has it's reasons. You can go to David's auto. next: A King's Story. A good book from a biographer's pov is Greg King's: The Duchess of Windsor: The uncommon life of Wallis Simpson.
Any book on Queen Elizabeth II will have the abdication in it. One that I like is by Elizabeth Longford. That should get you started.

[Lady Meg]

Thanks for the suggestions.. I will look for it. I might have to order it online because we don't have a lot of British History books in our Bookstores.. thanks again..

Awe, that's horrible how they say he was the spare. Like Harry.. ouch. So it was just forbidden at the time to marry a divorced person? When did that rule get outlawed, because Charles and Camilla were both divorced..correct?

[Wisteria]

Originally Posted by Lady Meg

Awe, that's horrible how they say he was the spare. Like Harry.. ouch. So it was just forbidden at the time to marry a divorced person? When did that rule get outlawed, because Charles and Camilla were both divorced..correct?

You have a lot to learn/read Lady Meg. You had better get started.
Obama, Robert E Lee, Ulysses Grant, Ronald Reagan, George Washington, Bill Clinton, George Bush in fact anyone descended from William the Conqueror is related but not exactly brothers....

PS Charles was a widower when he married Camilla.

[Odette]

Originally Posted by Lady Meg

Thanks for the suggestions.. I will look for it. I might have to order it online because we don't have a lot of British History books in our Bookstores.. thanks again..

Lady Meg. Go to a Barnes & Noble bookstore anywhere in the DC area, or Maryland or Northern Virginia. If they do not have the book available in the store they can order for you whichever one you want and you can go pick it up at a later day. Actually if you know which ones you want ask for help while there, they have a very large selection.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Odette

Lady Meg. Go to a Barnes & Noble bookstore anywhere in the DC area, or Maryland or Northern Virginia. If they do not have the book available in the store they can order for you whichever one you want and you can go pick it up at a later day. Actually if you know which ones you want ask for help while there, they have a very large selection.

Which might get spendy which is why I suggested the public library. (Not to mention the fact that anytime I buy another book Mr. Russo rolls his eyes and says, "Not another one??!! Can't we have a garage sale??") Though I do realize that not everybody is as spoiled as we are here in Oregon with our libraries. They even loan out from other branches if the one you are frequenting doesn't have what you need.
For fun, Lady Meg, read "Aline, Countess of Romanones :The Spy wore Red, The spy went Dancing, the spy wore silk." 3 different books of when she was a spy for America during WW2 and beyond. She and Wallis were good friends.
Now you have lots to read and report back to us! Get going! Chop! Chop!

[Odette]

I do not like borrowing books from the Library. I love the smell of a new book. You are correct though they add up fast and if anyone reads a book a week it is spendy..
Anyway. Lady Meg, we are waiting to hear which books about the Duke & Duchess of Windsor and others you read so we can have a discussion about them..Happy reading......

[Zonk]

I think if yout want to get a good look into the mind of Wallis and Edward, I would definitely read their books. But take it with a grain of salt.

Edward, to my knowledge never understood why people felt he deserted them.

Its hard to get an objective book on the Windsors.

You might also want to check out ebay or half.com. You can use half.com if you know the specific name of the book. Ebay if you want to search for royal books, biographies. There's a ton of stuff on sale.

[Jeniann]

Originally Posted by Lady Meg

Thanks for the suggestions.. I will look for it. I might have to order it online because we don't have a lot of British History books in our Bookstores.. thanks again..

You're from D.C. area? Try Second Story Books on P Street, Capitol Hill Books on C Street, Lantern Books in Georgetown, and so many more I can't think of right now. If you're ever in Fredericksburg there's Riverby books downtown. In Laurel there's Attic books, the guy who owns it knows my grandpa. Just do a google search for used books stores Washington D.C. area and you'll find plenty more. If you're looking for Windsors most of the best books are out of print but can be found at used book stores for a steal. You should have no trouble finding plenty if you take a trip into the city and hit as many stores as you can on one day. I wouldn't even bother with Barnes and Nobles and the like, you won't find what you're looking for and it'll be twice the price. If you really need something new and in print I suppose Books-A-Million at Arundel Mills would be your best bet. That's where I got my copy of Elizabeth and Leicester by Sarah Gristwood. They have a lot of Tudor related stuff. Also try the big student bookstores at any of the area colleges. You don't have to go there, but if you know someone with a student ID you can get a discount.

If you look in the right places you should have no trouble finding what you want without going online. If you need any more tips please PM me. There's also a lot of great stores in the Richmond and Charlottesville areas.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Lady Meg

Awe, that's horrible how they say he was the spare. Like Harry.. ouch. So it was just forbidden at the time to marry a divorced person? When did that rule get outlawed, because Charles and Camilla were both divorced..correct?

Actually there was never a law that banned a divorced person from marrying into the royal family or from being King if divorced.

The government wanted to get rid of an unsatisfactory king and he gave them a great excuse - wanting to marry a twice divorced American.

The Anglican Church, of which Edward was the Supreme Governor (just as the Queen is today), frowned on divorce as they regarded it as a contract made before God and for life. The Archbishop of Canterbury raised concerns about Wallis as a future bride.

Between the Church's concerns and the government's desires to get rid of him Wallis and her divorces was an opportunity that was grabbed with both hands and it was presented to the public as a reason to get rid of him. The various governments of the empire that also had to be consulted also weren't keen on Edward as King or Wallis as a future Queen and went along with the divorce situation as an excuse.

In about 2000 the General Synod of the Anglican Church became officially more accepting of divorced persons. Anglican priests have had the right to decide for themselves whether or not to marry a divorced person (mine told me back in the early 1990s - before Charles and Diana divorced that he would have no problems marrying Charles and Camilla as he believed that they were truly in love and that that should be considered) for a number of years.

The instructions are now along the lines that priests/ministers/vicars are able to marry divorced persons but they should think harder on the situation if either of the parties contributed to the break up of the original marriage so some ministers wouldn't marry Charles and Camilla as they see Camilla as playing a part in the break up of Diana and Charles marriage (my minister argued that Charles said that he didn't go back to Camilla until the marriage had irretrievably broken down and therefore she played no real part in the break down of the marriage).

As Charles and Camilla married in a civil service the church wasn't asked to appoint anyone to preside over the actual marriage so no one had to make a decision about the role of Camilla or anyone else to the breakdown of the Wales' marriage. The fact that the Archbishop presided at the blessing is often what happens when a minister refuses to actually marry - and has been happening for years - civil marriage and church blessing.

No law had to be changed as no law existed. In 1936 divorced persons weren't welcome in many places and were frowned upon. When Albert married Victoria he discouraged divorced people from being presented at court and that continued well into the 20th Century (of course there were some divorces within the family itself). Albert was trying to restore respect for the royal family and the monarchy and to do that it had to set a much higher tone regarding things like extra-marital relationships. That attitude was still a defining position in the 1930s and so when Wallis came along it was always going to be difficult for Edward to marry Wallis but with the government's view of him as a king it was just too Heaven sent an opportunity for them not to use it.

[iowabelle]

I think The Spy Wore Red was pretty favorable in its treatment of Wallis.

I don't know if I mentioned, probably did, that about 25 years ago I met an elderly gentleman who knew Wallis when she was living in Pensacola, Florida with her first husband. This man said that Wallis was adored by the men and she was a wonderful dancer. Make of it what you will... but sometimes, in my observation, women who are adored by men are not well liked by other women.

[Dierna23]

Yes, that's true IMO. It's sort of weird...

[Odette]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

I think The Spy Wore Red was pretty favorable in its treatment of Wallis.

I don't know if I mentioned, probably did, that about 25 years ago I met an elderly gentleman who knew Wallis when she was living in Pensacola, Florida with her first husband. This man said that Wallis was adored by the men and she was a wonderful dancer. Make of it what you will... but sometimes, in my observation, women who are adored by men are not well liked by other women.

It is a generalization, still, this kind of women are having something special, mostly looks and their approach towards men.
I do not know how Wallis was treating men but, however one measures beauty, I do not believe she had any. Don't ask me what attracted a King to walk away from the throne for her sake, since I cannot figure it out myself...

[Iluvbertie]

Beauty isn't only skin deep and many ugly people have wonderful natures that attracts people to them.

[Odette]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Beauty isn't only skin deep and many ugly people have wonderful natures that attracts people to them.

No doubt. However a woman who is adored by men and not so by women is usually attractive. A woman would be more jealous of another woman if she is attractive than if she is ugly but men "adore" her..
Generally speaking. There are exceptions to every rule.
Many a relationship was ruined by a woman no one ever thought of as a "femme fatale..."

[Dierna23]

I personally find Wallis pretty, she may not have been a great beauty, but she wasn't ugly. As we all know her just from pictures and footage, I think one cannot judge what was the special "it" on her. I remember when I once met a good known german actor. He's really not a handsome man and I never understood why he's that popular and when I met him and he talked to me he really had charism.

And of course I know a few (IMO) ugly girls which are altough quite adored by man (it surely must be the planters peanuts in this case )