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

[Royal_Eagle]

Thank you very much for the text. So basically it confirm my impression that the HRH style can't be passed to any wives or issues of his. And assuming that the LP for Dukedom of Windsor has the usual male line remainder, I'd assume that the Dukedom of Windsor could be passed down to the eldest son of the Duke of Windsor, correct?

 

[branchg]

Yes, that's correct. The effect of the Letters was to affirm The Duke remained royal, not withstanding his abdication of the throne, but his wife and children would not hold royal rank.

If The Duke and Duchess had produced children, the eldest son would have eventually become "His Grace The Duke of Windsor", while the other children would have been styled Lord/Lady Windsor. Since The Duke had renounced the rights of succession on behalf of his descendants to the throne, there was no reason for them to be HRH Prince/Princess of the UK.

However, the issue of Wallis' rank was a source of much resentment as The Duke felt it was unfair for his wife to be denied her common law right to share her husband's rank, which certainly had some validity.

 

[DukeOfAster]

If I am not mistaken the Duchess was given HRH after her death.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If I am not mistaken the Duchess was given HRH after her death.

You are mistaken.

There would be no reason to give her a status in death that she didn't have in life.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

Whitehall, May 28, 1937.The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm...

Thanks for this but if you see my original post, the Letters Patent I'm looking for are the ones of March 8, 1937 - the ones that granted the Dukedom of Windsor. The Gazette notice you quote above and of which I was already aware, are regarding the Letters Patent of May 27, 1937, which restrict HRH to just the Duke.

While I appreciate everyone's efforts and while the conversation has veered somewhat into the HRH issue, I'm still curious if anyone can show me the Letters Patent of March 8, 1937, which granted the Dukedom of Windsor. Maybe these were never gazetted and maybe the Letters are sealed by the archives (for 100 years or whatever). If that's the case, why? I'm curious to see the letters beacuse while many (including myself) assume that the Dukedom had the usual remainder, perhaps it didn't. I'll keep digging.

One final thing, many sources list March 8, 1937 as the date the Letters Patent were actually finalized but what's the source of that date? A gazette notice? a newspaper account? Fun stuff!

 

[Royal_Eagle]

Gotcha--it'd be very interesting to see the actual LP's text, but I suspect that it'd probably have the usual remainder, but if not, I wouldn't be too surprised either.

I just wondered if they just never got around to gazetting the actual LPs?

Best of luck in your search!

 

[branchg]

Apparently, based on my research, the Letters Patent creating the Dukedom of Windsor on March 8, 1937 were never published by the London Gazette.

George VI declared at his accession council that he would create his predecessor "His Royal Highness The Duke of Windsor", but the actual creation was not legal until March 1937, when he formally signed the Letters Patent under the Great Seal. Why exactly this happened is unknown.

 

[branchg]

The Times of London did publish the following ('The Times' of Monday 14 December 1936 p 14):

"[On Saturday] morning the King attended the Accession meeting of the
Privy Council... His Majesty... was pleased to make the following
declaration:

"...My first act on succeeding My Brother will be to confer on Him a
Dukedom and He will henceforth be known as His Royal Highness The Duke
of Windsor.

"Whereupon the Lords of the Council made it their humble request to
His Majesty that His Majesty's Most Gracious Declaration to their
Lordships might be made public, which His Majesty was pleased to order
accordingly".

This creation by declaration of George VI to the Privy Council took place on 12
December 1936.

It should be noted that such declaration from The Sovereign, as fount of all honours, in the presence of his Councillers, is legally binding and Edward's peerage was officially created at that moment.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

Fascinating stuff! Thank you all for your responses.

On another, related note: I've read that The Duke of Windsor was made a GCB in 1936. Did he receive this when he was Prince of Wales, from his father George V who died on Jan. 20 of 1936? Or did he receive this after abdicating on Dec. 11 of 1936, from his brother George VI?

Any info.(including letters patent, gazette notices etc.) would be appreciated regarding this matter.

This is a fascinating forum, I have and am continuing to learn much from other learned members. Thanks so much!

 

[branchg]

I believe he lost all of his honours upon abdication, but these were restored by George VI as one of his first acts as King.

 

[Warren]

Unseen portrait of Edward VIII in royal robes after the Coronation that never was | Mail Online

All dressed up with no place to reign:
Unseen portrait of Edward VIII in royal robes after the Coronation that never was

"This forgotten painting of King Edward VIII in Coronation robes he never wore, released to mark today's 75th anniversary of his abdication, shows how the royal family could have been very different. The painting of the King, who gave up his crown to marry Mrs Wallis Simpson, was commissioned for a special Edward VIII Coronation issue of Illustrated London News which never made it to the news stands. A copy was only discovered after the publishers moved offices. It is believed the original portrait by Albert Collings was lost in the war."

v The portrait of Edward VIII in Coronation robes

 

[DukeOfAster]

Very interesting painting. To mark the day it is my wallpaper.!!

 

[fandesacs2003]

I do not know if I post in the correct place.

Imagine that Prince Edward has been authorised to marry Wallis Simson, and imagine that he did so. He consequently has not abdicated and he has reign as Edward VIII.
But Wallis Simson could not have chldren, so consequently, no direct heir.
Considering that his brother George, died early (so might be before Edward), who would reign after King Edward???
Princess Elisabeth, doughter of the heir, OR the son of the Duke of Gloucester, because a male??

 

[Excalibur]

At the time of Edward VIII's ascension, Princess Elizabeth was 2nd in line to the throne, behind her father, and before the Duke of Gloucester and his heirs. Had Edward not abdicated, only the timing would have changed, not the result. HM Queen Elizabeth II would still have been monarch.

 

[DukeOfAster]

Thank of it this way Beatrice and Eugenie still out rank the Earl of Wessex and his children and the Princess Royal and her children. The princesses father out rank his two siblings and so would his children regardless of their sex.

 

[fandesacs2003]

Thanks to both for explanations.

 

[Iluvbertie]

To give you an earlier example - take Queen Victoria.

Her father was the fourth son of George III.

Her father died before George III but her place in the line of succession was determined by her relationship to her father and his place as the fourth son. She always remained ahead of all of George III's fifth and later sons and all of his daughters so after George III's eldest son and third son had both been King she succeeded because she was the child of the fourth son and even though the fifth son was alive and had a son as well.

Gender only comes into it within one family but not between lines e.g. James comes before Louise because he is a boy and Andrew and Edward's lines always come before Anne's line but Beatrice and Eugenie and their lines will always come before Edward's line.

So in the awful scenario whereby Charles, William, Harry and Andrew all predecease the Queen Beatrice would become Queen over the Queen's remaining son.

 

[Mermaid1962]

What I find remarkable about this painting is the dark look around Edward's eyes. It gives him a rather haunted look. I wonder whether the dark circles were naturally there, or was the portraitist unusually perceptive?

Unseen portrait of Edward VIII in royal robes after the Coronation that never was | Mail Online

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

The dark circles are rather pronounced, aren't they? I thought the same thing, my dear Mermaid, when I saw this portrait. Rather haunting.

 

[Lenora]

Rev. James Leo, pastor to Duchess of Windsor | Cincinnati.com | cincinnati.com

 

[DukeOfAster]

May God bless the Rev Leo. Regardless of what the world thought of the Duchess the lord always loved her til the last day of her life. It is nice to know she had that and let it be know what Rev Leo was the one to preach her funeral.

 

[Baroness of Books]

What I find remarkable about this painting is the dark look around Edward's eyes. It gives him a rather haunted look. I wonder whether the dark circles were naturally there, or was the portraitist unusually perceptive?

If I recall correctly from photos I've seen, Edward always had those dark circles and the artist realistically included them in the portrait.

 

[ladongas]

"photo-shopped'

George VI Coronation portrait early example of 'photo-shopping' - Telegraph

Bittersweet, but amusing.

 

[Al_bina]

'The truth can't hurt them anymore': How a 1940s U.S. Marine-turned-rent boy slept with Hollywood's elite and 'had threesomes with Edward and Wallis' | Mail Online

 

[scooter]

'The truth can't hurt them anymore': How a 1940s U.S. Marine-turned-rent boy slept with Hollywood's elite and 'had threesomes with Edward and Wallis' | Mail Online

I would like to just give a heads up to anyone thinking of buying the book....I was at Borders yesterday and thumbed thru, and it is extremely explicit.

 

[muellera]

It could very well be that the missing papers have something to with embarrasing the Royal Family. This is not the first time this has happened. It is like magic how anything that embarrases the Royal Family has been taken care of. Naturally, this is only speculation. There is nothing like a good royal mystery

 

[Tsaritsa]

It could very well be that the missing papers have something to with embarrasing the Royal Family. This is not the first time this has happened. It is like magic how anything that embarrases the Royal Family has been taken care of. Naturally, this is only speculation. There is nothing like a good royal mystery

I agree, but to which papers do you refer in this instance?

 

[Lenora]

As the woman who lured the future King of England away from the throne, Wallis Simpson was used to being splashed across the front pages.

Read more: Why Wallis Simpson hated Marilyn Monroe revealed in Charles Pick's memoirs | Mail Online

 

[LadySarah]

What's your opinion on Wallis Simpson and Edward VIII?

Hello, fellow royal fans

After watching Madonna's W.E, I had a feeling that people reacted violently on two reasons: Some haters were gone rage over Wallis while others gone rage because the movie historically inaccurate.

If you're one of the haters over Wallis, you're not alone; Daily Fail addresses her as a man and the angry mobs are raging over the abdication of Edward VIII. I mean, come on, people, it's over and Wallis it's not a dude!!!

Now now, instead of talking about the abdication and Wallis personality and stuffs, I think it's better to tell me your opinion about both couple. What do you think of them? Does both deserves to be on the blame party? What's your opinion about them?

 

[Tsaritsa]

LadySarah, if you read back through the posts on this thread, I think you will be left in no doubt about how people view Wallis and Edward and whatever are your own thoughts, it will make for interesting reading.