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

[HRHThePrince]

Now I see why the patent was written like it was from your explanation. Let me know if I got it correct...

King George VI issued LP denying the status of HRH and the title of Prince/ss to the Duke of Windsor's "possible" grandchildren because they could claim royal status through him since he was a British monarch regardless of the fact that he abdicated. As such they would have legally been grandchildren of a once reigning monarch.

I think I got that correct lol. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I always wondered how could George V's great grandchildren via his son the Duke of Windsor be entitled to princely status, misremembering that Edward had once held the throne.

[Artemisia]

That is my understanding. No special provisions were made for descendants of abdicated Sovereigns in the 1917 Letters Patent so George VI was treading untested waters and had to be extra-careful.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Wasn't it LPs of 1937? From what I've read, George VI issued the LP in May which was very close to the wedding date of David and Wallis in June 1937.

Ahhhh someone taught me to be a stickler for the facts.

You are correct - I didn't re-read my post correctly before posting.

They were of course the 1937 LPs that covered any possible children and male-line legitimate grandchildren of Edward VIII not being entitled to the HRH Prince/Princess.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by HRHThePrince

I was reading The Queen's 1996 Letters Patent regarding divorce wives of Princes of the UK. I noticed the Duke of Windsor was mentioned in the patent. It read:


"And Whereas His late Majesty King George VI by his Letters Patent dated the 27th day of May in the 1st year of his Reign did declare that despite his exclusion from the succession the Duke of Windsor should continue to hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness but that his wife and children if any and the children of his sons should not be so entitled"


I may have missed something... but why would the Duke of Windsor's sons children (his grandchildren) be mentioned in the Letters Patent regarding royal rank? His father King George V decreed that only the children of the sovereign, the children of the sons of the sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales would be titled Prince/ss and Royal Highnesses. Naturally, Edward's hypothetical grandchildren would be great grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line not entitlting them to princely status.

Can someone explain, please?

In the preamble of the 1996 Letters Patent, it referred to the provisions of the 1937 Letters Patent to establish The Sovereign had, in the past, issued Letters Patent to regulate the established criteria of the 1917 Letters Patent as to who was entitled to use the style and rank of HRH Prince/Princess under unusual circumstances.

In common law and precedent, a wife automatically shares the style, rank and title of her husband, but there was no precedent for the style of a wife of an abdicated King or a former wife of a Prince of the UK. Letters Patent were therefore necessary to address these developments and establish the will of The Sovereign.

In The Duke's case, he had renounced the rights of his children, if any, to succeed to the throne under the Act of Settlement, therefore, it followed his wife and children were not members of the royal family and the style of HRH was limited to him as a former King and son of George V.

In 1996, the concept of divorced Princes was new and The Queen wished to establish that former wives, consistent with existing practice for Peers, would not be entitled to retain their rank and precedence as HRH upon divorce.

[Dman]

Have anyone heard this interview before?

The King's Story. Duke of Windsor Interview 1951 - YouTube

[Queen Camilla]

Elizabeth, the daughter of the Duke & Duchess of Windsor.

Don't know if this was ever posted, but this website is claiming that Edward & Wallis has a child in 1934.

The pictures comparing the royal family to the woman & her children are interesting.

Anyone heard anything else about this story?

[Iluvbertie]

This story has been around for awhile but is given no credence.

[Nice Nofret]

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla

Elizabeth, the daughter of the Duke & Duchess of Windsor.

Don't know if this was ever posted, but this website is claiming that Edward & Wallis has a child in 1934.

The pictures comparing the royal family to the woman & her children are interesting.

Anyone heard anything else about this story?

.. ' God revealed a secret' - doesn't that tell already the whole story?

There are a lot people out there who believe to be Jesus, God, some Celebrity or other ... They should follow their doctors advice and take their pills... but then again, if they are happy and not harming anyone?

[Dman]

In the old days members of the royal family were messing around a lot. It's very possible there were babies produced due to all of that. Edward VII messed around a lot in his hay day. I'm sure there he fathered some children along the way.

Who knows, maybe the Windsor's had a baby. I do think Wallis would've kept her baby though.

[Trillian]

Would not fit with Anne Sebba's hints and inferences in "That Woman".

[Artemisia]

Even forgetting the ridiculousness of the entire story, what I don't understand is, why would the existence of the child even be kept secret? Born out of wedlock she would have had no succession rights even if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated. And following the abdication, why would they not acknowledge their own child? It's not as if illegitimate children were anything new for the British Royal Family.

[Nice Nofret]

The Duke of Windsor, in his times as PoW had a lot affairs with married women - there are no children known of - It was often supposed that he was sterile due to some illness (of which I don't know the name in english) called Mumps (German name), just because non of his known mistresses had fallen pregnant. We do know of love-children of other Windsor-men - so why shouldn't we know, if there had been one to the Duke of Windsor? After his abdication, there was no reason any more to keep quiet about it. The same holds true for the Duchess of Windsor - she had many lovers and was married three times - without issues ...

But apart from above mentioned facts, is this funny women not believable at all. Do you really believe above all other things, that E&W would have called their daughter Elisabeth? Of all things imaginable .. with her well known distaste for 'cookie'?

[Dman]

Picture:
The Royal Family at The Duchess of Windsor's Funeral:
http://royal-windsor.tumblr.com/image/43327121185

Video:
DUCHESS OF WINDSOR IS FLOWN TO BRITAIN FOR BURIAL:
http://www.itnsource.com/en/shotlist...eral&st=0&pn=1

[Duchessmary]

I would love to know what was going through the QM's head in that picture.

[branchg]

The Queen Mother reportedly said (anonymously of course, but probably through Billy, her long-time equerry) at the time, "I didn't hate her. In the end, I just felt sorry for her."

I think The Queen Mother had made her peace with Wallis and it was revealed after The Duchess died that she had sent her flowers and friendly cards for many years after The Duke's death.

[Duchess of Durham]

Originally Posted by Artemisia

Even forgetting the ridiculousness of the entire story, what I don't understand is, why would the existence of the child even be kept secret? Born out of wedlock she would have had no succession rights even if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated. And following the abdication, why would they not acknowledge their own child? It's not as if illegitimate children were anything new for the British Royal Family.

And why would the US military and intelligence community concerned with knowing and keeping this "secret"?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Artemisia

Even forgetting the ridiculousness of the entire story, what I don't understand is, why would the existence of the child even be kept secret? Born out of wedlock she would have had no succession rights even if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated. And following the abdication, why would they not acknowledge their own child? It's not as if illegitimate children were anything new for the British Royal Family.

Of course any child that Wallis had in 1934 wouldn't have been born 'out of wedlock' as she was still married and living with Ernest at the time and so it would have been normal for any such child to be accepted as Ernest's.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Dman

In the old days members of the royal family were messing around a lot. It's very possible there were babies produced due to all of that. Edward VII messed around a lot in his hay day. I'm sure there he fathered some children along the way.

Who knows, maybe the Windsor's had a baby. I do think Wallis would've kept her baby though.

Originally Posted by Artemisia

Even forgetting the ridiculousness of the entire story, what I don't understand is, why would the existence of the child even be kept secret? Born out of wedlock she would have had no succession rights even if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated. And following the abdication, why would they not acknowledge their own child? It's not as if illegitimate children were anything new for the British Royal Family.

Illegitimate children weren't any new thing, but it's not as though all illegitimate children were acknowledged. Some kings and princes acknowledged a good number - some so much so that you're left hoping that they acknowledged them all simply because how many more can there have been - but others didn't acknowledge many, or even any at all. I personally always found it hard to believe that Henry VIII only had 1 (or 3, if Mary Boleyn's children were his unacknowledged children) illegitimate child, and Edward VII didn't have any.

It's been alleged that David was sterile owing to the fact that despite his playboy lifestyle he never had any children. I always just figured that in the Victorian and post-Victoria Eras acknowledging illegitimate children fell out of practice and instead attempts were made to cover them up. I think of one acknowledged Royal Bastard since Victoria - her uncles all had a few (or more), and mistresses have continued, but no bastards.

As for a Wallis/David love child, I kind of doubt it happened. It doesn't seem to be within either's character to have a child (at least with each other) and just give it up. David gave up a kingdom for Wallis, I can't see them giving up a child.

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Of course any child that Wallis had in 1934 wouldn't have been born 'out of wedlock' as she was still married and living with Ernest at the time and so it would have been normal for any such child to be accepted as Ernest's.

That's true but I obviously meant out-of-wedlock for Edward since at the time he wasn't married to Wallis or anyone else.

[LauraS3514]

Originally Posted by Ish

It's been alleged that David was sterile owing to the fact that despite his playboy lifestyle he never had any children. I always just figured that in the Victorian and post-Victoria Eras acknowledging illegitimate children fell out of practice and instead attempts were made to cover them up. I think of one acknowledged Royal Bastard since Victoria - her uncles all had a few (or more), and mistresses have continued, but no bastards.

Well, supposedly he contracted mumps as a teenager while at the Naval Academy; relatively harmless as a child, but devastating during or after puberty as it causes sterility. Of course, Wallis herself reportedly said that neither one of them was "heir-conditioned" so she may have been sterile as well: she had no children with her first two husbands either.