The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1221  
Old 04-30-2016, 08:43 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,142
It was also a matter of social custom. If the King (and the Queen) made it known throughout Society that Wallis was not to be addressed as an HRH then who would have disobeyed? Certainly many of those people who were invited to Government House in the Bahamas years didn't, even if it did put them in a very awkward position sometimes.

I just get the feeling from everything that I have read that the animus towards Wallis as an adventuress and gold digger among members of the BRF was such that if King George had been told that she was indeed an HRH and nothing could be done short of legislation stripping Edward of his HRH, then that's what would have happened, sad though many members of the family would have been.

After everything that had happened the thought that 'that woman' was going to be curtsied to and fawned on as a royal person would have been sheer anathema to most Britons at the time and therefore they would have backed whatever it took to bring her down.
Reply With Quote
  #1222  
Old 05-01-2016, 12:47 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,339
Edward VIII/The Duke of Windsor's behavior supports that Wallis did not automatically became HRH upon marrying Edward. He was reportedly devastated that his brother George VI did not grant her the HRH styling and even shed tears over it, and then continued to lobby his brother and others like Winston Churchill regarding the matter during wartime no less.
Reply With Quote
  #1223  
Old 05-01-2016, 10:12 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The title couldn't be stopped - hence she was Duchess.

The style was stopped - and it was discussed about passing legislation (my great-uncle was in the government at the time and attended many of the relevant meetings - that is my source - many of those discussions were not recorded officially however) - and styles are the preserve of the monarch.

I don't need to 'read the linked papers' as I have studied and written on this topic (it was the basis of my Honours thesis for my BA at university in the 1970s using my great-uncles letters and correspondence as the basis of that thesis given his position.

The decision made by the government was that it was down to the King to decide - if he felt legislation was necessary to deprive her of the title but as the ruling from the relevant people at the time (as now with the Wessex children) is that all that is needed is for the monarch's will to be made known then that was all that was needed.

Common Law is not 'law' in a legislation sense but a body of practice developed through precedent. The King used a new precedent and Elizabeth has followed that precedence with the Wessex children and even with Camilla.
Iluvbertie, did they discuss validity of Edward's civil marriage?

This question was raised in 2005 before prince Charles' marriage.
From wikipedia:
Quote:
The royal family was specifically excluded from the Marriage Act 1836, which instituted civil marriages in England. However, Prince Charles's civil marriage raised questions. Lord Falconer of Thoroton told the House of Lords that the 1836 Act had been repealed by the Marriage Act 1949, which had different wording, and that the British Government were satisfied that it was lawful for the couple to marry by a civil ceremony in accordance with Part III of the 1949 Act, and the Registrar General Len Cook determined that a civil marriage would in fact be valid. Any doubt as to the interpretation of the Marriage Act 1949 was put to rest by the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires that legislation be interpreted in conformity with convention rights wherever possible (including the right to marry, without discrimination).
Thus it looks like Edward's marriage (took place before the Marriage Act 1949) wasn't valid in England.
Reply With Quote
  #1224  
Old 05-17-2016, 02:34 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,142
Those long Empire tours undertaken in the 1920's probably were a bit of a strain. However, a collection of letters to Freda Dudley Ward that were published years ago show Edward as a man very much given to self pity and whining about his family, duties, officials he met, his travelling, position as heir, the fact he often felt 'useless' etc, etc. Quite frankly, I don't think he ever really wanted to be King and from the days of his early manhood he was looking for an 'out', IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #1225  
Old 05-24-2016, 08:06 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,142
Although photographs of the cruise and short articles about the destinations did appear in British newspapers, sparking shock that a British King would walk around half-naked, (bare-chested) Wallis Sinpson still wasn't mentioned, except as one of the guests.

It wasn't until the Bishop of Bradford made an observation towards the end of the year about 'the King's grace' that all hell broke loose. The Bishop didn't know about Wallis and was just referring to Edward's irregular church going, but the Establishment and Press thought he was speaking about the affair. It was then that the Press broke ranks and the population knew for the first time what their monarch had been up to.

Edward may have been popular with the working class people of Britain but the middle classes weren't too keen on having a Queen Wallis, and neither were working class women. When the scandal broke, her the window glass in her house was smashed and she had to flee abroad for her own safety.

I fail to see what is underdog about an extremely privileged, spoiled and entitled man (nothing humble about David) and the mistress he absolutely smothered with expensive jewellery and assured would be Queen.
Reply With Quote
  #1226  
Old 05-27-2016, 04:38 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Former Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,227
Please note that the most recent conversation concerning the Duchess of Windsor's style and title has been moved to the following thread:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post1888747
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #1227  
Old 06-06-2016, 09:55 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,142
I'm glad he was pleased. However, all though it's hard to know to whom the writer of this article is referring in this instance, (not unusual with the Daily Fail) it's wrong to state that none of the future Edward VIII's cousins were British. What about the progeny of Louise, George V's eldest sister, who married the Duke of Fife?
Reply With Quote
  #1228  
Old 08-07-2016, 03:55 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Those long Empire tours undertaken in the 1920's probably were a bit of a strain. However, a collection of letters to Freda Dudley Ward that were published years ago show Edward as a man very much given to self pity and whining about his family, duties, officials he met, his travelling, position as heir, the fact he often felt 'useless' etc, etc. Quite frankly, I don't think he ever really wanted to be King and from the days of his early manhood he was looking for an 'out', IMO.
I wouldn't say that. I think that he did do the job pretty well as POW, worked hard and did a fairly good job in public. If he complained in private, well we all do about our jobs. but I don't think he seriously contemplated leaving the RF. I think it was a combination of actually becoming King and realising that he was now "king for life", ha the whole role laid out for him etc. which happened around the same time he'd fallen in love with Mrs S. and been advised that she wasn't a sutiable bride, for him.. that pushed him to want to leav...
Reply With Quote
  #1229  
Old 08-07-2016, 04:02 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
It was also a matter of social custom. If the King (and the Queen) made it known throughout Society that Wallis was not to be addressed as an HRH then who would have disobeyed? Certainly many of those people who were invited to Government House in the Bahamas years didn't, even if it did put them in a very awkward position sometimes.

I
After everything that had happened the thought that 'that woman' was going to be curtsied to and fawned on as a royal person would have been sheer anathema to most Britons at the time and therefore they would have backed whatever it took to bring her down.
I agree. I think that certainly the force of social custom and what the King said was likely to be obeyed... and IF Wallis' 3rd marriage had not lasted, like the first 2, if she had had an HRH that could not be taken from her, or had at least been hers, I can see that the RF and people feared she would go on calling herself HRH, and gone through café society with maybe a 4th Husband Count Somebody and calling herself HRH Countess Somebody and exacting curtsies etc from people.. At the time, it would have seemed pretty awful and degrading the titles of the UK...
I tink that yes George VI got so fed up with His brother that he would have done what he felt was needed to make sure that didn't happen, even if it meant legislation to strip David of HIS HRH
Sorry if this is a bit OT, I hadn't seen the post about the titles? If it should go elsewhere please move it?
Reply With Quote
  #1230  
Old 08-07-2016, 04:21 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 12,606
As usual accuracy is non-existent at the Daily Hate Mail...
Reply With Quote
  #1231  
Old 08-07-2016, 07:39 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
You The late King/Duke of Windsor had his faults and short comings, Lord knows. I just wonder if anyone will ever be fair and realize part of the reason why he threw away his throne and duty to the empire is because of the treatment he recieved from those same people.

The Crises of 1936 isn't just Edward and Wallis's fault, just saying.
yes it was. He was not ill treated, nor was she.
Reply With Quote
  #1232  
Old 08-07-2016, 08:12 AM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 599
What could have happened if Edward decided ..... Yes! I want to be King, in fact I am King and No! I will not give up Wallis!

Life partners wasn't a term in use at the time but as he wasn't married, mistress doesn't seem quite right.

Could his hand have been forced if he was determined, regardless to have it all, in that sense?
__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #1233  
Old 08-07-2016, 06:14 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
What could have happened if Edward decided ..... Life partners wasn't a term in use at the time but as he wasn't married, mistress doesn't seem quite right.

Could his hand have been forced if he was determined, regardless to have it all, in that sense?
If he hadn't married Wallis, I don't think anything would have happened. But then would her husband play ball? I think he was fed up and wanted a divorce.. and if the affair had become known to the public, I think it was hard to keep it quiet. If he had been a bachelor king and Wallis, with a husband in the background, had been his "lady friend"- in private, provided it was discreet, I think that it would have been Ok, The Yorks were there to provide heirs....
But he wanted to marry Wallis..and I think he didn't really want to be King that much...
Reply With Quote
  #1234  
Old 08-07-2016, 06:50 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,309
IIRC his father, the King, famously said he would be in ruins within a year of his death (and it proved true).

I don't think Bertie wanted to be King ....especially under the circumstances. I don't think the government was too keen on the idea either.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1235  
Old 08-07-2016, 06:58 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,022
No of course George VI didn't want to be king. The Abdication was a terrible trauma for the RF. but I believe that David was advised that he could keep seeing Wallis discreetly and his attitude was that he wanted to marry her.
SO I don't think he would have agreed to the idea that he and Wallis should be "life partners" in private..
offhand I can't remember whether he was willing to consider a morganatic marriage...
Reply With Quote
  #1236  
Old 08-07-2016, 07:37 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,142
Yes, Edward wanted to marry Wallis. He made that very clear.

You also have to remember the social mores of the time as well. Although there were plenty of discreet affairs among the upper classes, some of them long term, people would have very much disapproved of just 'shacking up'. And it could have been disastrous if a very long term affair had been discovered by ordinary people. A few years was bad enough!

Although British newspapers remained silent it was already said that in places like Liverpool and Southampton the news had dribbled out about Wallis by the mid-1930's. Businessmen and travellers to the US and stewards and crew on the big liners had access to American magazines and newspapers.

Plus, as has been said, for how long would Ernest Simpson have put up with the scorn and joking of people of his own class? Would he have wanted to have been shackled to Wallis for years simply to allow her affair with the King to continue? What if he'd turned nasty (unlikely, I know) and sued for divorce on the grounds of her adultery?
Reply With Quote
  #1237  
Old 08-07-2016, 07:51 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 14,035
Edward did ask about the possibility of a morganatic marriage and the government told him that wasn't a possibility in Britain as that concept didn't exist.

It should also be remembered that the government were determined to get rid of him as an unsuitable king - Wallis was the excuse and not the reason per se. Edward was indiscreet e.g. leaving official documents marked 'for your eyes only' or 'highly confidential' lying around and Wallis even raised the content on these documents with people at dinner or other places.

If it wasn't Wallis some other excuse would have been found to remove him as King.
Reply With Quote
  #1238  
Old 08-07-2016, 10:36 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,309
From what I have read Churchill (and others) was in favor of a Morgantic marriage but Edward refused. He wanted her to have the titles and rights.

That's how all the documentaries about him I've seen have said it and any books about that era have portrayed it.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1239  
Old 08-08-2016, 12:57 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,894
As UK has no morganatic law, such a marriage would require a legal change. And it wasn't a simple matter of parliament approval. The PM's of the 5 dominions of the time had a say. Like with the change in succession recently had to be signed off by the commonwealth. The 5 dominions of the time were Canada, NZ, South Africa, Australia and the Irish free state. Yes, they only need consult in those days but they could have caused serious political backlash. Irish free state was absolutely opposed, not recognizing divorce. Our PM, William Mackenzie King was no happier,saying Canadians liked Edward but any marriage was unacceptable and appealed to Edward to put duty first. South Africa and Australia were also opposed. The only Dominion PM who supported a morganatic was Michael Savage of NZ.

Churchill was not PM at the time, Stanley Baldwin was. Churchill didn't come to office until 1940. In fact, Neville Chamberlin came in between. Churchill did in fact support the king but had little power (he refused to sitt on discussion counsel and originally was opposed). He went into polititcal exile after as even his own party practically saw him as an anarchist. It was his voice against Germany which brought him back and to power.

Baldwin, the house of Commons, Archbishop of Canterbury, 4 dominion PMs, and trades union all opposed. Even Labor and liberal backed the view of Conservative Baldwin. For all Churchil and Beaverbrook's campaigning, only 40 MP's could be mustered in support.


Basically even if Edward would accept such a compromise, it was never offered.
Reply With Quote
  #1240  
Old 08-08-2016, 09:12 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,309
Just saying according to the documentaries I've seen and info I've read Churchill (yes I know he wasn't PM) floated the idea to Bertie and it was refused...they didn't go any further with getting approval etc. No need.



LaRae
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abdication, britain, duchess of windsor, duke of windsor, edward viii, king edward viii, wallis simpson


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Duchess of Windsor Jewellery micas Royal Jewels 221 08-17-2022 09:44 AM
The Duke of Windsor and Wallis Simpson - 3 June 1937 aussiechick12 Historical Royal Weddings 36 01-11-2022 05:29 PM
Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester and Miss Birgitte van Deurs: 8 July 1972 Scott Royal Weddings 17 08-15-2018 01:49 AM
Books on The Duke and Duchess of Windsor Duchess Royal Library 106 07-15-2013 12:49 PM
The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester Current Events 1: October 2003-January 2006 A.C.C. Current Events Archive 132 01-13-2006 10:37 PM




Popular Tags
africa albert prince consort all tags america arcadie arcadie claret austria british british royal family caribbean caroline charles iii claret congo current events danish royal family death denmark duarte pio duchess of kent edward vii elizabeth ii emperor naruhito empress masako garsenda genealogy general news grace kelly grimaldi hamdan bin ahmed history india introduction jewels jordan royal family king king charles king philippe king willem-alexander leopold ier matrilineal monaco monarchy mountbatten need help official visit order of precedence portugal prince albert monaco prince christian princess of orange queen alexandra queen camilla queen ena of spain queen margrethe ii queen mathilde queen maxima queen victoria republics restoration royal initials royal wedding silk spain spanish royal family state visit switzerland visit william woven


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:39 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2023
Jelsoft Enterprises