The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1261  
Old 08-23-2016, 11:08 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Member - in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 17,267
Divorce in 1930s Britain was not the easy thing to obtain as it is in our own societies today and most certainly was very much frowned on by the Church of England of which the monarch is the supreme governor. As Pranter has stated, divorced persons were not allowed at court so there would be no reason whatsoever for George V to make a statement disallowing Wallis to be presented to him. It was pretty much a given that she wasn't "suitable" to mix in royal company.

The avant garde society that both David and Wallis moved in were more accepting of divorce and remarriage and it was within these circles that David and Wallis most felt comfortable.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #1262  
Old 08-23-2016, 11:14 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,137
Wallis went through the married version of being a debutante a year or two after settling down in England as Mrs Ernest Simpson, can't remember the date but there's quite a famous photo around of her wearing the obligatory Prince of Wales feathers in her hair (with veil etc) and white gown after being 'presented'.

She would therefore have been entitled to go to Court events such as balls. Apparently quite early in the relationship with the POW he, I don't know whether 'smuggled her in' is the right expression, but she was certainly present at an evening event at BP, so the court official responsible can't have noticed when her name was put on the list!

She wrote in her memoirs that she noticed Queen Mary's eyes on her and the Queen looking thoughtful, so her presence was certainly noted by Edward's mother! She never appeared before the King and Queen again on any occasion.
Reply With Quote
  #1263  
Old 08-23-2016, 11:21 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Member - in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 17,267
You are absolutely correct Curryong and thanks for that information. I found a photo taken at the presentation.

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/...ure-id78969560

Caption under the photo reads "Wallis Simpson's presentation at court to King George V and Queen Mary, Edward's mother and father in 1931 [June 1931 as per Wallis' biography]"

It is interesting to note that although Wallis met the Prince of Wales through his then mistress, Thelma Furness, they did not become involved with each other until 1934. When Wallis was presented at court, there was absolutely no indication of what was to occur in the future.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #1264  
Old 08-23-2016, 11:52 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I wouldn't be surprised...I'm pretty sure I remember a similar statement attributed to his sister-in-law (Queen Elizabeth later the Queen Mother) because of the havoc that situation caused and I've also heard she at least partly blamed the early death of her husband on all the stress of having to become King.

Also I believe at the time divorced persons were not allowed at court.


LaRae

The Queen Mother never had the power to ban Wallis from court - the influence to get others to do so, but not the power herself.

During the reign of George V Wallis wouldn't have been accepted at court, as Osipi stated, because divorced women weren't allowed at court.

During his reign, George VI barred his brother from Britain without permission. He didn't need to ban David from bringing Wallis to court - he effectively banned David from appearing at court at all.

It has been said that Queen Mary refused to ever meet Wallis. The Queen Mother certainly did. There were a slew of royal funerals that the couple would likely have been in attendance (some which I can verify, others which I can't), including that of Queen Mary, the Duke of Kent, the Duchess of Kent (which was David's last engagement), the Princess Royal, and the Earl of Harewood.

Both David and Wallis met with the Queen, Queen Mother, and Prince Charles a number of times in France after the deaths of George VI and the Queen Mother - which makes me think that as much as QEQM disliked Wallis, she put things behind her as time past. David had a royal funeral, which Wallis, QEQM, and QEII attended, and it was the Queen who agreed that the couple should be interred in the Royal Burial Grounds (before the agreement, they had been planning on being buried in Baltimore).
Reply With Quote
  #1265  
Old 08-23-2016, 11:56 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,137
Thankyou Osipi. I could remember that photo clearly.

Fast forward to the other incident mentioned in my previous post. In Ziegler's biography of Edward VIII he mentions that in November 1934 an evening party was held at BP in honour of the Duke of Kent's forthcoming marriage to Princess Marina. The POW put Wallis's name on the list. The King scratched it out.

It's not known who reinstated her. One biographer said it was the Duke of Kent. Prince Christopher of Greece was taken up to Wallis by Edward to be introduced. 'She's an American. She's Wonderful!" Edward said. He then introduced Wallis to his mother, hence her remembering the Queen's thoughtful expression.

He would have gone on with Wallis to introduce her to the King but was cut off. 'George V was outraged. "That woman in my house!" he stormed. He gave orders to the Lord Chamberlain that Mrs S was not to be invited to any Silver Jubilee functions nor to the Royal Enclosure at Ascot.'
Reply With Quote
  #1266  
Old 08-24-2016, 01:47 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,339
There was an incident where Prince Edward wanted Wallis invited to an event attended by his parents, the King and Queen, and George V was opposed because it was rumored that she and Edward were having an affair. Edward supposedly swore to his father that he and Wallis were not having an affair, Wallis got invited but it eventually came out that Edward and Wallis were having an affair, assuming that it is believable that the King believed his son's denial in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #1267  
Old 08-24-2016, 02:12 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,137
That may refer to the November 1934 event but there isn't any reference in Ziegler to Edward giving his word to his father that he wasn't having an affair with Mrs S, and November 1934 is the only occasion that I know of where she was present with the King and Queen, other than when she was presented in 1931, which was before Edward.
Reply With Quote
  #1268  
Old 08-24-2016, 02:37 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,137
Divorcees were presented at Court along with debutantes, including Wallis in 1931. They weren't allowed to be in the Royal Enclosure at Ascot.

The Duke of Windsor didn't attend his brother the Duke of Kent's funeral as that occurred in August 1942 in the midst of war. He was in the Bahamas. The King and Queen supported the Duchess of Kent and Queen Mary.
Various other royalty was present as many of them were head of the Free forces of their countries which were based in Britain. King Peter of Yugoslavia was there, King Haakon and Crown Prince Olav of Norway, for example, and Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands and Prince Bernhard. The Duke of Windsor was represented by Admiral Halsey.

Edward did attend Queen Mary's funeral, alone. He stayed with the Gloucesters for a few days before and after, still burning with resentment that Wallis wasn't by his side. However, considering Queen Mary's opinion of that lady, there might have been the sound of spinning in the coffin if she had been there!

Mary, the Princess Royal, happened to die very suddenly while the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were visiting England. They both attended her funeral.
Reply With Quote
  #1269  
Old 08-24-2016, 02:38 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
You are absolutely correct Curryong and thanks for that information. I found a photo taken at the presentation.

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/...ure-id78969560

Caption under the photo reads "Wallis Simpson's presentation at court to King George V and Queen Mary, Edward's mother and father in 1931 [June 1931 as per Wallis' biography]"

Ity no indication of what was to occur in the future.
however at thtat stage when Wallis was presented at court she was a divorced woman, having been divorced from her first husband. So I assume that while divorced people were not allowed as far as I know to hold official positions at court, and certainly weren't encouraged, there was not a blanket ban. So no, Geo V hardly "banned David from bringing a divorced woman into his presence."
Reply With Quote
  #1270  
Old 08-24-2016, 02:46 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Divorcees were presented at Court along with debutantes, including Wallis in 1931. They weren't allowed to be in the Royal Enclosure at Ascot.

T

Mary, the Princess Royal, happened to die very suddenly while the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were visiting England. They both attended her funeral.
Thanks curryong I didn't see this when I posted. I assume that if a woman had been divorced but was now respectably remarried, and the RF allowed it, she could be presented at court. Its possible? that how strictly the King reacted would be according to the situation. Wallis' first marriage broke up because her husband was an alcoholic and was cruel to her and she was then married to Ernest Simpson.. She wasn't the guilty party in her divorce, as far as I know.
So it is possible that these things were decided on a case by case basis. Divorced people weren't allowed in the Royal Enclosure at Ascot, and I think at the time, a divorced person would not be allowed an official position at court and could not become say Prime Minister..
However I believe that the King did blow up about Mrs S and David swore that she wasnt' his mistress .. which may have been technicaly true at the time.
But that's more of a private matter. the king as a fathter could certainly refuse to meet his son's mistress because he disaproved of the affair.
Reply With Quote
  #1271  
Old 08-24-2016, 03:00 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,137
I think the attitudes toward those who were considered 'guilty parties' as divorcees, as distinct from those who had perhaps divorced a 'womanising rotter' or 'a bolter' were quite different. In fact even in the Royal Enclosure those who were divorced through no fault of their own did get the occasional ticket. But Yes, it does seem to have been on a case by case basis, and no doubt Wallis would have come under the 'sinned against not sinning' category in 1931.
Reply With Quote
  #1272  
Old 08-24-2016, 03:11 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,004
I'd say that even in the early part of thte century only very strict people would classify divorce for cruelty, as "as bad" as bieng divorced for one's own adutlery. Divorce was based on fault at the time.. and some were less faulty than others. So presumably Wallis was considered an innocent party in her first divorce. IN fact she was technically the innocnet party in her second divorce, since she divorced Ernest for adultery...
Reply With Quote
  #1273  
Old 08-24-2016, 03:23 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,137
Yes, the judge in the case was described as being 'suspicious'. Of course most of the divorce cases involving adultery in that era involved staged circumstances involving hotel detectives, chambermaids and a hired female stooge as the 'guilty' party.

I still can't help but think that, if the story of the King's romance with Wallis had broken in British papers a couple of months into his reign, bang would have gone Wallis's chances of a clean divorce.
Reply With Quote
  #1274  
Old 08-24-2016, 05:26 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Yes, the judge in the case was described as being 'suspicious'. Of course most of the divorce cases involving adultery in that era involved staged circumstances involving hotel detectives, chambermaids and a hired female stooge as the 'guilty' party.

I still can't help but think that, if the story of the King's romance with Wallis had broken in British papers a couple of months into his reign, bang would have gone Wallis's chances of a clean divorce.
most divorces were collussive at the time.. Ernest WAS having an affair, it wasn't all a put up job.. but the courts were trying to stop any divorce that they suspected was wanted by boht parties and fixed up... i suppose if Wallis could not get a divorce least with her as the innocent party, it mgiht have affected her sitaution with David. She coudl hardly have him as co respondennt...
Reply With Quote
  #1276  
Old 09-21-2016, 03:18 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,137
Don't subscribe to the Telegraph so can't see beyond the paywall. Was this while Edward was serving in France during WW1? I know older officers took him to a brothel during this period, as an initiation and he was involved with a couple of young French women he wrote about in letters at the time a little later on.

Love child, though! If there was proof surely this would have come out before now? Plus, even if Edward did pay out for upkeep etc, he may have thought the child was his when it needn't necessarily have been. Conditions in wartime Gay Paree and all that!
Reply With Quote
  #1277  
Old 09-21-2016, 03:59 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,004
It seems unlikley. the DOW (among other things) never seemed the most fertile of men. There may have been illegitimate children that we dont know of, or that HE didn't know of.. but after all, we've never heard of any children at all, through his long life. He did like older women, and his long standing liaisons were with married ladies at a time when it was not that usual to acknowledge a royal bastard and when it was possible for the women to take precauations against an unwanted pregnancy. HIs wife was around 40 when they married and never had any children either. I dont think that he OR Wallis were all that keen on children, but even allowing for all this, i would say that it seems very unlikely that he got a woman pregnant.
Even as a young man, he would problaby have taken steps to prevent this, and not wanted to have the scandal of an illegitimate child, since it wasn't like earlier days when royal men didnt think anythng of having them and the public accepted them. His father would likely have been furiuos to hear of his having this youthful indiscretion. and I'd say that while not infertile, perhaps he was not a very fertile man and while he did take precautions or his women did, they were less necesary than they would be with other men?
His brothers all produced a few children, George VI had 2 daughters, Henry had 2 sons, George D of Kent had 3 children..and Mary had 2 boys...
Reply With Quote
  #1278  
Old 09-21-2016, 11:01 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,899
From the article

The Duke of Windsor had a love child with a Parisian seamstress and bought her silence with money that helped her become one of the French capital's top fashion designers, a new book claims.

In The Man Who Should Have Been King, Franois Graftieaux claims the Duke had an affair with his grandmother Marie-Lonie Graftieaux during one of his society trips to Paris in 1912.

The 70-year old Swiss Frenchman believes the pair met in their late teens at a famous Paris amusement park, Luna Park, which the Duke mentions in his memoirs and his grandmother refers to in her diary.

The Duke had been staying with the Marquis de Breteuil, a wealthy French aristocrat whose two sons were the British royal's age and took him on jaunts around Paris.

Shortly after the birth of her son in 1916, Ms Graftieaux, a working-class seamstress who had also modelled for a well known Parisian designer, suddenly had the means to open up her own fashion house and changed her name to Marcelle Dormoy.

Mr Graftieaux said: "I believe that a secret contract was agreed in which she received money in exchange for her silence on the matter."
Reply With Quote
  #1279  
Old 09-21-2016, 11:25 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,004
Saw the story on line. Not really all that convincing. If he really thinks his mother was the Dukes' mistress and was givne money for keeping it silent why does' he not honour the wishes of his parents and keep quiet about the affair?
Reply With Quote
  #1280  
Old 09-21-2016, 10:29 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 10,483
Pierre-Edouard Graftieaux was born in 1916. It was interesting that the father section of the birth section was left blank.
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
abdullah ii america arcadie arcadie claret austria british british royal family caribbean caroline charles iii claret congo current events danish royal family death duarte pio duchess of kent edward vii elizabeth ii emperor naruhito espana genealogy general news grace kelly grimaldi hamdan bin ahmed harry history identifying india introduction jewels jordan royal family king king charles king philippe king willem-alexander louis mountbatten matrilineal monaco monarchy mountbatten need help official visit order of precedence portugal prince christian princess of orange queen queen alexandra queen camilla queen elizabeth queen ena of spain queen margrethe ii queen mathilde queen maxima queen victoria republics restoration royal initials silk spain spanish history spanish royal family state visit switzerland tiaras visit william wine glass


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

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