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

[jacqui24]

The WoW was in full swing by the time Anne and Tim married.
I still don't believe that Harry (well his age aside) marrying a divorced, unbaptised, African-American actress could've happened before the breakdown of his parents marriage or that of his aunt and uncle's.

The WoW is hardly news to members of the royal family. The marriage has been in serious trouble for years. If it wasn't acceptable before then, it wouldn't have been acceptable right after. Even in 1992, some still believe the marriage is salvageable with them living separate lives. Like I said, it would be harder, but if they stuck it out and showed their commitment to each other, they would've still made it.

But back to the topic, Wallis wouldn't have been accepted even today. With or without her divorces.

 

[JR76]

Like I said, it would be harder, but if they stuck it out and showed their commitment to each other, they would've still made it.

Sticking it out as you put it implies waiting for a certain period of time which in my opinion sort of proves my point in that a marriage such as the one between Harry and Meghan could not have happened before the breakdown of the Wales marriage and the turmoil that lead to.

 

[jacqui24]

Sticking it out as you put it implies waiting for a certain period of time which in my opinion sort of proves my point in that a marriage such as the one between Harry and Meghan could not have happened before the breakdown of the Wales marriage and the turmoil that lead to.

No. Sticking it out even without the disaster of the Wales. Anne's second marriage didn't happen because the Wales' marriage blew up in public. But again, this marriage is in no way an indication of Duke and Duchess of Windsor's situation even if it were to happen today. For some to suggest it's simply a divorcee situation is oversimplification.

 

[Curryong]

Does that really matter though, JR76? Things are as they are at the time that they occur.

One could say, if we went back to 1936, that the marriages of Princess Anne to Mark Philllips, Prince Andrew to Sarah Ferguson and Prince William to Kate Middleton would not have occurred then because the rank in Society of the prospective spouses would not have been considered sufficiently high enough to be acceptable. Therefore permission would probably not have been granted.

The history of the BRF would therefore have been very different. We could play endlessly with similar 'this wouldn't have occurred because of ...' . Society at large and the rules governing remarriage after divorce in the Church of England (in 2002) have substantially changed Britain and the British, but IMO Wallis would be as unacceptable now as she was then.

The point is that there is no comparison between Wallis and Meghan for a great number of reasons. In fact about the only thing the two women have in common are that they are/were American and have/had been divorced.

 

[Queen Claude]

Even if the comparisons were done solely by the differences between the two couples, Harry and Meghan are a world apart from David and Wallis.

Both Harry and Meghan are actively looking to serve crown and country and its people through humanitarian endeavors. David and Wallis were a more narcissistic couple and reveled in the party and social scene. When Harry and Meghan met, both were free to enter into a romantic relationship with each other. David was involved with Wallis who, at the the time, had a very visible and very much alive husband. Harry and Meghan got the stamp of approval for their marriage from the monarch. David, as the monarch, had people scrambling around to find the ways and means to prevent his marriage to Wallis.

It all ended up the way it was supposed to though. With David abdicating, he was then free to pursue the party and social life to his and Wallis' heart's content. I don't think either of them would have been happy, let alone successful had things been different and David and Wallis were King and Queen and that's not including the political leanings they had.

I am not a fan of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor but as Prince of Wales and King, Edward / David showed considerable concern for "his people" and did have a work ethic, and yes I am aware that there were times that he shirked his duty. David liked to socialize and party but I would not consider him a debauchee while I would give that label to his grandfather Edward VII.

The Windsors were fixtures on the party scene because they had nothing else to do with their lives after the Duke rightfully got sidelined after World War II.

The WoW is hardly news to members of the royal family. The marriage has been in serious trouble for years. If it wasn't acceptable before then, it wouldn't have been acceptable right after. Even in 1992, some still believe the marriage is salvageable with them living separate lives. Like I said, it would be harder, but if they stuck it out and showed their commitment to each other, they would've still made it.

But back to the topic, Wallis wouldn't have been accepted even today. With or without her divorces.

If not for her divorces, what about Wallis would not have been acceptable?

 

[jacqui24]

If not for her divorces, what about Wallis would not have been acceptable?

Well, I’d say being a Nazi sympathizer is a very good reason. And being that Edward VIII and Wallis’ affair, they still would unlikely to be wed in the Church today.

 

[Osipi]

Well, I’d say being a Nazi sympathizer is a very good reason. And being that Edward VIII and Wallis’ affair, they still would unlikely to be wed in the Church today.

Although the CoE blessed the marriage of Charles and Camilla, its very possible that if David and Wallis were to apply to do the same today, it would be refused. Its my understanding that some ministers and pastors will perform a marriage for a divorced person if there was only one divorce. More than one divorce for a person would be more questionable.

 

[jacqui24]

Although the CoE blessed the marriage of Charles and Camilla, its very possible that if David and Wallis were to apply to do the same today, it would be refused. Its my understanding that some ministers and pastors will perform a marriage for a divorced person if there was only one divorce. More than one divorce for a person would be more questionable.

There is also an element of if one of the person played a part in the breakdown of the other’s previous marriage. Which obviously David did. If Harry and Meghan had an affair, I firmly believe that the AOC wouldn’t have agreed to perform the service. The Church allows for remarriage in some cases. Not all. Meghan’s situation is about as simple and least problematic as it gets. If she can’t be approved under the changes rule, pretty much no one can. Wallis and David was a different story.

 

[Queen Claude]

Well, I’d say being a Nazi sympathizer is a very good reason. And being that Edward VIII and Wallis’ affair, they still would unlikely to be wed in the Church today.

You said with or without the divorces. I interpreted, perhaps incorrectly, that that the "without divorces" meant that Wallis had never been married, so basically she was a never married, American commoner marrying the King. I dunno, perhaps an argument can be made that today's Brits and the dominions would not easily accept an American commoner as their Queen.



Being a Nazi sympathizer in 1936 would not have prevented the marriage, at the time there were plenty of people in Britain who sympathized and / or admired Germany including Wallis' soon-to-be husband.

 

[jacqui24]

You said with or without the divorces. I interpreted, perhaps incorrectly, that that the "without divorces" meant that Wallis had never been married, so basically she was a never married, American commoner marrying the King. I dunno, perhaps an argument can be made that today's Brits and the dominions would not easily accept an American commoner as their Queen.

Being a Nazi sympathizer in 1936 would not have prevented the marriage, at the time there were plenty of people in Britain who sympathized and / or admired Germany including Wallis' soon-to-be husband.

I'm not sure if there has been comments removed due to off topic that would lead to that incorrect conclusion, but we were all very clear that the only thing Wallis and Meghan has in common is being an American and divorcee. American wouldn't really be an issue as there has been other Queens in the past that were foreign. And being a divorce was just the obvious issue with Wallis.

While there might be other Nazi sympathizers, including Edward VIII, it certainly is an issue for British government. Just like David being a Nazi sympathizer was one of the issues. If Wallis were to come into the picture today, and she's a terrorist sympathizer, forget the monarch or the heir to the throne, she'd not be acceptable as Harry's wife.

 

[Furienna]

I'm not sure if there has been comments removed due to off topic that would lead to that incorrect conclusion, but we were all very clear that the only thing Wallis and Meghan has in common is being an American and divorcee. American wouldn't really be an issue as there has been other Queens in the past that were foreign. And being a divorce was just the obvious issue with Wallis.

While there might be other Nazi sympathizers, including Edward VIII, it certainly is an issue for British government. Just like David being a Nazi sympathizer was one of the issues. If Wallis were to come into the picture today, and she's a terrorist sympathizer, forget the monarch or the heir to the throne, she'd not be acceptable as Harry's wife.

Had the British goverment taken a stand against the Nazis already in 1936? I don't believe so, but you can correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't it only after the WWII started, that it became less acceptable to be a sympathizer?

 

[Curryong]

I think there was mistrust of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany in some quarters of the British Government and within the Foreign Office in 1936.

However, one of the main reservations that courtiers and officials had about the new King Edward VIII was his attitude towards official business. He either neglected paperwork or left it laying around for whoever (servants etc) to take a look at if they were so inclined. When papers were returned there were complaints about coffee and wine stains etc adorning them.

What was worse were the reports of indiscreet conversations at dinner parties about what was in the confidential memos etc Edward received. That quite obviously was a matter of great concern to his Secretaries and to the Baldwin government.

 

[Denville]

Of course tehre was mistrust of the Nazis. Many British and others tolerated them because they were anti Communist, but Hitler's attitudes and his aggression were a source of worry to other countries in Europe. They tended to hope that his more wild pronouncements were just rhetoric and that he would be controlled by the more staid conservatives and would settle down when he had a government to run. And some admired the way he did improve the economy in Germany.. But he was clearly a loose cannon and the British Govt were wary of him.

 

[Denville]

I think there was mistrust of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany in some quarters of the British Government and within the Foreign Office in 1936.

However, one of the main reservations that courtiers and officials had about the new King Edward VIII was his attitude towards official business. He either neglected paperwork or left it laying around for whoever (servants etc) to take a look at if they were so inclined. When papers were returned there were complaints about coffee and wine stains etc adorning them.

What was worse were the reports of indiscreet conversations at dinner parties about what was in the confidential memos etc Edward received. That quite obviously was a matter of great concern to his Secretaries and to the Baldwin government.

Exactly... Edward was not IMO a Nazi sympathiser as such, but he was stupid and indiscreet. I imagine the FO would have been very worried about his Meeting with Hitler, and what he might say, in the excitement of the moment.

 

[Tsaritsa]

Exactly... Edward was not IMO a Nazi sympathiser as such, but he was stupid and indiscreet. I imagine the FO would have been very worried about his Meeting with Hitler, and what he might say, in the excitement of the moment.

Antisemitism was rife in a particular strata of society the 1930's, and whilst Edward can't be credited with having a single original thought, like a child, I think he'd have fallen in with what the "grown-ups" were saying.

 

[Furienna]

Antisemitism was rife in a particular strata of society the 1930's, and whilst Edward can't be credited with having a single original thought, like a child, I think he'd have fallen in with what the "grown-ups" were saying.

Yes, that is pretty much what I think as well.

 

[Curryong]

Anti-Semitisim was only one element of the Nazi philosophy and there were many other things that the Hitler regime in Nazi Germany were doing in the mid 1930s that worried and perturbed the British Government, who by the way, did not approve of the Nuremberg Laws prohibiting Jews from entering or practising in their professions, either. Of course Britain's upper classes had individuals who were anti Semitic, but Edward's attitude towards Nazi Germany as a whole did cause concern.

 

[Mbruno]

Anti-Semitisim was only one element of the Nazi philosophy and there were many other things that the Hitler regime in Nazi Germany were doing in the mid 1930s that worried and perturbed the British Government, who by the way, did not approve of the Nuremberg Laws prohibiting Jews from entering or practising in their professions, either. Of course Britain's upper classes had individuals who were anti Semitic, but Edward's attitude towards Nazi Germany as a whole did cause concern.

I agree. While there could be people who held private anti-Semitic views, mainstream British society was definitely opposed to Nazi policy, especially denying Jews access to higher education or certain professions, or seizing/confiscating private property based solely on religion/ethnicity. Furthermore, British society generally rejected a single-party state, or rule by decree under the "Führer principle". Political parties that advocated a fascist platform like Mosley's BUF couldn't win local council seats, much less elect MPs. In fact, I think they never even stood as candidates in a British general election.


So if Edward VIII held fascist views, or, even worse, sympathized with Nazism, it would be at odds with mainstream British society, both on the left and on the right , and could not be excused simply as "ideas that were common among many people at the time".

 

[Denville]

Antisemitism was rife in a particular strata of society the 1930's, and whilst Edward can't be credited with having a single original thought, like a child, I think he'd have fallen in with what the "grown-ups" were saying.

what grown ups>? Yes there was a certain amount of genteel anti Semitism among the middle and upper classes as there was in the US and many coutnries. It did not mean that there were laws against Jews or violence against them...

 

[O-H Anglophile]

what grown ups>? Yes there was a certain amount of genteel anti Semitism among the middle and upper classes as there was in the US and many coutnries. It did not mean that there were laws against Jews or violence against them...

I think the "grown-ups" are Hitler and his circle--that Edward would have wanted to be in their group and so would have gone along with them. He was susceptible to flattery so it was a real fear of Churchill's and his brother.

 

[Denville]

I think the "grown-ups" are Hitler and his circle--that Edward would have wanted to be in their group and so would have gone along with them. He was susceptible to flattery so it was a real fear of Churchill's and his brother.

Hitler and his ciricle of gangsters are "Grown ups?"

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Hitler and his ciricle of gangsters are "Grown ups?"

Only in the sense that Edward (and Wallis) admired Hitler, looked up to him and would been flattered to have been included into his circle.


NOT in the sense that Hitler was mature or enlightened, which obviously he was not.

 

[Denville]

I doubt if the Windsors were that crazy aout Hitlter… or "looked up to him." To Edward he would have been perhaps a charismatic figure but still of lower class.. and probably Wallis felt the same. They admired him because he had pulled Germany out of depression and because they shared some of his views.. but the main reason for the visit was for them to be treated like royalty again, when they had been exiled and Edw hd come to realise that he wasnt' King anymore and that he would never be admired and treated as a royal in England again.. He wanted to go somewhere that he was treated as a head of state, and where Wallis would have some of the "royal treatment" that she was never going to have, because he'd abdicated..

 

[Tsaritsa]

Anti-Semitisim was only one element of the Nazi philosophy and there were many other things that the Hitler regime in Nazi Germany were doing in the mid 1930s that worried and perturbed the British Government, who by the way, did not approve of the Nuremberg Laws prohibiting Jews from entering or practising in their professions, either. Of course Britain's upper classes had individuals who were anti Semitic, but Edward's attitude towards Nazi Germany as a whole did cause concern.

Do you believe that Edward was intelligent enough to have been interested in entire philosophies? It's doubtful that he ever picked up a paper! As he only mixed with the upper classes he'd have been unlikely to have heard any views but theirs. I suspect his views would have been centred around his finances and how, in his imagination, Jews might set out to deplete them.

 

[Tsaritsa]

what grown ups>? Yes there was a certain amount of genteel anti Semitism among the middle and upper classes as there was in the US and many coutnries. It did not mean that there were laws against Jews or violence against them...

I was speaking metaphorically. Children repeat what they hear grown-ups say. It makes them feel grown-up, too. They don't need to have understanding of it.

 

[Denville]

Do you believe that Edward was intelligent enough to have been interested in entire philosophies? It's doubtful that he ever picked up a paper! As he only mixed with the upper classes he'd have been unlikely to have heard any views but theirs. I suspect his views would have been centred around his finances and how, in his imagination, Jews might set out to deplete them.

not sure what this means. He probably had some of the anti Semitic prejudices that many upper class people had, but I don't quite see why he'd think that Jews were likely to deplet his finances. HIs Grandfather Edw VII had jewish friends who were involved in finance and he used thtem as financial advisers.
Generally anti Semitism in Britian was about class, that Jews weren't "landed gentry" and were mostly invovled in business, so they weren't "quite quite". And for some it was about religion. Edw VIII was not religious so its probable that his feelings against Jews were that they were not truly Enlgish nad that they were not quite gentlemen..

 

[Denville]

I was speaking metaphorically. Children repeat what they hear grown-ups say. It makes them feel grown-up, too. They don't need to have understanding of it.

I cant imagine why you think that Edward would have seen the Nazis as "Grwon ups".. He had anti semtitic prejudices, already, and he was anti Communist, as were most upper class people at the time. He might agree with the Nazis abuot these issues, I don't see that he took his ideas from them. And I don't think he or Wallis were that enamoured of Hitler or his crew as such..

 

[Tsaritsa]

I cant imagine why you think that Edward would have seen the Nazis as "Grwon ups".. He had anti semtitic prejudices, already, and he was anti Communist, as were most upper class people at the time. He might agree with the Nazis abuot these issues, I don't see that he took his ideas from them. And I don't think he or Wallis were that enamoured of Hitler or his crew as such..

But it wasn't I who suggested that it was the Nazis he saw as "the grown-ups". It wasn't the Nazi's that he dined with. I think he just repeated the opinions of those he did, though it's possible he never made a link between Hitler and Nazis. I thought he and Wallis were highly enamoured of Hitler. He was shown as, allegedly, giving the Nazi salute whilst they were in Germany.

 

[Denville]

Sorry if I got that wrong, but im amazed by the idea that he might not make a link between HItler and the Nazis. he wasn't too clever but how could he not? Hitler was famous because of his political party, which brought him to the leadership of Germany. I think he admired HItler, up to a point. He thought he had done a good job for Germany and stopped it going communist, as many people felt at the time. But I think he would still have been conscious of Hitler's relatively low social status and hardly been one of those who idolised him. He may have given the Nazi salute as a courtesty to Hitler for inviting him and Wallis and treating them as royalty..
I think that while he did sympathise with the fascists over some of hteir ideas, he was mainly gratetful to HItler for inviting him on a visit, and treating him as someone important and giving Wallis the chance to "queen it"..
But he was too frivolous to take seriously to any political viewpoint.. and while he was basically right wing, he wasn't a dedicated fascist..

 

[Tsaritsa]

Sorry if I got that wrong, but im amazed by the idea that he might not make a link between HItler and the Nazis. he wasn't too clever but how could he not? Hitler was famous because of his political party, which brought him to the leadership of Germany. I think he admired HItler, up to a point. He thought he had done a good job for Germany and stopped it going communist, as many people felt at the time. But I think he would still have been conscious of Hitler's relatively low social status and hardly been one of those who idolised him. He may have given the Nazi salute as a courtesty to Hitler for inviting him and Wallis and treating them as royalty..
I think that while he did sympathise with the fascists over some of hteir ideas, he was mainly gratetful to HItler for inviting him on a visit, and treating him as someone important and giving Wallis the chance to "queen it"..
But he was too frivolous to take seriously to any political viewpoint.. and while he was basically right wing, he wasn't a dedicated fascist..

Ha! Denville, I doubt he was dedicated to anything other than worshiping Wallis. You're correct, I believe, about him being "too frivolous to take seriously to any political viewpoint" (perhaps, for not much longer than it took him to repeat the thoughts of the last person who uttered them if they said them with enough conviction)?