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

[Gaudete]

She was denied royal rank in its entirety. A decision riddled with hypocrisy of course but it’s all ancient history now and I don’t think it much bothered the Duchess.

[Curryong]

It bothered Edward considerably though, and he became annoyed in the Bahamas especially when women presented to the couple didn't curtsey. Nor do I think many British people did want to curtsey to the Duchess when they met her. They knew what the attitude of the Embassy was to giving deference beyond ordinary politeness. Some foreign-born women who didn't know the protocol probably curtsied, others didn't.

[sndral]

I suspect that David chose to focus on matters such as the denial of HRH to his wife to avoid self reflection, indeed, he may have been so narcissistic that he was incapable of much insight into his own culpability for his situation.

[Lady Nimue]

Maybe a bit fluffy? But in this video there are some interesting comments about Wallis. I am always baffled by the assertions that Wallis was not a charming woman. For her to have been as socially successful as she was, she would have had to have had some social graces to recommend her. Here it is stated outright that she was charismatic and impacted a room upon entry. She had that ability to focus on one person to the exclusion of all others. In sum, she was charming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQJg9UBUf5o

[Furienna]

Originally Posted by Denville

well she was never a princess, as such was she? She married Edward after he had left the throne but he was not known then as a Prince.. and she was not allowed to share his style of HRH.. so it mystifies me why anyone would think of her as "Princess Wallis".

Indeed. She did become a duchess, but never a princess (and even as a duchess, she was never allowed a HRH to Edward's chagrin). And no, I don't believe that anybody would refer to the Duke of Windsor as "Prince Edward" either. He had been a prince until he became king, of course. But he was made a duke after his abdication, without being a prince again.

[Leopoldine]

They charged big money for personal appearances. Even at what we would consider private parties. They were like Bonnie and Clyde in Palm Beach, Florida back then.

I've always admired his, the Duke's, personal dressing style. I read a fun blog called "Tweedland The Gentlemen's Club" sort of ...based upon his tweediness, and it takes off from there.

I hope it is OK to post this:

http://tweedlandthegentlemansclub.blogspot.com/

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

She was denied royal rank in its entirety. A decision riddled with hypocrisy of course but it’s all ancient history now and I don’t think it much bothered the Duchess.

Its hard to say, I don't think she complained the way David did, but It must have caused a certain chagrin to think that she had married someone who was still vaguely royal and didn't get the honours that a wife would usually get. But it was IMO completely understandable why the RF did what they did.

[Furienna]

Actually, I don't really get why Wallis was denied the HRH status. I belive that the best explanation that I have seen is that her new in-laws were afraid that Wallis, who had been through two divorces already, would decide to leave David too and give an HRH status to her hypothetical fourth husband. But I don't see how that would even have been a possible scenario. Wallis was only a duchess as the wife of a duke and had no title in her own right. So I don't see how she would be able to give an HRH status to a fourth husband of hers, if she would've married again either as David's ex-wife or as his widow. Because she would have ceased to be the Duchess of Windsor immediately upon her new marriage, right?

[Iluvbertie]

Prior to 1996 once she gained HRH she wouldn't have lost it so it wasn't so much a fear of her passing HRH to a new husband but still having HRH while married to a new husband. As for ceasing to be the Duchess of Windsor on remarriage - true - but if that hypothetical fourth marriage ended in either divorce of widowhood she could - as can wives of peers today - revert to using the highest title any husband had as did Raine Spencer who after the late Earl died, remarried and when that marriage ended she reverted to using Countess Spencer rather than the name she gained from her next marriage.

[Denville]

True and in any case there would have been nothing to stop her from continuing to use the title.. or the HRH... The RF could issue directvies but they would not have any force in "café society". If Wallis left David, as the RF feared, they problaby saw her marrying some "fake Count" and going around Monte carlo and other playgrounds of the Rich, still calling herself Duchess of Windsor and maybe issuing cards like "HRH the Duchess of Windsor and Countess X"...
so if she was at least barred from the HRH, it would prevent British people who met her treating her as "royal"..and send a message that she wasn't considered part of the British RF or elite...

[Lady Nimue]

In any event, the frame was cast, the message sent: this woman is outcast. It branded her, made her the bad'un in the scenario, forever 'that woman'. That was mean, because it was, after all, David who was the real culprit. He was the driver. He likely felt guilty when, for her loyalty, he could not reward her at least that much.

Did not the Queen at the time have a great deal to do with this decision? To deny Wallis HRH?

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Furienna

Indeed. She did become a duchess, but never a princess (and even as a duchess, she was never allowed a HRH to Edward's chagrin). And no, I don't believe that anybody would refer to the Duke of Windsor as "Prince Edward" either. He had been a prince until he became king, of course. But he was made a duke after his abdication, without being a prince again.

Edward was a prince of the blood royal, born a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great-Britain and Ireland, Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, Herzog von Sachsen.

Edward was as much a prince as today's Duke of Kent (Prince Edward) and today's Earl of Wessex (Prince Edward). But like in the case of his present royal namesakes: royals are referred by their royal peerage, if they have one. That is why the Princess Edward was the Duchess of Windsor, that is why the Princess Edward is the Duchess of Kent, that is why the Princess Edward is the Countess of Wessex.

Wallis was never "Princess Wallis", like there never was a "Princess Diana", or a "Princess Catherine" because only princesses of the blood royal are referred with their own name: Princess Anne, Princess Alexandra, Princess Margaret, etc.

Would Edward not have been given any peerage, he would have reverted to the style he was born with, that of a prince of the blood royal, and Wallis would have been "The Princess Edward" indeed. As we could see with the funerary arrangements of Edward and Wallis, both were buried with the honours of a prince (princess) of the United Kingdom, with their royal standard bedecking their coffin et al.

[Curryong]

Immediately after Edward abdicated he was referred to as Prince Edward, until he became the Duke of Windsor.

[Queen Claude]

I think that there were strong feelings and suspicions about Wallis that led to her not being given HRH styling when she married Edward, I get that but I think that as years passed Wallis proved that she was not going to besmirch her royal position in the ways originally thought, and therefore IMO (and I am not an admirer of the Windsors), the rationale for not giving her HRH styling moved from understandable to petty, vindictive and/or scapegoating.

Originally Posted by Curryong

Immediately after Edward abdicated he was referred to as Prince Edward, until he became the Duke of Windsor.

Yep, when Edward VIII made his abdication speech, he was introduced as "His Royal Highness Prince Edward".

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Immediately after Edward abdicated he was referred to as Prince Edward, until he became the Duke of Windsor.

but as I recall, George VI wanted to make him a royal duke because he said that as the son of a duke, Edward could, as "Lord Edward Windsor" a commoner, stand for parliament? and he feared that his brother was selfish enough to try and embarrass him by doing something like that.

[Queen Claude]

That may have been part of the discussion but Edward at his abdication had two brothers in addition to George VI and an uncle who were royal dukes and I doubt if he would have been consigned to a lower rank than them.

I think that the Windsor dukedom was assigned to Edward/David right away but paperwork needed to be done and that's why he was not formally referred to as the Duke of Windsor immediately after the abdication.

[Gaudete]

The Duchess of Windsor was never a Princess. The whole reason for the Letters Patent in 1937 was not only to deny her the HRH but also to ensure that she didn't take the rank of a Princess either. If she was a Duchess, she'd have no need to be Princess Edward and confusion could be avoided.

It's important to note that the government of the day was at odds with the Palace on this issue. The government had no issue with Wallis being styled 'HRH' as they simply saw it as a courtesy title but they were well aware that the King was being pushed to deny Wallis the style by his wife and by his mother. For that reason, they asked Lord Wigram and the Attorney General Sir Donald Somervell to see if there could be any possibility of a legal challenge in the courts if Wallis was denied her style, rank and title which she would usually enjoy as the wife of a Prince of the United Kingdom and/or a Royal Duke.

The decision they came to was that legally, nobody has the right to style themselves as 'HRH' unless they are a) in the line of succession and/or married to somebody who is and b) specifically granted or denied the style by the Sovereign. The Duke of Windsor took himself out of the line of succession and that covered one base, King George VI could deny Wallis the HRH by Letters Patent and that covered a second base. The government then felt they had a watertight legal case and advised the King accordingly who sent this letter to his brother:-

All sorts of people, both official and private persons, are asking whether, when you marry, your wife will be made a "Royal Highness". It has never happened in all history that a woman who married a man who cannot succeed to the Throne has been so described; indeed, it is pointed out to me that, strictly speaking, you yourself lost the right to this title by the fact of abdication. As long ago as the time of Queen Victoria it was laid down that no one could be a "Royal Highness" who was not in the line of succession.

The actual Letters Patent themselves make use of a phrase which is quite unique: for himself only. This was included on the advice of Lord Wigram who wasn't so much concerned for the Duchess as he was any children Wallis and David might have. The line in the LP pertinent to Wallis is:

"entitled to hold and enjoy for himself only the style title or attribute of Royal Highness so however that his wife and descendants if any shall not hold the said style title or attribute"

The attribute part is important because it means that not only is Wallis being denied the 'Royal Highness' style but she's also being denied the rank of a Princess. Lord Wigram said in Cabinet: "Whilst they remain outside of the country, the matter is of no practical importance and I could not object to the lady being of sufficient rank to meet the style of Royal Highness. But if the Duke and Duchess of Windsor ever returned to this country, they would start a clique of their own with what would amount to a second court and this would be bad for the monarchy".

It was after this cabinet meeting that it was privately (though not enforced in any legal document, as it doesn't need to be) communicated to David that the new Duchess of Windsor would only be styled as 'Her Grace' after her marriage and that she would only be afforded the rank of a Duke's wife (not a Royal Duke's wife) and not that enjoyed by either Princess Marina or Princess Alice. The government had originally advised against this ("He'd be in one room of the Palace, she in the basement") but the Attorney General pressed the issue and it was a popular move with Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary.

So whilst the Duchess was given a funeral at St George's and whilst the Duke's status as a Prince didn't change after his abdication or marriage, Wallis was only ever Her Grace The Duchess of Windsor. At court, she would have ranked with the Duchess of Rutland or the Duchess of Devonshire and not with the Duchess of Kent or the Duchess of Gloucester. In short, Wallis was never a Princess in any way, shape or form.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Would Edward not have been given any peerage, he would have reverted to the style he was born with, that of a prince of the blood royal, and Wallis would have been "The Princess Edward" indeed. As we could see with the funerary arrangements of Edward and Wallis, both were buried with the honours of a prince (princess) of the United Kingdom, with their royal standard bedecking their coffin et al.

The Royal Standard wasn't draped over Wallis' coffin. There was only a wreath from the Queen.

[Denville]

That makes sense. It may have been a bit hard on Wallis but I think that the RF made the right decision. Keeping David as DOW meant that he could not stand for parliament, had he been so inclined, and he could not whinge too much as he had willfully givne up his royal rank..but I know that the RF were worried bout Wallis leaving him... by the standards of the day, having had 2 divorces, it was considered that she might well have a third.. and clearly they DID fear her continuing to use the title even if she split up with David...

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Denville

That makes sense. It may have been a bit hard on Wallis but I think that the RF made the right decision. Keeping David as DOW meant that he could not stand for parliament, had he been so inclined, and he could not whinge too much as he had willfully givne up his royal rank..but I know that the RF were worried bout Wallis leaving him... by the standards of the day, having had 2 divorces, it was considered that she might well have a third.. and clearly they DID fear her continuing to use the title even if she split up with David...

Technically, the Duke had the right to sit in the House of Lords as a peer of the realm but AFAIK no member of the Royal Family had exercised the right to actually attend and contribute to sittings since Edward VII as Prince of Wales. And even then that only happened occasionally.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

Technically, the Duke had the right to sit in the House of Lords as a peer of the realm but AFAIK no member of the Royal Family had exercised the right to actually attend and contribute to sittings since Edward VII as Prince of Wales. And even then that only happened occasionally.

yes that was the point of giving him a royal dukedom. THey were afraid that he might meddle in politics to embarrass his brother and family, and if he was a royal duke, by convention, he could not do so. Maybe they were too fearful but I can understand their reasoning...