Duke and Duchess of Windsor (1894-1972) and (1895-1986) - Page 9

BeatrixFan · #**161** 08-04-2007, 10:34 PM

It's all very strange. I think they mean Philip would have been Regent and not Margaret in which case it's a bit of a slur on her sister. I don't think the Duke of Windsor ever had a shot at Regent but it seems very strange to me that she'd put Philip over her sister. Oh well, not important I suppose but strange when thinking what might have been.

BeatrixFan · #**162** 08-05-2007, 12:18 AM

For those who are curious, a clip courtesy of YouTube in which we hear both Edward and Wallis speak.

YouTube - Duke of Windsor - discusses meeting Wallis

ysbel · #**163** 08-05-2007, 12:30 AM

Thanks for the link, BeatrixFan. It was quite interesting to hear their voices. The Duchess' accent sounds less American.

Avalon · #**164** 08-05-2007, 08:27 AM

Thank you for the video Beatrixfan.

It's the only time I've heard Wallis and Edward (apart from the abdication speech).

Duke of Windsor · #**165** 08-05-2007, 10:00 AM

Thanks for that description of the Duke's arms, Elspeth. I saw a video clip of his funeral a while back and I got a good look at his arms then.
That clip of the Duke and Duchess on YouTube is really cool - I've never heard their voices before that - thanks, BetrixFan.
If anyone's got anymore clips of them it'd be good if you could post them up here.

Patrick.

Duchess · #**166** 08-05-2007, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avareenah

I think her failure to "age well" was a combination of her habits of being a heavy smoker,...

actually if i remember correctly the book i read said that she was a staunch non smoker and it drove her nuts that the duke smoked. other than i think you're right.

Avalon · #**167** 08-05-2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

It's all very strange. I think they mean Philip would have been Regent and not Margaret in which case it's a bit of a slur on her sister. I don't think the Duke of Windsor ever had a shot at Regent but it seems very strange to me that she'd put Philip over her sister. Oh well, not important I suppose but strange when thinking what might have been.

Wasn't this around the same time there were rumours Margaret intended to marry Peter Townsend? If they were to marry and the Queen died, a woman married to a divorced man would be presiding over the (then) British Empire.
The Queen was not going to let this happen, not with the memories of Edward & Wallis story still fresh in memory.

anglophilelady · #**168** 09-07-2007, 09:36 AM

I have been interested in the Duchess and the Duke's story for awhile and particularly since I watched the mini seris Edward and Mrs Simpson and have read a few books about the love affair marriage etc. I understand the Royal family's attitude in general about the romance they seem to be very much supportive of those who are within their circles but very opposed to anyone who comes in from the outside and marries into the family. Wallis was not in the aristocracy so the fact that a commoner could win the heart of the heir was somehow laughable and how dare she have two divorces and both husbands still living and that type of conceited attitude that in some small ways still prevails today why eles would Prince Charles and Camilla have had to wait so long to marry?!

BeatrixFan · #**169** 09-07-2007, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Wallis was not in the aristocracy so the fact that a commoner could win the heart of the heir was somehow laughable and how dare she have two divorces and both husbands still living and that type of conceited attitude that in some small ways still prevails today why eles would Prince Charles and Camilla have had to wait so long to marry?!

Well this is the glorious thing of course, all these nutjobs saying Charles should do what his Uncle did and give up all rights to the throne and go and live in exile with his wife don't realise what a huge contradiction they're guilty of. Their basis for anti-Charles and Camilla sentiment is that Diana was a "People's Princess" who brought the monarchy closer to the people. However, when Charles comes closer to the people and actually does what alot of his future subjects do relationship-wise, they resurrect the same archaic lunacy that drove a perfectly good King from the throne. In other words, they want picking up babies when it's suits them and "Damn thee to hell" moral highgrounding when it doesn't.

branchg · #**170** 09-07-2007, 04:07 PM

Well, it was 1936 and two divorces was unacceptable, not to mention the fact that the second one was at the behest of The King.

Diana was anything but the "People's Princess", that was a media creation, not reality.

Russophile · #**171** 09-07-2007, 09:23 PM

In regards to Wallis, I believe she was enjoying the ride for as long as it lasted. I don't think she ever really thought that it would go on to marriage. David "arranged" for her husband to be "caught" having an affair in a hotel room with another woman so there would be cause on Wallis' side and so as to make her "look" more acceptable.

I don't doubt for a minute that she entertained the idea of being Queen. Not realizing just how silly--not to mention impossible it would be. I'm sure she was shoved into the marriage (not the right word I'd use but I can't find a suitable one right now), because the public would really have a fit if she didn't marry the man who gave up his crown and kingdom for her. What a load on your shoulders!! You're not really in love with this guy and he throws it all away for you because he doesn't really want to be King and I'm sure there was a lot of deals made by his advisors, remember King George said David would ruin the Kingdom in 6 months! And no, I don't believe she was "in love" but she loved him in her way.

Yes, Jimmy Donohoe was a hanger on with them. He was a cousin of Barbara Hutton and a Woolworth heir and notoriously rich and gay. There was a rumor that David found Wallis and Jimmy together and she said something to the effect of "Look David, I'm Queen of the Fairies!"

As regards to any issue of their relationship, I had read that David had mumps and was sterile. Anybody else have any info. on that?

Princess Michael did visit Wallis after David died and got some earrings out of it, telling Her Majesty "These came from Aunty Wallis." Which didn't sit well with Her Majesty. (And personally, I thought that rather rude of Marie-Christine myself, but that's just me!) Though I'm not sure what other treasurers Princess Michael got.

I think frustration played a major role in David and Wallis' life. A former King without a country. A wife with no real role except to be thin and look exceptionally stylish (Aline, Countess Romanoes said she never seemed to see Wallis actually eat ANYTHING except those thin mints. . .) and she was a handsome woman. And awfully clever. She told Aline that the key on how to get a man's attention was to tell his friend that he looked very handsome and watch him come right over!

Wallis and David made some very stupid mistakes in their life but they really hadn't a purpose. The trip to Germany. The Govenorship of the Bahamas. Finally landing in France. I think if they had some sort of project or something like how Diana filled the remainder of her days with they might have been happier. But they didn't, preferring to live an empty, sad, vaccuus life of jet setting. . . .

Whew! Okay, I'll breathe now. . . .

COUNTESS · #**172** 09-07-2007, 09:37 PM

I think you are pretty much right on. Wallis and David had no real focus for their lives. They were, obviously, ahead of the times. Today, I should imagine it would be okay. Since it is. Or, perhaps, having two living husbands instead of one was the downfall. Her being American didn't help. I really don't know if Edward VIII would have been a better king than his brother. He was driven from the throne, his life was one that lead to nothing, but he might have been great with a purpose. As for the "People's Princess", that was Tony Blair's quick thought and it stuck. She was and is loved by many, because she was accessible and beautiful. Beauty attracts. Her children, obviously, loved her a great deal. Charles is not a bad person, he will make an able king. He may be quite old, but that's life.

BeatrixFan · #**173** 09-08-2007, 05:36 AM

Quote:

The trip to Germany. The Govenorship of the Bahamas. Finally landing in France.

In all fairness, the Duke and Duchess did have a real role in both going to Germany and in taking the Govenorship of the Bahamas, whether that job was something worth doing or not is another question.

Quote:

As for the "People's Princess", that was Tony Blair's quick thought and it stuck.

Actually, it was Alistair Campbell who ressurected the title that had originally been given to Queen Mary's mother.

Russophile · #**174** 09-08-2007, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

In all fairness, the Duke and Duchess did have a real role in both going to Germany and in taking the Govenorship of the Bahamas, whether that job was something worth doing or not is another question.

Well the Royal Family had to do something with them, didn't they? By moving them out to the Bahamas, they put them out of harms way as a pawn to be used by the Axis and tried to do damage control from the Germany trip. And everybody else was invovled in the war effort. It would look good to the public if David and Wallis weren't.

BeatrixFan · #**175** 09-08-2007, 07:23 PM

Well yes. Letters show that there were concerns over the Windsors pro-Nazi feeling and it was suggested to Churchill that they'd be much better out of the way. I do wonder though, whether it might have been a chance for them to redeem themselves by staying in Britain and helping with the war effort on the home front thus giving them the Queen Mother effect.

Russophile · #**176** 09-09-2007, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

I do wonder though, whether it might have been a chance for them to redeem themselves by staying in Britain and helping with the war effort on the home front thus giving them the Queen Mother effect.

Interesting thought. IMHO, the Queen Mum wanted them as far away as possible. What do you think?

COUNTESS · #**177** 09-09-2007, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Well yes. Letters show that there were concerns over the Windsors pro-Nazi feeling and it was suggested to Churchill that they'd be much better out of the way. I do wonder though, whether it might have been a chance for them to redeem themselves by staying in Britain and helping with the war effort on the home front thus giving them the Queen Mother effect.

You might be quite right, but the Queen Mother would have opposed their return, as she did at every turn. They would never be given the chance to redeem themselves. There would never be a denoument. Maybe they couldn't. Were they really pro-Nazi or pro-stupid. Hitler fooled a lot of folks at first. Chamberlain comes to mind.

Russophile · #**178** 09-09-2007, 09:48 PM

I don't necessarily think that Hitler "fooled" anybody. Remember they just got out of a world war and nobody really was wanted to go back into that scenario right away so I think there was a lot of "looking the other direction" at Hitler and what he was doing instead of addressing him.
I think they (David and Wallis) made a mistake never fully understanding what actually was going on.

MARG · #**179** 09-09-2007, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Well yes. Letters show that there were concerns over the Windsors pro-Nazi feeling and it was suggested to Churchill that they'd be much better out of the way.

That is something of an understatement! Neville Chamberlain was seen as dangerously gullible on a good day and criminally naive on a bad day. And he only went to try to broker a peace!

The Duke and Duchess were not only overtly pro-Nazi, they socialized extensively with others of like mind. That, in they eyes of a nation at war, made them not just unpatriotic but traitorous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

I do wonder though, whether it might have been a chance for them to redeem themselves by staying in Britain and helping with the war effort on the home front thus giving them the Queen Mother effect.

Returning to Britain was never an option, war or no war. In the event they were given the option to redeem themselves.... out of harms way, in the Bahama's.

In those dark days the King and Queen had to be the rallying point of a nation. Staunchly backing the government and the Prime Minister. A pro-Nazi ex King could have divided the nation. It could even have lost Britain the war. (A house divided against itself cannot stand! Not exactly the "Queen Mother effect!").

branchg · #**180** 09-10-2007, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russophile

Interesting thought. IMHO, the Queen Mum wanted them as far away as possible. What do you think?

Definitely true. The Queen Mother felt allowing The Duke to remain in England would have created a problem for The King in trying to establish his reign and standing with the British public.

Of course, both she and Queen Mary also refused to receive The Duchess, which made it even harder for The Duke to contemplate returning to Britain.