The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1881  
Old 03-25-2018, 06:05 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,022
Yes of cousrse he did not participate in "battles". he was not allowed to serve actively, which upset and annoyed him and he tried to visit the Front Line as muich as possible...
Reply With Quote
  #1882  
Old 03-28-2018, 02:21 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post

The allegations that Wallis was intersex have always seemed a bit of a stretch to me, but if she did have a surgery in Seattle, it may have left her unable to conceive - or may have at least reduced the likelihood of her conceiving. Add that to Edward's mumps....
Thank God she was not able to conceive!

The last thing the Queen would have needed now was a pair of embarrassing Windsor cousins, mooching a pension off her and claiming to be the rightful heirs to the Throne.
Reply With Quote
  #1883  
Old 03-28-2018, 02:33 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
Should David and Wallis have had children, there would be absolutely no chance of them being eligible for anything whatsoever from the Crown and legally they would have been excluded from the line of succession. If they had a son though, he would have been eligible to inherit his father's title of the Duke of Windsor though.

Whether or not the Queen and family would have recognized them as relatives is another ball of wax and we'll never have an answer to that situation.
__________________
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
  #1884  
Old 03-28-2018, 03:58 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 8,551
Eventhough the situation would be clear that doesn't mean it would create issues. More senior lines that are officially bypassed typically create problems some way or another. And any children would be the queen's cousins whether she liked it or not. They wouldn't have an official role, just like her Lascelles cousins but cousins they would be.
Reply With Quote
  #1885  
Old 03-28-2018, 04:49 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,141
Yes, simply 'the King that never was' might well create an ongoing irritation for the BRF if the Windsors had had a son. Although people felt very let down by what Edward VIII did, he had been an incredibly popular Prince of Wales and some of that long ago glamour would inevitably attach itself to any offspring, even if they lived in France or the US.
Reply With Quote
  #1886  
Old 03-28-2018, 05:28 PM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Should David and Wallis have had children, there would be absolutely no chance of them being eligible for anything whatsoever from the Crown and legally they would have been excluded from the line of succession. If they had a son though, he would have been eligible to inherit his father's title of the Duke of Windsor though.

Whether or not the Queen and family would have recognized them as relatives is another ball of wax and we'll never have an answer to that situation.
Interesting question of whether a son would have been able to inherit the Duke of Windsor's dukedom. Under normal circumstances the letters patent would have a remainder to "the heirs male of the body lawfully begotten". But these Letters Patent have been sealed and so their contents are unknown to most, as far as I know. I believe it says somewhere on the heraldica.org website that there are documents regarding the abdication aftermath which are sealed until 2038. I wonder if the letters patent of March 8, 1937 (the ones granting the dukedom of Windsor) are among these documents.

I'm willing to bet they were sealed (for 101 years no less) because they are not of the ordinary form.

First, we can assume there were no subsidiary titles conferred as none were ever mentioned (by King George VI at his first privy council on Dec. 12, 1936 when he conferred the dukedom on his older brother)) or at any other time.

This was no doubt to ensure that no first born son would have a courtesy title to use.

Second, I'll wager that the Letters Patent did not have the usual (or in fact any) remainder precisely so that any son could not inherit the title upon the Duke's death. The King (encouraged no doubt by his Queen) went to great lengths to deny any royal status to the Duchess (Mrs. Simpson) and any future children. This we know for sure by the Letters Patent of May 27, 1937 which expressly denied HRH to the wife and any descendants of the Duke.

If I am correct about the Dukedom having no remainder, instead of being hereditary, it would have been in effect a life peerage! Perhaps the first one ever and years before life peerages (all Baronies) began in 1958.
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #1887  
Old 03-28-2018, 06:43 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,504
The Heraldica website includes an assortment of documents from the National Archives related to the Letters Patent (27 May 1937) denying the HRH to Wallis and any children.

In a note (dated 4 May 1937) from Geoffrey Ellis (Counsel to the Crown in Peerage and Honours claims) to Sir John Simon (Home Secretary), Elllis makes the following statement:

"The Crown has created him Duke of Windsor, to him and the heirs male of his body...."

The drafting of the letters patent of 1937
Reply With Quote
  #1888  
Old 03-28-2018, 07:30 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside View Post

First, we can assume there were no subsidiary titles conferred as none were ever mentioned (by King George VI at his first privy council on Dec. 12, 1936 when he conferred the dukedom on his older brother)) or at any other time.

This was no doubt to ensure that no first born son would have a courtesy title to use.
.
That is very odd and I've never thought of it before. But it appears you are correct. The 1949 edition of Burke's Peerage calls him "Duke of Windsor" with no subsidiary titles.

Compare this to the entries for the other Royal Dukes, for example his brother Henry who is called "Duke of Gloucester, Earl of Ulster and Baron Culloden."

https://archive.org/stream/burkesgen.../n245/mode/2up
Reply With Quote
  #1889  
Old 03-28-2018, 10:43 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,504
This discussion brings up another question. If you read the documents posted on Heraldica, its obvious that George VI and his advisors assumed Edward & Wallis might have children. But did Edward?

I know he reacted with fury when he learned his wife wouldn't have the HRH. But did he ever express anger that any possible children wouldn't? Did he complain that his son, unlike the sons of other dukes, wouldn't even have a courtesy title and would only be known as "Lord First name Windsor"?

If not, why? Had Wallis already taken him aside and explained that she was incapable of bearing children?
Reply With Quote
  #1890  
Old 03-28-2018, 11:12 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,141
My own feeling is that Edward wasn't over-bothered about having children at his age, otherwise he would have married earlier and had some. I think he probably took it for granted that Wallis was unable to bear children. She was forty, married twice and had never been pregnant. That's not to say however that if by some miracle Wallis had borne a son in 1937/38 he wouldn't have complained and demanded a subsidiary title be granted at that time.
Reply With Quote
  #1891  
Old 03-28-2018, 11:14 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
This discussion brings up another question. If you read the documents posted on Heraldica, its obvious that George VI and his advisors assumed Edward & Wallis might have children. But did Edward?

I know he reacted with fury when he learned his wife wouldn't have the HRH. But did he ever express anger that any possible children wouldn't? Did he complain that his son, unlike the sons of other dukes, wouldn't even have a courtesy title and would only be known as "Lord First name Windsor"?

If not, why? Had Wallis already taken him aside and explained that she was incapable of bearing children?
I don't think Edward was all that forward thinking. He was upset about his wife being denied a title in the (then) present - he didn't concern himself with the titles of his children in the (then) future.

There is also the fact too that he might have been under the impression that the 1917 LPs would have applied to his children, in which case they would have been styled/titled as the male-line grandchildren of a monarch (if not as the children of a monarch), and thus be HRH Prince(ss) Xxx of Windsor; if he was thinking that way then his secondary titles (or lack there of) would have been irrelevant; his eldest son would have not used a courtesy title.
Reply With Quote
  #1892  
Old 03-28-2018, 11:50 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,504
No, the LP denying Wallis the HRH also denied it to any children:

"Whitehall, May 28, 1937.The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date the 27th day of May, 1937, to declare that the Duke of Windsor shall, notwithstanding his Instrument of Abdication executed on the loth day of December, 1936, and His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act, 1936, whereby effect was given to the said Instrument, be entitled to hold and enjoy for himself only the title style or attribute of Royal Highness so however that his wife and descendants if any shall not hold the said title style or attribute."

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

Edward was informed of this in a letter from George VI personally delivered by Walter Monckton the day before Edward married Wallis.
Reply With Quote
  #1893  
Old 03-29-2018, 09:11 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsaritsa View Post
Of course, there maybe all manner of reasons why her birth remained unregistered for as long as it did, but was there some doubt about her gender?
At that time it wasn't required to register births or deaths in the United States as it was in England.

Even when births were registered it was often months after the event. For example, births were reported by the attending physician or midwife (not the parents) who sometimes waited and registered them at the end of the calendar year, not as they happened.

See an overview of birth registration in the State of Virginia, where Wallis was born in 1896:

https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en..._Birth_Records
Reply With Quote
  #1894  
Old 03-29-2018, 09:54 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I don't think Edward was all that forward thinking. He was upset about his wife being denied a title in the (then) present - he didn't concern himself with the titles of his children in the (then) future.

There is also the fact too that he might have been under the impression that the 1917 LPs would have applied to his children, in which case they would have been styled/titled as the male-line grandchildren of a monarch (if not as the children of a monarch), and thus be HRH Prince(ss) Xxx of Windsor; if he was thinking that way then his secondary titles (or lack there of) would have been irrelevant; his eldest son would have not used a courtesy title.
I agree that he wasn't that forward thinking.. but I think he didn't see children in their future. Wallis was not young and had never had any. Maybe she had gynae issues that made it unlikely she would have had children... and she knew she was sub fertile..but had never really wanted them. And the impression you get of Wallis and David is that they were wrapped up in each other and didn't see themselves as parents..
Reply With Quote
  #1895  
Old 03-29-2018, 11:56 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I agree that he wasn't that forward thinking.. but I think he didn't see children in their future. Wallis was not young and had never had any. Maybe she had gynae issues that made it unlikely she would have had children... and she knew she was sub fertile..but had never really wanted them. And the impression you get of Wallis and David is that they were wrapped up in each other and didn't see themselves as parents..
I agree. I think he knew there wouldn't be children. He could have saved George VI and his advisers from many anxious discussions if he'd only told them - "take it from me boys, it just ain't gonna happen."
Reply With Quote
  #1896  
Old 03-29-2018, 12:11 PM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,339
No matter how unlikely, Edward VIII having children and how those children were to be dealt with in terms of succession and styling, needed to be addressed, if only for the possibility of Edward remarrying after being widowed or divorced, and having children with his second wife.
Reply With Quote
  #1897  
Old 03-29-2018, 12:14 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
No matter how unlikely, Edward VIII having children and how those children were to be dealt with in terms of succession and styling, needed to be addressed, if only for the possibility of Edward remarrying after being widowed or divorced, and having children with his second wife.
Very true! Wallis could have ended up surprising them all, including Edward.
Reply With Quote
  #1898  
Old 03-29-2018, 01:49 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 242
I can't even imagine what sort of education and upbringing their child would have.
Reply With Quote
  #1899  
Old 03-29-2018, 04:41 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Coastal California, United States
Posts: 1,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
No matter how unlikely, Edward VIII having children and how those children were to be dealt with in terms of succession and styling, needed to be addressed, if only for the possibility of Edward remarrying after being widowed or divorced, and having children with his second wife.
Good point, I've read several biographies of the various participants and one of the beliefs/fears the RF seemed to have was that Wallis was likely to divorce David just as she had her two prior husbands.
Indeed, given the sad charade their relationship had degenerated into during the Jimmy Donahue era, but for the notoriety it would have caused, Wallis might well have divorced David.
Regarding the failure to register a birth, my mother, who was born in 1938 at home in the USA, did not have her birth officially registered until she needed to apply for a passport many years later.
Reply With Quote
  #1900  
Old 03-29-2018, 06:16 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
I would guess that David and Wallis would opt to send their children to the top notch schools in the USA. Why? Because sending their children to the top schools in the US cements their social standing even more in the US.

I'm just relieved that these two people didn't reproduce. Both were far too narcissistic to be parents.
__________________
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
Reply

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


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 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 africa albert prince consort all tags america arcadie claret austria british british royal family caribbean charles iii claret congo current events danish royal family death denmark duarte pio duchess of kent edward vii elizabeth ii emperor naruhito empress masako espana garsenda genealogy grace kelly hamdan bin ahmed harry history identifying india jewels jordan royal family king king charles king philippe king willem-alexander leopold ier louis mountbatten matrilineal monaco monarchy need help official visit order of precedence portugal prince albert monaco prince christian queen queen camilla queen elizabeth queen ena of spain queen margrethe ii queen mathilde queen maxima queen victoria republics restoration royal initials royal wedding silk spain spanish history spanish royal family state visit switzerland tiaras visit wine glass


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:38 PM.

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