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

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Kronprinz

I can't even imagine what sort of education and upbringing their child would have.

Much the same as most ex royals or rich people I expect.....

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Very true! Wallis could have ended up surprising them all, including Edward.

The RF always try to cover for all eventualities.. Once they were focused on getting rid of Ed and Wallis, they were going to paln for every possibility... such as the marriage maybe breaking up (I would imagine that they made it clear that "if that happens and she leaves you, you can't come back"...).. and even if children didn't happen, they would ensure that it was clear what the status of any hypothetical children would be....

[Queen Claude]

The British royals themselves from that particular era were not particularly well-educated. They were well educated vis a vis the average Joe but not in comparison to other wealthy Brits.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Would Edward and Wallis have had the finances to sent their son/daughter to the finest boarding schools?

That would not have been any problem whatsoever.

[rominet09]

I think they were extremely rich.... only a look at her jewels....

[Tsaritsa]

Originally Posted by Gawin

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?

Is it also possible that, as a result of pre-pubescent mumps leading to orchitis, the duke knew himself to be sterile?

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Tsaritsa

Is it also possible that, as a result of pre-pubescent mumps leading to orchitis, the duke knew himself to be sterile?

Yes, that's a very good point I hadn't considered. Wallis wasn't the only one who failed to produce any children during her prior relationships with the opposite sex. Neither had Edward. The two of them were highly unlikely to have children together.

I found this "Game of Matrimonial Chairs" article from the December 13, 1937 issue of Life magazine:

https://books.google.com/books?id=oT8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA80

[Tsaritsa]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Yes, that's a very good point I hadn't considered. Wallis wasn't the only one who failed to produce any children during her prior relationships with the opposite sex. Neither had Edward. The two of them were highly unlikely to have children together.

I found this "Game of Matrimonial Chairs" article from the December 13, 1937 issue of Life magazine:

https://books.google.com/books?id=oT8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA80

Pebbles on ponds, Gawin

[Gawin]

I saw it as a very concise & somewhat humorous summary of Wallis Simpson's circle and their attitude toward marriage.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Tsaritsa

Is it also possible that, as a result of pre-pubescent mumps leading to orchitis, the duke knew himself to be sterile?

No I dont believe so. There is apparently some letter to his mistress Freda Dudley Ward where she had a pregnancy "scare" and he believed it was his and was very pleased... and there are in any case rumours of his having fathered children.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Denville

No I dont believe so. There is apparently some letter to his mistress Freda Dudley Ward where she had a pregnancy "scare" and he believed it was his and was very pleased... and there are in any case rumours of his having fathered children.

I don't put much faith in rumours since they are just that, rumours. They don't prove anything one way or another. There are rumours Prince Andrew was fathered by the Earl of Carnarvon but that doesn't prove the Queen committed adultery.

[Queen Claude]

I don't think it is a given that someone who had childhood mumps would become sterile, so I don't think the Duke as a young man assumed he was sterile, it would likely be a back-end thing where after he was older and had no children, and from there theorizing that he was left sterile as the result of mumps. I may be wrong, but I think Bertie also had mumps, and he fathered children.

It should be noted that there are claims that the Duke fathered one or more children, and that he paid money to the mothers, but I don't know if that is clear-cut proof that the Duke was not sterile, rather that he had sex with the woman in question and was willing to pay money to keep things under wraps.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Gawin

I don't put much faith in rumours since they are just that, rumours. They don't prove anything one way or another. There are rumours Prince Andrew was fathered by the Earl of Carnarvon but that doesn't prove the Queen committed adultery.

no but the fact that he believed that he could get Freda DW pregnant proves that he didn't believe he was sterile.... and it si possible that he did have illegitimate children.. it would have been hushed up..... He clearly thoguth himself fertile...

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Denville

no but the fact that he believed that he could get Freda DW pregnant proves that he didn't believe he was sterile.... and it si possible that he did have illegitimate children.. it would have been hushed up..... He clearly thoguth himself fertile...

I was responding to your comment about the rumours. I neither agreed nor disagreed with your comment about Freda Dudley Ward's pregnancy.

Yes, it is POSSIBLE he had illegitimate children but without any credible evidence it is just as POSSIBLE he didn't.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

I don't think it is a given that someone who had childhood mumps would become sterile, so I don't think the Duke as a young man assumed he was sterile, it would likely be a back-end thing where after he was older and had no children, and from there theorizing that he was left sterile as the result of mumps. I may be wrong, but I think Bertie also had mumps, and he fathered children.

It should be noted that there are claims that the Duke fathered one or more children, and that he paid money to the mothers, but I don't know if that is clear-cut proof that the Duke was not sterile, rather that he had sex with the woman in question and was willing to pay money to keep things under wraps.

I actually know of such a 'baby'. When Edward visited Australia in 1922 he stayed at a property (Aussie term for a large farm or estate) and slept with the owner's daughter. Said daughter found herself pregnant and was very hastily married but she always claimed Edward was the father of the resultant daughter.

My father, now deceased (his death was the reason I started doing my 'count of royal engagements as a means of dealing with my grief - strange how things come about), was a solicitor in the firm that dealt with this family's affairs in the 1950s - 1970s. Part of his work involved dealing with the money coming regularly from the Duke of Windsor to support this child. Those payments stopped when the Duke died in 1972.

Even if he wasn't the father it appears he accepted responsibility for the financial well-being of the daughter. My father wasn't the solicitor in the 20s and 30s obviously but the school this daughter went to was the same one I went to in the early 70s and it was school legend that the Duke of Windsor paid for the girl's school fees there and also contributed to the school's building fund right down until his death.

Now was he the father? I have no idea. Could the daughter of the house slept with someone other than Edward? Certainly but ... this family was a very prominent one in the local community so the idea would be that she would only have slept with one of the senior members of the visiting party - such as Edward (or maybe his cousin Lord Louis Mountbatten but his name doesn't appear in the visitor's book. The home was often opened to the public for local fundraising events and it was possible to look back through the visitor's book. I believe that now they have the page that David signed on display beside the new visitor's book but he had a page to himself so can't see the other names of his party).

Locals definitely believe the girl was Edward's daughter and that her descendants still live locally but ... maybe it was someone else in the party and Edward just felt responsible for bringing that person into the situation ...

We will probably never know.

[rominet09]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

I actually know of such a 'baby'. When Edward visited Australia in 1922 he stayed at a property (Aussie term for a large farm or estate) and slept with the owner's daughter. Said daughter found herself pregnant and was very hastily married but she always claimed Edward was the father of the resultant daughter.

My father, now deceased (his death was the reason I started doing my 'count of royal engagements as a means of dealing with my grief - strange how things come about), was a solicitor in the firm that dealt with this family's affairs in the 1950s - 1970s. Part of his work involved dealing with the money coming regularly from the Duke of Windsor to support this child. Those payments stopped when the Duke died in 1972.

Even if he wasn't the father it appears he accepted responsibility for the financial well-being of the daughter. My father wasn't the solicitor in the 20s and 30s obviously but the school this daughter went to was the same one I went to in the early 70s and it was school legend that the Duke of Windsor paid for the girl's school fees there and also contributed to the school's building fund right down until his death.

Now was he the father? I have no idea. Could the daughter of the house slept with someone other than Edward? Certainly but ... this family was a very prominent one in the local community so the idea would be that she would only have slept with one of the senior members of the visiting party - such as Edward (or maybe his cousin Lord Louis Mountbatten but his name doesn't appear in the visitor's book. The home was often opened to the public for local fundraising events and it was possible to look back through the visitor's book. I believe that now they have the page that David signed on display beside the new visitor's book but he had a page to himself so can't see the other names of his party).

Locals definitely believe the girl was Edward's daughter and that her descendants still live locally but ... maybe it was someone else in the party and Edward just felt responsible for bringing that person into the situation ...

We will probably never know.

Extremely interesting... thank you for informing us

[Tsaritsa]

Originally Posted by Denville

No I dont believe so. There is apparently some letter to his mistress Freda Dudley Ward where she had a pregnancy "scare" and he believed it was his and was very pleased... and there are in any case rumours of his having fathered children.

"There is, apparently......." isn't conclusive proof of anything but if it's true I expect her husband may have had reason to have believed it was his. The safety of the marriage bed always being a useful fallback............and of course, where there be royals, there will always be rumours.

[Curryong]

Yes, but what was being discussed here was whether Edward possibly knew or suspected that he was sterile.

The allusion to Freda Dudley Ward's pregnancy scare and Edward being pleased about it comes from the book of personal letters between the two of them 'Letters from a Prince: Edward Prince of Wales to Mrs Dudley Ward 1918-1921.' I've read it.

If he was delighted at news that his mistress was pregnant and he might possibly be the father then, at least in his twenties, Edward can't have been afraid of being sterile, can he? Of course if there had been a baby then Mrs Dudley Ward may well have foisted the cuckoo on to her husband. There wasn't, but in addition there were certainly rumours whizzing around London within six months of their affair beginning in 1917 that Freda was possibly pregnant, as the PM Lloyd George informed the King of the stories.

[Tsaritsa]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

I don't think it is a given that someone who had childhood mumps would become sterile, so I don't think the Duke as a young man assumed he was sterile, it would likely be a back-end thing where after he was older and had no children, and from there theorizing that he was left sterile as the result of mumps. I may be wrong, but I think Bertie also had mumps, and he fathered children.

It should be noted that there are claims that the Duke fathered one or more children, and that he paid money to the mothers, but I don't know if that is clear-cut proof that the Duke was not sterile, rather that he had sex with the woman in question and was willing to pay money to keep things under wraps.

You're correct. It's not a given, and it's certainly not a given that every young male who gets mumps will be sterile as a result. However, he was pre-pubescent -THE most dangerous time for a developing male to contract mumps- and orchitis followed. He was very ill. It is said-possibly by Philip Zeigler?- that King George and Queen Mary were informed.............of what? Naturally, as parents, they'd have been informed of their child's welfare and progress, but might they have been told of the possible dangers, to his sterility, of orchitis at a time when the testicles weren't fully developed? A further clue may be his build. Slight, delicate, smooth, hairless skin -Zeigler speaks of a claim made by a fellow officer who, having seen him in the shower, describes him as being underdeveloped- His looks were always described as "boyish". There is also his childish immaturity. It's almost as if his development became halted in adolescence.
Perhaps we should look at the pregnancy scares. It seems that, despite rumours, they were no more than that -the ability to perform the sexual act isn't proof of the ability to father children ie males who have had vasectomies are quite capable. Of course, there remains the possibility that he may NOT have been 'adequate' in that way. I don't believe there'd have been a woman at the time who'd have told that particular secret. It would have been kudos enough having it known that the glamourous POW was her lover.

[Tsaritsa]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Yes, but what was being discussed here was whether Edward possibly knew or suspected that he was sterile.

The allusion to Freda Dudley Ward's pregnancy scare and Edward being pleased about it comes from the book of personal letters between the two of them 'Letters from a Prince: Edward Prince of Wales to Mrs Dudley Ward 1918-1921.' I've read it.

If he was delighted at news that his mistress was pregnant and he might possibly be the father then, at least in his twenties, Edward can't have been afraid of being sterile, can he? Of course if there had been a baby then Mrs Dudley Ward may well have foisted the cuckoo on to her husband. There wasn't, but in addition there were certainly rumours whizzing around London within six months of their affair beginning, as the PM Lloyd George informed the King of the stories.

My apologies. You're correct. He may NOT have known in his early twenties...................however, IF it's true that he was sterile, is it possible that someone might have explained it to him, and if they had, as a young man, how concerned would he have been, other than it negated the need for contraception?