Duke and Duchess of Windsor (1894-1972) and (1895-1986) - Page 97

Denville · #**1921** 03-31-2018, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawin

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.

And I was responding to someone. I can't remember whom, who said "perhaps he knew he was sterile..." I thought that was the point....

Denville · #**1922** 03-31-2018, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tsaritsa

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?

Since he was a future King i'd say his being fertile or not, was an important thing for him to think about....

Denville · #**1923** 03-31-2018, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong

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

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 aro.

This was why I said "apparently" in my post... because I had read your earlier mention of this story, and it was clearly evidenced that Edward believed he was capable fo fathering children.. but I had not read it myself...
and if there had been a pregnacny, probably Dudley Ward would have accepted paternity for it...

Duc_et_Pair · #**1924** 03-31-2018, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville

Since he was a future King i'd say his being fertile or not, was an important thing for him to think about....

Not really as the UK had (and still has) hundreds and hundreds of successors.

Tsaritsa · #**1925** 03-31-2018, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville

Since he was a future King i'd say his being fertile or not, was an important thing for him to think about....

Certainly. ONE of which may have been that it might be justification for NOT being king?

Queen Claude · #**1926** 03-31-2018, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Not really as the UK had (and still has) hundreds and hundreds of successors.

Yeah since Edward did not make an effort to get married in his younger years, I suspect that he in particular was not too concerned about his "duty" to produce an heir and spare. I suspect that, in his case, having three adult brothers who were in due course, marrying and having children, contributed to his lack of concern over the matter.

Duc_et_Pair · #**1927** 03-31-2018, 08:29 AM

King Willem III of the Netherlands, King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom and King Baudouin of the Belgians show that a monarchy can continue without a direct (male) Heir. I think Prince Edward was not worried in the least, meaning that his niece Princess Elizabeth would have become Queen anyway, abdication or no abdication.

Tsaritsa · #**1928** 03-31-2018, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

King Willem III of the Netherlands, King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom and King Baudouin of the Belgians show that a monarchy can continue without a direct (male) Heir. I think Prince Edward was not worried in the least, meaning that his niece Princess Elizabeth would have become Queen anyway, abdication or no abdication.

It sounds as if we might be saying that he was quite ambivalent about being king. He may(?) have gone along with it with Wallis as queen, IF he could have done it the way HE wanted, on the other hand he was just as happy -perhaps happier, as the succession was catered for- not to. Another -and passing- thought is that by abdicating he avoided the questions which may have been asked about why he was childless?

Mbruno · #**1929** 03-31-2018, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

King Willem III of the Netherlands, King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom and King Baudouin of the Belgians show that a monarchy can continue without a direct (male) Heir.

That was actually quite common in the past. For example, in France, in the 16th century and late 15th century, Charles VIII, Louis XII, Francis II, Charles IX , and Henri III were not succeeded by a direct male heir.

Denville · #**1930** 03-31-2018, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tsaritsa

Certainly. ONE of which may have been that it might be justification for NOT being king?

I can't see why. Of course it mattered if he was not able to have heirs.. but It would not debar him from being king. But it would be something that would pretty certainly be upsetting, as generally, the preference is that the line descends directly. So I'm sure he would have been concerned had he found out that he was not abel to father children...

Denville · #**1931** 03-31-2018, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tsaritsa

It sounds as if we might be saying that he was quite ambivalent about being king. He may(?) have gone along with it with Wallis as queen, IF he could have done it the way HE wanted, on the other hand he was just as happy -perhaps happier, as the succession was catered for- not to. Another -and passing- thought is that by abdicating he avoided the questions which may have been asked about why he was childless?

He did not think that he was incapable of fathering children. As Curryong has noted.. he did think as a young man he could have children and was pleased when FDW thoguth she was pregnant...

Pranter · #**1932** 03-31-2018, 03:27 PM

I remember reading in one of the biographies that he had at least one child, his brother Bertie (I think it was Bertie) recognized the 'child' as looking very much like the Duke, this was before the abdication as I recall.

LaRae

Denville · #**1933** 03-31-2018, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pranter

I remember reading in one of the biographies that he had at least one child, his brother Bertie (I think it was Bertie) recognized the 'child' as looking very much like the Duke, this was before the abdication as I recall.

LaRae

Who was the child and when did George VI see him?

Pranter · #**1934** 03-31-2018, 05:03 PM

I don't remember..it's been a year or so since I read the book. Seems like it was pre-Wallis though, maybe early Wallis years.

LaRae

Tsaritsa · #**1935** 03-31-2018, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville

I can't see why. Of course it mattered if he was not able to have heirs.. but It would not debar him from being king. But it would be something that would pretty certainly be upsetting, as generally, the preference is that the line descends directly. So I'm sure he would have been concerned had he found out that he was not abel to father children...

You misunderstand me. I didn't say that being sterile would debar him from being king. I said that he may have seen it as a way of sliding out of being king, which is entirely different. Perhaps you reveal your own concerns had you been faced with such information. Neither you nor I can say what he may have felt in the long term. How he felt when he was first made aware of the possibility would depend heavily on his age at the time. However, having known a male who was sterile, I can only say that he may have lived in hope. Re FDW's alleged pregnancy fears. All we know of the situation is in the way a letter was worded.

Kronprinz · #**1936** 05-20-2018, 09:34 AM

And yesterday the Duchess of Windsor had her posthumous revenge.

Denville · #**1937** 05-20-2018, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kronprinz

And yesterday the Duchess of Windsor had her posthumous revenge.

What on earth does that mean???

Curryong · #**1938** 05-20-2018, 09:49 AM

It's not a question of revenge. British society in the 1930s was a very different beast than it is today in the 21st century. Divorce then was considered a disgrace and a tragedy. Wallis Simpson had two husbands before marrying Edward and was living with the second of them when the POW fell in love with her.

They had an affair for several years until matters came to a head because Edward VIII wished to marry her, and so she divorced Ernest Simpson who had been a compliant husband for at least three years before the divorce.

That is very different to Meghan who was a divorcee (one marriage) at the time she met her Prince, and Harry played no part in the dissolution of her marriage. The BRF has divorcees within its own ranks too, unlike in George V's day.

The heir to the throne is himself a divorcee as is his second wife. That is surely a closer comparison to the circumstances of 1936 than yesterday's wedding. Harry is not a future King and he and Meghan's union hasn't forced a constitutional crisis on the British people.

moby · #**1939** 05-20-2018, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kronprinz

And yesterday the Duchess of Windsor had her posthumous revenge.

Oh did she? Yesterday the BRF welcomed a biracial woman to their fold, while in her time, she--a Nazi sympathizer at best, and a rumored lover of a Nazi at worst--was rejected.

Tsaritsa · #**1940** 05-20-2018, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kronprinz

And yesterday the Duchess of Windsor had her posthumous revenge.

I prefer to think she'd see it, as do I, as an irony.