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

[Nico]

Originally Posted by Kronprinz

And yesterday the Duchess of Windsor had her posthumous revenge.

Don't think so. The problematic was WAY more different for Wallis and David.

[Ish]

Can we stop comparing Wallis and Meghan? Doing so only serves to do one of two things - either it washes away the many, many problems with both Wallis and Edward in order to make them look like a tragic couple wronged by the system, or else it is used to attack Meghan for being someone different from the typical royal bride.


There is no valid comparison. They are two very different women who married very different men under very different circumstances. The fact that both are American divorcees does not make them at all alike.

[Furienna]

Originally Posted by Ish

Can we stop comparing Wallis and Meghan? Doing so only serves to do one of two things - either it washes away the many, many problems with both Wallis and Edward in order to make them look like a tragic couple wronged by the system, or else it is used to attack Meghan for being someone different from the typical royal bride.

There is no valid comparison. They are two very different women who married very different men under very different circumstances. The fact that both are American divorcees does not make them at all alike.

Well, this will be a controversial thing to say. But I feel some sympathy with Wallis and Edward VIII, even if they weren't as admirable as Elizabeth and George VI. And yes, they were in some ways a tragic couple and wronged by the system. And I do find it interesting to see how far the royal family has come in 82 years, because Meghan would never have been accepted in 1936 either.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Furienna

Well, this will be a controversial thing to say. But I feel some sympathy with Wallis and Edward VIII, even if they weren't as admirable as Elizabeth and George VI. And yes, they were in some ways a tragic couple and wronged by the system. And I do find it interesting to see how far the royal family has come in 82 years, because Meghan would never have been accepted in 1936 either.

That's an overly simplified way to describe what happened. Selective comparison ignores other things that would make Wallis unacceptable today. Which isn't in Meghan's case. And instead of saying it's just the royal family that's changed in 82 years, how about society in general? How about the COE? Or how about the people involved and the situation of what transpired. If Meghan is like Wallis (other than being a divorcee), I still don't think they'd be able to marry in the church today.

[Queen Claude]

Originally Posted by Kronprinz

And yesterday the Duchess of Windsor had her posthumous revenge.

Nope. Wallis did not get in the door in 1936 and would not have even gotten in the door in 2018.

[Osipi]

Even if the comparisons were done solely by the differences between the two couples, Harry and Meghan are a world apart from David and Wallis.

Both Harry and Meghan are actively looking to serve crown and country and its people through humanitarian endeavors. David and Wallis were a more narcissistic couple and reveled in the party and social scene. When Harry and Meghan met, both were free to enter into a romantic relationship with each other. David was involved with Wallis who, at the the time, had a very visible and very much alive husband. Harry and Meghan got the stamp of approval for their marriage from the monarch. David, as the monarch, had people scrambling around to find the ways and means to prevent his marriage to Wallis.

It all ended up the way it was supposed to though. With David abdicating, he was then free to pursue the party and social life to his and Wallis' heart's content. I don't think either of them would have been happy, let alone successful had things been different and David and Wallis were King and Queen and that's not including the political leanings they had.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Furienna

because Meghan would never have been accepted in 1936 either.

Meghan wouldn't have been accepted as late as 1990. The War of the Waleses eventually lead to many changes.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by JR76

Meghan wouldn't have been accepted as late as 1990. The War of the Waleses eventually lead to many changes.

Wouldn't be so sure about that. Harry isn't going to be king. Princess Anne married her second husband, whom she did have an affair with, and kept her place in line to the throne by 1992. Given the lack of scandal surrounding their relationship, she'd likely be able to marry him either in Scotland or by civil marriage. Of course, things have gotten easier since then due to what has transpired in the BRF and society.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Wouldn't be so sure about that. Harry isn't going to be king. Princess Anne married her second husband, whom she did have an affair with, and kept her place in line to the throne by 1992. Given the lack of scandal surrounding their relationship, she'd likely be able to marry him either in Scotland or by civil marriage. Of course, things have gotten easier since then due to what has transpired in the BRF and society.

The WoW was in full swing by the time Anne and Tim married.
I still don't believe that Harry (well his age aside) marrying a divorced, unbaptised, African-American actress could've happened before the breakdown of his parents marriage or that of his aunt and uncle's.

[Osipi]

Come to think of it, things would have even been so very much different if the War of the Waleses happened back in 1936. For one, it would never have played out in the press the way it did. Secondly, most likely there would have never been a divorce or any kind of a remarriage for the Prince of Wales. Diana and Charles most likely would have carried on with their public lives together and lived privately much like his Uncle Dickie and his wife, Edwina did.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by JR76

The WoW was in full swing by the time Anne and Tim married.
I still don't believe that Harry (well his age aside) marrying a divorced, unbaptised, African-American actress could've happened before the breakdown of his parents marriage or that of his aunt and uncle's.

The WoW is hardly news to members of the royal family. The marriage has been in serious trouble for years. If it wasn't acceptable before then, it wouldn't have been acceptable right after. Even in 1992, some still believe the marriage is salvageable with them living separate lives. Like I said, it would be harder, but if they stuck it out and showed their commitment to each other, they would've still made it.

But back to the topic, Wallis wouldn't have been accepted even today. With or without her divorces.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Like I said, it would be harder, but if they stuck it out and showed their commitment to each other, they would've still made it.

Sticking it out as you put it implies waiting for a certain period of time which in my opinion sort of proves my point in that a marriage such as the one between Harry and Meghan could not have happened before the breakdown of the Wales marriage and the turmoil that lead to.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by JR76

Sticking it out as you put it implies waiting for a certain period of time which in my opinion sort of proves my point in that a marriage such as the one between Harry and Meghan could not have happened before the breakdown of the Wales marriage and the turmoil that lead to.

No. Sticking it out even without the disaster of the Wales. Anne's second marriage didn't happen because the Wales' marriage blew up in public. But again, this marriage is in no way an indication of Duke and Duchess of Windsor's situation even if it were to happen today. For some to suggest it's simply a divorcee situation is oversimplification.

[Curryong]

Does that really matter though, JR76? Things are as they are at the time that they occur.

One could say, if we went back to 1936, that the marriages of Princess Anne to Mark Philllips, Prince Andrew to Sarah Ferguson and Prince William to Kate Middleton would not have occurred then because the rank in Society of the prospective spouses would not have been considered sufficiently high enough to be acceptable. Therefore permission would probably not have been granted.

The history of the BRF would therefore have been very different. We could play endlessly with similar 'this wouldn't have occurred because of ...' . Society at large and the rules governing remarriage after divorce in the Church of England (in 2002) have substantially changed Britain and the British, but IMO Wallis would be as unacceptable now as she was then.

The point is that there is no comparison between Wallis and Meghan for a great number of reasons. In fact about the only thing the two women have in common are that they are/were American and have/had been divorced.

[Queen Claude]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Even if the comparisons were done solely by the differences between the two couples, Harry and Meghan are a world apart from David and Wallis.

Both Harry and Meghan are actively looking to serve crown and country and its people through humanitarian endeavors. David and Wallis were a more narcissistic couple and reveled in the party and social scene. When Harry and Meghan met, both were free to enter into a romantic relationship with each other. David was involved with Wallis who, at the the time, had a very visible and very much alive husband. Harry and Meghan got the stamp of approval for their marriage from the monarch. David, as the monarch, had people scrambling around to find the ways and means to prevent his marriage to Wallis.

It all ended up the way it was supposed to though. With David abdicating, he was then free to pursue the party and social life to his and Wallis' heart's content. I don't think either of them would have been happy, let alone successful had things been different and David and Wallis were King and Queen and that's not including the political leanings they had.

I am not a fan of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor but as Prince of Wales and King, Edward / David showed considerable concern for "his people" and did have a work ethic, and yes I am aware that there were times that he shirked his duty. David liked to socialize and party but I would not consider him a debauchee while I would give that label to his grandfather Edward VII.

The Windsors were fixtures on the party scene because they had nothing else to do with their lives after the Duke rightfully got sidelined after World War II.

Originally Posted by jacqui24

The WoW is hardly news to members of the royal family. The marriage has been in serious trouble for years. If it wasn't acceptable before then, it wouldn't have been acceptable right after. Even in 1992, some still believe the marriage is salvageable with them living separate lives. Like I said, it would be harder, but if they stuck it out and showed their commitment to each other, they would've still made it.

But back to the topic, Wallis wouldn't have been accepted even today. With or without her divorces.

If not for her divorces, what about Wallis would not have been acceptable?

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

If not for her divorces, what about Wallis would not have been acceptable?

Well, I’d say being a Nazi sympathizer is a very good reason. And being that Edward VIII and Wallis’ affair, they still would unlikely to be wed in the Church today.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Well, I’d say being a Nazi sympathizer is a very good reason. And being that Edward VIII and Wallis’ affair, they still would unlikely to be wed in the Church today.

Although the CoE blessed the marriage of Charles and Camilla, its very possible that if David and Wallis were to apply to do the same today, it would be refused. Its my understanding that some ministers and pastors will perform a marriage for a divorced person if there was only one divorce. More than one divorce for a person would be more questionable.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Although the CoE blessed the marriage of Charles and Camilla, its very possible that if David and Wallis were to apply to do the same today, it would be refused. Its my understanding that some ministers and pastors will perform a marriage for a divorced person if there was only one divorce. More than one divorce for a person would be more questionable.

There is also an element of if one of the person played a part in the breakdown of the other’s previous marriage. Which obviously David did. If Harry and Meghan had an affair, I firmly believe that the AOC wouldn’t have agreed to perform the service. The Church allows for remarriage in some cases. Not all. Meghan’s situation is about as simple and least problematic as it gets. If she can’t be approved under the changes rule, pretty much no one can. Wallis and David was a different story.

[Queen Claude]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Well, I’d say being a Nazi sympathizer is a very good reason. And being that Edward VIII and Wallis’ affair, they still would unlikely to be wed in the Church today.

You said with or without the divorces. I interpreted, perhaps incorrectly, that that the "without divorces" meant that Wallis had never been married, so basically she was a never married, American commoner marrying the King. I dunno, perhaps an argument can be made that today's Brits and the dominions would not easily accept an American commoner as their Queen.



Being a Nazi sympathizer in 1936 would not have prevented the marriage, at the time there were plenty of people in Britain who sympathized and / or admired Germany including Wallis' soon-to-be husband.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

You said with or without the divorces. I interpreted, perhaps incorrectly, that that the "without divorces" meant that Wallis had never been married, so basically she was a never married, American commoner marrying the King. I dunno, perhaps an argument can be made that today's Brits and the dominions would not easily accept an American commoner as their Queen.

Being a Nazi sympathizer in 1936 would not have prevented the marriage, at the time there were plenty of people in Britain who sympathized and / or admired Germany including Wallis' soon-to-be husband.

I'm not sure if there has been comments removed due to off topic that would lead to that incorrect conclusion, but we were all very clear that the only thing Wallis and Meghan has in common is being an American and divorcee. American wouldn't really be an issue as there has been other Queens in the past that were foreign. And being a divorce was just the obvious issue with Wallis.

While there might be other Nazi sympathizers, including Edward VIII, it certainly is an issue for British government. Just like David being a Nazi sympathizer was one of the issues. If Wallis were to come into the picture today, and she's a terrorist sympathizer, forget the monarch or the heir to the throne, she'd not be acceptable as Harry's wife.