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

[Denville]

It has been written several times that she had surgery in Asia to prevent her for getting pregnant when she was Young .... of course I wasn't there to check but I read it a lot of times !
Sorry

I never heard of this, but surely contraception would have been reasonabley trustworthy, by the 1920s..ther was no need to go to extremes...

 

[Queen Claude]

The Guardian is indeed a "high quality" paper, but I don't know what you mean by saying certain book reviews are meant to be farcical. Do you mean that the writer of the book review doesn't intedn it to be serious?[/QUOTE



Yes.

 

[loonytick]

The Guardian is indeed a "high quality" paper, but I don't know what you mean by saying certain book reviews are meant to be farcical. Do you mean that the writer of the book review doesn't intedn it to be serious?

Um, this is clearly not meant to be serious. This is The Guardian's "Digested Read" feature, which the paper itself describes as:

"John Crace’s incisive pastiches of the most popular writers, from Bridget Jones to Julian Barnes"

It's presented as humor, in other words, not an actual review. He's poking fun at Andrew Morton's writing style, his habit of spinning off silly lines of conjecture, etc. He's using an extreme line of "reasoning" because it's a joke, but he's using it to point out the ridiculousness of the more subtle, yet just as baseless, "reasoning" that tends to fill out Morton's books.

 

[rominet09]

I never heard of this, but surely contraception would have been reasonabley trustworthy, by the 1920s..ther was no need to go to extremes...

No, the pill didn't exist then and there were only condoms... and publicity about them was forbidden as after the loss of so many lives because the war. they wanted more people to replace the losses, I think that law was cancelled because AIDS.

 

[Curryong]

There were various douches also as well as condoms. However, I think that Wallis was either barren or very infertile. There was no sign of a baby in her first marriage which lasted for some years, though there were separations, and she was young, fit and healthy then.

 

[sm1939]

I thought Wallis in her first marriage had a miscarriage . .?

 

[Curryong]

Never read about that. And her mother was supposed to have referred on her deathbed to Wallis never being able to have children.

 

[Denville]

Um, this is clearly not meant to be serious. This is The Guardian's "Digested Read" feature, which the paper itself describes as:

"John Crace’s incisive pastiches of the most popular writers, from Bridget Jones to Julian Barnes"

It's presented as humor, in other words, not an actual review. He's poking fun at Andrew Morton's writing style, his habit of spinning off silly lines of conjecture, etc. He's using an extreme line of "reasoning" because it's a joke, but he's using it to point out the ridiculousness of the more subtle, yet just as baseless, "reasoning" that tends to fill out Morton's books.

oh I see. Well not likely to read Morton's work....

 

[Denville]

There were various douches also as well as condoms. However, I think that Wallis was either barren or very infertile. There was no sign of a baby in her first marriage which lasted for some years, though there were separations, and she was young, fit and healthy then.

There were several methods, condoms, douches and sponges, and I'm sure by the 20s there was the Dutch cap. So Wallis hardly had to resort to operations.. I'm not sure what surgery woud have been available anyway, short of taking her uterus out and clearly that did not happen as she had the hysterectomy in later life.

I think I did read somewhere of a possible miscarriage but it seems unlikely. I think she did not want children and may not have been very fertile. And she almost certainly avoided having children. Although generally upper class wives were expected to have at least 1 or 2 kids. But I think her first marriage was far from happy and she herself was far from maternal so she probably did her utmost, short of actually having her womb removed, to avoid pregnancy. Same with Ernest Simpson, I think she didn't want her society life to be disrupted by a child and he was OK with it..

 

[Curryong]

No, Wallis was never maternal. I read an awful sarcastic remark she wrote to a friend about the possibility of Audrey, Ernest's child by his previous marriage (which she destroyed) coming to live with them on a semi permanent basis in London at one stage. That quite obviously didn't happen, luckily for the little girl.

 

[MARG]

I agree Loonytic, John Grace has written a really wickedly biting and thoroughly entertaining review of Andrew Morton's "Wallis in Love: The Untold True Passion of the Duchess of Windsor". From his first paragraph, you really know he is roasting the author in deliciously British sarcasm and lambasting the "repackaging" of a part of BRF history that he obviously thought the author had just plain lost the plot.

His closing paragraph is a cracker:

Wallis was devastated when Herman and Felipe, her one true loves, died, and retreated from the world. She scarcely even noticed when her husband died. She ended her days alone, pining for her one true loves. The 20th century’s most infamous siren died as she had lived. A virgin.

Digested read, digested: Sex, sex and no sex.

As a Kiwi and patriotic member of the Commonwealth, I second Xenia's request.

 

[Tsaritsa]

Of course, if there's truth in that pre-pubescent mumps resulted in orchitis which left the Duke sterile -his delicate build and soft hairless skin suggest it as a possibility (Philip Ziegler gives other allegations)- then the question of a pregnancy is entirely academic.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Of course, if there's truth in that pre-pubescent mumps resulted in orchitis which left the Duke sterile -his delicate build and soft hairless skin suggest it as a possibility (Philip Ziegler gives other allegations)- then the question of a pregnancy is entirely academic.

Only as it would relate to Wallis and Edward, not Wallis and everyone else.

 

[Tsaritsa]

Only as it would relate to Wallis and Edward, not Wallis and everyone else.

Oh certainly. If we're exploring wider, perhaps we should look at terminations. Yes. I'm aware that they were illegal but Wallis is alleged to have lead a rather racy life. One in which certain 'connections' might have been a necessity? I'm not putting this forward as my personal belief. I'm more inclined to think she may have been infertile.

 

[Denville]

well some women did resort to terminations, to avoid having children but all the same there were less drastic methods. I think she perhaps was not that fertile and simply didn't want a family very much, so she used birth control.

 

[Ish]

In Anne Sebba's biography of Wallis, That Woman, she says that Wallis fell ill with an undisclosed "internal" problem on her trip back to the US from China; she had to have surgery when she landed in Seattle. She states that other biographers have assumed that this problem was caused by an abortion that Wallis had in China, but Sebba is of the opinion that the problem is actually caused by Wallis having been intersex.

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....

 

[Curryong]

But more sensational journalists and biographers could have leapt to conclusions about the 'internal problem' couldn't they? I mean, it could have been an abortion, who knows. It could also have been a growth on the bowel, on the neck of the womb, stomach ulcers, kidney trouble, intestinal infestations due to her travels, anything really. And by Wallis's time in China she had already been married to her first husband for quite a number of years.

 

[Tsaritsa]

But more sensational journalists and biographers could have leapt to conclusions about the 'internal problem' couldn't they? I mean, it could have been an abortion, who knows. It could also have been a growth on the bowel, on the neck of the womb, stomach ulcers, kidney trouble, intestinal infestations due to her travels, anything really. And by Wallis's time in China she had already been married to her first husband for quite a number of years.

I'm inclined to go with Sebba here. I accept -although she doesn't entirely fit the bill- the possibility that she may have been intersex. We know about her first husband's cruelty and alcoholism, but we don't know what MAY have been the trigger. I'm actually prepared to accept that, even after three marriages, she MAY have been a virgin. Might those lessons she allegedly learned in China have been to compensate for the fact she was unable to have penetrative sex, and wouldn't such lessons have stood her in very good stead if she found herself with, say, an underdeveloped lover?
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? Like many, she managed, by clever dressing-and unlimited funds!!- to minimize, the features she didn't like and enhance those she did, but there was nothing she could do, save to wear gloves, which thankfully were de riguer, to cover her very large and ugly hands, totally out of proportion with the rest of her tiny frame.
Whilst this is all highly speculative, I remain convinced that spiritually, emotionally, psychologically, physiologically, Wallis and Edward fulfilled each other's needs, albeit, there were probably times, of stultifying boredom, when she may have wished it wasn't so. The lunch may have been luxurious but she paid a high price for it.

 

[Denville]

But more sensational journalists and biographers could have leapt to conclusions about the 'internal problem' couldn't they? I mean, it could have been an abortion, who knows. It could also have been a growth on the bowel, on the neck of the womb, stomach ulcers, kidney trouble, intestinal infestations due to her travels, anything really. And by Wallis's time in China she had already been married to her first husband for quite a number of years.

I thought that Sebba wasn't the type to go in for the more outrageous stories such as Wallis not being a "normal woman". But it is some time since I read her book.
Its posislbe that she had an abortion, I think, perhaps an unwanted pregnancy came along and she ended it and it left her infertile. That wasn't uncommon back then.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I knew Prince Edward did not participate in battle in the First World War. He took photos between January and September 1915 at various places in France, which were around five miles from the frontline.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/history/514795/King-Edward-VIII-new-pictures-on-Western-Front

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

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

When Prince Edward wrote a secret letter to his mistress, he ignored the basic rules of grammar and expressed his eagerness by using swear rules.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...Prince-Edward-VIII-was-besotted-with-mistress

The Sunday Express claimed that the exile of Edward VIII in France was self-imposed.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/426976

The Baptism of Prince Edward of York in 1894
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-b...-edward-albert-christian-george-22671960.html

When Edward and Wallis visited Hitler, did they take time to visit any of Edward's German relatives?

Do you believe that Edward VIII was emotionally prepared for the reactions to his decisions to abdicate and marry Wallis?

 

[Denville]

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...

 

[Kronprinz]

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.

 

[Osipi]

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.

 

[Somebody]

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.

 

[Curryong]

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.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

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.

 

[Gawin]

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

 

[Gawin]

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/burkesgenealogic1949unse#page/n245/mode/2up

 

[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?

 

[Curryong]

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.