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

[Iluvbertie]

The government were thankful for Wallis as they didn't have to reveal how incompetent Edward was.

My grandmother's uncle was in the cabinet in 1936 and he told her that the government were talking, as early as April, about how to remove him ... Wallis gave them that excuse but he was going to be removed by some means. How hadn't been discussed as far as I am aware as they knew that Wallis was going to land in their laps before the end of the year.

Don't forget that by April the government had stopped sending him the most sensitive documents simply because they couldn't trust him not to let that information reach countries Britain would prefer didn't have that information.

 

[Prinsara]

My grandmother's uncle was in the cabinet in 1936 and he told her that the government were talking, as early as April, about how to remove him ... Wallis gave them that excuse but he was going to be removed by some means. How hadn't been discussed as far as I am aware as they knew that Wallis was going to land in their laps before the end of the year.

And nobody thought to inform the Duke of York?

I always have trouble believing that people were actively pushing for Edward VIII to go, simply because nobody seems to have said "well thank God he's gone" when he did go.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Until I moved house about a decade ago I had my great-uncle's communication with my grandmother in which he was telling her the government's views on the King.

They didn't tell the Duke of York as they weren't sure they were going to continue with a monarchy. They were actively asking whether a monarchy was even the way to go.

A lot of the government said exactly that - they were happy to see him go. It meant they actually had a King that they could trust. Just because it wasn't reported in the media doesn't mean it wasn't said.

Sorry you don't believe me ... I am not a liar. For generations my grandmother's family were part of the government, and moved in royal circles (they still do). My grandmother's father was born on the 'wrong side of the blanket' but I am still in contact with that branch of the family as he was acknowledged as the son of his father, even if not given his name or raised by his father.

 

[Queen Claude]

Even when he was Prince of Wales, there were concerns about Edward VIII / Duke of Windsor. In the late 1920s, years before he ascended, Stanley Baldwin and Tommy Lascelles had a discussion where Lascelles said that it may be best if the then Prince of Wales broke his neck in a riding accident, and Baldwin's response was that he had similar thoughts. His father, George V said he would ruin himself. For all those concerns, it does not seem like there was enough resolve to actually do anything other than workarounds like not sending him sensitive papers. What galvanized those who felt Edward VIII was unfit was when Wallis Simpson filed for divorce. It was the prospect of Wallis being freed up to marry The King that caused those who had concerns about him to take real action. JMO.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The government were talking about ways to remove him and then along came Wallis.

Would they have gone so far as assassination ... I am not sure but I wouldn't say no to that idea.

Forcing him to abdicate was the best option and they were looking at that ... and then along came Wallis and her second divorce. They would have found a way.

 

[sndral]

Until I moved house about a decade ago I had my great-uncle's communication with my grandmother in which he was telling her the government's views on the King.

They didn't tell the Duke of York as they weren't sure they were going to continue with a monarchy. They were actively asking whether a monarchy was even the way to go.

A lot of the government said exactly that - they were happy to see him go. It meant they actually had a King that they could trust. Just because it wasn't reported in the media doesn't mean it wasn't said.

Sorry you don't believe me ... I am not a liar. For generations my grandmother's family were part of the government, and moved in royal circles (they still do). My grandmother's father was born on the 'wrong side of the blanket' but I am still in contact with that branch of the family as he was acknowledged as the son of his father, even if not given his name or raised by his father.

I don’t think it’s a case of believing or not believing you, I thought forum guidelines are to not make claims that you have personal/inside knowledge and I think that’s because there’s no way to verify whether your unnamed great Uncle was in a position to really be privy to events, and even if he was, there’s no way to know whether his private letters reporting events were accurate or colored by a personal bias or if he was just passing on gossip and conjecture. You’re a long time poster and I understand that you believe the version of events you posted. However, there’s no need to take it personally when others chose to discount that version because there’s no verifiable source for it. Too bad you don’t still have the letters - I have to believe one of Edward VIII’s biographers would have loved to see them!
Based on several biographies I’ve read, I agree there were serious concerns about Edward VIII having nothing to do with Wallis. I’ve even read that they considered going with a brother other than the Duke of York. I haven’t read that they considered abolishing the monarchy - but I certainly haven’t read every biography out there.

 

[Curryong]

I've read articles in newspapers several years ago which stated that TPTB were considering George Duke of Kent, the youngest Royal son of all, as King should the negotiations with Edward VIII end with abdication.

This was because he was youngish, personable (the scandals about his private life when single had been squashed) had an elegant wife, young son etc etc, while the Duke of York had a speech impediment, frail physical health and was said to have bad nerves.

However, it doesn't seem to have been anything other than a brief consideration. The line of succession had to be kept, the Abdication was a serious enough jar to the life of the nation and Empire without British people everywhere wondering what was wrong with the Duke of York that he should be passed over. Continuity was everything at that moment of national crisis.

 

[Denville]

And nobody thought to inform the Duke of York?

I always have trouble believing that people were actively pushing for Edward VIII to go, simply because nobody seems to have said "well thank God he's gone" when he did go.

Nobody could have iwshed for such a trauma... Its not a small thing to get rid of a King or a monarchy....But I think there were certainly concerns about his behavour

I've read articles in newspapers several years ago which stated that TPTB were considering George Duke of Kent, the youngest Royal son of all, as King should the negotiations with Edward VIII end with abdication.

This was because he was youngish, personable (the scandals about his private life when single had been squashed) had an elegant wife, young son etc etc, while the Duke of York had a speech impediment, frail physical health and was said to have bad nerves.

However, it doesn't seem to have been anything other than a brief consideration. The line of succession had to be kept, the Abdication was a serious enough jar to the life of the nation and Empire without British people everywhere wondering what was wrong with the Duke of York that he should be passed over. Continuity was everything at that moment of national crisis.

Also, George had a male heir -And while not hte first consideration it was a plus point. I think that they examined all options when they had to consider finding a replacement for David. Maybe not including Pss Mary but they considered all the other sons and decided in the end to go with the Yorks. They were a happily married couple, they had 2 pretty little daughters, they were the next in line and it seemed best to go with continuity and the tried and tested, even if Bertie had the stammer and was a rather shy nervy person.

That would be the best case scenario.

What would be best case bout it? It was a title concocted for a very difficult and traumatic situation. The RF still remembers teh Abdication as an appalling problem... and are not likely to use that title again

Even when he was Prince of Wales, there were concerns about Edward VIII / Duke of Windsor. In the late 1920s, years before he ascended, Stanley Baldwin and Tommy Lascelles had a discussion where Lascelles said that it may be best if the then Prince of Wales broke his neck in a riding accident, and Baldwin's response was that he had similar thoughts. His father, George V said he would ruin himself. For all those concerns, it does not seem like there was enough resolve to actually do anything other than workarounds like not sending him sensitive papers. What galvanized those who felt Edward VIII was unfit was when Wallis Simpson filed for divorce. It was the prospect of Wallis being freed up to marry The King that caused those who had concerns about him to take real action. JMO.

I dont suppose they really wanted Edward to fall off his horse but even to say something like that does indicate that they were concerned that he was increasingly a loose cannon..
I think that George V probably half meant what he said, and maybe envisaged that Edward WOULD get fed up with being royal and might abdicate of his own accord.. or that he would be a lazy King and let the burden fall on the Yorks.

But at the time, in the 1930s, Marrying a twice divorced woman WAS a problem for a royal who was Governor of the Church.. and in itself was a reason for considering pressings or frocing him to abdicate..

 

[Curryong]

George V reportedly said to the PM Stanley Baldwin in 1934 'After I am dead the boy' (Edward Prince of Wales) 'will ruin himself within twelve months'. He much preferred that his steady second son and his wife should reign next and after that his beloved granddaughter Lilibet.
It didn't take twelve months for Edward to abdicate and King George probably just envisioned some scandal or other for the bachelor King with a married woman in the next reign, but he certainly had forebodings about his son's demeanour and attitude to his duties as well as his unmarried status.

 

[Denville]

George V reportedly said to the PM Stanley Baldwin in 1934 'After I am dead the boy' (Edward Prince of Wales) 'will ruin himself within twelve months'. He much preferred that his steady second son and his wife should reign next and after that his beloved granddaughter Lilibet.
It didn't take twelve months for Edward to abdicate and King George probably just envisioned some scandal or other for the bachelor King with a married woman in the next reign, but he certainly had forebodings about his son's demeanour and attitude to his duties as well as his unmarried status.

Yes but still, I'm sure George did not want the whole trauma of an abdication. And it hadn't happened in the UK before.. Look what strain it put on Bertie and the queen mother when it DID happen.
George said (I think) something like he hoped his son wouldn't' marry and have children so that the throne would eventually go to Bertie and then Elizabeth. He did say something like "the boy will ruin himself in 12 months" but then again, fathers are often grumpy about their sons and feel they're not going to measure up. I think that when it happened.. the RF couldn't quite believe it, because it had never happened in the UK that a monarch had voluntarily abdicated..
Edward COUDL have probably worked something out, if he had been a bit more willing to talk and compromise.. Maybe a morganatic marriage could have been agreed or even secret private marriage.. I am sure that the royal circle mostly felt that this was so weird they could hardly believe it. Kings had had long term mistresses before, why couldn't' Edward settle for that? He was liked and popular, he was only asked to do ceremonial duties, why couldn't he find some way of sticking it out?

 

[Prinsara]

It's probably all rooted in David never having wanted to be king, at all, ever, and not being able to reconcile himself to the hated "duty". He found a way out by tying himself to Wallis.

By doing the selfish thing he spared the rest of us, but even after getting what he wanted, it didn't seem to bring him as much happiness as he'd thought.

 

[Denville]

It's probably all rooted in David never having wanted to be king, at all, ever, and not being able to reconcile himself to the hated "duty". He found a way out by tying himself to Wallis.

By doing the selfish thing he spared the rest of us, but even after getting what he wanted, it didn't seem to bring him as much happiness as he'd thought.

Never does...
I think he did what was right for him in that he was a loose cannon and probably would not have made a good wartime King.. to put it mildly. but it did impose a trauma on the rest of the family, and esp on his brother...
Having said that I dont think the PTB really wanted the whole drama of his leaving, but really there was no choice. He didn't want to do the duty part of being king.. He wanted to marry a woman who had had 2 divorces which was a problem at the time.. and who also had no idea of what royal life was like and might not have adjusted to being either queen or morganatic wife.

 

[Darius1]

Never does...
I think he did what was right for him in that he was a loose cannon and probably would not have made a good wartime King.. to put it mildly. but it did impose a trauma on the rest of the family, and esp on his brother...
Having said that I dont think the PTB really wanted the whole drama of his leaving, but really there was no choice. He didn't want to do the duty part of being king.. He wanted to marry a woman who had had 2 divorces which was a problem at the time.. and who also had no idea of what royal life was like and might not have adjusted to being either queen or morganatic wife.

I recently read an article about Alan Lascelles, Private Secretary to Edward VIII for a long time as POW. He highlighted the unsuitability of Prince Edward over many years prior to his accession - his womanising, disregard for his father the King, lack of duty etc. Edward's abdication was undoubtedly pengineered by the British Establishment. He was a loose cannon demonstrating signs of meddling in politics, indiscreet, and latterly with a lover that was close to Nazi diplomats in the late 1930's. There are many interesting parallels with his second cousin Carol in Romania and all the talk around forming a King's Party in the run up to the abdication would have been disastrous with possible links to Mosleys BUF. Undoubtedly the abdication outcome was best for the country. Sad for Edward, a vain, selfish, spoilt prince that never really grew up or found a satisfying role in life.

 

[Alison H]

. There are many interesting parallels with his second cousin Carol in Romania.

That's an interesting point. Edward/David was dead set on marrying Wallis. What if he'd been happy for her to hang around as his mistress, like Madame Lupescu did for so many years? The Establishment couldn't have done much about it, but it would have been rather embarrassing.

The British monarch didn't have anything like as much power as the Romanian monarch did, and there's no way Edward could have declared personal rule - Charles I was the last one to try that here! - but, if the king were known to sympathise with certain political factions, it could have got very awkward.

 

[Curryong]

Below is the disillusioned Tommy Lascelles' view of King Edward VIII, the man he had served as Prince of Wales and later King. I posted the original article here about two years ago but can't find it.

https://newscolony.com/longstanding...n-tommy-lascelles-hatred-of-king-edward-viii/

 

[Denville]

That's an interesting point. Edward/David was dead set on marrying Wallis. What if he'd been happy for her to hang around as his mistress, like Madame Lupescu did for so many years? The Establishment couldn't have done much about it, but it would have been rather embarrassing.

The British monarch didn't have anything like as much power as the Romanian monarch did, and there's no way Edward could have declared personal rule - Charles I was the last one to try that here! - but, if the king were known to sympathise with certain political factions, it could have got very awkward.

I don't really take Edwards political views too seriously or Wallis's.. And I'm sure that the Govt would not mind if he had Wal as a logn term mistress. The papers would keep stchum about it, the trouble was that he wanted to marry her...

 

[Prinsara]

Below is the disillusioned Tommy Lascelles' view of King Edward VIII, the man he had served as Prince of Wales and later King. I posted the original article here about two years ago but can't find it.

https://newscolony.com/longstanding...n-tommy-lascelles-hatred-of-king-edward-viii/

Not sure if it's in here, but David was at least briefly self-aware enough to apologize to Lascelles, once. "I suppose the fact of the matter is that I'm quite the wrong sort of person to be Prince of Wales."

Lascelles: "Which was so pathetically true that it almost melted me."

It can't have been easy being either of them.

 

[Curryong]

Another extract...

Legh [later, equerry to King George VI] warning me that plans were already afoot to liquidate [Wallis’s second husband Ernest] Simpson (matrimonially speaking), and to set the Crown upon the leopardess’s head.

Simpson, who was nothing worse than a nincompoop, I believe, was aware of this plot, and for some reason best known to himself had thought fit to communicate the details of it privily to [a fellow Freemason] the Lord Mayor of London, of all people — an uneasy secret which the good man was naturally unable to keep to himself.

My impression is that the Prince of Wales was caught napping by his father’s death; he expected the old man to last several years more, and he had, in all probability, already made up his mind to renounce his claim to the throne, and to marry Mrs S.

The comparatively sudden death of George V upset any such plans. But I believe that even then, he would have clung to them (he always hated changing any scheme he had evolved himself) but for the provisions of his father’s will.

The will was read, to the assembled family, in the hall at Sandringham. I, of course, was not present; but, coming out of my office, I ran into him striding down the passage with a face blacker than any thunderstorm. He went straight to his room, and for a long time was glued to the telephone.

 

[Roderick]

That's an interesting point. Edward/David was dead set on marrying Wallis. What if he'd been happy for her to hang around as his mistress, like Madame Lupescu did for so many years? The Establishment couldn't have done much about it, but it would have been rather embarrassing.

The British monarch didn't have anything like as much power as the Romanian monarch did, and there's no way Edward could have declared personal rule - Charles I was the last one to try that here! - but, if the king were known to sympathise with certain political factions, it could have got very awkward.

He had no interest in duty or being King though...no respect for the position at all. I think he would have abdicated WITHOUT Wallis being on the scene...he would have just limped on a few months longer probably, returning a few more official papers with coffee rings on them and getting another cruise or two in while he could.

 

[Alison H]

I do wonder what Wallis would have made of what Lascelles & co were saying. I don't for one second imagine that she thought David/Edward would renounce the throne, either as Prince of Wales or as King, for her. I think she was genuinely fond of him, but presumably she expected that, like Freda Dudley Ward and Thelma Furness, she'd have her time as his mistress, with all the kudos that that entailed, and that hopefully she could remain part of his inner circle once he either found someone else or was pressurised into making a suitable marriage.


The Abdication was best for the country, but I wonder if Wallis felt that it was best for her.

 

[Denville]

I do wonder what Wallis would have made of what Lascelles & co were saying. I don't for one second imagine that she thought David/Edward would renounce the throne, either as Prince of Wales or as King, for her. I think she was genuinely fond of him, but presumably she expected that, like Freda Dudley Ward and Thelma Furness, she'd have her time as his mistress, with all the kudos that that entailed, and that hopefully she could remain part of his inner circle once he either found someone else or was pressurised into making a suitable marriage.


The Abdication was best for the country, but I wonder if Wallis felt that it was best for her.

yes I'm sure she didn't think of his giving up the throne for her but when she realised how obsessed he was, I think that she felt it was preferable to be the wife - even a morganatic wife of a king.. than to be David's mistress or ex and the wife of a not that well off man.. And then when she realized she was not going to be able to Marry him with him keeping the rank of king, she was keen enough to have the role of "romantic wife for whom he gave up his throne" provided they had plenty of money...

 

[Durham]

The will was read, to the assembled family, in the hall at Sandringham. I, of course, was not present; but, coming out of my office, I ran into him striding down the passage with a face blacker than any thunderstorm. He went straight to his room, and for a long time was glued to the telephone.

Thanks for this.

I understand that the new king found out to his horror that he had been left nothing in the late king's will. I wonder who he was calling?

Later edit: other than Sandringham & Balmoral of course. I meant not left any cash like his four siblings.

 

[Denville]

Thanks for this.

I understand that the new king found out to his horror that he had been left nothing in the late king's will. I wonder who he was calling?

I woudl imagine Wallis...

 

[Durham]

I woudl imagine Wallis...

Yes that makes sense. Or his lawyer to contest.

 

[Roderick]

It's not unusual for the heir to be left nothing in a will - he or she will inherit everything for their use if not actual ownership anyway. David should not have been surprised by this at all nor taken it as a sign of malice from his father but it's typical that he did.

 

[Curryong]

The article goes on to say it was Wallis he was calling, (I believe all the chief Royal residences had switchboards in those days and the operators would have known who was calling who.) Lascelles states the phone call went on for a considerable time.

IMO George V did not leave him anything as Edward had had disposal of Duchy of Cornwall funds since he reached the age of 21.

 

[Curryong]

The article, link posted upthread in post #2235, goes on...

'His brothers were left a very large sum — about three-quarters of a million in cash; he was left nothing, and was precluded from converting anything (such as the stamp collection, the racehorses, etc.) into ready money.

It was, doubtless, a well-intentioned will; but, as such wills often do, it provoked incalculable disaster; it was, in fact, directly responsible for the first voluntary abdication of an English King.

Money, and the things that money buys, were the principal desiderata in Mrs Simpson’s philosophy, if not in his, and, when they found that they had been left the Crown without the cash, I am convinced that they agreed, in that interminable telephone conversation, to renounce their plans for a joint existence as private individuals, and to see what they could make out of the Kingship, with the subsidiary prospect of the Queenship for her later on.

The events of the next ten months bear out this supposition; for, throughout them, he devoted two hours to schemes, great and small, by which he could produce money to every one that he devoted to the business of the State.

Indeed, his passion for ‘economy’ became something very near to mania, despite the fact that his private fortune, amassed while he was Prince of Wales, already amounted to nearly a million — which sum he took with him, of course, when he finally left the country.

It was substantially increased by the considerable sums which his brother paid him for his life interest in the Sandringham and Balmoral estates, so that, by the time he married, having no encumbrances, no overhead charges and no taxes to pay, he was one of the richest men in Europe — if not the richest.'

 

[Osipi]

Just by being heir to his father, the king, David already was in line to inherit far more than anyone else that George V could leave to his siblings and his family. I believe that being upset at being left nothing in George's personal will just showed how greedy and grubby and "entitled" David was. Then to actually (as presumed) to get on the phone and commiserate with Wallis over being "left out", that showed me the side of David that was totally and completely dependent on Wallis for everything and anything.

David was a man of weak character and there are many incidences that prove this to be true. The UK certainly dodged a bullet with Edward VIII abdicating as I don't believe he had the fortitude or stamina or resolve to handle what was to come with WWII.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, Osipi he was dependent, and angry about the will. I've read elsewhere, perhaps in the original article perhaps in my bio of Edward VIII, that during the reading of the will, as the various legacies were innumerated Edward asked several times 'And where do I come in?'

 

[Denville]

The article goes on to say it was Wallis he was calling, (I believe all the chief Royal residences had switchboards in those days and the operators would have known who was calling who.) Lascelles states the phone call went on for a considerable time.

IMO George V did not leave him anything as Edward had had disposal of Duchy of Cornwall funds since he reached the age of 21.

I thnk it was obvious it was Wallis. She was concerned and so was he about the money issues.. because they wanted as much as they could lay their hands on. Can't imagine that David would have tired to overturn the Will, but he was clearly angry and upset to find that his father hadn't left him anything.

The article, link posted upthread in post #2235, goes on...

'Hi
Money, and the things that money buys, were the principal desiderata in Mrs Simpson’s philosophy, if not in his, and, — if not the richest.'

Lascelles really has his knife into Wallis doesn't he? And also to David. I think he seems to have the attitude that David was bad, and Wallis was even worse and made him more selfish.