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

[Warren]

Duke of Windsor in Paris prior to the German invasion

Patrick Kinna - Telegraph - 20 March 2009
Patrick Kinna, who has died at the age of 95, was Winston Churchill's confidential assistant from 1940 to 1945.

One section from the London Telegraph obituary is of interest:

"His skills as a clerk put him in the Intelligence Corps, posted to Paris as clerk to Major-General HRH the Duke of Windsor.
Kinna, who served the Duke for just under a year, found him "a nice person, full of smiles", though he was somewhat relieved that he never had to meet Wallis Simpson, about whom he had heard "rumours".
One of his duties was to ensure that the Duke never took a single piece of paper home, where it might fall into the hands of the Duchess."

 

[Russophile]

Wow. Wallis was really vilified. I wonder how she coped being the most hated woman of her time??

 

[Mermaid1962]

This story from the obituary gave me a chuckle:
As the prime minister paced the room "completely starkers", Kinna recalled, there was a knock on the door and Churchill went to open it. It was Roosevelt in his wheelchair. Mortified at finding his guest with nothing on, the president prepared to make his excuses, but was prevented by Churchill. "Oh no, no, Mr President," he said. "As you can see, I have nothing to hide from you."

Who is the handsome man sitting between Churchill and Stalin?

 

[Wisteria]

I don't care who he marries as long as he is allowed to marry the woman he loves (unlike two previous heirs to throne who weren't allowed to do so - Edward VIII and Charles).

.

I don´t know whether Charles was not allowed to marry the woman he loved or not but Edward VIII could have married Wallis if he had only waited until he was crowned, in fact some friends advised him to do that. Once he was King he could have married anyone he liked, all he had to do was to wait a few months more but he was was too, shall we say, pig headed to take that advice and we all know what happened next. He and Wallis suffered the consequences of his impatience.
I believe that Elizabeth would have eventually become Queen as it was doubtful that Wallis and Edward would have have had direct heirs.

 

[auntie]

According to witnesses, Edward was even willing to forgo any rights his children with Wallis would have to the throne, the main thing to marry her and to stay king

 

[wbenson]

I don´t know whether Charles was not allowed to marry the woman he loved or not but Edward VIII could have married Wallis if he had only waited until he was crowned, in fact some friends advised him to do that. Once he was King he could have married anyone he liked, all he had to do was to wait a few months more but he was was too, shall we say, pig headed to take that advice and we all know what happened next. He and Wallis suffered the consequences of his impatience.

He was already the King, though. There isn't any legal change in his status at the coronation.

 

[Zonk]

Edward would not have married Wallis as King. It played out the way it was supposed to IMO. If Edward had married Wallis, the government would have resigned and there was no way he could let that happen. Now if this had happened forty years later when times and attitude had changed who knows how it would have turned out.

 

[Wisteria]

He was already the King, though. There isn't any legal change in his status at the coronation.

He was King but still uncrowned but that wasn´t his main problem. Wallis was still married when all his planning was going on.
She only had her final decree on April 27th and they were married June 3rd.
If he hadn´t been so stubborn(and impatient) he could have waited for her divorce to become legal, then he could have gone through his coronation and then work towards having her accepted, he as king, and she as a legally divorced woman. As it was her divorce was nearly compromised by an accusation, later dropped, of collusion.
It might not have worked, as you said the government would most probably have resigned and there would have been problems overseas, but that was the advice he received and ignored.

 

[Iluvbertie]

He ignored it because he knew that he couldn't cause an election over his choose of wife as that would have to be the election issue.

Short answer - he was advised by a number of people that either before or after his coronation the government wouldn't accept Wallis as his wife and would insist on an election whereby the issue was Wallis - not something that a constitutional monarch could stand. What if the electorate voted back into power the side that opposed Wallis - where would that leave the King?

 

[Wisteria]

- where would that leave the King?

Still King, and free to keep Wallis as his mistress, which incidentally she said in her memoirs she was quite happy about.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Still King, and free to keep Wallis as his mistress, which incidentally she said in her memoirs she was quite happy about.

I don't think he could have remained as king if the party in power had just fought an election on the question of who he should marry and the party had won and the King had lost.

He would have to have abdicated at that point and very well may have ended the monarchy as the people would have been voting directly on an issue to do with the monarch and, in my scenario, chosen parliament.

The whole situation would have put the king at the centre of politics where the monarch is not allowed to be - they aren't to be the centre of an election campaign.

 

[MARG]

Edward VIII could have married Wallis if he had only waited until he was crowned, in fact some friends advised him to do that. Once he was King he could have married anyone he liked, all he had to do was to wait a few months more but he was was too, shall we say, pig headed to take that advice and we all know what happened next. He and Wallis suffered the consequences of his impatience.

I think, like everything esle in history, the situation has to be viewed and assessed "in it's time and place".

While the Prince of Wales was loved and even admired for his racey lifestyle I don't think the idea of him actually marrying Wallis crossed anyone's mind but Edward. I think the government were taken by surprise, shocked even, that the King wanted Wallis as his Queen. Why would it, she was the King's mistress, a twice divorced woman and in the process of getting a third.

If anyone seriously thought that was ever going to happen they were living in la la land. The people expected their King to marry in a riot of pomp and circumstance. Carriages carrying the entire Royal faimily, guests including the royalty of Europe and Heads of state. The grandest occassion short of the Coronation but, there is no way the leader of the Church of England, a Church that the King would be head of, could pull that off. The Cathedral Doors would have remained resolutely closed to them. One only has to remember that in this brave new "touchy, feely" 21st Century, the current PofW had to settle for a downscale semi-private "Blessing" as both parties were divorcees.

Whilst their politics were definitely suspect and the government had severe reservations about how "sound" he was, Wallis' Nazi sympathies were common knowledge and even shared by a large number of the aristocracy at this time. However, in the late 1930's, as with his marriage, his Coronation would have had to have been presided over by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the leader of the Church of England, which Edward, as King, would be the head.

In point of fact I couldn't see the Arch-Bishop crowning her as consort. It would never happen and that would have precipitated a constitutional crisis that Winston Churchill and his government would not have been able to prevent. They had, and still have, no power whatsoever, to compell the Church to do anything at all. In that case in am sure the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church would have stood resolutely against any marriage.

 

[Elspeth]

I think it's very sad, though, that it was considered OK for him to marry some "suitable" aristocrat or princess for public purposes while keeping a mistress. That's every bit as much of a flouting of the marriage vows as the "till death us do part" repeat performance.

There have been so many cases, and not just in Britain, where it's been deemed acceptable for princes to live with divorcees or commoners but as soon as they want to marry them they get chucked out of the royal family.

Actually from reading memoirs at the time, there almost seemed to be some gratitude toward Mrs Simpson for providing the excuse for an abdication; a lot of the senior royal aides had been fed up with Edward from his time as Prince of Wales and were dreading having to serve him during his reign.

 

[Mermaid1962]

That's my opinion as well. Edward VIII was supposed to have sent back official papers with drink-glass stains on them, and they were left around where anybody could read them. This isn't the behaviour of someone who understood how serious his new role was.

Actually from reading memoirs at the time, there almost seemed to be some gratitude toward Mrs Simpson for providing the excuse for an abdication; a lot of the senior royal aides had been fed up with Edward from his time as Prince of Wales and were dreading having to serve him during his reign.

 

[Zonk]

Yes, it does appear that he didn't take his position seriously enough.

Yes, I also agree that the hypocrisy regarding that keeping Wallis as a mistress while marrying someone suitable is laughable. Edward's love for Wallis seemed to have surpassed everything else.

 

[MARG]

I think it's very sad, though, that it was considered OK for him to marry some "suitable" aristocrat or princess for public purposes while keeping a mistress. That's every bit as much of a flouting of the marriage vows as the "till death us do part" repeat performance.

Most mistresses have been discreet and no-one with the best will in the world could ever have called Wallis that! I think she was an original flapper turned swinger who believed that "those" sort of morals were the sole province of the bourgeois!

Actually from reading memoirs at the time, there almost seemed to be some gratitude toward Mrs Simpson for providing the excuse for an abdication; a lot of the senior royal aides had been fed up with Edward from his time as Prince of Wales and were dreading having to serve him during his reign.

Actually, the only thing he ever seemed to have pursued with passion was Wallis. Great Britain and her Commonwealth did not even register on his radar.

 

[Zonk]

Marg...that really sums it up.

Great Britian and the Commonwealth didn't factor in his life. And considering that he was going to King...it should have played a small role AT LEAST! Looking back IMO he loved Wallis and had every right (as a everyday normal man) to expect her to be his wife but Alas he was not a normal man. Really, he did the only and best thing he could do.

 

[auntie]

I always wonder if Wallis could have made the transition from wanton mistress, to serious future queen, as the present DOCorwall has. Look at the image change Camilla went through, from being one of the most hated woman in the UK, to being a popular hardworking dedicated future queen. Did Wallis have what it takes? My opinion of her was that she was fun loving, jetsetting, very extravagant and ostentatious.

 

[branchg]

He ignored it because he knew that he couldn't cause an election over his choose of wife as that would have to be the election issue.

Short answer - he was advised by a number of people that either before or after his coronation the government wouldn't accept Wallis as his wife and would insist on an election whereby the issue was Wallis - not something that a constitutional monarch could stand. What if the electorate voted back into power the side that opposed Wallis - where would that leave the King?

The issue was constitutional in the sense that The Sovereign cannot be a source of political power in the State. He reigns, but does not rule. Once the Government tendered formal advice on the subject of marrying Wallis, he was bound to accept it. The people, as represented by Parliament, have final authority over the monarchy.

If the Government had resigned in protest, a new election would have been called with the sole purpose of electing a new Government willing to support Wallis as Queen Consort. Since Baldwin had already been assured by the Opposition parties they would not support dissolving the Government over the issue, the King had no choice but to abdicate or be removed from the throne by Parliament.

 

[MARG]

I always wonder if Wallis could have made the transition from wanton mistress, to serious future queen, as the present DOCorwall has. Look at the image change Camilla went through, from being one of the most hated woman in the UK, to being a popular hardworking dedicated future queen. Did Wallis have what it takes? My opinion of her was that she was fun loving, jetsetting, very extravagant and ostentatious.

Other than the fact that they were both the lover of a PoW I find no similarity between the two.

Media hate-mongering aside, I see no startling change in Camilla's personality, lifestyle, behavior etc. She was always a decent woman, a discreet woman, a loving woman. Her children are living testimonies to a loving mother and now grandmother.

Her re-evaluation by the general public was inevitable. The media, for all the spite generated, has been unable to control what the public see and hear about the "Duchess of Cornwall", and seeing, many reasonable people have discovered a warm and loving wife, helpmate and future consort. They have also been privilged to see the return of the old POW, but with a generous helping of humour.

On the other hand, Wallis never concerned herself with those of the lower classes and stories of her unkind treatment of servants were only bettered by those of her almost disparaging treatment of her husband.

I always had the impression that Wallis was the star of her own life. In every situation, be it a party, a marriage, or a kingdom, Wallis was in charge. Even had David retained the throne and Wallis as his lover, Wallis would have been "running" the monarchy!

We all got lucky when he abdicated.

 

[Elspeth]

I can only imagine what it would have been like if he'd married some princess for outward appearances and kept Wallis on the side. The wife would have had an awful time of it.

 

[MARG]

Somehow I don't think that notion would ever have occurred to him. But, supposing he had been pursuaded to marry some bright deb? Wallis on the side would never have been an option. She would have been Queen in all but name and the public would have hated her, him and the monarchy!

This way they just hated her and despised him for being so spineless!

Thus are monarchies saved.!

 

[auntie]

On the other hand, Wallis never concerned herself with those of the lower classes and stories of her unkind treatment of servants were only bettered by those of her almost disparaging treatment of her husband.

You are right about what you said, what I meant was, could wallis have improved her public image as the present DOC has? Not that they are the same or similar in any way. Since seeing Charles beaming from the time he anounced his engagement to camilla, you have to be blind not to see how good they are for each other. Yes thank god David abdicated

 

[Mermaid1962]

Don't forget the ranch in Canada.

the Commonwealth didn't factor in his life.

 

[MARG]

In the immortal words of ABBA:

Money! Money! Money!
Always sunny.
In the rich man's world! :rolleyes2:

 

[Russophile]

Looking back IMO he loved Wallis and had every right (as a everyday normal man) to expect her to be his wife but Alas he was not a normal man. Really, he did the only and best thing he could do.

I tend to think he loved her, but he wasn't in love with her--at the time, I can't say when they grew old together that he didn't fall in love with her-- as that is an extirely different thing. David didn't want to rule and Wallis was a good scapegoat. What was she to do when he abdicated? Leave him?

 

[ada]

I doubt the monarchy would have survived under Edward and Wallis' reign. Just a question for the historians, has ever a king of England married after his coronation?

 

[wbenson]

Henry VIII married quite a few times after his coronation. Edward III also married. Richard II married twice (the second time was a purely political move, though, and his bride was only 8). Henry IV, V, and VI all married after theirs, as did Edward VI and Henry VII.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I doubt the monarchy would have survived under Edward and Wallis' reign. Just a question for the historians, has ever a king of England married after his coronation?

Quite a few actually - Henry I, Richard I, John's second wife was after he had become King having had his first marriage annulled just before he became King, Henry III, Edward I's second marriage, Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV's second marriage, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV, Henry VIII's last five wives, Mary I, Charles II and, of course, Victoria.


Those who married after coronation: Henry I, Richard I, John, Henry VIII, Edward I, Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV, Henry VII, Henry VIII, Mary I, Charles II and Victoria. So, since the conquest 16/40 or 40%. Some of these marriages may have been second (or in Henry VIII's case 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th marriages) but they still happened after the coronation of the monarch.

Two more married after they become monarchs but before their coronations - Edward II and George III.

 

[ada]

Henry VIII married quite a few times after his coronation. Edward III also married. Richard II married twice (the second time was a purely political move, though, and his bride was only 8). Henry IV, V, and VI all married after theirs, as did Edward VI and Henry VII.

Thank you very much for your prompt response. I am so-o-o-o impressed with your knowledge