Should Edward VIII been ostricized the way he was following the abdication?.

[Trudie]

I'm curious as to how many think that ostracizing Edward and Wallis to the extent they were was the right thing to do.

[Bensgal]

I've never thought it was the right thing to do but I understand it was a different era.

[cinrit]

I started a response to this earlier, but deleted it before I posted it because I feel the same way ... at least, as far as having mixed feelings.  I think the Queen Mother had a lot to do with it, and it was wrong (and catty) on her part, and it's colored the way I feel about her ... but in the end, it may have been for the best.

Cindy

[Trudie]

I was thinking hard about this and my conclusions were their being ostracized did in a way hurt the monarchy as if they had been closer to the court the episode of meeting Hitler may never had happened. As it were the QM was a very jealous insecure woman and did not want to be upstaged by anyone including her popular brother in law. I also think that had she not come between the two brothers some of the burden on the shoulders of George VI would have been lessened had he had the support of his brother. All her life the QM played victim she didn't want to give up her freedom marrying into the RF, She didn't want to be Queen, Edward VIII was the reason her husband died young from the burden of Kingship. Truth she could have kept refusing the proposal she as friends recalled actually wanted Edward as that was not forthcoming she accepted Bertie. For a woman who never wanted to be Queen she certainly took quickly to her power behind the throne being the prime mover and shaker behind the titles and ostracizing the Windsors. Her husbands death he died of lung cancer being a life long smoker and drinker. Some may say it was for the best but in this case if the Windsors were seen as the enemy would it not have been wiser to keep them close?.

[Bensgal]

Trudie, I tend to agree with you and isn't there a saying, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer?" Having kept the Windsors close and in the family fold may have lessened the burden on Bertie.
I was brought up to believe you grin & bear it, so to speak, when it comes to family because they are just that; family. You don't turn your back on them or as in this case, ostricize them. 

[Trudie]

Exactly Bensgal that was what i was saying in my post regarding keeping friends close and enemies even closer. If the Windsors were perceived as enemies instead of ostracizing them it would have been better to keep them close.

[sandy]

It was also sad that none of his siblings attended the wedding. Even the Duke of Kent who was the most sympathetic towards him. Edward and Wallis were not exactly living in isolation and were  sought after guests by "hgh society" people especially in the US and friends with film stars.

I thought that Wallis should have had an HRH and it was needlessly cruel to them to deprive her of it.

[memememe]

It was most definitely the right thing to do.

Bertie was insecure at first in the job and to have the way more popular Edward anywhere in England/Britain would have divided the nation even further - remember that the people weren't aware of what was going on and when they did find out the headlines were along the lines of 'leave our king alone', 'hands off the king' etc - showing a clear support for Edward.

The issue of meeting with Hitler is a non-issue for me as at that time Hitler was one of the most admired leaders in the world - because of his successes in turning around the country's economy.  My bigger concern with Edward and the Nazis is that he didn't change his tune and turn against the Nazis until very late, if at all.

Had they stayed in Britain there would most certainly have been a rival, and more glamorous court around Edward and Wallis to the detriment of the country and the family.

Queen Mary was also very strong in her opposition to having Edward in the country or having any of the other children attend the wedding - she strongly believed that Edward had failed in his duty and that duty was all important.

[Trudie]

Sandy I think all this was the QM's doing as I said due to her jealousy and insecurities. It was the QM who kept the rest of the family from the wedding cutting anyone who still remotely had anything to do with the Windsors using her new power as HM. David still had his supporters and she did not want the competition of Wallis. The QM was a very spoiled and selfish woman and expected always the world to adore her. As a hostess and knowledgeable woman who could hold her own in conversation even with men Wallis had it all over the Queen Mother who essentially was a very dull and limited woman with no education something Princess Margaret resented as she was raised the same way as her mother and Margaret did at times feel she was inferior.

[sandy]

I credit the Duke of Windsor with having enough class to not try to "usurp" the throne from his brother. I think once he signed the abidcation papers there was no turning back. I do think there would have been no harm for Wallis to have the HRH title and it would have been no threat to the family on the throne. It should also be recalled that George and Elizabeth had their own style and were a "family oriented couple" with two young daughters. They projected a certain security. I think though the Queen Mum behaved in a rather petty fashion re: the HRH for Wallis

[Diandra]

A log time ago I saw a documentary about the abdication.

I got the impression that David was forced to abdicate because the government found he had given secret and somewhat important documents to nazi Germany. And that David was a convinced nazi himself?

[cinrit]

I credit the Duke of Windsor with having enough class to not try to "usurp" the throne from his brother. I think once he signed the abidcation papers there was no turning back.   

I credit the Duke of Windsor with having enough intelligence to know that trying to usurp the throne wouldn't work and would only serve to make things worse for him. 

The thing is that while the Royal Family should not have completely shunned the Windsors the way that they did since family is family, after all, the fact is that most monarchs who abdicate are asked to leave the country.  In the old days, they were disposed of in other ways.  So the Duke and Duchess weren't treated any differently than the majority of monarchs who give up their throne for whatever reason.

I got the impression that David was forced to abdicate because the government found he had given secret and somewhat important documents to nazi Germany. And that David was a convinced nazi himself? 

I think they might have feared that he would give secrets away, but I don't think they ever believed he actually did.  There were rumors, though, that he was indiscreet with the papers in the "Red Box" and that he shared the information contained in them with Wallis, who they believed to be a Nazi sympathizer.

Cindy

[Harryforlife25]

But going as far as Prince Charles they did meet with the Windsors they didn't shut them down I know Prince Charles did meet Wallis in Paris :

In 1965, the Duke and Duchess visited London as the Duke required eye surgery for a detached retina; Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, visited them. Later, in 1967, the Duke and Duchess joined the Royal Family in London for the unveiling of a plaque by Elizabeth II to commemorate the centenary of Queen Mary's birth.[103] Both Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles visited the Windsors in Paris in the Duke's later years, the Queen's visit coming only shortly before the Duke died.[104]


The Duchess of Windsor died on 24 April 1986 at her home in the Bois de Boulogne, Paris.[3] Her funeral was held at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, attended by her two surviving sisters-in-law: the Queen Mother and Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. The Queen, Prince Philip, and the Prince and Princess of Wales attended both the funeral ceremony and the burial. She was buried next to Edward in the Royal Burial Ground near Windsor Castle, as "Wallis, Duchess of Windsor".[112]

[Harryforlife25]

Queen Elizabeth, Edward's sister-in-law, remained bitter towards Wallis for her role in bringing George VI to the throne (which she may have seen as a factor in George VI's early death),[73] and for prematurely behaving as Edward's consort when she was his mistress.[74] But these claims were denied by Queen Elizabeth's close friends; for example, the Duke of Grafton wrote that she "never said anything nasty about the Duchess of Windsor, except to say she really hadn't got a clue what she was dealing with."[75] On the other hand, the Duchess of Windsor referred to Queen Elizabeth as "Mrs Temple" and "Cookie", alluding to her solid figure and fondness for food, and to her daughter, Princess Elizabeth (later Queen Elizabeth II), as "Shirley", as in Shirley Temple.[76] Such a nice lady  :rolleyes:.

[amabel]

I credit the Duke of Windsor with having enough class to not try to "usurp" the throne from his brother. I think once he signed the abidcation papers there was no turning back.   

I credit the Duke of Windsor with having enough intelligence to know that trying to usurp the throne wouldn't work and would only serve to make things worse for him. 

The

I? 

I think they might have feared that he would give secrets away, but I don't think they ever believed he actually did.  There were rumors, though, that he was indiscreet with the papers in the "Red Box" and that he shared the information contained in them with Wallis, who they believed to be a Nazi sympathizer.

Cindy

I cant' quite see how the Duke might have been presumed ot be "intelligent enough" not to try to ususpr the throne or to act as though he were still king, when he did not, it appears, have enough intelligence to hide the fact that years after the war, he still rather wished that there had been a German victory.
He wasn't intelligent.  and while he wasn't a convinced Nazi, he was overly sympathetic to the Germans... and I think it is posislbe that he might have been tempted to become a puppet king for the Nazis...
As for the papers issue, he was found to be not doing his "boxes" and leaving the papers around, returning them to the Govt with Marks of glasses on them.. The Govt were worried about confidential documents being left out where they might be found by anybody at Fort Belevdeere and the indications that David wasn't bothering to read them...
He also refused to come home obeying orders at a critcial point of the war, because he was more concerned with what title his wife was going to have....
I think it was most definitely the right thing to do to shun him and have as Little to do with him as possible.

[Trudie]

But going as far as Prince Charles they did meet with the Windsors they didn't shut them down I know Prince Charles did meet Wallis in Paris :

In 1965, the Duke and Duchess visited London as the Duke required eye surgery for a detached retina; Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, visited them. Later, in 1967, the Duke and Duchess joined the Royal Family in London for the unveiling of a plaque by Elizabeth II to commemorate the centenary of Queen Mary's birth.[103] Both Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles visited the Windsors in Paris in the Duke's later years, the Queen's visit coming only shortly before the Duke died.[104]


The Duchess of Windsor died on 24 April 1986 at her home in the Bois de Boulogne, Paris.[3] Her funeral was held at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, attended by her two surviving sisters-in-law: the Queen Mother and Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. The Queen, Prince Philip, and the Prince and Princess of Wales attended both the funeral ceremony and the burial. She was buried next to Edward in the Royal Burial Ground near Windsor Castle, as "Wallis, Duchess of Windsor".[112]

No one said that Elizabeth II or Prince Charles had any part of the treatment of the Windsors. It was the current Queen who tried to bring about a reconciliation of sorts and the reason Wallis was buried at Frogmore was she promised the Duke that would be their final resting place during her visit to the eye clinic in London when he asked.  The Queen Mother however remained resolute in her hatred.

[Harryforlife25]

But going as far as Prince Charles they did meet with the Windsors they didn't shut them down I know Prince Charles did meet Wallis in Paris :

In 1965, the Duke and Duchess visited London as the Duke required eye surgery for a detached retina; Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, visited them. Later, in 1967, the Duke and Duchess joined the Royal Family in London for the unveiling of a plaque by Elizabeth II to commemorate the centenary of Queen Mary's birth.[103] Both Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles visited the Windsors in Paris in the Duke's later years, the Queen's visit coming only shortly before the Duke died.[104]


The Duchess of Windsor died on 24 April 1986 at her home in the Bois de Boulogne, Paris.[3] Her funeral was held at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, attended by her two surviving sisters-in-law: the Queen Mother and Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. The Queen, Prince Philip, and the Prince and Princess of Wales attended both the funeral ceremony and the burial. She was buried next to Edward in the Royal Burial Ground near Windsor Castle, as "Wallis, Duchess of Windsor".[112]

No one said that Elizabeth II or Prince Charles had any part of the treatment of the Windsors. It was the current Queen who tried to bring about a reconciliation of sorts and the reason Wallis was buried at Frogmore was she promised the Duke that would be their final resting place during her visit to the eye clinic in London when he asked. The Queen Mother however remained resolute in her hatred.

By attending Wallis funeral?  :lol: The two women barely knew each other yes they weren't each others fans but "hatred" is a strong word ...

[Trudie]

I remember reading a biography once and one of the QM'S ladies in waiting was retelling how after the abdication she asked the QM hypothetically what she would do if Wallis came to England for a visit her reply was "No absolutely not wouldn't receive her if she did". That is very telling as in another thread here regarding a letter she wrote to Wallis. I believe she did and was capable of Hate.

[amabel]

[In .[104]


, Duchess of Windsor".[112]

Queen Mother however remained resolute in her hatred.[/b]

By attending Wallis funeral?  :lol: The two women barely knew each other yes they weren't each others fans but "hatred" is a strong word ...
[/quote]

Perhaps not hatred but certainly contempt.  She despised both of the Windsors for their ghastly conduct.

[Trudie]

The QM was a master at her own PR. However I think like Princess Anne's second wedding the Queen persuaded her to attend.

[amabel]

I started a response to this earlier, but deleted it before I posted it because I feel the same way ... at least, as far as having mixed feelings.  I think the Queen Mother had a lot to do with it, and it was wrong (and catty) on her part, and it's colored the way I feel about her ... but in the end, it may have been for the best.

Cindy

Sorry but while the QM was never an angel of sweetness and light and was certainly capable of harsh behaviour, the people who were at at fault here were Edw and Wallis.  They didn't just let down Ed's family, they let down the ROYAL family and Edw neglected his duty.  Had he made something of his post abdication life, it might have made up for his desertion of duty, but he and Wallis jsut lived a totally aimless society life after the war and did nothing to justify their existence or privileges. 

[cinrit]

Sorry but while the QM was never an angel of sweetness and light and was certainly capable of harsh behaviour, the people who were at at fault here were Edw and Wallis.  They didn't just let down Ed's family, they let down the ROYAL family and Edw neglected his duty.  Had he made something of his post abdication life, it might have made up for his desertion of duty, but he and Wallis jsut lived a totally aimless society life after the war and did nothing to justify their existence or privileges.   

I agree with all of that, but I think that the Queen Mother was the driving force behind the total ostracization of them.  In my opinion only, I believe that had it not been for her ... and though I believe they still would have been banished from the U.K. ... there may have been at least a bit more of some kind of contact kept with them by the Royal Family.

Cindy

[amabel]

I don't think so.  NONE of the RF were pleased with Ed's behaviour and while they might sympathise a Little and make occasional contact, basically they all felt that he had let the side down and that there was nothing really to be sad to him.  he was viewed as a traitor and - well - traitors are usually ostracized.  Queen Mary was quite as adamant as Eliz the QM that her sons' behaviour was very bad and that she didn't really want to see much of him...(If you remember the only time she made any kindly mention of Wallis in her letters was when she Had had a hysterectomy and Q Mary said for the first time "I send a kind message to your wife".

and the people of Britain were hardly likely to be pleased at the idea of hteir RF keeping in contact iwht someone who had behaved as he Had done, during a bloody and awful war where they bore the brunt

[sandy]

Queen Mary did not ostracize her son. He made visits to her and they were duly chronicled. She would never receve his wife however--but there are reports of her visiting her.  SHe didn't go to the wedding but she did not cut Edward out of her life.

[Harryforlife25]

I don't recall any report of him being "banished" from the UK I don't think ANYONE tolled him where to live  but he made his choices he had to live with them...I do think the choice to leave the UK was the only choice he made for his family he would have created huge problems for his brother had he stayed  but again I don't think he was "banished" he just left...