Royal Insight Forum

A thread to discuss the former Edward VIII/Duke and Duchess of Windsor

QuoteIt was one of the great love stories of the 20th Century.[/b][/font][/size][/color]

The romance between Edward VIII and twice-divorced U.S. socialite Wallis Simpson rocked the nation and triggered a constitutional crisis.

History has portrayed Edward as the man who gave up the throne for love.

But now pictures have been unearthed which prove he fully intended to remain as King right  up to his abdication on December 10, 1936.

They show him posing for artists in preparation for his coronation just a few days before he stepped down.

The portraits were discovered in archives owned by the Illustrated London News.

Seen for the first time...Edward VIII posing for the coronation that never was | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049654/Seen-time--Edward-VIII-posing-coronation-was.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)   

Cindy

Well his throne was stolen from him. Though I think Geroge VI made a wonderful King.

Quote from: Trudie on October 16, 2011, 03:04:36 PM
Well his throne was stolen from him. Though I think Geroge VI made a wonderful King.

How was his throne stolen from him?

The powers that be i.e Baldwin didn't like him and Wallis was the convenient excuse to get rid of him.  Wallis was a divorced adulteress.

Quote from: Trudie on October 16, 2011, 09:18:33 PM
The powers that be i.e Baldwin didn't like him and Wallis was the convenient excuse to get rid of him.

I think the Duke was a coward who USED Wallis to escape his role...

Bottom line, whatever the reasons (children were probably not a reason) ... he had a choice ... Wallis or the throne.  He chose Wallis. 

Cindy

Quote from: Harryforlife25 on October 16, 2011, 09:25:45 PM

Quote from: Trudie on October 16, 2011, 09:18:33 PM
The powers that be i.e Baldwin didn't like him and Wallis was the convenient excuse to get rid of him.

I think the Duke was a coward who USED Wallis to escape his role...

Edward didn't marrty the "suitable girl" to get his heirs so Wallis didh't break up his marriage. Her husband took the blame for the marriage break up. Theoretically Edward VIII COULD marry an American back then as long as she wasn't a Catholic or a Divorcee. Had she been single and of course Protestant he could have married her as an American.  The secret of who couldn't have children Edward or Wallis (or they could have chosen not to) went with them to their graves.

Had he not had children (or could not have), Elizabeth would have been his heir and assumed the throne in 1972 instead of 1952.

Quote from: Trudie on October 17, 2011, 07:36:03 PM
Edwards throne was stolen from him using Wallis as the excuse but Charles still gets to keep his place despite his wife?.

Edward VIII's throne was not stolen from him.  He was given a choice, and he chose to leave the throne.   The fact that Wallis was a twice-divorced American was only a small part of the reason she was considered unsuitable.  As for Charles' situation, times have changed between 1936 and 2005.

Cindy

Quote from: cinrit on October 17, 2011, 09:16:59 PM

Quote from: Trudie on October 17, 2011, 07:36:03 PM
Edwards throne was stolen from him using Wallis as the excuse but Charles still gets to keep his place despite his wife?.

Edward VIII's throne was not stolen from him.  He was given a choice, and he chose to leave the throne.   The fact that Wallis was a twice-divorced American was only a small part of the reason she was considered unsuitable.  As for Charles' situation, times have changed between 1936 and 2005.

Cindy

Edward shouldn't have had to make a choice. Why should he he have been the only man in the world who could not marry the woman of his choice?. As for the other situation I find that extremely rich coming from an institution that is so firmly gripped in it's traditions that the same choice should have been given. I am also well aware of how times of changed however traditions and precedent are the foundations that the monarchy still uses today.

My question has not yet been answered.  How was the throne stolen from Edward VIII? 

Quote from: lilibet80 on October 18, 2011, 02:32:41 AM
My question has not yet been answered.  How was the throne stolen from Edward VIII? 

It depends on your point of view, translate that into one's point of view equates to your believe and truth, for the author of the article the throne was stolen, for others he was given an option, either way, when a person is pressured to 'choose', usually it means stolen.  Nevertheless factor in the time frame and mind set 1936...

Here's the wikipedia Abdication Crisis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII_abdication_crisis

"The widespread unwillingness to accept Mrs Simpson as the King's consort, and the King's refusal to give her up, led to Edward's abdication in December 1936.[1] He remains the only British monarch to have voluntarily renounced the throne since the Anglo-Saxon period."

Voluntarily renouncing the throne is quite different from a throne being "stolen" from him.  Winston Churchill had advised him to marry Mrs. Simpson secretly before his father died.  That way there would be nothing that the government or the church or the people with their "widespread unwillingness" to accept the marriage could do about it.  He CHOSE to do what he did. 

It wasn't as if Edward got up one day and said Oh, I think I'll resign. He had pressure put on him--not marry Wallis and keep the throne or marry her and give up. No other choice. I don't think it was entirely "voluntary" considering the situation. He wanted an arrangement where he could marry her and be King and options that he put forward were all refused. I read that Churchill advised him to wait until after his Coronation not elope with Wallis before his father died. After the Coronation it was said it would have been harder to pressure him to resign.

He made his choice.  I'm sure he's not the first monarch in the history of the world (and certainly not the only person in the history of the world) who had to make a choice whether or not to marry the person he/she loved.  Voluntary or not, he made his choice.  And it was probably the best choice that he could have made if he didn't intend to give up Wallis.

Cindy

 Edward was faced with two things, he could not have it "all" apparently:  being King or marrying the woman he loved. It was a pretty daunting choice and a horrific one for him. It wasn't like he just up and decided to leave.  He was under tremendous pressure and Wallis was trying to talk him out of abdicating.

Quote from: sandy on October 18, 2011, 05:50:02 PM
Edward was faced with two things, he could not have it "all" apparently:  being King or marrying the woman he loved. It was a pretty daunting choice and a horrific one for him. It wasn't like he just up and decided to leave.  He was under tremendous pressure and Wallis was trying to talk him out of abdicating.

Precisely, he was faced with a choice and he CHOSE what he chose.  He did not have the throne "stolen" from him.  This was not the middle ages where someone could "bag" the throne.  This was a decision he made to desert his people when war was brewing and to dump the whole thing in his delicate untrained brother's lap.

Another royal  decades later did not have to make such a choice. Edward was more or less forced into this choice. He had his own choice which was shot down.

Nothing was stolen from him  :loco: The Throne was always THERE for HIM to HAVE  :rolleyes: it is just he wanted Wallis MORE  :notamused: the man had to be moronic not to know that his relationship would cost him the throne  :wink: so for him at that point it all went down to what he wanted more and it wasn't the Throne but HE HAD A CHOICE  :rolleyes: .

Quote from: Harryforlife25 on October 18, 2011, 08:10:05 PM
Nothing was stolen from him  :loco: The Throne was always THERE for HIM to HAVE  :rolleyes: it is just he wanted Wallis MORE  :notamused: the man had to be moronic not to know that his relationship would cost him the throne  :wink: so for him at that point it all went down to what he wanted more and it wasn't the Throne but HE HAD A CHOICE  :rolleyes: .

I would not say the relationship would cost him the throne. He could have always had her as a mistress. He wanted to marry her.

He had his own choice on what to do but this was rejected. He even suggested marrying Wallis without her getting the royal titles, this was rejected.  :king:

Times do change but essentially the traditions and precedents of the monarchy do not. If this were the case then Edward's proposal of a morganatic marriage would have been accepted. :nod:

Quote from: Trudie on October 18, 2011, 10:05:10 PM
Times do change but essentially the traditions and precedents of the monarchy do not. If this were the case then Edward's proposal of a morganatic marriage would have been accepted. :nod:

Traditions and precedents are different from accepted mores.  The accepted mores of the time would not even allow divorced women to be presented at court.  So it's not a big surprise that a twice-divorced woman (American or British) would have been accepted as the king's consort.  Added to that was her admiration for Adolph Hitler, which was probably even more of a deterrent.  In any case, divorce is not as taboo today as it was then; hence, the Prince of Wales was not only allowed to marry a divorcee, his mother hosted a reception after the wedding.

Cindy

Wallis WAS presented at court after one divorce.  She was presented to George V and Mary while she was married to Ernest Simpson. Ths is well documented. George V and Mary were said not to be happy but received her just the same.

Quote from: sandy on October 19, 2011, 12:37:16 AM
Wallis WAS presented at court after one divorce.  She was presented to George V and Mary while she was married to Ernest Simpson. Ths is well documented. George V and Mary were said not to be happy but received her just the same. 

She was introduced to them at the insistence of Edward.  I don't believe she was formally presented at court.

Cindy

Quote from: cinrit on October 19, 2011, 10:22:05 AM

Quote from: sandy on October 19, 2011, 12:37:16 AM
Wallis WAS presented at court after one divorce.  She was presented to George V and Mary while she was married to Ernest Simpson. Ths is well documented. George V and Mary were said not to be happy but received her just the same. 

She was introduced to them at the insistence of Edward.  I don't believe she was formally presented at court.

Cindy

It was a formal presenation at court. She wore the traditional gown that other women wore when presented at court. There is a portrait of her in the gown at the time of her presenation at court.  Edward wanted her there and his parents didn't bar her. It was more than an "introduction" Cindy.

Here is one link from book excerpt:

http://books.google.com/books?id=VpKatnzbYJEC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=wallis+presented+at+court&source=bl&ots=hNZS8b6wu6&sig=NDIODPeRG6Gcb4_rkbOL92Ju6po&hl=en&ei=ENOeToiKFcrc0QGU9LTGCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=wallis%20presented%20at%20court&f=false

Quote from: sandy on October 19, 2011, 01:37:55 PM
It was a formal presenation at court. She wore the traditional gown that other women wore when presented at court. There is a portrait of her in the gown at the time of her presenation at court.  Edward wanted her there and his parents didn't bar her. It was more than an "introduction" Cindy.

Here is one link from book excerpt:

http://books.google.com/books?id=VpKatnzbYJEC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=wallis+presented+at+court&source=bl&ots=hNZS8b6wu6&sig=NDIODPeRG6Gcb4_rkbOL92Ju6po&hl=en&ei=ENOeToiKFcrc0QGU9LTGCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=wallis%20presented%20at%20court&f=false

Thanks ... I'll remember that.  :)

Cindy

There was this "uniform" outfit with a white gown and plumed headdress. Mrs Rose  Kennedy and her daughters wore this to their presenation at court in the late thirties.

http://www.google.com/search?pq=presentation+at+court+rose+kennedy+and+daughters&hl=en&sugexp=kjrmc&cp=12&gs_id=11&xhr=t&q=rosemary+kennedy&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1024&bih=583&wrapid=tljp1319035398634014&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

Top row of images show Rosemary Kennedy in "court" dress.

Here is Wallis Simpson. I guess they carried a feathered plume with them

http://www.allstarpics.net/0012987/014204524/portrait-of-wallis-simpson-when-being-presented-to-society-in-the-1920s-pic.html

Back to Edward. I think Edward himself who was so besotted with wallis thought he did the right thing. He adored her until the day  he died.

George Harewood the late Earl and first cousin of the Queen was treated in the same manner as the Duke of Windsor upon his divorce and remarriage and he was not even close to inheriting the throne in the late '60's early 70's. As I have said and I repeat each country and monarchy has their own rules regarding who is or not acceptable for marriage into the family.

Quote from: Lindelle on October 21, 2011, 09:59:46 AM
I want to know about the outfit he's PE is wearing.
Was he trying to make a fashion statement for that era?

It's his coronation outfit.  Though the coronation never took place, the pictures and portraits were already taken.  It's really an odd outfit, isn't it?  I don't know that it was a fashion statement, but I've read that he disliked heartily the "ridiculous" outfits that he was required to wear for certain ceremonies:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OC7vC7zcycc/SFme6tJvoWI/AAAAAAAAAT4/woTVXJgtgY4/s400/Edward+VIII.jpg
http://www.heritage-print.com/image/edward_prince_of_wales_wearing_robes_of_the_order_of_the_garter_1911_1287967.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrsfujita/2689838158/in/set-72157608625502301/lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrsfujita/2934588622/in/set-72157608625502301
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3029/2749319756_ee7cda8f79.jpg

And though his coronation never took place, the coronation portrait had been painted:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrsfujita/2415713119/

I don't know if this will show up:
http://tinyurl.com/43qxoly

Cindy

yes i knew it was his coronation outfit and I agree, very odd Cinrit.

The DM is serializing The Duke and Duchess of Windsor.  I read the first one, which had a lot of unknown information about the Duke.

Here's the first.

Andrew Lownie pieces together tumultuous exile of King Edward VIII and American wife Wallis Simpson | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9872639/Andrew-Lownie-pieces-tumultuous-exile-King-Edward-VIII-American-wife-Wallis-Simpson.html)

Here's the second.

Wallis Simpson dominated the Duke of Windsor... and he actually liked it, new book claims | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9894103/Wallis-Simpson-dominated-Duke-Windsor-actually-liked-new-book-claims.html)

?Unknown information? my foot! There?s nothing printed here by the Fail?s hack reporter that hasn?t been known for decades. And the Duke and Duchess of Windsor did not make ?a fortune in Hollywood from films, endorsements? etc. In fact David was terrified in the last decade of his life that his money wasn?t going to last for his and Wallis?s lifetime. So where was the fortune?

The dig at the Sussexes in the headlines and the attempt to make Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson situation anything like theirs is quite frankly pathetic. However it?s typical of this rag.

Edward VIII was an eldest son and heir who had been POW since his teens. He became King and almost the entire year of 1936 was spent in unravelling the constitutional crisis that arose when it became known that he wished to marry Wallis Simpson.

Wallis Simpson was a twice divorced woman who was having an affair with Edward while still married and divorced her second husband for spurious reasons simply because of a slight chance that she and Edward could marry and he retain the Crown.

She and he were both right wing and had several shady and fascist-leaning friends. Edward, while Governor of the Bahamas, engaged in illegal currency activities in nearby Miami and other places. Wallis later in the marriage had a serious flirtation with a bisexual playboy.

Their situation throughout their lives had nothing whatsoever to do with how Harry and Meghan live their lives and it?s ridiculous of this tabloid to suggest that it is.

Serialization "extracts" from a new book, which states documents that have been uncovered or new to the author.

The DM has the money to purchase for serialization.

Quote from: wannable on August 16, 2021, 12:34:37 PM
Serialization "extracts" from a new book, which states documents that have been uncovered or new to the author.

The DM has the money to purchase for serialization.

The documents might have been new to the author but nothing written in these serialisations was new to me, nor I would suggest, to anyone who has read widely on Edward VIII.

The Fail certainly has money. Whether it has the least credibility is debatable to say the least. And how nice of the editors to slip in a photo of Harry and Meghan into an article which not only didn?t refer to them except in the headlines over the article but was otherwise irrelevant. Typical of this crappy rag however.

Quoting parts of a new book in a serialization purchased by a tabloid with 10M viewers daily. The author must be happy

He probably is very happy with the money received from the rag for serialisation rights. However, money isn?t everything. And just because something supposedly is ?read? by millions (and I use the word loosely in connection with Fail ?readers?)  doesn?t mean that it  follows that this book will be a bestseller. There have been many many books published in the last forty years on the Duke of Windsor and his doings and few of them have sold anything like a million copies.

The Duke is receding into history now, as are his father and brother. They?re of interest to history buffs but relatively few Britons would even know who Edward VIII was.

For those people who don't know much of the Duke and Wallis, like history or royalty, they will probably find this serialization interesting. The author is not boring, he writes to engross.

Really? Well sorry, I read many bios on historical figures and what I read in the serialisations didn?t engross me in the slightest.

Do you intend to buy it? If so you must tell us here all the exciting new things about the Duke?s life this author has uncovered. Then I can look them up in the books I have.

You're a history buff, hence no serialization is of your interest. Obviously you're not the 10M who aren't history or royalty bookworms.

At the time of the portrait, do you think Edward was considering to abdicate?

Quote from: LouisFerdinand on January 07, 2022, 08:02:43 PM
At the time of the portrait, do you think Edward was considering to abdicate?

Depends when he posed for the original portrait, which is believed to have been lost during the war. However, Edward had hopes, almost to the last moment, that a solution would be found that would enable him to marry Wallis in some form and still retain the throne. In some moods however, throughout the summer/autumn of 1936 he was ready to chuck it all and go to the Continent to be near his beloved, who had fled Britain to await her final divorce decree.

Mrs. Simpson offered to withdraw   
Front page story from The Daily Express of December 8th, 1936 issuing a statement from Mrs. Simpson offering to " withdraw from a situation that has (http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-front-page-story-129404251.html)

In Royal Romance, edited by Lynn Picknett, it is mentioned:     
King Edward VIII thought nothing of telephoning his staff at any time of the day or night.

Quote from: LouisFerdinand on March 23, 2023, 08:00:14 PM

Which foreign princesses were marriage prospects for Edward, Prince of Wales?

Before WW1 the Kaiser?s daughter Prss Victoria Luise was mentioned by a few magazines but both were very young and who knows if it would have occurred anyway. Also the Tsar?s eldest daughter Olga was supposedly in consideration but that was Press talk and seems extremely unlikely to me. The Tsar?s family were extremely devout adherents of the Russian Orthodox Church.

After the war, that whole niche of German Princesses who had provided brides for centuries from the different German royal states were off limits. In addition Edward seems to have been born at a time when most of the other foreign Protestant princesses (the Scandinavian ones for example) were either too young, in love with someone else or neither participant was interested.

I have a vague recollection of the younger Romanian Princesses being mentioned in the Press as future prospects in the 1920s and a Bulgarian one as well, but they would have had to convert to Protestantism. In the early 1930s the youngish and sophisticated Prss Marina of Greece apparently caused a spark of interest but a spark was all it was. After WW1 Edward was far more likely to marry a British nobleman?s daughter (and was in their social circles)  than foreign royalty and none of them captured his heart or interest, so a foreign prospect was hardly likely to do so.

A controversial new book claims the Duke of Windsor was a GOOD EGG after all! But as biographer of the disgraced playboy, I VERY much doubt it, says historian ALEXANDER LARMAN -

Daily Mail: A controversial new book claims the Duke of Windsor was a GOOD EGG after all! But as biographer of the disgraced playboy, I VERY much doubt it, says (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12653137/A-controversial-new-book-claims-Duke-Windsor-GOOD-EGG-biographer-disgraced-playboy-doubt-says-historian-ALEXANDER-LARMAN.html)

A slightly different view of the Duke of Windsor from Tommy Lascelles, a courtier and man who actually knew Edward very very well over many years, unlike this author!

Prince Charmless: A damning portrait of Edward VIII | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-417388/Prince-Charmless-A-damning-portrait-Edward-VIII.html?mrn_rm=als1)

?Many people have asked me: 'Could nobody have averted the ultimate catastrophe of the Abdication?' My answer has always been, and always will be, 'Nobody'. Given his character, and hers, the climax was as inevitable as that of a Greek tragedy.

He had, in my opinion and experience, no comprehension of the ordinary axioms of rational, or ethical, behaviour; fundamental ideas of duty, dignity and self-sacrifice had no meaning for him.

And so isolated was he in the world of his own desires that I do not think he ever felt affection - absolute, objective affection - for any living being, not excluding the members of his own family.

Consequently, when he came to the parting of the way, he stood there tragically and pitifully alone. It was an isolation of his own making, and the responsibility for it is entirely his own.

There was no hope of his finding the right answer to his problem in his own heart, and he had himself destroyed the possibility of others finding it for him.?

Treachery! How the disgraced Duke of Windsor plotted to usurp the young Princess Elizabeth - while his brother, the King, lay seriously ill... -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13066677/Treachery-Duke-Windsor-usurp-Princess-Elizabeth.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13066677/Treachery-Duke-Windsor-usurp-Princess-Elizabeth.html)

In defence of the Duchess of Windsor: After the Mail revealed Prince Philip disparagingly called Meghan 'DoW', biographer JANE MARGUERITE TIPPETT argues Wallis Simpson could have revolutionised the Monarchy if given half a chance -


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-13077753/Defence-Duchess-DoW-revolutionised-Royal-Charles-Camilla-meghan.html

Quote from: LouisFerdinand on April 10, 2024, 10:09:31 PM

What was the first royal event Prince Edward brought Wallis Simpson to?

Officially? Well, as Edward was terrified of his father he denied that there was any relationship between himself and this married woman. Once he settled down at Fort Belvedere it was clear though that Wallis (with husband Ernest tagging along at least at first) was practically the chatelaine there. Certainly the disgusted servants there were annoyed at her giving orders to them.

He insisted on inviting his 'friend' and her husband (to preserve the shred of propriety the relationship had left) to things like Ascot and to the Jubilee Ball in May 1935, though apparently on more than one occasion the King had red-pencilled the Simpsons' name on guest lists.

However, in November 1934 Edward did screw up his courage and he took Wallis to an evening soirée at BP. Her name had slipped through. Neither the King, Queen or indeed PM Baldwin (who also met her) showed any enthusiasm for this bold move. Restrained politeness was the order of the day on their side, as Wallis later observed.

Never at any time did Edward convey to the King his true feelings for Wallis, and certainly the fact he'd been having an affair with her for at least two years before George V's death was never discussed with either parent. Both the King and Queen similarly showed a marked reluctance to sit down and have a deep conversation about it all with their son, perhaps because Edward had a perverse streak in his nature and they didn't want to provoke a reaction.

The day that Wallis Simpson lost £1.3m of jewellery in an utterly mysterious Home Counties heist. But did the hard-up Duchess of Windsor steal her OWN jewels for the insurance cash, asks historian ALEXANDER LARMAN?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13249793/Wallis-jewellery-heist-Duchess-steal-jewels.html

Daily Mail: Unable to walk, a prisoner in a 'slum' of a bedroom and preyed upon by an avaricious French lawyer, the Duchess of Windsor died alone and isolated on this day... (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13340261/Prisoner-slum-bedroom-avaricious-French-Windsor.html)