I'm curious as to how many think that ostracizing Edward and Wallis to the extent they were was the right thing to do.
I've never thought it was the right thing to do but I understand it was a different era.
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
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?.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
Quote from: sandy on October 21, 2011, 03:29:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Diandra on Today at 12:00:54 PMI 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
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]
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:.
Quote from: cinrit on October 21, 2011, 05:14:59 PM
Quote from: sandy on October 21, 2011, 03:29:25 PM
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 Quote from: Diandra on Today at 12:00:54 PMI?
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.
Quote from: Harryforlife25 on October 21, 2011, 06:32:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Trudie on October 21, 2011, 08:51:04 PM
Quote from: Harryforlife25 on October 21, 2011, 06:32:52 PM
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 ...
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.
Quote from: Harryforlife25 on October 21, 2011, 09:35:44 PM
Quote from: Trudie on October 21, 2011, 08:51:04 PM
[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.
The QM was a master at her own PR. However I think like Princess Anne's second wedding the Queen persuaded her to attend.
Quote from: cinrit on October 20, 2011, 09:16:15 PM
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.
Quote from: amabel on October 22, 2011, 11:37:14 AM
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
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
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.
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...
Quote from: Harryforlife25 on October 22, 2011, 02:05:10 PM
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...
Not so ... he didn't just leave of his own volition:
QuoteThe Duke had assumed that he would settle in Britain after a year or two of exile in France. However, King George VI (with the support of their mother Queen Mary and his wife Queen Elizabeth) threatened to cut off Edward's allowance if he returned to Britain without an invitation.[61]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII_of_the_United_Kingdom
[61]^ a b Ziegler, pp. 376–378
Cindy
Quote from: cinrit on October 22, 2011, 02:14:14 PM
Quote from: Harryforlife25 on October 22, 2011, 02:05:10 PM
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...
Not so ... he didn't just leave of his own volition:
QuoteThe Duke had assumed that he would settle in Britain after a year or two of exile in France. However, King George VI (with the support of their mother Queen Mary and his wife Queen Elizabeth) threatened to cut off Edward's allowance if he returned to Britain without an invitation.[61]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII_of_the_United_Kingdom
[61]^ a b Ziegler, pp. 376–378
Cindy
I was saying that no one tolled him to leave he left to marry Wallis because obviously he couldn't marry her in the UK I don't know what happened after his abdication but I was talking of the time immediately after that I doubt anyone tolled him where to go live .
Quote from: Harryforlife25 on October 22, 2011, 03:18:28 PM
I was saying that no one tolled him to leave he left to marry Wallis because obviously he couldn't marry her in the UK I don't know what happened after his abdication but I was talking of the time immediately after that I doubt anyone tolled him where to go live .
I don't know if he was formally told to leave or not. But if he didn't, he would have been ... by his standard ... broke. If the the lifestyle of the Windsors is any indication, that would have been a major blow to him, indeed.
Cindy
Queen Mary was the one who ascertained both from the QM as well as her other daughters-in-law, Princess Alice and Princess Marina, as well as the Princess Royal that they would not be "friends" with David and his wife. As far as the DOW visiting his mother, it was not until nine years after the abdication that they saw each other again.
I do not understand all this blaming of the Queen Mother. These people wrecked her life. It is because of them that they could not bring up their children in private and Bertie could not live a calm life. Why would any woman whose sister-in-law publicly calls her "Cookie" and refers to her as being overweight want to have anything to do with her? The QM never said anything in public against Wallis Simpson and all she ever said about David was that he used to be such fun. This blaming and name calling of the QM on this board is as obnoxious as the Diana-obsessed blaming Camilla for every choice Charles made. The King of England, George VI was hoodwinked financially by his brother and out of the goodness of his heart gave this brother half of his own inheritance. After he and his wife found out that David had over a million dollars and a ranch in Canada and had only cried poverty why would they want to know him? Face it folks, they were not very nice people. King George V knew what he was talking about when he said that David would ruin himself in 12 months and that Bertie had the most character of all his children.
Quote from: cinrit on October 22, 2011, 03:45:37 PM
Quote from: Harryforlife25 on October 22, 2011, 03:18:28 PM
I was saying that no one tolled him to leave he left to marry Wallis because obviously he couldn't .
I don't know if he was formally told to leave or not. But if he didn't, he would have been ... by his standard ... broke. If the the lifestyle of the Windsors is any indication, that would have been a major blow to him, indeed.
Cindy
Broke? he had finagled money out of George VI over and above the arrangements that had been made for him financially.. He must have realised that he could not live in the UK after his abdication, it would be ridiculous to say that he felt he could not be King of England and then continue to live there, getting in the way of the new king...
Quote from: lilibet80 on October 22, 2011, 04:16:37 PM
I do not understand all this blaming of the Queen Mother. These people wrecked her life. It is because of them that they could not bring up their children in private and Bertie could not live a calm life.
I agree that the QM had reason for grievance.. albeit I'd hardly say her life was wrecked. But I think that Geo VI's life was certainly diminished by the strain of being king when he had not expected to be, iand staying with his people through the war and the difficult post war years. And she was angry at this burden being placed on her husband...
Quote from: amabel on October 22, 2011, 04:55:39 PM
Quote from: cinrit on October 22, 2011, 03:45:37 PM
I don't know if he was formally told to leave or not. But if he didn't, he would have been ... by his standard ... broke. If the the lifestyle of the Windsors is any indication, that would have been a major blow to him, indeed.
Cindy
Broke? he had finagled money out of George VI over and above the arrangements that had been made for him financially.. He must have realised that he could not live in the UK after his abdication, it would be ridiculous to say that he felt he could not be King of England and then continue to live there, getting in the way of the new king...
I did say "by his standard".
Cindy
When she agreed to marry Bertie she was led to believe that she and her family could lead a pretty much private life. Except for a royal engagement here and there such as those performed by the Gloucesters and the Kents she, her husband and children would be out of the limelight As Duchess of York she had the freedom to go over to her sister's house and her mother's house in London, out with friends to lunch or dinner and to the theater without much fuss. The only thing she was not allowed to do was to take public transportation. She was told that if David did not have any heirs once he married her child would be king or queen but probably not for many years. She had a beautiful home filled with friends and went on country house weekends as Bertie loved to shoot. She made mistakes as do we all, but she comported herself with great distinction as Queen as well as trying to take care of her overworked nervous wreck of a husband who was going through a war and doing a job for which he had no formal training.
^^ Surely she knew that there was always the possibility that something could happen to David? He could have died, or become insane, or he could abdicate. And while her life certainly changed, I could be wrong, but I think she enjoyed her position as queen consort. I'm not sure if these were his exact words, but George V had this to say about the future Edward VIII, "After I am dead, the boy will ruin himself in twelve months." So there was every kind of possibility ...
Cindy
The Duchess of York's life was not entirely her "own." She was expected to work to the extent of having to go on a long tour with her husband while Elizabeth was still a baby. She didn't have the option or freedom to stay home with the baby. She was a working royal and wasn't just flitting about visiting relatives though of course she had free time but she was "on call" to duty. Bertie her husband was not entirely "untrained" for duty he was a working royal and knew the ropes of being a senior royal..
Quote from: Harryforlife25 on October 22, 2011, 02:05:10 PM
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...
He DID get assigned to be Governor General of Nassau for a time. So he did work for the Crown but out of the country
It's said that neither the Duke nor the Duchess liked being in Nassau ...
QuoteThe Duke of Windsor was installed as Governor of the Bahamas. He did not enjoy the position, and referred to the islands as "a third-class British colony".[73] The British Foreign Office strenuously objected when the pair planned to tour aboard a yacht belonging to a Swedish magnate, Axel Wenner-Gren, whom American intelligence wrongly believed to be a close friend of Luftwaffe commander Hermann Göring.[74] However, the Duke was praised for his efforts to combat poverty on the islands, although he was as contemptuous of the Bahamians as he was of most non-white peoples of the Empire. He said of Étienne Dupuch, the editor of the Nassau Daily Tribune: "It must be remembered that Dupuch is more than half Negro, and due to the peculiar mentality of this Race, they seem unable to rise to prominence without losing their equilibrium."[20]
73. Bloch, p. 364
20. ^ a b Ziegler, p. 448
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII_of_the_United_Kingdom#Later_life
There are some good pictures of the couple in Nassau here (but not a very complimentary article):
http://theselvedgeyard.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/the-duke-and-duchess-of-windsor-the-heart-has-its-reasons-she-said/
Cindy
It did give him something to do.
So he had something to do while his brother had the entire burden on his shoulders. So what? He was the one who was always complaining that he had nothing to do He was sent to the Bahamas to get him as far away as possible. He and his wife disliked being in the Bahamas, it was not lively and social enough for them. Wallis once said that her husband should have been a salesman for Rolls Royce, but he was not allowed to take such a position because of his royal status. The government did not want him to have any job within the palace structure. They did not trust him due to his Nazi sympathizing and they did not want him reading state papers, considering his carelessness with secret documents and his penchant for telling his wife everything. There was also the threat that he might be kidnapped by the Nazis and held for ransom.
Quote from: cinrit on October 22, 2011, 05:23:15 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 22, 2011, 04:55:39 PM
Quote from: cinrit on October 22, 2011, 03:45:37 PM
I .
Cindy
Broke? he had finagled money out of George VI over and above the arrangements that had been made for him financially.. He must have realised that he could not live in the UK after his abdication, it would be ridiculous to say that he felt he could not be King of England and then continue to live there, getting in the way of the new king...
I did say "by his standard".
Cindy
But he was very rich indeed. But he cried poverty to the new King - in essence lying to him, and persuaded him to help him out with a share of his own private wealth. and he and Wallis lived an extremely lavish lifestyle. I don't know by what standard he could be considered badly off or even think of himself as badly off. I dotn see any of his actions as anythig other than the behaviour of a very spoiled selfish and wrong minded man.
My understanding is that part of why he was able to cry poor was that unlike his brothers and sister his father basically left him nothing in his will but...he did get the Kingdom, Sandringham and Balmoral and then made Bertie buy the latter two from him. He lied big time but why would anyone be surprised that that waste of space would do that. The best thing he ever did in his life was leave the throne to his brother, who proved himself a fantastic king - like his own grandfather somewhat underated at the time of his accession but in the end the two Berties proved that they were great kings for their times.
I cant' remember the details but he did lie to George VI and in spite of already having a handsome private fortune he got more money out of his borhter, whom he was already landing with all he stress and burdens of being king.
As you say, he was pretty mcuh a waste of space. Had he eve done anythign iwth his post abdication life, he might have redeemed himself a bit in peopel's eyes but he didn't.
Quote from: cinrit on October 22, 2011, 05:32:02 PM
^^ Surely she knew that there was always the possibility that something could happen to David? He could have died, or become insane, or he could abdicate. And while her life certainly changed, I could be wrong, but I think she enjoyed her position as queen consort.
Cindy
Yes she would have known there was a possibility, but I don't think she foresaw abdication within a year of David becoming King. As the Wife of the D of York, when the POW wasn't married, it was very possible that she would become queen one day.. but I'm sure she did not think it would be for many years. Had David stayed King and unmarried, Q Eliz the QM would have expected that he'd live to be say 70 or so, (as he did) and if she became queen, she too would be 70-ish.
I think that she did enjoy being queen but what upset and angered her was the strain on her husband who did not want to be king and who was so shy and nervy and unable to speak in public. I think she felt that Dav's desertion of his duty led to her husband being put through the strain of being king, during the war, and the hard years that followed, and that it helped to kill him prematurely. so she never really forgave the Windsors.
As for G V's remarks, I don't think he really saw David abdicating willingly. I think he felt that his lack of dutifulness might have led to his being FORCED to leave or to the end of the monarchy...
Did he really go willingly though or was he really forced out with Wallis as a convenient excuse that saved the government from a total constitutional crisis which could have brought down the monarchy?
I suspect that if Wallis hadn't been around the government would still have found a way to get rid of David but would it have still maintained a monarchy?
Quote from: memememe on October 23, 2011, 09:57:19 AM
Did he really go willingly though or was he really forced out with Wallis as a convenient excuse that saved the government from a total constitutional crisis which could have brought down the monarchy?
?
I can't see why they would have gotten rid of him. Unless he was EXTREEMELY lax in doing his duty or very indiscreet in his actions. There were signs that he was getting pretty lazy, and careless (the confidentail papers being left out and returned ot the Govt offices with the marks of drink glasses) but probably he was not so bad that the Government would actually wish to push him out. It might have been time for a few stern warnings but hardly the extremity of pushing him to abdicate. However its hard to tell what was "the Wallis factor" and what was just David being lazy and undutifiul.. sicne he was involved iwht her before becoming king...
But I think that for David WALLIS was an excuse. I think that he didn't want to be king, at least not if it meant he could not lead a life of pleasure seeking, and he chanced to fall in love with a woman who was not suitable to be queen, so he was probably unconsciously using her and his Love for her as the "deal breaker" card. And perhaps the Govt DID see it as a relief that he was doing something like wanting to marry a divorcee, which would allow him way out without their worrying that he might be up to something worse like interfering in foregin affairs to the extent of being too close to Nazi Germany... or letting some state secrets out...
David never really got interested in anyone "suitable" since he took up with married Freda Dudley Ward. After that he got involved with married women. I do think he really was besotted with Wallis and felt she was "the one". I do't think he felt he was using her to get out of kingship. He thought she could be Queen.
George VI smoked heavily. This I think more than any stress caused the cancer and health issues.
Quote from: amabel on October 23, 2011, 06:51:56 AM
Quote from: cinrit on October 22, 2011, 05:23:15 PM
I did say "by his standard".
Cindy
But he was very rich indeed. But he cried poverty to the new King - in essence lying to him, and persuaded him to help him out with a share of his own private wealth. and he and Wallis lived an extremely lavish lifestyle. I don't know by what standard he could be considered badly off or even think of himself as badly off. I dotn see any of his actions as anythig other than the behaviour of a very spoiled selfish and wrong minded man.
Obviously, anything less than what he had, he would consider poor ...
by his standards. You realize that being broke, by the standards of someone who is, by our standards, unreasonably wealthy (and that could be anything from the wealth of the Windsors to the wealth of the owner of the company we work for) are two different things. Being broke, by our standards, means not being able to buy a new car ... or even have a car. Being broke, by their standards, means having to buy a Bentley instead of a Bugatti. :laugh:
Quote from: amabel on Today at 02:07:03 AMI cant' remember the details but he did lie to George VI and in spite of already having a handsome private fortune he got more money out of his borhter, whom he was already landing with all he stress and burdens of being king.
Didn't he downplay his wealth when he sold Sandringham (I think it was Sandringham) to George VI, and therefore got more for it? Or maybe I'm confusing my stories.
Quote from: amabel on Today at 03:46:06 AMAs for G V's remarks, I don't think he really saw David abdicating willingly. I think he felt that his lack of dutifulness might have led to his being FORCED to leave or to the end of the monarchy...
Yeah, he obviously couldn't foretell the future, but as a father, he sensed that all would not go well.
Quote from: memememe on Today at 04:57:19 AMI suspect that if Wallis hadn't been around the government would still have found a way to get rid of David but would it have still maintained a monarchy?
If he was indeed as careless with official papers as is rumored, they'd probably have wanted to get rid of him. But could they have?
Cindy
It would not have been easy to get rid of him, if he didn't want to go, but it could have been done if he was seen to be in conflict with the Govt or acting unconstitutionally. But at first they might have just stopped at a stern wanring or just not showing him any delicate papers...
However perhaps Wallis was a godsend, since it was a way of encouraging him to go( and I think he DID want to go) witout bringing up his laziness, carelessness and the possibility of a conflict if say he wanted to interfere in foreign affairs as in wanting to fight Russia Rather t han Germany.... that would have been bit more more "hairy" a subject to make public. But I think that Edw DID want to get out of being King. I think he was willing to stay in he could keep Wallis as his queen or morganatic wife, but there was an element of just wanting out. He had just given up any desire to be a real king and he let himself rush along the crisis towards abdication and marrying her. Afterwards I think that perhaps he DID think he could come back in a few years and be a sort of "extra prince" and do whatever royal duties suited him, and enjoy the privileges, but pass the main burden onto George Vi...(in short have the pleasant part without the "paying for it" part..)... and when that didn't happen, I think it shook him up and he realised that he was not going ot be forgiven.. Perhaps he did toy with the idea of being Hitler's Puppet king, if that was perhaps offered to him..
But while I take your point about HIS standards of "broke" being differnet to yours or mine, I still can't believe that he really thought he was "broke". He just wanted as much money as he could get, and was willing to lie to get it....
To answer the question yes he NEEDED to be ostracized and shelved because he would have created dueling courts and untold conflict. He was also a well know Nazi sympathizer and while George VI may have harborred similar opinions in private he did not publicize them and sided with Churchill eventually.
W&E glamorous, yet troublesome pair.
The difference between King George and Edward Viii's feelings about Hitler were quite different. Edward thought Hitler was a great man and agreed with his ideas concerning the Jews. King George agreed with Chamberlain's policy of appeasement but thought Hitler was a terrible man. Both he and Chamberlain had keeping Britain out of war with Hitler as their focus. It had nothing to do with their opinion of Hitler as a man. Edward agreed with Hitler's policies and probably would have been in agreement with Hitler if he invaded Britain. That way Hitler could have deposed King George and reinstated Edward on the throne with Queen Bessiewallis. To the end of his life when asked about Hitler Edward always said that he "didn't think Hitler was such a bad chap."
Marlene Dietrich who left Germany for good and intensely disliked Hitler (she worked for the USA war effort) was a friend of the Windsors and was invited to their dinner parties. If the Windsors were so rabid about Hitler she would have stayed away from them. I think after the invasion of Poland in 1939 all bets were off with Edward and Wallis being Nazi sympathizers.
Quote from: sandy on October 24, 2011, 05:53:09 PM
Marlene Dietrich who left Germany for good and intensely disliked Hitler (she worked for the USA war effort) was a friend of the Windsors and was invited to their dinner parties. If the Windsors were so rabid about Hitler she would have stayed away from them. I think after the invasion of Poland in 1939 all bets were off with Edward and Wallis being Nazi sympathizers.
If I understand this, because Marlene Dietrich was against the Nazis she should not attend the occasional dinner party with the Windsors? First of all it is an exaggeration to say that David was "rabid" about them. He was a very stupid man who did not see, even after the war, that Hitler "was not such a bad chap." A woman like Marlene Dietrich would not be having any sort of discussion with the Windsors about the Nazis. It was not a subject to bring up at a dinner party and she was not a close enough friend to be in their confidence. I doubt that Hitler and the Nazis was ever really a subject of conversation with the Windsors over the many years they were acquainted with Marlene Dietrich. In interviews when asked about Hitler and the war I personally heard the Duke of Windsor reply that it was the fault of the communists and the Jews. He still believed that after 6 million men, women and children were gassed, shot or starved and beaten to death they were to blame for the second world war. Marlene Dietrich was too well bred to bring the subject up probably with anyone. When she landed in New York after leaving Germany she was asked why she left her country. She said two words in German which translated to "killing children." She, like the DOW did not speak about such things unless asked, but her viewpoint did not change after 40 years and I believe neither did David Windsor's.
Sandy, I think you are wrong about "all bets" being off after the invasion of Poland. The British fully expected to be invaded after the fall of France. The Duke of Windsor was expecting to be reinstated on the throne with Queen Wallis and his brother and sister-in-law along with his two nieces running for their lives. David met with Hitler and had a private meeting that, according to von Ribbentrop's private secretary, was so private that no one was even allowed in that room to take notes. I believe that they struck a deal whereby as soon as England was conquered David would be King again.
Of course he was clueless re the Nazis. Not denying that! I don't think David was expecting to be reinstated as King. I very much doubt this. He signed the abdication papers and I think at the very least out of respect and love for his mother he would not hurt his sibling after he took over. Edward DID sign formal abdication papers in the presence of his mother and siblings.
It is not known if any "deal" was struck with Hitler. Nobody will ever know one way or another. It wasn't as if Edward was allegedly trying to hurt a political rival--there were blood ties to the person he allegedly was trying to oust and he had siblings and a mother who would surely be hurt over it as well.
OT: Marlene Dietrich's sister was a nazi and she (Marlene) had cut ties with her. Read Dietrich's daughter's book which contains letters and diary entries of Dietrich.. She may have been well bred but she had another side to her. I'll leave it at that.
She even (in a letter that became available via her daughter) offered to give herself to David for a night of bliss (she said she wouldn't ask to be Queen) so he would forget about Wallis. She even asked David's brother the Duke of Kent about such a possibility. Later when she invited she was criticial of the Windsors lifestyle and disliked the dogs they kept (they drooled)
Once again you have misunderstood. What on earth does this have to do with ousting or hurting his siblings and mother? If Hitler had invaded and taken over the UK, do you honestly think David would not accept the throne? In his mind he would be doing his best for England. I never said he would "oust" his brother. Hitler and his government would have gotten rid of George VI and placed David and Queen Wallis as figureheads for the people. King George VI and Queen Elizabeth already were planning to go into hiding at Madresfield with their daughters if the worst happened. They then would have fled the country with the rest of the royal family if they could get out in time. There would be absolutely nothing David could possibly do if Hitler took over. What he never realized is that his own life would be in danger if he defied that man in any way.
^Lilibet : Making your post "bold" does not make it any more relevant than others' posts it could be construed as "shouting" :flower:
If he helped Hitler he would have been betraying his blood family. I read that David loved his mother and was in awe of her, he was close to his brother the Duke of Kent and loved his nieces and nephews--even if he was angry at his brother for not allowing Wallis the HRH I don't think he'd go to such extremes and betray his blood family. What if his family was held captive while he was King. As to your statement "IF they could get out in time--Look what happened to the entire Romanov royal family in Russia--they didn't get out in time. I t hink David would not have taken the Kingship because of the possible consequences to his family.
In the thirties some were fooled by Hitler and went to Germany and some visitors thought well this is great--they didn't see the whole picture . I think that David was totally clueless like some of the other visitors to Germany back then. I doubt he'd have taken on the Kingship at the expense of his family.
QuoteOver the next two years Edward travelled extensively in Europe including visiting Nazi Germany where he met Adolf Hitler. When France was occupied by the German Army in 1940, Edward and his wife moved to Spain. In July 1940 the couple went to live in Portugal. Soon afterwards the Federal Bureau of Investigation received information that the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were being used by the Nazis to obtain secrets about the Allies. On 13th September 1940, an FBI officer sent a memo to J. Edgar Hoover that: "An agent has established conclusively that the Duchess of Windsor has recently been in touch with Joachim von Ribbentrop and was maintaining constant contact and communication with him. Because of their high official position, the duchess was obtaining a variety of information concerning the British and French official activities that she was passing on to the Germans."
The British government also discovered that Adolf Hitler planned to make Edward the puppet king of the United Kingdom if the Germans won the Second World War. When he heard the news, Winston Churchill, the British prime minister, arranged for the Duke of Windsor to leave Europe and become the governor of the Bahamas.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MONedwardVIII.htm
QuoteThe former Austrian ambassador, Count Albert von Mensdorff-Pouilly-Dietrichstein, who was also a second cousin once removed and friend of George V, believed that Edward favoured German fascism as a bulwark against communism, and even that he initially favoured an alliance with Germany.[65] Edward's experience of "the unending scenes of horror"[66] during World War I led him to support appeasement. Hitler considered Edward to be friendly towards Nazi Germany and thought that Anglo-German relations could have been improved through Edward if it were not for the abdication. Fellow Nazi Albert Speer quoted Hitler directly: "I am certain through him permanent friendly relations could have been achieved. If he had stayed, everything would have been different. His abdication was a severe loss for us."[67]
(snip)
During the occupation of France, the Duke asked the German forces to place guards at his Paris and Riviera homes: they did so.[71] A "defeatist" interview with the Duke that was widely distributed may have served as the last straw for the British government: Prime Minister Winston Churchill threatened the Duke with a court-martial if he did not return to British soil.[72] In August, a British warship dispatched the pair to the Bahamas, where, in the view of Churchill, the Duke could do the least damage to the British war effort.
The Duke of Windsor was installed as Governor of the Bahamas. He did not enjoy the position, and referred to the islands as "a third-class British colony".[73] The British Foreign Office strenuously objected when the pair planned to tour aboard a yacht belonging to a Swedish magnate, Axel Wenner-Gren, whom American intelligence wrongly believed to be a close friend of Luftwaffe commander Hermann Göring.[74] However, the Duke was praised for his efforts to combat poverty on the islands, although he was as contemptuous of the Bahamians as he was of most non-white peoples of the Empire. He said of Étienne Dupuch, the editor of the Nassau Daily Tribune: "It must be remembered that Dupuch is more than half Negro, and due to the peculiar mentality of this Race, they seem unable to rise to prominence without losing their equilibrium."[20]
(snip)
Many historians have suggested that Hitler was prepared to reinstate Edward as King in the hope of establishing a fascist Britain.[76] It is widely believed that the Duke and Duchess sympathised with fascism before and during World War II, and were moved to the Bahamas to minimise their opportunities to act on those feelings. In 1940 he said: "In the past 10 years Germany has totally reorganised the order of its society ... Countries which were unwilling to accept such a reorganisation of society and its concomitant sacrifices should direct their policies accordingly."[77]
References:
20. ^ a b Ziegler, p. 448
65. ^ Papers of Count Albert von Mensdorff-Pouilly-Dietrichstein (1861–1945) in the State Archives, Vienna, quoted in Rose, Kenneth (1983), King George V, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, p. 391, ISBN 0-297-78245-2
66. ^ Windsor, p. 122
67. ^ Speer, Albert (1970), Inside the Third Reich, New York: Macmillan, p. 118
71. ^ Roberts, p. 52
72. ^ Bloch, p. 93
73. ^ Bloch, p. 364
74. ^ Bloch, pp. 154–159, 230–233
76. ^ Ziegler, p. 392
77. ^ Bloch, pp. 79–80
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII_of_the_United_Kingdom#World_War_II
Cindy
Quote from: sophiechloe on October 25, 2011, 04:28:09 PM
^Lilibet : Making your post "bold" does not make it any more relevant than others' posts it could be construed as "shouting" :flower:
I had no idea that was wrong to do. I have trouble with my eyes and wanted to see the post better. I won't do anything in bold again.
^^ If it makes it easier for you to see, lilibet80, you should use the bold print. :)
Cindy
In many ways Edward was weak willed. Wallis bossed him around from all accounts. I can't see this man ruthlessly taking on the Kingship from his brother and risking the lives of his family in the process. I also don't think him "evil" to support Hitler to the extent that it hurt its blood family. Adolph Hitler may have had the Plans but there is no proof that Edward would have gone along with them.
Quote from: lilibet80 on October 25, 2011, 06:28:24 PM
Quote from: sophiechloe on October 25, 2011, 04:28:09 PM
^Lilibet : Making your post "bold" does not make it any more relevant than others' posts it could be construed as "shouting" :flower:
I had no idea that was wrong to do. I have trouble with my eyes and wanted to see the post better. I won't do anything in bold again.
I'm so sorry Lilibet :flower: Please forgive me :hug:
Quote from: sandy on October 25, 2011, 07:10:14 PM
In many ways Edward was weak willed. Wallis bossed him around from all accounts. I can't see this man ruthlessly taking on the Kingship from his brother and risking the lives of his family in the process. I also don't think him "evil" to support Hitler to the extent that it hurt its blood family. Adolph Hitler may have had the Plans but there is no proof that Edward would have gone along with them.
It's hard to know what was in his mind. But he didn't mind lying to his brother to get more money out of him for Sandringham. That's pretty cold-blooded, especially considering the position he left his brother in, knowing that his brother had never wanted to be King.
Cindy
Getting more money is a whole different ballgame than risking lives of one's family. The money issue does not necessarily mean he was capable of stealing the throne nor risking the lives of h is family. I don't think Edward was "evil" nor did he have the reputation for it. He was seen as more hapless perhaps but I never read anything that said he was "evil." And what about George VI not allowing Wallis to have HRH (which was hers by right) It is not nice As far as George never wanting to be King, it turned out that he got to be King--he WAS next in line to Edward. In the event of something happening to his brother he was next. That's the way it is in the RF.
Quote from: sandy on October 25, 2011, 09:16:33 PM
Getting more money is a whole different ballgame than risking lives of one's family.
It shows his character.
Cindy
His "character" IMO did not include taking over for Hitler (or wanting to) in the UK. I think David was clueless ad thoughtless at times but by no means "evil."
I believe he would have taken the throne if Hitler offered it. I believe that as in other occupied countries German would be compulsory in English schools. Hitler became a millionaire from the sale of Mein Kampf by making it part of the school curriculum in Germany and the occupied countries. He would have done the same in England. Edward VIII would have been Hitler's puppet and Queen Wallis would have been the toast of the Nazis in England. Edward would not have deposed his family, Hitler and his henchmen would have seen to that. Then, Edward who was of the mind that it would be best for his country would have had his coronation with the woman he loved by his side.
Edward IMO was not fiendish or cruel or another Hitler. With the execution of his royal cousins the ROmanovs perhaps fresh in his mind IMO he would not sacrifice his family for getting a crown from the Fuhrer. He adored his mother for one thing and was close to several of his siblings and his nieces and nephews;. He may have been foolish, cluess and made bad choices but from all the books I read none of them labelled him a "fiend" which he would have been if he seized the crown from his brother and put his family in danger. I doubt Edward would have cooperated this scheme and there is no proof thatt he ever intended to cooperate with the alleged scheme.
Quote from: sandy on October 27, 2011, 03:44:02 PM
Edward IMO was not fiendish or cruel or another Hitler. With the execution of his royal cousins the ROmanovs perhaps fresh in his mind IMO he would not sacrifice his family for getting a crown from the Fuhrer. He adored his mother for one thing and was close to several of his siblings and his nieces and nephews;. He may have been foolish, cluess and made bad choices but from all the books I read none of them labelled him a "fiend" which he would have been if he seized the crown from his brother and put his family in danger. I doubt Edward would have cooperated this scheme and there is no proof thatt he ever intended to cooperate with the alleged scheme.
Perhaps you do not understand. No one is suggesting that David Windsor was "evil" or a "fiend." Be realistic. He was not out to bag the throne or hurt his family. He had hurt them enough already. However, he would have talked it into himself that for the good of his country he would accept what Hitler told him to do. At no time has anyone said that he plotted to do it or was out to harm his family. However, if Hitler invaded England and had wanted him to be King, he would have done it with the mistaken idea that it would "help" England to have him. Little did he know that Hitler would not have listened to anything he said. Edward also agreed with Hitler on many things and probably would have gone along with what Hitler wanted. Eventually he would have grasped that Hitler was dangerous to him and would not hesitate to have him killed if he defied him in any way. By then it would have been too late. There is no question of David Windsor ever thinking this up by himself. There is no question of David Windsor hatching any sort of a plot to hurt his mother or his family. He had a weak character and limited intelligence but he certainly was not a monster.
Lilibet I think the only admiration David had for Hitler was in the beginning at the growth of employment and economy in Germany as Britain was in the depths of a depression. Hitler was careful to hide the true atrocities until after he started his invasions. But David was ostracized from his family in 1937 and therein is the problem. If Hitler wanted to restore David to the throne the public ostracizing of the Windsors was probably in his mind a way to manipulate his way into the whole of Europe put David on the Throne temporarily and get rid of the Monarchy all together. Especially as David was furious at his family for the way he and Wallis were being treated he could easily be manipulated and David was after all a very weak man it would have been simple for Hitler to do this.
First of all until the end of his life David Windsor praised Hitler, blamed the Jews for the war and in his words did not "think Hitler was such a bad chap." Secondly, Hitler did not need David Windsor to manipulate his way all over Europe. By 1940 with the fall of France he had already done so. He and Mussolini did not worry about the English crown. Hitler wanted order in Britain once he had invaded. The British would have been a difficult bunch to deal with. So, they would have David Windsor who was rabid about making his wife Queen ready and waiting. What they intended to do afterwards with him and how long they intended to keep him as King is anyone's guess. As far as David being furious at his family, his family also had a right to be furious with him.
Lilibet I have read that Hitler was a very charming and charasmatic man who people such as David Windsor and a couple of the Mitford sisters were drawn to and until their dying day thought he was a nice chap. Hitler was a master at hiding the true atrocities of his demented twisted mind. Many people today blame Jews for what is going on in the Middle East and have heard ill informed people say Hitler had the right idea. I personally cannot see the hatred inspired by Jewish people what have they done throughout history to deserve all they have been through?. I may be a Christian but I have many Jewish friends and have worked for Jewish employers and let me tell you they are the most kind and generous people I know. It was well known in 1937 what was fast becoming another world war with Germany and the RF knew how David loved all things German and they shouldn't have ostracized him they should have kept him near and on a very short leash.
BTW In your post you said you post in bold because you have trouble with your eyes. Not to pry but if you wear glasses it may help to have the lenses coated with anti glare. I had trouble with my eyes too do to working on the computer all day and my opthalmologist recommeded this lens treatment and it helped a lot. :flower:
My post was in response to Sandy suggesting that David Windsor was being protrayed as "evil" and a "fiend." She also seemed to misconstrue what as I said as my suggesting that David Windsor was the one who would be responsible for ousting the royal family and bagging the throne. As far as the Jews doing anything to anybody, all I can see is that the Jews have done nothing to anyone except bring honor, prestige, Nobel prizes and medical advances to every country in which they have lived.
Lilibet I don't have trouble "understanding". I am expressing my opinion which I have a right to do.
Quote from: lilibet80 on October 27, 2011, 02:40:26 PM
I believe he would have taken the throne if Hitler offered it. I believe that as in other occupied countries German would be compulsory in English schools. Hitler became a millionaire from the sale of Mein Kampf by making it part of the school curriculum in Germany and the occupied countries. He would have done the same in England. Edward VIII would have been Hitler's puppet and Queen Wallis would have been the toast of the Nazis in England. Edward would not have deposed his family, Hitler and his henchmen would have seen to that. Then, Edward who was of the mind that it would be best for his country would have had his coronation with the woman he loved by his side.
Lilibet this is what Sandy was replying to and it does seem like you are saying David would have taken the throne without having to depose his family. David taking the throne if offered would have been a monster or fiend to even entertain the idea. David would have to have been pretty stupid not to know that if Hitler wanted him as King then his family would have been deposed of and estranged or not I doubt even if it were put into his mind that it was for the good of the country he would have agreed to it.
Quote from: Trudie on October 28, 2011, 11:22:16 PM
Lilibet I have read that Hitler was a very charming and charasmatic man who people such as David Windsor and a couple of the Mitford sisters were drawn to and until their dying day thought he was a nice chap. Hitler was a master at hiding the true atrocities of his demented twisted mind. Many people today blame Jews for what is going on in the Middle East and have heard ill informed people say Hitler had the right idea. I personally cannot see the hatred inspired by Jewish people what have they done throughout history to deserve all they have been through?. I may be a Christian but I have many Jewish friends and have worked for Jewish employers and let me tell you they are the most kind and generous people I know. It was well known in 1937 what was fast becoming another world war with Germany and the RF knew how David loved all things German and they shouldn't have ostracized him they should have kept him near and on a very short leash.
BTW In your post you said you post in bold because you have trouble with your eyes. Not to pry but if you wear glasses it may help to have the lenses coated with anti glare. I had trouble with my eyes too do to working on the computer all day and my opthalmologist recommeded this lens treatment and it helped a lot. :flower:
In 1937 it was not clear that another war was coming. The French and British were determined to do everything to stop another war and were using a policy of appeasement to ensure that no war would come to Europe. In 1937 it was very much the view that Hitler's demands were reasonable and that Versailles was a bad treaty and so by giving him what had been taken by that Treaty was just redressing a major wrong done to Germany. It was September 1938 when Chamberlain announced 'peace in our time' and neither the French or British were doing much to prepare for a war.
Churchill was predicting a war but he was out of office and seen as out of touch and a war-monger at the time. He was right but at the time seen as dangerous to the establishment because of his constant calls for the country to prepare for war. The small professional army was ok but the reserves were poorly trained and equipped. It took until the middle of 1940 to bring the British army to 1.5 million troops.
mememe that's true about the fact that the European nations were reluctant to get into another war... but I don't understand why people seem to be saying that the RF should have "kept in touch" with David, just to keep him away from being too friendly with Hitler. He went to visit Germany because it was a way of "pretending he was still a King". I don't know what he would have said in the event of Britain being invaded and his being offered a job as Hitler's puppet king.. I HOPE that he would have eventually realised that it was not right and refused it. But He knew that the visit to germany was controversial and still did it, because I think he had realised that he missed the "good bits" of being King and wanted to have a taste of it again and for Wallis to be treated as a queen. So I can't see how visiting his family more frequently or whatever would have stopped him from wanting to do something like a visit to Hitler where he could again feel like a king. Even if the RF had sympathised iwht him more on a personal level than they did, they could not and would not allow him to be treated as a royal within Engand and the British public would not have liked it either... so he could not regain the status he half longed for...and that was what bothered him.. not separation from his family...
I totally agree with you Amabel. They did not want to keep in touch with him because he had broken their hearts and broken their trust.
As far as Germany and the war, by 1937 Hitler's troops were in the Rhineland in direct defiance of the Treaty of Versailles. The Jews were being tormented. Jewish professors at universities were losing their jobs. Jewish doctors lost their licenses and were forbidden to practice. Dissidents were being imprisoned. When the Berlin Olympics were held in 1936 all signs that were abusive to the Jews were taken down so that the world would not see what was going on when they watched newsreels. Once again, I am not saying that David was a fiend or a monster. I do not think that he personally would have agreed to depose his brother and sister-in-law and make them run for their lives with their children. This would all have been taken care of by Hitler. However, once this had happened, if David had been offered the crown he probably would have accepted. With the royal family out of the UK, Hitler might have been able to persuade him that he was needed to keep stability in the country. David might have convinced himself that it would not only be for the good of the country. He also, at last, would have his greatest desire fulfilled. His wife would become Queen Consort which he felt she deserved.
Quote from: sandy on October 27, 2011, 03:44:02 PM
Edward IMO was not fiendish or cruel or another Hitler. With the execution of his royal cousins the ROmanovs perhaps fresh in his mind IMO he would not sacrifice his family for getting a crown from the Fuhrer. He adored his mother for one thing and was close to several of his siblings and his nieces and nephews;. He may have been foolish, cluess and made bad choices but from all the books I read none of them labelled him a "fiend" which he would have been if he seized the crown from his brother and put his family in danger. I doubt Edward would have cooperated this scheme and there is no proof thatt he ever intended to cooperate with the alleged scheme.
[
Of course you are entitled to your opinion Sandy. My posts concerning you were in response to the above quote. At no time was it implied that Edward would have "sacrificed his family" for the crown. At no time was it implied that he was evil or a fiend or a monster. Naturally no one can know what would have happened if Britain had been invaded. I just happen to believe that Edward would have accepted the crown after Hitler and his vicious crowd had deposed the royal family. David would have had nothing to do with that nor was that what I said. This would have been done by Hitler and then perhaps David would have been offered the crown. Where did you ever get the idea that anyone said David was a "fiend"? Certainly not from me. He was what he was, he was not an evil monster or "another Hitler" and I never thought or said that he was.
I think if he had become Puppet King for the nazis, Edward would probably have been killed by Hitler's minions after he served his purpose.
Quote from: sandy on October 29, 2011, 03:54:22 PM
I think if he had become Puppet King for the nazis, Edward would probably have been killed by Hitler's minions after he served his purpose.
I absolutely agree with you. It would have been the biggest mistake of Edward's life if he had taken the crown.
It would have been a mistake but I don't see that he'd have been killed unless he stood up to Hitler over something and honestly I cant' see him having the strength of character to do that.
Quote from: lilibet80 on October 29, 2011, 03:07:42 PM
that David was a fiend or a monster. I do not think that he personally would have agreed to depose his brother and sister-in-law and make them run for their lives with their children. This would all have been taken care of by Hitler. However, once this had happened, if David had been offered the crown he probably would have accepted.
I HOPE he would have realised that it was the wrong idea. I think that its hard to find out the Truth of what happened back then and the RF probably don't want anything to get out. but I think if he'd been offered the throne in the event of a successful invasion, he would have been seriously tempted to accept. What would have happened then is anyone's guess. I feel he did not like the though of another war, as many didn't for very good and humane reasons. but I feel afraid that eh would have been willing to ally Britain with Germany against Russia.. And I think he wanted Wallis to be queen...
It is possible that alliance with Germany was exactly why the government wanted him out.
I don't think so. I don't think that his political views were "settled" so that it wasn't a case of the Govt feeling "he's a Nazi supporter". They thought he was a loose cannon who didn't know what he was talking about half the time and might swing this way or that. So probably it was a relief that he did quite clearly want to get out of being king unless he could have Wallis by his side.. since he was too lazy and erratic to be a safe pair of hands as King
Quote from: amabel on October 29, 2011, 06:32:34 PM
It would have been a mistake but I don't see that he'd have been killed unless he stood up to Hitler over something and honestly I cant' see him having the strength of character to do that.
Why would Hitler want to keep a puppet king. He could kill Edward off once he got power over the UK himself. WHy would he want another head of state when HE wanted to be the head of state? Edward would be in his way. IMO anyway
The British like consistency. In order to avoid any type of upheaval or revolt, Hitler may have thought that having a king on the throne would be a good idea. In the end he may have killed Edward and Wallis or they, like Bertie and Elizabeth would have run for their lives. Who knows?
I can't see David and Wallis being principled enough ot stand up to Hitler, so they would be safe enough if he won the war. However, if the Allies had eventually won, they'd have had to flee for their lives from the British...
I don't think anybody would be truly safe with Hitler and his minions. If Hitler felt they were getting too much support or suspected they would not be loyal or even thought this, they would be doomed.
Of course in hindsight it is easy to speculate this way. When Edward knew Hitler he was awed by his leadership and charisma. It probably never crossed his mind that Hitler was capable of the violence and visciousness which the world was to come to see. Hitler and his cabinet were con men. Also, Hitler was overawed by the aristocracy and was thrilled to even be in their company. He charmed the Windsors as he had charmed the Duke of Coburg, another exceptionally stupid person.
True but all the same, it seems that even after the war, the DOW didn't think that Hitler was such a bad chap... so what are the odds that had he been King of England during the worst of the war, he'd have decided that Hitler was wrong about anyting? True that Hitler initially did cosy up to aristocratic Germans and many of them were lured into supporting Nazism, but he wasn't really that keen on them and by the time of the 1944 Plot I think he was NOT likely to show any special favor to kings or ex kings.
Would it have been possible for Edward to come to England on a regular basis to visit his mother?
^^^Honestly I don't believe that she really wanted to see him or Wallis after the abdication and WWII.
It wasn't that sort of an exile. Queen Mary was very disappointed in her son. However, Edward could come as often as he liked to visit his mother, sister etc, though of course that wasn't possible in wartime.
George VI still loved his brother but after all the revelations about his financial affairs etc and how venal Edward turned out to be, the rose coloured glasses fell off quite a bit. Wallis was still regarded by the royals as an adventuress.
Above all, earlier in the reign the new King, his wife, and their advisers didn't want Edward settling down in England, not giving the new King and reign a chance to get established. After 1945, with admiration of King George and Queen Elizabeth at its height because of their stalwart behaviour during the war it didn't matter so much. However, the French government offered properties and do the Windsors settled there.
Double post auto-merged: October 10, 2017, 02:38:09 AM
This was published in the Fail. However the extracts from the diaries one of Edward VIII longest serving aides, 'Tommy' Lascelles, is one of the most searing and yet refreshing summings up of any royal's character that I have ever read. It's long, but I urge anyone interested in Edward VIII to read it. Lascelles knew Davd in and out for many many years.
Prince Charmless: A damning portrait of Edward VIII | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-417388/Prince-Charmless-A-damning-portrait-Edward-VIII.html?mrn_rm=als1)
Quote from: TLLK on October 10, 2017, 01:23:23 AM
^^^Honestly I don't believe that she really wanted to see him or Wallis after the abdication and WWII.
Mary was still his mother and he was her firstborn son. Of course she'd want to see him. But not Wallis.
^^^I disagree
@sandy. I believe that she was extremely disappointed in her son's behavior and its impact upon the family and the nation. Yes she did see him, but I do believe that it took years to soften her feelings toward his actions that had a far reaching effect upon so many.
QuoteQueen Mary was very disappointed in her son.
:thumbsup: Yes
@Curryong how could she not be disappointed in him.
I don't think she gave up loving her firstborn. That would have been abnormal. Disappointed of course! But it did not stop her from wanting to see him. Parents can be disappointed but that does not mean they never stop loving their children.
I consider Mary to be a horrendous mother but Edward was also a horrendous son so they were evenly matched. What kind of parent ostracizes their child because they married someone they do not like? It seemed Queen Mary passed on her parenting skills to the QEII.
Mary did receive her son. And she did not ostracize him. If she did he never would have seen her again...He reportedly made visits to see her.
The Queen allowed Charles to marry Camilla and received her So obviously she did not inherit Mary's outlook.
The Queen Mum OTOH did not want Charles to marry Camilla in her lifetime.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 10, 2017, 01:42:29 PM
I consider Mary to be a horrendous mother but Edward was also a horrendous son so they were evenly matched. What kind of parent ostracizes their child because they married someone they do not like? It seemed Queen Mary passed on her parenting skills to the QEII.
IMHO marrying Wallis was not the main reason that Queen Mary was disappointed in her son. I truly believe that she was aware that David was inherently as selfish and self-absorbed individual who would always put his interests before anything else including the nation. He was well aware that the government was briefly considering skipping the DoY and DoG to offer the throne to the DoK because they felt Bertie was not up to the task. (Fortunately for Britain he was.) His flirtation with Nazi leaders had to have been close to the top of the list of reasons to avoid contact with him.How Britian covered up the friendship between Hitler & Edward VIII | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2015/03/01/how-britian-covered-up-the-friendship-between-hitler-edward-viii/)
Quotehttp://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/426662/Edward-VIII-candid-letter-reveals-Royal-Family-divisions-following-abdication
An article on one of Edward VIII's letters that was up for auction that reveals how disappointed Queen Mary was with her eldest.
Edward VIII was also allegedly involved in a plot to remove QEII from the throne. Queen Mary was still alive at this point in time. Documents reveal how Queen Elizabeth's uncle Edward VIII wanted to regain throne after his abdication | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334185/Documents-reveal-Queen-Elizabeths-uncle-Edward-VIII-wanted-regain-throne-abdication.html)
I read the reason for skipping to the Duke of Kent was because he had a male heir. There was some discussion over his being "better" because Bertie had two daughters and the Duke of Kent's first born was a boy. It was quickly dropped though. The Duke of Kent had a rather shady lifestyle and was on drugs for a time. He cheated on his wife Marina. So I think there would have been some difficulties with him being King. There would have been other issues with the Duke of Kent. IMO.
I don't believe Edward was in on a plot to oust QE II. From what I read he was fond of his niece. And she was more sympathetic to him than her mother was. Even allowing Wallis and Edward to be buried together on royal ground and receiving the two of them when a monument was dedicated to Queen Mary. It would have been rather fruitless for him to think of taking over, because he had no heirs, and his niece would have still succeeded him.
Oh Dear. That Edward was something. Britain had a lucky escape.
Ironically, the Queen Mum could not stand the influence of Mountbatten.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on October 11, 2017, 04:35:10 PM
Oh Dear. That Edward was something. Britain had a lucky escape.
Yes I agree. IMVHO Wallis was the least of the BRF's concerns. He and Wallis were safely ensconced aka exiled to the Caribbean while the nation was under attack from David's "frenemies" and complaining about the lack of activities there during WWII. I doubt that endeared either of them to the BRF or the nation. With this information being made public I can understand Queen Mary's disappointment with her eldest child.
Quotehttps://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/jan/30/freedomofinformation.monarchy1
It is now clear that the duke's financial settlement was one of his paramount concerns in giving up the throne. It is known that he grossly minimised his assets in discussions with his brother in the days before the abdication, estimating hisfortune at £90,000. In fact his assets probably topped £1.1m.
"I am not seeking to reproach you or anyone," George VI wrote to him a few months later in an already published letter. "But the fact remains that I was completely misled."
A Treasury document released today shows the king was receiving £410,000 a year (more in real terms than the Queen does today), largely from the civil list but also in income from the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. The Duke of York - who became George VI - received £25,000 from the exchequer but only paid tax on a fifth of that.
[/b] He also was receiving IMO an obscene amount of money to remain away. He did his best to undervalue his wealth in order to receive this allowance. At a time when the UK and the rest of the world was recovering from the Great Depression, he made sure that he lived a life of comfort.
Oh I don't think Wallis was the "least" of their concerns. George V was horrified when Wallis came to be received at court (that woman in our house, he told his wife Mary). She was seen by Mary as an "adventuress". And the Duchess of York loathed Wallis. Their depriving Wallis of the HRH was a personal thing nothing to do with "Nazis." They just plain disliked her. If she had been the "least" of their worries, why would not have Mary relented and received her? Edward and Wallis got settled in to cafe society and were seen at night stops and took lavish vacations. he was besotted with Wallis and she cheated on him with James Donahue, the Woolworth Heir. After a while they got so involved in "society" I doubt they sat back plotting. Even on Nassau they got involved with a social set. Of course Wallis was a huge concern of the royals!
If Edward was a real "threat" he would have been deprived of the HRH and maybe even his title, and kept under house arrest. The reason for the abdication given at the time was he wanted to marry a twice divorced woman AND make her Queen. He was given a choice and decided to abdicate.
QuoteOh I don't think Wallis was the "least" of their concerns
I disagree
@sandy. Considering Edward's pre and post-WWII actions and words about his allowance, conspiring with the Nazis and desire to remove his niece from the throne, I think that even George V would have found those to be greater "horrors" :eyes: than a twice divorced American.
I woudlnt say that she was the least or the worst. I think that basically she and Edward just turned out so badly, that the RF decided to keep them at a distance.. and hoped that things like exiling them to the Bahamas during the war, would keep them from any flirtign with the Nazis or silly behaviour. and after the war, while they met occasionally, they wanted them out of the UK...
Mary only once "sent a kind message to Wallis"...
I am not so certain he would remove Elizabeth from the throne. He abdicated and he could not return as "regent." Elizabeth's parents were very much alive and there was no need for him to take "custody" or "sponsor her." If Elizabeth believed this, she would never have received him. Ever. She invited him and Wallis to return to the UK to be at a dedication of a monument to Queen Mary. She visited him when he was sick and dying and they had a cordial relationship and were fond of each other. If this is true, no way would she have had anything to do with him. I don't believe the story. Wallis and Edward were most bitter about her losing the HRH. He was fighting to have it given to her and I think that was his major gripe with his family.
QuoteI am not so certain he would remove Elizabeth from the throne. He abdicated and he could not return as "regent." Elizabeth's parents were very much alive and there was no need for him to take "custody" or "sponsor her.
The article that I posted in support of this information states that this was in the years just before George VI's death and Elizabeth's ascension to the throne So while the King and Queen were alive, the longtime courtiers knew that George VI's health was very poor and that he was not going to live much longer. Elizabeth's engagement/marriage to a Greek Prince with German family members was seen as a real concern in post-war Britain.
Considering that they were all aware of Edward's plans to be a puppet king supporting a Nazi government, I can understand why there was some real concern about this possible plot in post-War Britain.
Tommy Lascelles who had served as Edward's aide during his tenure as PoW and knew him better than almost anyone ele was one who was convinced that Edward might support such a plot to remove Elizabeth. I'd trust his judgement about the man he'd served for years.
QuoteThis was published in the Fail. However the extracts from the diaries one of Edward VIII longest serving aides, 'Tommy' Lascelles, is one of the most searing and yet refreshing summings up of any royal's character that I have ever read. It's long, but I urge anyone interested in Edward VIII to read it. Lascelles knew Davd in and out for many many years.
Prince Charmless: A damning portrait of Edward VIII | Daily Mail Online
Thank you for sharing this
@Curryong. I read the article and despite it being a DM one, it does give an excellent overview of Lascelles' thoughts on Edward VIII.
Elizabeth was not a child but "of age" which makes it more and more unlikely that the story is true. Edward was also friends with Mountbatten and they had taken a round the world cruise some years ago. And Elizabeth the Queen Mother could not stand Mountbatten so in effect Edward as "siding" with her allegedly. How could a grown woman need a Regent? The Nazis were defeated and no longer a threat in any case. And Philip's own sisters had been married to Nazis which was a reason why some did not like him. No way could Edward take on Regency for grown up Elizabeth. No way. It sounds like a pipedream by someone and I doubt Edward even thought of it. He was mingling with "society" at that point and he and Wallis travelled a lot. And Elizabeth's parents were still alive which made this "plot" even more unlikely.
Why would Elizabeth have anything to do with her Uncle if this were true?
What Nazi government would he support in the late forties. Germany had Occupation Forces how on earth could Edward bring in a Nazi government?
Tommy said he "might" support which did not mean he did. And how easy is it to remove a grown woman who is heiress presumptive by an Uncle who renounced his claim to the throne years before. It would be another thing if Elizabeth found out her father married before and the marriage was legitimate and there was a son of that marriage contesting the throne.
^^^
QuoteElizabeth was not a child but "of age" which makes it more and more unlikely that the story is true.
@sandy-The article clearly states that the plot began in the late forties by which time Elizabeth would have been of age at 18 or even older. It never claims that she was a child during that time. :shrug:
QuoteFor during the late-Forties, when the plot began to form, paranoia reigned at Buckingham Palace. The old guard who surrounded George VI were appalled at the thought that the apple of his eye, his elder daughter Princess Elizabeth, was in love with a penniless Greek princeling called Philip
Documents reveal how Queen Elizabeth's uncle Edward VIII wanted to regain throne after his abdication | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334185/Documents-reveal-Queen-Elizabeths-uncle-Edward-VIII-wanted-regain-throne-abdication.html)
18 is "of age." As a Princess she made that famous speech "I serve." So how would he have "taken over" kidnapped her? No way could this plot have happened.
Elizabeth and Philip managed to overcome obstacles and marry and they still are married to this day.
George and Elizabeth had their reservations about Philip and did not stop any engagement but advised the couple to wait a year before announcing an engagement. They even took Elizabeth and Margaret away on a tour so she'd be away from Philip. But the two wanted to marry and her parents relented.
I know what the article "clearly states." Which makes it all the more incredible. I can see a plot where someone has a power play to be Regent for infant Prince Charles but a grown up woman who knew her own mind? No way in hell.
That was a ridiculous idea. I'm sure the Windsors would have been all for it. However, events overtook them. By the time the King actually died Elizabeth was a wife and mother of 25 and quite capable of ruling. Heirs to the throne come of age at 18 in the British system anyway, and how was a marriage to Philip to be prevented once Elizabeth reached the age of 21? This was the 1940's not the 1490s.
QuoteI'm sure the Windsors would have been all for it.
Yes and I can see why Queen Mary was again disappointed by the behavior of her eldest son. :no:
So to answer the original question: "Should Edward VIII been ostracized the way he was following the abdication?" My answer would be "Yes and he should have not been allowed to have such an incredibly generous annual allowance."
The idea was laughably impractical unless Elizabeth was kidnapped. It's not the age of the Princes in the Tower anymore.
I think it cruel for anybody to be ostracized from his own mother. Why would he deserve it? He was not charged with being a traitor. He was a weak man, so should he be ostracized for being weak. I think his brother and sister in law were petty not letting Wallis have the HRH. She never remarried and was entitled to the HRH upon marriage. It would have had no big ramifications if she were allowed to keep it.
QuoteHe was not charged with being a traitor.
You are correct he was never charged, but it doesn't change the facts that Edward was ready to become the monarch again if Germany had conquered Great Britain. I find that despicable. He is fortunate to have been in a safe place away from the air raids and threats that targeted the nation, but he and Wallis complained about the lack of society and activities. He was paid an obscene annual allowance that in today's rates is more than his niece receives from the Sovereign's grant while the UK recovered from the Great Depression and WWII. While monarch it was known that he rarely looked at the documents and correspondence in his official boxes and the ones that he did read were often returned with glass marks from his barware. Yes he was lucky man to have just been ostracized by the government, the nation and his family. He lacked the insight to actually consider the damage he'd done over his lifetime. IMHO his niece treated her uncle with respect and care and provided the Windsors with the appropriate services for their funerals.
In time as more documents from that era are declassified, I believe that we will find out that he was more involved than we realize.
The US's own Joe Kennedy got in trouble with Roosevelt for his isolationist views. But he was never branded a traitor. And his son got to be President.
All the same, Edward was a very popular Prince of Wales, with the public.
I don't think Edward was all that motivated to topple a country. He led most of his life mingling with 'society' people and he and Wallis on the party circuit with the rich and famous.
Edward was invited to various royal events but would not go because Wallis was not invited. So he was not completely ostracized. ER II relented and invited him and also Wallis to the Queen Mary memorial unveiling.
QuoteThe US's own Joe Kennedy got in trouble with Roosevelt for his isolationist views. But he was never branded a traitor.
Joe Kennedy didn't want the U.S. to become involved with another foreign war as it would be quite costly in terms of human life and expenses. Many Americans felt this way prior to the attack at Pearl Harbor. As ambassador this difference of opinion could be an issue that but they are not the actions of a traitor.
Edward was involved in dealings with his nation's enemy and was willing to become the puppet king had Germany successfully invaded Germany. He wanted Germany to win and he believed that their fascist aims were the ones that the UK needed to adopt. Those actions fit the definition of a traitor.
QuoteA person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle.
He was already plotting his future with the enemy. Knowing this the government sent (exiled) him to the Caribbean which at that time was pretty much as far away from Axis powers as they could place him in the Empire.
Edward was able to persuade the occupying German government to place guards at his homes in Paris and on the Riviera. He was accused to leaking Allied invasion plans to the Nazis. Churchill threatened him with a court martial if he didn't leave the continent and return to the UK.
Edward was a lazy King and ignored state papers and so on. I don' t think he'd have been a ball of fire in toppling the government. He seemed to settle in an existence involving parties and being in "society."
^^^He didn't need to topple the government because the Nazi government with assistance from Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht would be tasked with that particular job. He was the perfect "puppet king" to set up because he was from the legitimate reigning house and had already shown that he was willing to cooperate with the Nazis. Had his younger brother John been alive and the Nazis gained control of the UK then I wonder if he would have endured the same fate as so many "undesirables?" Edward referred to him as a "monster" while he was alive.
He was fortunate that he was able to continue his partying ways after WWII while his nation endured years of rebuilding and recovery. Wallace not receiving a style of HRH is IMVHO a trifle when compared to everything the Windsors did prior to and during WWII. <_<
I never read that Edward called John a monster. He was way older than John who was closest to his brother George (the future Duke of Kent).
I can't see Edward sending people to concentration camps or even approving of it. I think he would have been ousted by the Nazis once they came into theoretical power in the UK. What use would they have for him after they got entrenched? He would have been used then ditched.
It was not a trifle to Edward for Wallis to have the HRH. It became his crusade.
Prince John (http://www.britannia.com/history/biographies/princejohn.html)
The calling him "monster" is not attributed to Edward but a term used (by whom?) referring to his too rapid growth.
Could Edward, as Prince of Wales, informed his father that he, Edward, did not want to be King and sign documentation giving up his rights to the throne?
Another description of Johnny by his eldest brother:
QuoteWhen John died in 1919 at the age of 13, his eldest brother, the future King Edward VIII, callously wrote: "This poor boy had become more of an animal than anything else, and was only a brother in the flesh and nothing else."
Double post auto-merged: October 13, 2017, 12:06:45 AM
Edward was annoyed that the family was mourning the death of his youngest brother.
QuoteTwo days after his death John's eldest brother wrote to his mistress Freda Dudley Ward, 'He was more of an animal than anything else. That I should be plunged into mourning for this!'
The hardboiled prince was clearly relieved, more than anything else, at his brother's demise. He then wrote what is described as 'a letter of daunting insensitivity' to his mother - the exact contents of which have never been revealed - for which he was subsequently forced to apologise.
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on October 13, 2017, 12:04:53 AM
Could Edward, as Prince of Wales, informed his father that he, Edward, did not want to be King and sign documentation giving up his rights to the throne?
Yes technically he could have done so.
SO the letter content to his mother was never released?
It does not mean he advocated euthanasia or concentration camps. There is no proof that he did or would have been a flaming Nazi. If the plan went through, I think he would have been "eliminated" by the Nazis after he served his purpose. He would have been dispensable.
Lala Bill perhaps was the one who really cared for John. There was no mainstreaming for John by his family. Maybe the family should be held accountable.
Edward VIII was relieved by disabled Prince John's death | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3134532/Edward-VIII-relieved-disabled-Prince-John-s-death.html)
The family he claimed only saw John once or twice a year. So perhaps they should be held accountable too?
Today he would have had a better quality of life. Medication could have controlled the seizures
The idea of royal blood allowing for no disability and having to be "pure" was really an odd (to put it mildly) outlook.
Edward could indeed have gone to his father and told him that he didn't want to be King. George V's reaction would probably have been disbelief followed by a nuclear explosion! However, I don't know if that wouldn't have been better, had Edward done it sometime after WW1, than what transpired afterwards in '36.
I think there are a few reasons why he didn't do just that. One is that, like his brothers he remained frightened of his father all his life. However it was definitely in his mind from his earliest adult years onwards, IMHO. George VI told Tommy Lascelles that his brother had told him years before that being King wasn't on his agenda. Unfortunately for Edward and his plans, his father died before he could announce a withdrawal from the succession.
Another reason Edward didn't do it earlier is that he was involved with Freda Dudley Ward for many years. She was English, would have known what a row would have resulted had he done so, and I think when he expressed those views to her, as he inevitably would have, she jollied him out of it.
A third reason may well have been his venality. Edward had received Duchy funds all his adult life. He salted a great deal of money away in his and Wallis's accounts in the 1930s, preparing for his escape and marriage to her. It was almost a million pounds by the time of the abdication. However again, his father dying prematurely foiled his plans. I think he intended another couple of years of saving and salting away before escaping.
QuoteIt was almost a million pounds by the time of the abdication.
:eyes: Can you imagine that in today's rates?
And then he lied about what he was worth in order to receive an obscenely high allowance per year. No wonder his mother was not keen on seeing her eldest. OUCH!
If Edward had a "conventional" marriage there still could have been big problems. There was talk he would marry Kaiser Wilhelm's daughter, then later one of his granddaughters. That would have created an explosive situation as far as ties to Germany.
Edward cried when he found out he was King. I think he liked the life as Prince of Wales but horrified at the idea of being King.
Wallis also tried to talk him out of abdicating.
QuoteThere was no mainstreaming for John by his family
@sandy-Mainstreaming is a late 20th century concept. Even into the early 1980's it was still a relatively new practice in most public schools in the Western world. IMO as an educator, to expect those living in the late 19th and early 20th century to be familiar with and to be adhering to 21st century special education standards is a bit far fetched. :blank:
John lived with the family until his seizures became too severe and his behavior was affected by the stress of palace life. His parents chose to have him leave at Wood Farm. The options that would have been available to disabled children in the late 19th would have included:neglect, being sold to a freak show, being homeless, the workhouse, an orphanage, and likely an "accidental death."
John's life at Wood Farm seems to us in 2017 to be a cruel one when compared to today. However it was one of the few humane options truly available at that time.
Many children in the 19th century who exhibited abnormalities and whose parents were unable to look after them, were shut away in the baldly named public lunatic asylums for the rest of their lives. These included Downes Syndrome children, severe epileptics and the developmentally delayed.
At least John escaped that fate. He was with a much loved nurse in the peace and quiet of the Norfolk countryside, with toys and animals around. Apparently he was a bit lonely but a little girl who lived nearby would visit sometimes to play. John just wouldn't have been able to stand the stresses of being on show as a Prince and living at BP as he became older. And we don't know whether his brother George witnessed an epileptic fit or two. That could have influenced the Wood Farm decision as well.
Wow lots of interesting posts in the last couple of pages, and with a WW2 and politics angle, right up my alley. First off, we can see where the Queen gets her careless attitude with her kids, man George V and Mary, where can I sign up for the parenting class theyre putting on LOL.
Its a shame more of the succession couldnt have been settled while George V was still alive, and while it was discussed about Edward being able to sign a document as PoW to avoid taking the throne (as an aside, can we slip one of those into Charles's daily paperwork :lol: ) it points out there should have been/should be some act or process for a king/queen to disinherit children deemed unworthy, just like a family business(yes, I know there is a potential for misuse).
Considering whats at stake having a poor monarch, it boggles my mind how careless past generations were with both raising future kings/queens as well as overseeing their unions with others to provide a smooth continuation of things.
David's problem, like Charles, was that he was allowed to dally around as a single man too long. It appears that the single life rots the shaky moral core of the windsor boys.
As for WW2, while im on board with the current paradigm of allied good, nazis bad, I do ask that you remove your hindsight goggles and put on some grey spectacles to see what people were considering as the war was unfolding and it was the future, not history.
Prior to WW2, the bolshevik revolution was brought about by the germans (and funded by some of the wealthy american families) sending Lenin to take Russia out of WW1 as like what would happen in WW2, the germans were fighting a two front war.
As you all know this was a disaster for the Russian czars, and as they were relatives of most of european royalty, they feared, and with good reason, similar uprisings across europe (and america feared the rise of communism with general strikes, etc of large companies). So one has to look at the royals fear of that causing them to look at the old idea of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" as far as Germany was considered, as much as i like to take the piss out of them for siding with them. Also I think the amount they pillory Edward, is to hide their own thoughts pre war (HM saluting, PP at nazi members funerals, etc) PP had said they were terrified of the communists killing more of their extended family in europe.
With the entry of the US into WW1, the previously stalemated sides, now had an overwhelming advantage for the allies, which allowed them to exact fines and payments from Germany which seeded the start of WW2, without that, things would have likely had a detente style conclusion with roughly all sides going back to their default position, and Germany wouldnt have had the crushing poverty that had sowed the seeds for the Nazis to rise to power.
By the early to late 30s, more western nations had more to fear from communism/Bolshevism than fascism. While both ideologies are flawed, and essentially two sides of the same coin, just different uniforms in power, with most of europe and america having a corporate system already in place, it was the ideology that would have created less turmoil for the average day to day person. The US had a potential coup stopped by Gen Smedley Butler which was funded by large business interests.
The sad thing that people wont admit after WW2, is more people leaned that way than they would admit after the war. Henry Ford had fascist and anti Semitic leanings and sold trucks and other items to the germans before the war, Boeing sold planes to germany, the Luftwaffe could not fly their planes without a fuel additive they got from Standard Oil(esso) all war long, Coca Cola got around the banning of sales to germany by creating Fanta, IBM monthly maintained computers used at concentration camps (the numbers tattooed on inmates were what was fed into the computers), Prescott Bush (HW's dad, and W's grand-dad was found guilty of trading with the enemy while at the Union Banking Corp laundering money for IG Farben). Until the horror of the camps was made public, the war was viewed by a lot of companies as a dispute for politicians, and money could be made on both sides, not the struggle for moral decency it ended up becoming.
Joe Kennedy wanted to stay out of the war, like a lot did prior to pearl harbor, but Joe was a class A dirtbag, making money off running alcohol during prohibition, paid off the mob to steal the Illinois election for JFK (which was allowed to happen to get the US into the war) check out some of the communications between Roosevelt(the other side of his family the Delanos, made tons of money off opium sales to china back in the day) and Edward Mandel House.
My point is, that Europe and America were seeking to hedge their bets until the treaty obligations forced them into war with Germany in 39 (minus the US). The same pre war ignorance over the Germans ultimate plans also was in play with some in the UK wanting to side with Germany against the Russians. Part of them keeping Rudolph Hess was that he was supposedly to broker a peace agreement between the UK and Germany for that purpose.
Many of the royals were of german decent, and most allied countries were not overly accepting of jewish refugees, so until it became shameful to side with Germany, likely more sided with them in secret than we'll ever know.
Back to Edward, a great thumbs up to
@TLLK for the great articles on the whole affair. Having him in the bahamas was a wise move, I recall seeing docs on the germans plans to get him to stay in europe, I hadnt seen before the thing over Wallace getting her swimming costume retrieved by diplomats, unbelievable.
These two were too busy living a life of luxury to put serious effort into taking back the throne. (Although im sure during the war hed have taken it if he was given it by the germans had things gone differently, but like everyone else is saying, im sure the germans would have dispatched him soon after) this is sort of alternative fictional history, but had the UK fallen, im sure the US and USSR would have lost the interest to fight in europe and brokered a peace deal as using Iceland for a base to strike at europe would have been impractical. But thats my 2 cents im sure thered be a lot of disagreement, consider USSR left the allies out in the cold having a non aggression pact with Germany till they were double crossed and had one with Japan as well till the final days of WW2 (and set up to be the enemy of the next war, a tremendous amount of money and material sent their way, and Churchill wanted to keep going after Germany was defeated and attack them, but the US refused, its awful to say, but the "smart" thing would have been to let Germany and the USSR knock each other sensless and deal with the remaining party, as they would be in a less strong position, and wed have basically had the 90's "peace dividend in the mid to late 40s...but that was bad for business, check out Ike's "Military industrial comples" speech).
The articles on potentially using a regent to deal with PP is very interesting, I think they were right to fear PP and Mountbatten (like the Windsors who were Saxe Coburg Gothe's, the Mountbattens were Battenburgs before WW1). While not necessarily his nationality of decent being the issue, I do feel Mountbatten had designs on the crown and was morally a corrupt man.
I know it was more flexible in those days with ages, but the whole PP/HM romance was a very seedy affair IMO and shows terrible parental management and an unwillingness to use the royal marriages act to stop this broke Greek/German bedhopper to slide his way into the monarchy. Then we had Mountbatten ply his poor teachings on Charles, who already has more of David in him than im sure he likes, then sows the seeds of the headaches of the last 30 years or so.
But as far as a regent, I dont know if Mary would have been around long enough to chase PP away, as the bench was pretty thin, with Edward gone, Bertie, well, shaky Bertie, and the Duke of Kent a drug user its hard to figure who to put in.
Its interesting to consider if Edward or someone else was put in, if the family life for Charles and co would have fared better with the Queen not having to rule until she was older. While on the one hand one can make an argument for it given how the kids turned out and our current succession situation, but when you look at the last few kings, they havent done much better in managing their children or marriages, so why not keep on the tradition of rudderlessness.
Gawd its a book and a half, left tons out, hope this sparks some lively debate.
Hopefully William will break the cycle and do a good job of raising and marrying them off well.
I agree with you that prior to WW2 Bolshevism was feared and Russia was a pariah state. Also that several aristo families and British and European royals were very right wing and would rather have been dead than Red, lol. The rose coloured glasses as far as the Nazis were concerned fell for many after the Munich Agreement, however, and the trouble with Edward was not so much that he was an out and out Nazi, which IMO he wasn't but that he never retracted anything or changed his mind about Hiltler or the Second World War. Even as an old man he was still banging on about how Britain shouldn't have got involved and Hitler could have been reasonable if treated nicely (Rubbish!) David was also anti Semitic to the end.
Britain had to get involved in WW2 because it had treaty obligations to both France and Poland. It couldn't have withdrawn and allowed the Soviet Union and Germany to battle it out after 1941. That is because the Soviet Union, with its huge advantages in manpower, would undoubtedly have won. The Russians could well have been toasting their feet in Paris by 1946 without Allied restraints and that would have done Europe no good whatsoever. The Iron Curtain would have been at the Channel coast!
By the way, Hess was kept prisoner in England not because the British wanted to negotiate with him but because he was an enemy combatant and a chief Nazi and because it became quite clear very quickly after he landed and was questioned that he was insane. He certainly wished to stop the war but Hitler did not intend that Hess be his envoy. And after Dunkirk and the first bombings Churchill had determined that there would be no peace negotiations, that Britain would go down fighting come what may, and he took the Cabinet with him, after arguments.
The Queen was in love with Philip from her early teens. She never wanted or considered anyone else. I don't quite know what her parents could have done. He couldn't help being poor, he was of royal blood and he wasn't German. He'd fought for Britain during the war. I think you're attributing a lot more power and persuasional abilities to Mountbatten than he actually had. There is no doubt that he was a very vain man, a legend in his own lunchtime sort of person, but Philip wasn't in his pocket or taking orders from him during his courtship of Elizabeth. There's some evidence that Philip regarded him with a sort of amused tolerance. He had been much closer to the Marquess of Milford Haven, his other uncle, who died young.
Just because certain people, including the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, became paranoid about Mountbatten becoming the power behind the throne of the young Elizabeth didn't mean that it was going to be that way, and in fact it wasn't. That stup little so-called plot has been built up by the DM in various articles into ridiculous proportions. There is no way that Parliament would have allowed an heir to the Throne to be pushed aside for an abdicated King to come back. Elizabeth, after the age of 18, would have been Queen. Full stop. And whatever can be said about Philip, he has been an enormous support to the Queen for almost 70 years. (By the way the Duke of Kent, who wasn't an addict, was dead by August 1942, while on active service. He was killed in a plane crash, so he wouldn't have been on the throne after the war in any case.)
Well I'd agree about Philip.. He has been an admirable consort for the queen and worth 10 of any of his children and about 100 of any of the grandchildren. Here he is at 95 only barely stepping down from his work.
But I'd disagree about his not being German.. he certainly Was of German ethnicity.. His "Greek" side was from George I of Greece who was Danish German.. and his mOther Alice of Battenberg was also essentially German in ethnicity. However he was certainly not a Nazi and fought for Britain, made the British Navy his career and was loyal to his adopted country.
Edw VIII wasn't a Nazi, but he was right wing. He was IMO too stupid even to be a committed Nazi, he just supported "Hitler because he was fighting Communism" and also was willig to be friendly with Hitler because he treated him a bit as a King again and Wallis as his consort. Had he had a chance to become a puppet King during the war, he MIGHT have taken it, but I hope that he woud have realised it was dangerous and disloyal to his family even if he didn't like them. But then again he might have flet that it was his duty to "become a king" again for his people, to be a representative for them, if Brirtian was conquered. After the war, I think he had given upany hopes of ever retaining his throne.. and had settled down to lead the useless and trivial life that Wallis enjoyed and he basically was miserable in..
George I's wife, Philip's grandmother, was a Romanov, so he had a large dollop of Russian blood. And whatever his ethnicity anyway, he had spent years and years in England by the time he married, under the wing of his 'English' relatives.
True but I'd have said that ethnically he was mainly German. And his sisters had all married German princelings who ended up fighting for Nazi Germany. but he had adopted Britain as his country and been loyal to it...
Quote from: Curryong on October 13, 2017, 06:13:03 AM
I agree with you that prior to WW2 Bolshevism was feared and Russia was a pariah state. Also that several aristo families and British and European royals were very right wing and would rather have been dead than Red, lol. The rose coloured glasses as far as the Nazis were concerned fell for many after the Munich Agreement, however, and the trouble with Edward was not so much that he was an out and out Nazi, which IMO he wasn't but that he never retracted anything or changed his mind about Hiltler or the Second World War. Even as an old man he was still banging on about how Britain shouldn't have got involved and Hitler could have been reasonable if treated nicely (Rubbish!) David was also anti Semitic to the end.
Britain had to get involved in WW2 because it had treaty obligations to both France and Poland. It couldn't have withdrawn and allowed the Soviet Union and Germany to battle it out after 1941. That is because the Soviet Union, with its huge advantages in manpower, would undoubtedly have won. The Russians could well have been toasting their feet in Paris by 1946 without Allied restraints and that would have done Europe no good whatsoever. The Iron Curtain would have been at the Channel coast!
By the way, Hess was kept prisoner in England not because the British wanted to negotiate with him but because he was an enemy combatant and a chief Nazi and because it became quite clear very quickly after he landed and was questioned that he was insane. He certainly wished to stop the war but Hitler did not intend that Hess be his envoy. And after Dunkirk and the first bombings Churchill had determined that there would be no peace negotiations, that Britain would go down fighting come what may, and he took the Cabinet with him, after arguments.
The Queen was in love with Philip from her early teens. She never wanted or considered anyone else. I don't quite know what her parents could have done. He couldn't help being poor, he was of royal blood and he wasn't German. He'd fought for Britain during the war. I think you're attributing a lot more power and persuasional abilities to Mountbatten than he actually had. There is no doubt that he was a very vain man, a legend in his own lunchtime sort of person, but Philip wasn't in his pocket or taking orders from him during his courtship of Elizabeth. There's some evidence that Philip regarded him with a sort of amused tolerance. He had been much closer to the Marquess of Milford Haven, his other uncle, who died young.
Just because certain people, including the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, became paranoid about Mountbatten becoming the power behind the throne of the young Elizabeth didn't mean that it was going to be that way, and in fact it wasn't. That stup little so-called plot has been built up by the DM in various articles into ridiculous proportions. There is no way that Parliament would have allowed an heir to the Throne to be pushed aside for an abdicated King to come back. Elizabeth, after the age of 18, would have been Queen. Full stop. And whatever can be said about Philip, he has been an enormous support to the Queen for almost 70 years. (By the way the Duke of Kent, who wasn't an addict, was dead by August 1942, while on active service. He was killed in a plane crash, so he wouldn't have been on the throne after the war in any case.)
I read that the Duke of Kent was taking drugs (when he was single, as I recall) and had to be given treatments and ultimately had it under control. But he had both male and female lovers. Marina his wife was humiliated at times when a lover of her husband taunted her (when she went out with her husband). I think Mariana and George had a reconciliation of sorts at the start of the War.
The Duke of Kent was considered to be the one to replace Edward VIII as King in 1936 because he unlike Bertie had a male heir. This was quickly dismissed. I think his life style had something to do with it also.
Elizabeth would have married nobody else but Philip. The most her parents did was decree that she and Philip wait a year before getting engaged. According to Crawfie, Elizabeth and Philip were very upset at having to wait.
Double post auto-merged: October 13, 2017, 12:19:41 PM
Quote from: Curryong on October 13, 2017, 03:01:26 AM
Many children in the 19th century who exhibited abnormalities and whose parents were unable to look after them, were shut away in the baldly named public lunatic asylums for the rest of their lives. These included Downes Syndrome children, severe epileptics and the developmentally delayed.
At least John escaped that fate. He was with a much loved nurse in the peace and quiet of the Norfolk countryside, with toys and animals around. Apparently he was a bit lonely but a little girl who lived nearby would visit sometimes to play. John just wouldn't have been able to stand the stresses of being on show as a Prince and living at BP as he became older. And we don't know whether his brother George witnessed an epileptic fit or two. That could have influenced the Wood Farm decision as well.
I read when I was looking at this topic on the Internet. That Edward visited Lalla Bill when she was in her nineties and he saw a photo of Prince John prominently displayed in her home.
Double post auto-merged: October 13, 2017, 02:29:55 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362442/Revealed-The-secret-illegitimate-brother-Queens-cousin-got-pain-knowing-real-parents.html
More about George, Duke of Kent. Barbara Cartland also had made claims that Raine was the daughter of the Duke of Kent
Quote from: Curryong on October 13, 2017, 06:13:03 AM
I agree with you that prior to WW2 Bolshevism was feared and Russia was a pariah state. Also that several aristo families and British and European royals were very right wing and would rather have been dead than Red, lol. The rose coloured glasses as far as the Nazis were concerned fell for many after the Munich Agreement, however, and the trouble with Edward was not so much that he was an out and out Nazi, which IMO he wasn't but that he never retracted anything or changed his mind about Hiltler or the Second World War. Even as an old man he was still banging on about how Britain shouldn't have got involved and Hitler could have been reasonable if treated nicely (Rubbish!) David was also anti Semitic to the end.
Britain had to get involved in WW2 because it had treaty obligations to both France and Poland. It couldn't have withdrawn and allowed the Soviet Union and Germany to battle it out after 1941. That is because the Soviet Union, with its huge advantages in manpower, would undoubtedly have won. The Russians could well have been toasting their feet in Paris by 1946 without Allied restraints and that would have done Europe no good whatsoever. The Iron Curtain would have been at the Channel coast!
By the way, Hess was kept prisoner in England not because the British wanted to negotiate with him but because he was an enemy combatant and a chief Nazi and because it became quite clear very quickly after he landed and was questioned that he was insane. He certainly wished to stop the war but Hitler did not intend that Hess be his envoy. And after Dunkirk and the first bombings Churchill had determined that there would be no peace negotiations, that Britain would go down fighting come what may, and he took the Cabinet with him, after arguments.
The Queen was in love with Philip from her early teens. She never wanted or considered anyone else. I don't quite know what her parents could have done. He couldn't help being poor, he was of royal blood and he wasn't German. He'd fought for Britain during the war. I think you're attributing a lot more power and persuasional abilities to Mountbatten than he actually had. There is no doubt that he was a very vain man, a legend in his own lunchtime sort of person, but Philip wasn't in his pocket or taking orders from him during his courtship of Elizabeth. There's some evidence that Philip regarded him with a sort of amused tolerance. He had been much closer to the Marquess of Milford Haven, his other uncle, who died young.
Just because certain people, including the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, became paranoid about Mountbatten becoming the power behind the throne of the young Elizabeth didn't mean that it was going to be that way, and in fact it wasn't. That stup little so-called plot has been built up by the DM in various articles into ridiculous proportions. There is no way that Parliament would have allowed an heir to the Throne to be pushed aside for an abdicated King to come back. Elizabeth, after the age of 18, would have been Queen. Full stop. And whatever can be said about Philip, he has been an enormous support to the Queen for almost 70 years. (By the way the Duke of Kent, who wasn't an addict, was dead by August 1942, while on active service. He was killed in a plane crash, so he wouldn't have been on the throne after the war in any case.)
I agree about Edward being more blunderer than ideologue, almost like a nouveau-riche but with a pedigree. He was more concerned with a life of idle sensory gratification, than a burning desire to change the world. Also, the west tends to give itself a sore elbow patting itself on the back for being on the "right side of history" when they held a lot of the same views as the Nazis just wernt prepared to go that far.
Forced sterilizations continued in the west till the 1970s in some countries (i know here in Canada it continued till the 70s for some groups), jewish refugees were routinely denied entry to various allied countries, things like the Tuskegee experiments on african americans, etc. under the cover of "eugenics" by ppl like Margaret Sanger, Hitler took his "inspiration" for the final solution from the way the US waged war on Native american populations in the 1800's.
So there was a real case of ppl recoiling I think as much as them seeing how close we came to "the dark side" as much as by the horrors themselves.
Yes, the UK entered the war over the treaty with Poland, but the military alliance Czechoslovakia had with France proved useless against German aggression. Its a case of "what if" but the UK could have not leapt to Poland's aid, what was going to happen, a subjugated Poland attack the UK?? Im sure they had guilt over previous attempts to appease Hitler, but had they held back, it would have given them time to build up armaments to deal with the eventual victor.
Had Germany had access to the units used to hold western europe, it would have easily broken through to Moscow. Now Stalin had plans to move manufacturing to the middle of the country had that happened. But if the allies, citing the non aggression pact the USSR signed with Germany, they could have sent over no money or material, using it for their own countries, and without the material advantage the west gave the USSR, their numerical advantage wouldnt have been enough to defeat germany, at least not for several years. I have to disagree with the USSR being able to make it to the french coast.
If the allies wanted to go full on Machiavelli, they could have had a "false flag" attack staged to get Japan into the war against the USSR, as it was the deployment of the far east and eurasian troops to stalingrad that was possible due to that non aggression pact.
Between germany trying to hold their "breathing room" in western Russia to the Urals and keeping Japan at bay, both germany and the USSR would have destroyed each other, IMO.
As for Rudolph Hess, heres an interesting article on Hitler knowing about the "peace plan" to try and have the UK aid him against the USSR. Most of the "acknowledged" info on Hess, acted alone, a nut, etc. is propaganda im afraid.
Hitler 'gave go-ahead to Rudolf Hess peace mission' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392208/Hitler-gave-ahead-Rudolf-Hess-peace-mission.html)
How the Nazis offered a peace treaty in World War II (but it would have meant selling out the Russians) | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2433733/How-Nazis-offered-peace-treaty-World-War-II-meant-selling-Russians.html)
Nazis ‘offered to leave western Europe in exchange for free hand to attack USSR’ - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10336126/Nazis-offered-to-leave-western-Europe-in-exchange-for-free-hand-to-attack-USSR.html)
As nutters as Hitler was, he did hold the UK in high esteem, there was even the odd case of the British Free Corps of British and Dominion recruits (usually prisoners, so one wonders at how voluntary it was) that fought for Germany.
British Free Corps - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Free_Corps)
But churchill was of course right to doubt Hitlers promises, and he wanted the US in the war, prior to 41, (and the US wanted to as well, but like Mandell House, I believe said the other side had to be maneuvered into firing the first shot). But one could argue the US might have been better served trying to fool Japan that they were attacked by the USSR and drawing them into attacking them. (if you think thats nuts, its widely accepted that the germans used a false flag attack, claiming Polish troops attacked them, when it was germans dressed as poles, I find it doubtful that only the "bad guys" use false flags.
But its my belief that the powers that be, wanted a US-USSR post war world, so the european powers were clipped of their empires, figuratively if not literally, and the US became the new empire. When you look at how the USSR started the war, neutral if not hostile to the allies by way of the non aggression pacts allowing germany more troops to attack us, to getting massive amounts of investment, armaments and of course the technological advancements that came from having western arms.
There was the story of some B-29s that got stranded in Vladivostok on bombing runs over Japan, and the USSR seized them, and copied the designs to make the "bear" bomber, the engineers were so frightened of Stalin and his demand for an exact copy they even duplicated the "Boeing" logos on parts :lol:
The USSR could be argued as the real "winner" of WW2 going from a backwater country to a world superpower for almost 50 years.
As for HM and PP and the throne, it would have been tricky to pull off unless had steps been taken back when George V died, by the time George VI had died she was married and had an heir born already.
Elizabeth was nine years old when her grandfather George V died. I doubt very much that any thought of Prince Philip, his uncle or her future marriage was in her mind at that time or in that of anybody around her, father, courtiers, the Prince of Wales or anyone else.
The pseudo science of eugenics, involving forced sterilisation and so on, was believed in all over Europe and North America long before and long after the Nazis (though the Nazis leaped on it and used it for their own purposes) long before and long after the Second World War.
It was developed as a theory by Francis Galton, the cousin of Darwin in the mid 19th century. No-one is denying that all countries had their dark sides in public policy, very much including Stalinist Russia (the 1920s genocide in the Ukraine and other places is but one example of their policies,) but that fact cannot negate the fact that Nazism was an evil creed and it had to be dealt with. At first only Britain, (the British Empire) and France were willing to do so.
Britain's population felt enormous guilt after letting down Czechoslovakia at Munich. Neville Chamberlain followed a disastrous policy of appeasement long after Hitler's determination to keep on annexing countries became clear. He didn't order Britain to arm (and develop radar etc) until after the Munich negotiations. And before him, Stanley Baldwin was equally weak. Due mainly to economic reasons Britain's defences had been left in a dire state since the 1920s.
Nevertheless, Britain had to stand firm over Poland. Once Hiltler's aims became clear to Chamberlain's Cabinet, war became inevitable. The next country he tried to snaffle became the line in the sand. The invasion of Poland was it. Britain had to show that it meant business and was not going to stand by and allow any more land grabs. That could have gone on for years. The argument more time, more time, didn't cut it and doesn't now. It would have showed enormous weakness to Hitler and to the rest of the world.
I took modern European history as a minor at Uni (including the path to WW2) but I'm rusty on it now. I'll have to get my dusty old books out!
I'll leave Hess for later (though he was a self proclaimed negotiator for peace with Britain. There have always been other theories of what he was about and how much Adolf knew but Hess did leave Hitler a note before he flew to Britain, telling him what his intentions were and sending his leader into a rage.)
Hitler did have some admiration for Britain. He had after all grown up at a time when the British Empire was at its height, had fought in WW1 and he admired raw power. However that only went so far. When it became clear that Britain wasn't going to play ball, beg for a peace treaty, and allow him a completely free hand to eventually subdue the Soviets, his mood towards Britain's leaders changed. Operation Sea Lion, the Nazi plan developed in 1940 to subjugate Britain far more harshly than was to be done elsewhere after conquest, showed that.
Double post auto-merged: October 13, 2017, 09:17:39 PM
The article below more or less follows what I was taught years ago about Hess's mission. He was losing influence with Hitler by 1940.
Will We Ever Know Why Nazi Leader Rudolf Hess Flew to Scotland in the Middle of World War II? | History | Smithsonian (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/will-we-ever-know-why-nazi-leader-rudolf-hess-flew-scotland-middle-world-war-ii-180959040/)
Quote from: sandy on October 13, 2017, 12:48:12 AM
If Edward had a "conventional" marriage there still could have been big problems. There was talk he would marry Kaiser Wilhelm's daughter, then later one of his granddaughters. That would have created an explosive situation as far as ties to Germany.
Edward cried when he found out he was King. I think he liked the life as Prince of Wales but horrified at the idea of being King.
Wallis also tried to talk him out of abdicating.
@sandy, Which of Wilhelm's granddaughters was mentioned who might marry Edward?
Victoria Louise, the Kaiser's daughter was the first one in mind to be Edward's wife.
Her daughter, Frederica of Hanover was considered as a bride for Edward later on.
Really? Since the German RF lost its throne when Edward was a very oung man, I ca't imagine why they would have thogut it was a good idea to marry him to a German princess. And I thought that soon after the war, George V made an announcmetnt at least in the family, that it woudld be OK and desireable for his children to marry into the British aristocracy rather than go hunting for partners abroad, just because they were royal
Quote from: Curryong on October 13, 2017, 09:02:52 PM
Elizabeth was nine years old when her grandfather George V died. I doubt very much that any thought of Prince Philip, his uncle or her future marriage was in her mind at that time or in that of anybody around her, father, courtiers, the Prince of Wales or anyone else.
The pseudo science of eugenics, involving forced sterilisation and so on, was believed in all over Europe and North America long before and long after the Nazis (though the Nazis leaped on it and used it for their own purposes) long before and long after the Second World War.
It was developed as a theory by Francis Galton, the cousin of Darwin in the mid 19th century. No-one is denying that all countries had their dark sides in public policy, very much including Stalinist Russia (the 1920s genocide in the Ukraine and other places is but one example of their policies,) but that fact cannot negate the fact that Nazism was an evil creed and it had to be dealt with. At first only Britain, (the British Empire) and France were willing to do so.
Britain's population felt enormous guilt after letting down Czechoslovakia at Munich. Neville Chamberlain followed a disastrous policy of appeasement long after Hitler's determination to keep on annexing countries became clear. He didn't order Britain to arm (and develop radar etc) until after the Munich negotiations. And before him, Stanley Baldwin was equally weak. Due mainly to economic reasons Britain's defences had been left in a dire state since the 1920s.
Nevertheless, Britain had to stand firm over Poland. Once Hiltler's aims became clear to Chamberlain's Cabinet, war became inevitable. The next country he tried to snaffle became the line in the sand. The invasion of Poland was it. Britain had to show that it meant business and was not going to stand by and allow any more land grabs. That could have gone on for years. The argument more time, more time, didn't cut it and doesn't now. It would have showed enormous weakness to Hitler and to the rest of the world.
I took modern European history as a minor at Uni (including the path to WW2) but I'm rusty on it now. I'll have to get my dusty old books out!
I'll leave Hess for later (though he was a self proclaimed negotiator for peace with Britain. There have always been other theories of what he was about and how much Adolf knew but Hess did leave Hitler a note before he flew to Britain, telling him what his intentions were and sending his leader into a rage.)
Hitler did have some admiration for Britain. He had after all grown up at a time when the British Empire was at its height, had fought in WW1 and he admired raw power. However that only went so far. When it became clear that Britain wasn't going to play ball, beg for a peace treaty, and allow him a completely free hand to eventually subdue the Soviets, his mood towards Britain's leaders changed. Operation Sea Lion, the Nazi plan developed in 1940 to subjugate Britain far more harshly than was to be done elsewhere after conquest, showed that.
Double post auto-merged: October 13, 2017, 09:17:39 PM
The article below more or less follows what I was taught years ago about Hess's mission. He was losing influence with Hitler by 1940.
Will We Ever Know Why Nazi Leader Rudolf Hess Flew to Scotland in the Middle of World War II? | History | Smithsonian (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/will-we-ever-know-why-nazi-leader-rudolf-hess-flew-scotland-middle-world-war-ii-180959040/)
Yes, eugeneics was popular all over the western world, Galton and Darwins families tried to breed together as much as possible, they thought theyd create superior children but the experiment failed with numerous birth defects.
Im not disputing the evils of the third reich, im just saying the manner and timing of its dispatch was poorly thought out if the goal was the triumph of western democratic Judaeo-christian way of life. The British were known for taking the idea of "divide and rule" with their possessions, I find it very odd that it wasnt used here (unless as I suspect, the plan all along was to have the USSR as the next enemy, lets not forget how fast Germany went from a broken hyper inflated currency nation to one of the heavily armed nations on earth...they had help, Orwells words about war being used to rob the people of their material wealth ring in my head).
Britain was not alone in not being armed well in the interwar years, most western nations had that problem, including the United States, that makes an extra year or two even more vital, not only for the wests rearmament, but if the USSR and Germany were locked in a fight for survival, it would have diverted resources from their "wonderweapons" and the final solution.
That article did give the usual version of Hess, but it also mentioned several missing and classified documents, as well as Hess's unanalysed food samples, etc. Also the nature and duration of his confinement suggests it was designed to keep him from talking.
As far as Hitler "not knowing" about the mission, I hate to use this, but how many times have we seen in the flicks "this is a secret mission if youre caught we will disavow it, etc." With the failure of the Battle of Britain for Germany, operation Sea Lion would have been very difficult to pull off, so any way to get the UK out of the war for awhile, was a worthwhile gamble for Germany. (especially with Germany declaring war on the US after pearl harbor, its fate was sealed, the US if necessary would have done what they did to Iceland and basically peacefully occupied the UK to get at Germany, by that time industry and banking wanted war and now it was given to them on a silver platter). But had they secured that arrangement with the UK and not declared war on the US, its likely the US would have kept its war theater to the pacific.
Germany's main foe in racial terms in europe(aside from the jewish people) were the Slavs and Eurasians which he viewed as subhuman, He failed to do the necessary diplomatic work to get the "buy-in" from the west, for anything beyond his supposed claims of just wanting to unite ethnic Germans, that was his mistake, and the west's mistake was rushing in, when ill prepared to do so, for an objective of limited political payoff, that ended up still being in "enemy" control with the USSR controlling Poland, and the whole eastern bloc after the war.
Two to three years could have allowed the allies to roll almost unopposed through all of europe and politically we'd be 50 years ahead of where we are now, bypassing the cold war entirely, Germany would have been subdued from future war ambition and Russia would likely be where they are now, but in terms of borders, but weaker militarily with no western material aid or german scientific secrets. But that would have been bad for business....
Quote from: amabel on October 14, 2017, 12:43:34 PM
Really? Since the German RF lost its throne when Edward was a very oung man, I ca't imagine why they would have thogut it was a good idea to marry him to a German princess. And I thought that soon after the war, George V made an announcmetnt at least in the family, that it woudld be OK and desireable for his children to marry into the British aristocracy rather than go hunting for partners abroad, just because they were royal
This is what I read in various biographies. One of the Grand Duchesses of Russia was even considered for a possible bride for Edward.
@sandy, Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna was the Grand Duchess.
Quote from: sandy on October 14, 2017, 06:26:42 PM
This is what I read in various biographies. One of the Grand Duchesses of Russia was even considered for a possible bride for Edward.
really? That wuodl have been an even bigger disaster. If it was Olga, Nicholas II's daughter. It would have really tied the Windsors to the disastrous fate of Nicholas and his family
Not to mention the fact that Olga might well have been a carrier for haemophilia. The Windsors were lucky that their dynasty escaped any complications of that kind.
I have to say it doesn't sound very likely, except in a daydreaming 'I wonder who this boy will marry one day?' sort of way. The religious question would have proved an enormous barrier. The Romanovs were devoted to their Russian orthodox religion. Alix especially was almost obsessive about it. Edward would have course been Supreme Governor of the Church of England when King.
One of the main reasons Alix reluctantly agreed to a meeting between Olga and young Carol of Romania just before WWI, was the shared religion of their Royal Houses. The young people were indifferent to each other, though.
Alix herself had to convert. I do think the royals wanted to think realistically about future dynastic matches. The only one of George V's sons to marry a royal princess from another country was George, Duke of Kent who married Princess Marina.
Olga may or may not have been a carrier. Unfortunately the "test" back then was if one of her sons developed hemophilia. Today there would have been DNA testing of course.
Olga could have been saved if she married a foreign royal and left Russia.
Quote from: Curryong on October 15, 2017, 10:38:25 AM
Not to mention the fact that Olga might well have been a carrier for haemophilia. The Windsors were lucky that their dynasty escaped any complications of that kind.
I have to say it doesn't sound very likely, except in a daydreaming 'I wonder who this boy will marry one day?' sort of way. The religious question would have proved an enormous barrier. The Romanovs were devoted to their Russian orthodox religion.
so what is the evidence for this, that there wer plans or suggestions that Edw should marry either a german Princess or one of the Russians? when the War Started Edw was just 20, so surely nooone was really planning his marriage prior to the War?
ANd even fi they were, there was enough bad blood between The German Empire and Birtain all through the Edwardian era, for the Prussian dynasty to be considered a bad choice.
and while the Russians were allies, they were considered so backward in many ways, and there was hostility, among British liberals to the Tsar.. so would the RF have really wanted Edward hooked up with one of the daughters? (I don't think the religious question would have been that important, I'm sure Olga would have just converted, even if Alicky wasn't keen. - Unless Olga was very devout?).
But I don't believe that the BRF under the "hostile to foregners" George V was really tat keen for any of the Princes to make foreign marriages unless to some fairly neutral country.
It is in the biographies I read of him.
Victoria and her son Edward had married off the younger generations to others in royal houses. There was naturally talk of Edward being married off too. It's in the biographies of him.
@sandy, That is correct. There was discussion about Prince Edward (David) marrying Olga Nikolaevna.
Quote from: sandy on October 15, 2017, 09:30:04 PM
It is in the biographies I read of him.
Victoria and her son Edward had married off the younger generations to others in royal houses. There was naturally talk of Edward being married off too. It's in the biographies of him.
which biographies? Its sometime since I read any of George V or Edward VIII
Victoria was dead by early 1901 (when David was five) Edward VII died in 1910 when his grandson Edward was nearly 14, so they wouldn't be matchmaking on David's behalf in his young manhood. King George V and Queen Mary were very different kettles of fish to Victoria. I wouldn't put matchmaking activities for their children high on either of their agendas and none of their children married at a very early age.
Look, I don't dispute that perhaps newspapers, magazines and different female relatives around 'the extensive Royal mob' may have raised the prospect of Edward and Olga making a match of it in the future. It's the sort of thing that newspapers mused on with a young Charles and Princess Marie-Astrid in the 1970s. (They never met.)
However, consider the facts. Edward was born in the summer of 1894. He therefore was just 20 years old when World War One broke out. Was he ready to marry at twenty with a European war on the immediate horizon, especially with non-pushy parents? Don't think so. And in wartime there was no chance of he and Olga meeting.
They had seen each other in person for the one and only time as young children when the Tsar and Tsarina and their young family paid a brief visit to England on the Imperial yacht.
The rumours about Edward and Victoria of Prussia had a few more legs (a very few) as at least the Hoenzollens and the BRF met reasonably frequently. However, Edward was only in his late teens when Victoria fell deeply in love with the Duke of Brunswick's heir and married him shortly before WW1 broke out.
The only young Prince that it is known that Alix reluctantly consented to Olga meeting was the heir to the Romanian throne, Prince Carol. Neither of the young people liked each other, and no doubt Alix took her daughter home with a sense of relief. She liked her daughters being at home with her and Nicholas.
Olga was reputed (and only reputed) to have had a few mild flirtations with a couple of Russian princelings and her mother is known to have refused an offer by a Prince Boris on her daughter's behalf as he was very much older and apparently debauched.
If there is anything in any serious biography of King George V, Queen Mary or Edward VIII referring to Edward's parents communicating with the Tsar about their son (just 20 in 1914, remember) wishing to make an offer for Olga, or any of the sets of parents arranging a meeting for the young people or even discussing a match between them by letter, then I would like to read it, as in no bio that I have read and there have been several, has anything of that sort been mentioned.
Olga was, like her father, Russian to her bootstraps and her heart and soul. She is said to have commented several times that she never wished to live outside Russia, or marry a non-Russian. If the war had never occurred and the dynasty had survived then I have no doubt whatsoever that Olga would have ended up as the wife of a high-born Russian aristocrat, perhaps from one of the extended branches of the Romanov clan.
well exactly. that's what I said.
Ed VIII was so young at the outbreak of the War, that it was unlikely that his parents were making marriage plans. Besides George and Mary DIDNT seem to bother making marriage plans the way that Victoria did.
I don't even know of Edward VII making marriage plans for any of the children. He may have been willing to help arrange a marriage for Albert Victor, but that was special circumstances. And Alexandra didn't want the girls to marry so he wasn't likely to make marriage plans for them either.
George V idd not like foreigners and I don't think he would have pushed for his children ot marry anyone in particular... and when WWI had happened, it created a situation where many royal families had lost their thrones or had been enemies of England during the conflict. So the usual idea that "roylas should marry other royals" was ended. After the war, I believe that he pronounced that his children didn't have to marry royals, that upper class British would do very well and be more popular with the public.
It is in the biographies. Matches were thought of for the royal children. NOt the same as Victoria. Obviously some thought went into George's making a match with Princess Marina.
What about Edward's daughter Maud becoming Queen Consort in Norway. Of course Edward made plans for her. Only one of Alexandra's daughters did not marry.
Maud of Wales - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maud_of_Wales)
Double post auto-merged: October 16, 2017, 11:27:07 AM
Quote from: amabel on October 16, 2017, 07:48:11 AM
which biographies? Its sometime since I read any of George V or Edward VIII
The Windsor Story and other biographies
Books about George V and Mary
Double post auto-merged: October 16, 2017, 11:30:19 AM
Quote from: Curryong on October 16, 2017, 08:38:25 AM
Victoria was dead by early 1901 (when David was five) Edward VII died in 1910 when his grandson Edward was nearly 14, so they wouldn't be matchmaking on David's behalf in his young manhood. King George V and Queen Mary were very different kettles of fish to Victoria. I wouldn't put matchmaking activities for their children high on either of their agendas and none of their children married at a very early age.
Look, I don't dispute that perhaps newspapers, magazines and different female relatives around 'the extensive Royal mob' may have raised the prospect of Edward and Olga making a match of it in the future. It's the sort of thing that newspapers mused on with a young Charles and Princess Marie-Astrid in the 1970s. (They never met.)
However, consider the facts. Edward was born in the summer of 1894. He therefore was just 20 years old when World War One broke out. Was he ready to marry at twenty with a European war on the immediate horizon, especially with non-pushy parents? Don't think so. And in wartime there was no chance of he and Olga meeting.
They had seen each other in person for the one and only time as young children when the Tsar and Tsarina and their young family paid a brief visit to England on the Imperial yacht.
The rumours about Edward and Victoria of Prussia had a few more legs (a very few) as at least the Hoenzollens and the BRF met reasonably frequently. However, Edward was only in his late teens when Victoria fell deeply in love with the Duke of Brunswick's heir and married him shortly before WW1 broke out.
The only young Prince that it is known that Alix reluctantly consented to Olga meeting was the heir to the Romanian throne, Prince Carol. Neither of the young people liked each other, and no doubt Alix took her daughter home with a sense of relief. She liked her daughters being at home with her and Nicholas.
Olga was reputed (and only reputed) to have had a few mild flirtations with a couple of Russian princelings and her mother is known to have refused an offer by a Prince Boris on her daughter's behalf as he was very much older and apparently debauched.
If there is anything in any serious biography of King George V, Queen Mary or Edward VIII referring to Edward's parents communicating with the Tsar about their son (just 20 in 1914, remember) wishing to make an offer for Olga, or any of the sets of parents arranging a meeting for the young people or even discussing a match between them by letter, then I would like to read it, as in no bio that I have read and there have been several, has anything of that sort been mentioned.
Olga was, like her father, Russian to her bootstraps and her heart and soul. She is said to have commented several times that she never wished to live outside Russia, or marry a non-Russian. If the war had never occurred and the dynasty had survived then I have no doubt whatsoever that Olga would have ended up as the wife of a high-born Russian aristocrat, perhaps from one of the extended branches of the Romanov clan.
Lord Mountbatten did say that one of the Grand Duchesses was considered as a bride for Edward. And Lord Mountbatten talked of a possible match between him and Grand Duchess Marie. He kept her photograph until the day he died. He even met Grand Duchess Marie and he fell in love with her. so it was out there, and HE was there to know what went on. And I read this in the biographies.
Olga was a homebody and did not want to leave Russia. If she had she would have survived.
Princess Maud married her first cousin Prince Charles of Denmark. She'd known him for years from visits to Denmark and Carl visiting his aunt and cousins in Britain. He was a little younger than her. Alexandra never really encouraged her children (especially her daughters) to marry. She liked them to remain at home. (Louise, her eldest daughter, decided on her own when she was quite young, to marry Lord Fife who was a good bit older than her. Alexandra wanted a handmaiden/companion so the middle sister Victoria remained single.)
It was many years after her marriage that Charles (or Carl) was offered the throne of Norway and became King Haakon. Carl and Maud were married during Queen Victoria's lifetime, in 1896. Her brother George of York didn't do any matchmaking on her behalf, and there seems to have been a feeling in the family from Vicky and Queen Victoria's letters to each other on their engagement of 'Oh thank God, Maud isn't getting any younger and Carl is a nice boy.'
I can actually remember that documentary, and Mountbatten saying that he had a soft spot for Marie and always hoped it would come to something etc etc. However, he was 18 when Marie, unknown to him, was killed in Russia. Not an age when you make up your mind to marry!
Louis Mountbatten (Battenburg) did meet up with his Russian cousins a bit more than the BRF did as his mother, Victoria and Alix were sisters. However he wouldn't have met Marie after war broke out when he was fourteen and went off to naval college. So, a nice heart-warming story but nothing much else to go on.
Marina and George of Kent met at a party in London held by Lady Cunard, a wealthy society hostess of the time. Marina was staying at Claridges with her bills there paid by her sister Olga who was married to Prince Paul of Yugoslavia. They didn't meet for a year after that, though they corresponded, and then Prince Paul issued an invitation to George to visit Yugoslavia. He was obviously attracted to Marina and accepted. He visited Prince Paul and Olga in Belgrade, met Marina again and explored the countryside. He proposed to Marina out there.
Although King George V and Queen Mary obviously liked Marina when they met her and approved their son's choice, there's very little evidence that George and Mary had anything to do with George choosing Marina as his bride. If anything it was Prince Paul and Princess Olga who facilitated things.
Some royals get betrothed as teens. Maybe he really wanted to marry her.
There is a photo of British royals meeting the Russian Royal Family pre war.
I think George and Mary were happy with Marina and she was even spoken of as a possible wife for Edward.
Double post auto-merged: October 16, 2017, 02:23:17 PM
Uneasy lies the Head that Wears a Crown (http://teatimeatwinterpalace.tumblr.com/post/22265676398/love-story-chapter-i)
I wrote in my first post about this matchmaking thing that Nicholas and Alix had visited Britain briefly on the Imperial yacht when David and Olga were both children.
Mountbatten wouldn't have been considered of sufficient rank to have married the Grand Duchess Marie, daughter of the Tsar if there had been no war and if the dynasty had survived, even if he was fond of her at fourteen.
David made no attempt before the war when he was in his late teens to see his presumed great love Olga, nor did George and May ever invite Olga and her mother to England. There is no evidence in letters or anything else that they did matchmaking for any of their children,though Mary was interested in Bertie's courtship of Elizabeth. In fact biographers have remarked on their detachment about that.
Edward briefly showed an interest in the very young Marina in the 1920s and why not! She was very attractive and soigne even at that age. Marina's mother, who's chief aim was to if possible marry off her daughters to Kings or their heirs, was beside herself. But soon David lost interest and was back with Freda Dudley Ward.
You think that Louis Battenburg (Mountbatten would seriously consider himself engaged to Marie at the age of fourteen, which was how old he was when war broke out, or that his parents would seriously regard it as a possible match!!! I certainly don't think they or Alix or Nicholas would!
Or that David, in spite of neither himself or his parents making any attempt to get to know the Grand Duchess Olga, would, at the age of twenty at the beginning of the war, consider himself engaged to her? Neither his behaviour in starting an affair with Freda whom he met in a cellar/air raid shelter in 1917, nor Geoege V's in refusing sanctuary to Nicholas's family point in that direction at all.
And surely, if he and May had pushed for an engagement between David and Olga before the
war, they would have moved heaven and earth to get her and her family out of Bolshevik hands to safety.
Very early engagements in Princes and Princesses' childhoods were very common before the eighteenth century. By the 19th, with the exception of Prince Albert the Prince Consort, that age for Princes had moved to at least the early twenties though Princesses were married off earlier. Even Queen Victoria, who was very anxious indeed to marry Bertie off, had the decency to wait until he was 22! And she WAS a convinced matchmaker.
By the 20th century things had changed. Princes certainly weren't getting engaged in their teens. George and May didn't matchmake and these are the ages of their children at marriage.
Edward, almost 43; Albert (George) 27; Mary almost 25; Henry, 35; George, almost 32.
No signs whatsoever of being pushed into any marriages by any of them, all love matches, in spite of rumours about Mary, and mature ages for all of them, especially the sons.
He had a crush on her. She was a younger daughter, and he had royal blood and they were both descendants of Victoria's daughter Alice. I don't think it would have been unheard of for her to marry him.
The War changed things. Had there been no WW I, David might have married a Princess from another Kingdom.
Edward waited an unusually long time to marry. 43 was considered an "advanced age" back then. Henry and George were playboys before they settled down. George and Henry were rumored to have love children during their bachelorhoods. Beryl Markham allegedly had a child by Henry. Bertie had a married mistress when he was in his early twenties. He dropped her and then courted Elizabeth
The Happy Valley set
The night Prince Harry came to blows over the lover he shared with his brother: Not that one, his namesake | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2267353/The-night-Prince-Harry-came-blows-lover-shared-brother-Not-namesake.html)
Nobody's denying that George of Kent especially, had a very colourful life, that Henry Gloucester, the bovine blunderer, may have slipped up once or twice or that David had several mistresses.
However, that doesn't negate the fact that there is no evidence that George and Mary pushed for a marriage between David and Olga of Russia, or indeed marriages for any of their children, nor any proof that Edward ever seriously considered Olga as a bride, considering his young age.
Rumours aren't facts, and Mountbatten certainly spread a few in his lifetime, including that he was responsible for Philip's engagement to Elizabeth for example, something that is pretty well denied by published family letters etc.
David could indeed have very easily become engaged to Marina. Certainly Princess Nicholas, Marina's mother hoped so, as perhaps did Marina herself. However David's interest in Marina didn't last and he went back to Freda.
This would have been before the War. As I said, it was discussed in biographies where pre WW I possible matches were suggested for him. I am not saying they did any "pushing" but as was traditional, marriages to princesses in other Kingdoms were considered suitable as were those to aristos. I do think Mountbatten was sincere about Marie. I don't think he embellished. Why would he keep her picture then?
Yes, I think the teenage Mountbatten did have a soft spot for poor Marie and that remained all his life. I think he said in the documentary that the vile murders of Nicholas and Alix and their children 'cast a shadow over our family for a very long time.' Mountbatten's mother Victoria, poor woman, grew old knowing that her beautiful sister Ella had been thrown down a mineshaft while still alive, and her sister, brother in law and their children were all butchered in a cellar. Not to mention another brother in law Sergei, blown up by a bomb. Just incredibly heartbreakingly awful, whatever Nicky and Alix's faults.
Quote from: sandy on October 16, 2017, 03:25:20 PM
This would have been before the War. As I said, it was discussed in biographies where pre WW I possible matches were suggested for him. I am not saying they did any "pushing" but as was traditional, marriages to princesses in other Kingdoms were considered suitable as were those to aristos. I do think Mountbatten was sincere about Marie. I don't think he embellished. Why would he keep her picture then?
One, I don't see what Mountbatten has to do with anything. he was not the son of the King.
And do you realy think that George V was making a match for his son when Edward was under 20? he was only 20 when War broke out and made it impossible for The Royals to make any foregin marriages..
Royals made matches for their children as teens. A great deal of planning for example was involved in matching up Prince Eddy, son of Alexandra and Edward,with woman from another royal house. Victoria wanted Alix (future Alexandra of Russia) to marry Eddy but Alix refused. As a Prince of Wales and future King, future brides for Edward would have been discussed. Lord Mountbatten did mention that a Grand Duchess was considered as a future bride for Edward. It does not mean the teenagers have to marry immediately.
The prospective matches you mention were in Victoria's day. I've already acknowledged that Victoria was a great matchmaker. George and Mary were not.
Sorry, but I'd like to see correspondence of the time in quoted, links to serious biographies of George, Mary or David showing George and Mary were prepared to arrange matches for David or any of their other children in their teens before I would place huge reliance on a few words of Mountbatten as an old man remembering back before WW1 in a doco.
When I have a few minutes, I can check out the books. David did not appear to be receptive to other women after he got involved with Freda Dudley Ward. He did not marry the "suitable" girl because of that
The last "suitable" girl Edward courted was Rosemary Leveson Gower (who became the grandmother of Actress Rachel Ward)
The Trentham Lady who almost became Queen | englishlocalhistory (https://englishlocalhistory.wordpress.com/staffordshire-people/the-trentham-lady-who-almost-became-queen/)
What did King George V have against Lady Rosemary?
Thank you, sandy. Yes, poor Rosemary had rather a sad life, little son killed on the road, she dying in a terrible air crash etc. Mary wasn't impressed with Rosemary's mother who made a couple of disastrous brief marriages after Rosemary's father died.
Double post auto-merged: October 17, 2017, 12:04:39 AM[hr
Deleted.
King George and Queen Mary thought there was "bad blood" in Rosemary's family.
Royal biographer reveals Edward VIII hated 'Princing' as much as he loved other men's wives | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2984287/How-dippy-duke-death-wish-snared-Mrs-Simpson-sexual-hypnotist-Royal-biographer-reveals-Edward-hated-Princing-loved-perk-men-s-wives.html)
^It was informative to learn that Lord Louis Mountbatten drew up a list of 17 eligible ladies as Edward's possible wife. This is the first I learned that Princess Margarita, Theodora, and Ingrid had been considered.
:random44: :random44: :random44: :random44: :random44: :random44:
Lord Louis Mountbatten could have written up (for fun) a list of a thousand young women for his relative Edward, princesses or not. It wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to what the King, Queen and the Prince of Wales did or did not do. The King and Queen would no more have taken notice of who Lord Louis suggested as a wife for their son than that of the Lord Mayor of London.
In the 1920s Louis was married to a wealthy young woman Edwina Ashleigh, whose grandfather was worth a fortune. However Louis, although a friend of Edward's, (as his father had been a friend of King George when they were young) had no influence at Court or with the BRF at all.
He was a young naval officer, the younger son of the former Prince Louis Battenburg and Princess Victoria of Hesse and just one of a myriad of relatives in the extended family.
Louis was a friend of Edward's and accompanied him on tour to India. (He himself got engaged to Edwina while they were in India.) However, he (and his list) quite obviously had no influence over Edward or that young man would have given up Freda Dudley Ward and given serious thought to marriage. After Rosemary Leveson Gower, though, Edward did not give any thought to marrying anyone until Wallis Simpson.
Of course he would put down Prince Philip's sisters into the mix. They were his nieces and there was nothing he would have liked better than to see a member of his family as Princess of Wales.
Why woud he be makng up lists anway? he had no influence over whoever Edward married. I don't believe Edward realy wanted to marry, or he would have done so well before Wallis came along. And certainly there is no evidence that I know of, that George or mary made any efforts to get him married.
Indeed, amabel. When Bertie wanted desperately to marry Elizabeth Bowes Lyon, Queen Mary accompanied him to Glamis, where Elizabeth was hostessing as her mother was ill. After the visit Queen Mary came away convinced that Elizabeth was 'the one girl who could make Bertie happy', as she told her lady in waiting and great confidante and friend, Mabell Airlie.
'However' she added, 'I shall say nothing to either of them. Mothers should never meddle in their children's love affairs'. And what went for Bertie obviously went for his elder brother too.
Quote from: amabel on October 18, 2017, 04:54:13 AM
Why woud he be makng up lists anway? he had no influence over whoever Edward married. I don't believe Edward realy wanted to marry, or he would have done so well before Wallis came along. And certainly there is no evidence that I know of, that George or mary made any efforts to get him married.
I read that once he met Freda Dudley Ward who was married already he did not want to marry a "suitable" girl because he would be unfaithful to her and prefer the mistress. He was involved with Dudley Ward for quite a number of years. Which is one reason he did not settle down with the suitable wife and start a family.
Double post auto-merged: October 18, 2017, 12:50:17 PM
Quote from: amabel on October 18, 2017, 04:54:13 AM
Why woud he be makng up lists anway? he had no influence over whoever Edward married. I don't believe Edward realy wanted to marry, or he would have done so well before Wallis came along. And certainly there is no evidence that I know of, that George or mary made any efforts to get him married.
Why does anybody do anything? Maybe he did it because he could. Of course he had no influence but there is such a thing as relatives doing "matchmaking".
Quote from: Curryong on October 18, 2017, 05:13:21 AM
Indeed, amabel. When Bertie wanted desperately to marry Elizabeth Bowes Lyon, Queen Mary accompanied him to Glamis, where Elizabeth was hostessing as her mother was ill. After the visit Queen Mary came away convinced that Elizabeth was 'the one girl who could make Bertie happy', as she told her lady in waiting and great confidante and friend, Mabell Airlie.
She probably felt that putting pressure on either of them would only backfire.
@Duch_Luver_4ever and
@Curryong-Thank you for your posts regarding Europe, the rise of fascism and the fear of communism after WWI and prior to WWII. You both presented excellent information about the state of the world during those years. I enjoyed reading it.
Quote from: Curryong on October 16, 2017, 12:21:16 PM
Princess Maud married her first cousin Prince Charles of Denmark. She'd known him for years from visits to Denmark and Carl visiting his aunt and cousins in Britain. He was a little younger than her. Alexandra never really encouraged her children (especially her daughters) to marry. She liked them to remain at home. (Louise, her eldest daughter, decided on her own when she was quite young, to marry Lord Fife who was a good bit older than her. Alexandra wanted a handmaiden/companion so the middle sister Victoria remained single.)
It was many years after her marriage that Charles (or Carl) was offered the throne of Norway and became King Haakon.
I
There is a letter exchange between Edw VII and Q Vic about the marriages of the Wales girls, where Q Vic was saying that she felt it was not a good idea to leave the girls' fate "vague" for much longer. and Edward said, probably defenesivly, that Alexandra enjoyed the girls company so much that she didn't really want them to leave her...
Louise married the Earl of Fife who gota Dukedom, but Alix still had 2 daughters left and Louise was still in the UK. It took some time before Maud managed to get herself married to Pr Charles of Norway, and I think it was pretty much a case of grabbing at a marriage, with a nice man whom she liked, because she knew if she was too choosy, she might not get many chances. Edward didn't as far as I know try to get his daughters married, though he was willing for it to happen, but Alix was very reluctant and insisted on having at least one daughter to stay iwht her - and if she could have, she would probably have kept all 3 at home...