In Michael Bloch's book "The Secret File of the Duke of Windsor", there are several reproductions of letters exchanged between the Duke and the British government between 1936 and 1943 in which he asks for permission to make visits to Germany and the United States. This would later lead to a total breakdown of the friendship between the Duke and Churchill when the Duke complained that in light of the work they were undertaken, the British press were still not warming to Wallis. Churchill then replied that he no longer considered the Duke to be the friend he once had.
Churchill didn't like the rather nasty comments David continued to make about the Royal Family, neither did he approve of certain pro-German comments David was making to the American press. In her biography of the Duchess and in interviews afterwards, Lady Mosley insisted that Churchill had first recommended the Duke as interlocutor between the Duke and Hitler and he had been supportive of the 1937 visit. Whether they sought permission for the meeting with Hitler or not, even before their short-lived tenure as Governor Generals of the Bahamas, the Duke was keeping in regular contact with the Foreign Office. He may not have needed their permission, but certainly he was informing them of his intentions and the visit in 1937 was not a surprise to them. Had they wanted it stopped, it would have been entirely possible.
He seems thoughtful here, and it's at the end of his life to boot. What is your opinion, Gaudete? Would he have made a good king?
This is such a difficult one to answer. From the evidence we have as to how his short reign played out, my initial response would be no. But that isn't to say that he wouldn't have grown into his role and been a better King later down the line. I have to say, I doubt it.
On the one hand, David wanted to modernise the monarchy and make it more approachable and that was a positive. It's that which has allowed the monarchy to survive into the 21st century but the task which ultimately was handled by his niece proves how such a modernisation should be handled. Slowly, with dignity, allowing the public to catch up. The Queen has made the transition from 1952 to 2017 by taking things one step at a time though it would be false to suggest that the transition has been entirely organic. Certain events have kicked the monarchy forward because if it hadn't moved a little, it would have collapsed. It's taken great effort and very hard work and I don't think David had that in him. As with most things, he had wonderful intentions but never the willpower to see them through.
One example would be his famous "Something must be done" quote. This thrilled the public and put him in touch with the ordinary working man who had fond affections for David because of his role in WW1. But that isn't actually what the King said. He actually said, "Something
should be done to get them working again" and that was extremely dangerous. The King was trying to direct government policy and whilst the Baldwin government totally agreed that the problem with the collieries in the mid 1930s needed attention, it hadn't formed part of their message which won them the election in 1935. They were only really a year into their agenda and how could they ever take the King's advice and devote their efforts to helping the unemployed when he then threw them into a constitutional crisis with his marriage?
David was impatient and a little short sighted. I don't think he understood the limitations of his role and I think he would have mistaken popularity for approval. He also may have found that whilst the public supported him on one issue, they would have disagreed with them on others. King vs Government is one thing. King vs People? That's quite another. David had potential but he cared more about parties than he did studies. He cared more about appearances than he did substance. Monarchy requires one to be selfless and to put duty first. David wasn't made that way. Let's say that he waited until 1950 to put forward the idea of marriage to Wallis after leading the country through the war and with some real achievements under his belt. I doubt he'd have been forced to abdicate and a morganatic marriage would have been entirely possible. At the very least it might have been considered properly. But again, he was impatient. He often wanted praise and rewards for things he hadn't actually achieved and so why would anybody be sympathetic to his needs?
Of course, if you were to ask me if Wallis would have made a good consort?
She had the ability, she had the intelligence. I could never see her as Queen Wallis but as Duchess of Lancaster or as Princess Consort with a limited public role? She'd have done it extremely well indeed.