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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Denville said:
I think that upper class people would have been judgy over an American qqeen, even if she was single, a quiet type and from a well bred well to do family... because the upper crust esp the ladies would think "How come an American has got him? Why not one of us?
and they mgiht think that an Americna would never quite fit in with the RF... but
Click to expand...
Some aristocrats were not fans of other aristocrats even marrying Americans, Lady Violet Greville, mother of Charles Greville, 3rd Baron Greville who went onto to marry a wealthy American heiress, Olive Grace Kerr 9months after his mother wrote about decadence since American brides married aristocrats. Lady Violet Greville said “ The rich American has no traditions, no prejudices in favor of old customs, duties or responsibilities; she is essentially irresponsible, and measures everything by only one standard- money”. At the time her thoughts were considered be criticism of Lord Granard to Beatrice Livingston Mills.
 
Last edited:
SirGyamfi1 said:
Some aristocrats were not fans of other aristocrats even marrying Americans, Lady Violet Greville, mother of Charles Greville, 3rd Baron Greville who went onto to marry a wealthy American heiress, Olive Grace Kerr 9months after his mother wrote about decadence since American brides married aristocrats. Lady Violet Greville said “ The rich American has no traditions, no prejudices in favor of old customs, duties or responsibilities; she is essentially irresponsible, and measures everything by only one standard- money”. At the time her thoughts were considered be criticism of Lord Granard to Beatrice Livingston Mills.
Click to expand...
well yes, as was said by someone at the time, the lower classes minded Wallis being divorced but the upper classes minded more that she was an American.
 
Denville said:
But Edward was involved with Wallis long before he became king.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the Prince of Wales fooling around with a divorced woman on her second husband is a far cry from the King fooling around with a twice-divorced woman with two living ex-husbands. Perhaps they thought that once George V died, he'd break things off with her since his situation was no longer what it had once been, but when it was obvious that he very much intended to marry her, thus making her Queen Wallis...well, that just wasn't going to happen.
 
Sister Morphine said:
Yes, but the Prince of Wales fooling around with a divorced woman on her second husband is a far cry from the King fooling around with a twice-divorced woman with two living ex-husbands. Perhaps they thought that once George V died, he'd break things off with her since his situation was no longer what it had once been, but when it was obvious that he very much intended to marry her, thus making her Queen Wallis...well, that just wasn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

well, the point i was making was that it was his affair with Wallis that pushed the GOvt into telling him he had to give Wallis up or go.. that he could not marry her and remain King. I dont think that the Govt were ready to get rid of him in 1936 due to his carelessness, or lack of responsibility. It was the affair with Wallis and the fear that Edw was going to marry her.
 
British royals traditionally married other European royals, British princes marrying British aristocrats was a fairly recent phenomenon in the early 20th century, so the aristocracy was used to showing obeisance to non-Brits, although admittedly an American would not be seen as the same kind of foreigner as a European princess. I can believe that the aristocracy would have a problem with the King marrying an American - and I recall reading a similar thing about the aristocracy had a problem with Wallis being American, whereas the middle and working class had a problem with her being divorced. However, I cannot believe that if Wallis had no other "flaws" that the aristocracy's anti-American sentiment would have been enough to cause an abdication crisis.

I am in the camp that it was the prospect of Edward VIII marrying a divorcee that led to the abdication. Edward's fitness for the crown had been discussed for years, however the folks who wanted him not to be King did not / could not get rid of him when he was Prince of Wales nor when he was King, that is not until Wallis filed for divorce and they knew that the groundwork was being laid for the King to marry her.

So while there had been people who thought Edward was not fit to be King, I don't think that there was a strong enough will to oust him for his non-Wallis related shenanigans and short-comings. And as I think someone else implied, what grounds would the UK and Dominion governments have to formally remove him, or alternatively to hatch a murder plot against him? I don't think that admiring and/or sympathizing with Germany would be considered sufficient grounds in 1936. Bear in mind that less than two years later, George VI, Edward VIII's brother and successor, took the (unprecedented?) action of appearing on the Buckingham Palace balcony with a Prime Minister, which was in recognition of Neville Chamberlain signing a peace agreement with German Chancellor / Fuhrer Adolf Hitler.
 
Last edited:
Alison H said:
Quite a few American women had married into the British aristocracy. The Countess of Grantham in Downton Abbey is a famous fictional example! Real life examples include Jennie Jerome and Consuelo Vanderbilt. The Warfields of Baltimore weren't in their social league, admittedly, but I think an American woman might have been accepted had she not been a divorcee, and also not been having a full-on relationship with the Prince of Wales before they were married.

It would have been unexpected, but, had the Prince of Wales announced that he wanted to marry one of the Vanderbilts, say, and there had never been a breath of scandal attached to the woman concerned, I think the marriage would have been accepted.
Click to expand...

The likes of the Vanderbilts were accepted by the British aristocracy because many peers were broke and in real danger of losing their estates and those American heiresses were extremely rich by the standards of the time. In fact, by comparison, there was probably no family in the UK as rich as the Vanderbilts for example.

Edward VIII didn't have a need to marry an American heiress because, unlike some bankrupt dukes, earls or viscounts, he didn't need to marry for money. If he wanted to marry an American heiress for love, that would still be frowned upon as the King was still expected at the time to marry a bride from a sovereign (or former sovereign) family (his brothers married daughters of peers, but they were not expected to be the King). Still, if the chosen bride were unmarried and had a clean reputation, the government, the church or the courtiers wouldn't have any valid argument to stop the marriage, or force the King to abdicate if he insisted on getting married. With Wallis, they had.
 
Last edited:
I still maintain the biggest argument against "they were trying to get rid of Edward VIII aside from Wallis" is that no one seems to have said "thank all the powers that be, Hallelujah, he's finally gone" once he actually departed. Not in their diaries, not in their private letters, nothing. You would think the so-called conspirators would have made mention of their success somehow.
 
Prinsara said:
I still maintain the biggest argument against "they were trying to get rid of Edward VIII aside from Wallis" is that no one seems to have said "thank all the powers that be, Hallelujah, he's finally gone" once he actually departed. Not in their diaries, not in their private letters, nothing. You would think the so-called conspirators would have made mention of their success somehow.
Click to expand...

Of course not. If there was a plan or even discussion about getting rid of him prior to the Wallis issue becoming the divorce issue, its over 80 years ago now and I'm sure it would have come out in diaries or govt papers. Noone WANTED the trauma of the abdication. but with Edw getting insistent that he would marry this divorced woman, who was alos American, and not really au fait with royal life, they felt they had to persaude him to give her up or go
 
One thing that never occurred to me previously is that Edward VIII would have inherited the bulk of George V's private fortune, including Sandringham and Balmoral.

Various sources note that these properties were purchased by George VI after the abdication. But how? Where would the second in line for the inheritance have obtained the finances to buy out the main heir? Was it paid for out of the Crown Estate?

Also, if the Duke of Windsor got anything like fair value for those properties (Balmoral Estate is the size of a small county) he would have been a remarkably wealthy fellow. But he doesn't seem to have been. He left an estate worth about a million pounds. Perhaps he made poor investments.
 
As to the second half, David had money, including the BRF payoff, but he also lived like a king in Paris, continuing to buy a fortune in jewelry for Wallis for the rest of his life.

Considering it's known that they received appearance fees for parties, it's more evidence that they were living outside their means.
 
Prinsara said:
As to the second half, David had money, including the BRF payoff, but he also lived like a king in Paris, continuing to buy a fortune in jewelry for Wallis for the rest of his life.

Considering it's known that they received appearance fees for parties, it's more evidence that they were living outside their means.
Click to expand...
They weren’t really broke. He was just an entitled twit. The rent on their grand Parisian mansion rent was very low, the city of Paris was very generous to them, and rich friends paid for his meals. Regarding some jewels, he sometimes didn’t pay them on time. He was truly afraid of being broke, but he just simply didn’t count his pennies like a normal person would. Queen Mary even gave the Duke of Windsor who gave Wallis a lovely pearl necklace. Plus they were always feted by Parisian high society and the jet set. Yes, the Duke of Windsor was a big spender, but he did not die a poor man’s death.

Daz_Voz said:
One thing that never occurred to me previously is that Edward VIII would have inherited the bulk of George V's private fortune, including Sandringham and Balmoral.

Various sources note that these properties were purchased by George VI after the abdication. But how? Where would the second in line for the inheritance have obtained the finances to buy out the main heir? Was it paid for out of the Crown Estate?

Also, if the Duke of Windsor got anything like fair value for those properties (Balmoral Estate is the size of a small county) he would have been a remarkably wealthy fellow. But he doesn't seem to have been. He left an estate worth about a million pounds. Perhaps he made poor investments.
Click to expand...
The Duke of Windsor was wealthy after the sales, but he simply spent money like nobody’s business. Either way, he didn’t die destitute. He and Wallis were enjoying life entertaining, jet-setting and buying expensive clothes, jewels etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, I think the Windsors lived up to their income always. After the war there were many trans Atlantic trips on great ocean liners, a lot of entertaining done. Their status required a full staff always.

There were two properties the Windsors lived in in France. Even though their Paris home was leased at a pepper corn rent, there were still expenses, maintenance, replacement of fittings etc. And their country home and gardens would not have been cheap to maintain and keep running. Even in her widowhood, at a time when Wallis was bedridden and the Paris home practically shut up, there were still medical expenses, and a skeleton staff to be paid.


I read, perhaps in Shawcross, that the QM once remarked to a friend that the purchase of Balmoral and Sandringham from Edward had ‘kept them poor’ (the King and herself) for ‘a very long time’. Presumably the money to buy those private properties came via loans from discreet London bankers like Coutts.
 
Last edited:
Daz_Voz said:
One thing that never occurred to me previously is that Edward VIII would have inherited the bulk of George V's private fortune, including Sandringham and Balmoral.

Various sources note that these properties were purchased by George VI after the abdication. But how? Where would the second in line for the inheritance have obtained the finances to buy out the main heir? Was it paid for out of the Crown Estate?

Also, if the Duke of Windsor got anything like fair value for those properties (Balmoral Estate is the size of a small county) he would have been a remarkably wealthy fellow. But he doesn't seem to have been. He left an estate worth about a million pounds. Perhaps he made poor investments.
Click to expand...
George V did leave his non-heir sons an cash inheritance. IIRC Edward VIII, despite inheriting the private property and kinda-sorta inheriting the crown property was upset that his father did not bequeath him a large cash sum. It later came to light that he was sitting on a big wad of cash accumulated from his Duchy of Cornwall income.

My take was that the deal made between the brothers was that Sandringham and Balmoral would be paid for by Edward getting an annuity, not by getting the full amount up front. The initial scheme was for the annuity to come from the civil list but the government balked at that so it did have to be privately funded by George VI.

I am a George VI admirer, but I just can't bring myself to feel too badly for him over having to pay his brother for Balmoral and Sandringham. First of all, he was in on the scheme to have Edward get income from the civil list and the civil list income count as payment for Balmoral and Sandringham. So in other words, the government was going to foot the bill for those properties to transfer from one brother to the other as private property. Secondly, George VI did inherit a substantial cash sum when his father died. Thirdly because his heir was both a child and female, the Duchy of Cornwall income went to the crown.

I can believe that there were financial uncertainties (by rich people standards) in the immediate aftermath of the abdication, but I believe that he was able to rebound / recoup and by the time of his death 14 years later he had accumulated considerable personal wealth and left his wife and heir well off.

Re Edward, he might have not left an impressive estate when he died, but Wallis left a good chunk of her estate to charity, and the auction of her items fetched ~ $50 million.
 
Wallis Simpson Funeral - 1986


Duke of Windsor (Edward VİII) Funeral 1972
 
Last edited:
Did Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood give any money to her brother Edward?
 
CyrilVladisla said:
Did Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood give any money to her brother Edward?
Click to expand...
I don’t believe so and have no reason because Edward already took money (lots of it) before abdicating so no need to ask his sis for money.
 
How well did Edward get along with his brother-in-law Henry, Viscount Lascelles/Earl of Harewood?
 
SirGyamfi1 said:
I don’t believe so and have no reason because Edward already took money (lots of it) before abdicating so no need to ask his sis for money.
Click to expand...
But did he really "take money" though?
What I thought was that he got money from George VI after the abdication as compensation for giving up some estates?
 
Furienna said:
But did he really "take money" though?
What I thought was that he got money from George VI after the abdication as compensation for giving up some estates?
Click to expand...

He sold his private estates to the new king, and did not mention that he had salted away a lot of money from the Duchy of Cornwall over the years, and was quite well off. He also got an allowance from the Privy purse and then later he did a deal with the French govt that he did not have to pay income tax.
 
Maybe that's why they don't do this anymore. :whistling:
 
I have been thinking about who "the cousins" who taught David to speak a "Viennese"-sounding German actually were. He had relatives on the Teck side near Graz. Are there other candidates?
 
In the light of a new book which has been published on King Edward VIII which paints him as a ‘good egg’ I hunted around this morning for a very different portrait of the ex King which I read years ago and gives a quite damning picture of him as a man, a royal and a monarch. It was by Tommy Lascelles, a senior courtier who knew Edward well over many years.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...In this, the first of,of his father, George V.

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

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

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

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

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

The new book.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...oy-doubt-says-historian-ALEXANDER-LARMAN.html
 
Last edited:
"When he asked me why I wanted to leave, I told him what I thought of him and his whole scheme of life, foretelling, with an accuracy that might have surprised me at the time, that he would lose the throne.

He heard me with scarcely an interruption, and when we parted, said: 'Well, goodnight, Tommy, and thank you for the talk. I suppose the fact of the matter is that I'm quite the wrong sort of person to be Prince of Wales' - which was so pathetically true that it almost melted me."

He really didn't need Lascelles to tell him that.
 
No. Edward’s self-pitying letters in the early 1920s to his mistress Freda Dudley Ward are on the same theme. However, he perhaps felt that others were somehow fooled about his character by his rank and position, especially courtiers. Sometimes people need to be told Home truths by others to really face up to the truth, in this case that many people who knew him didn’t really rate him highly as a man and human being.
 
Last edited:
I think in David's case, it was not merely self-pity but self-loathing, combined with intense dislike of his position. And having been surrounded by so many sycophants, when someone like Lascelles tells you the truth, it won't disturb you as much as confirm your own views — and when someone like Wallis treats you like dirt sometimes or more than sometimes, you'll be deeply attracted and reshape your life around pleasing her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent & Strathearn & Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld
Replies
8
Views
2K
Lee-Z
Lee-Z
Blog Real
Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (1893-1976) and Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark and Family
Replies
2
Views
991
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
Blog Real
Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich (1856–1929) and Princess Anastasia of Montenegro
Replies
1
Views
591
Blog Real
Blog Real
Blog Real
Prince Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta (1900-1948) and Princess Irene of Greece and Denmark (1904-1974), King and Queen of Croatia
Replies
2
Views
1K
maria-olivia
maria-olivia
Blog Real
King Edward III 'The Confessor' (1003/5-1066) and Queen Edith of Wessex
Replies
3
Views
1K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom