Edward 8,Duke of Windsor

[Jozanny]

Edward is a curious historical figure. Investigative Reports speculated that he *really* abdicated because he sympathized with German Fascism, and that the Simpson issue was a front. William Boyd then ties the couple to the death of Sir Harry Oaks, in the fictive memoir Any Human Heart.

I am almost convinced as to the first, give HRH's tensions with Churchill, but if Boyd's research was accurate, Prince Edward wasn't a very decent member of the royals. Maybe it is worth some research of my own, as there is the prevailing paradigm, the tragic love story with Simpson, and the counter-narrative of a cold, corrupted, and I daresay stupid opportunist.

[Listens for the LNF British thunder...]

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.esquire.com/media/cm/esquire/images/duke-of-windsor-0708-lg-43807068.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.esquire.com/style/summer-style-0708&usg=__k8GCbLXqPr3sCGAbVIGbUruxxk8=&h=300&w=300&sz=32&hl=en&start=0&sig2=sHlFVWKzZqn3JVuBiwROSw&zoom=1&tbnid=VYO_4OfKYfdtXM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=106&ei=3H1wTdq6LYKdlgfT7ZFM&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dthe%2Bduke%2Bof%2Bwindsor%26um%3D1%26 hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26rlz%3D1T4GGLL_enUS343US344%26bi w%3D1140%26bih%3D507%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=191&vpy=68&dur=1381&hovh=225&hovw=225&tx=108&ty=97&oei=3H1wTdq6LYKdlgfT7ZFM&page=1&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0

I thought his images were in public domain, but mine won't take.

[prendrelemick]

I doubt that is true, because until the outbreak of hostilities, being a facsist sympathizer was not all that uncommon among the "ruling" class, and certainly not a abdication issue. What really worried them was the USSR , Hitler was seen as a bulwark against the communist threat. Carrying on with a married divorcee was - perhaps strangely from our modern perspective - much more serious.

[kasie]

Edward as King would have been Head of the Church of England: the CoE did not at the time approve of the re-marriage of a divorce(e) and would not have sanctioned his marriage to the former Mrs Simpson. It would have created a constitutional crisis. I believe I have read that there was still a great fear in certain parts of the Government and the Royal Family that such a crisis would provoke a Russian-style Revolution that would see, among other things, the overthrow of the Monarchy: it was a fear of this nature, it has been suggested, that made Edward's father, George V, revoke his promise of sanctuary to his cousin, Czar Nicholas and his family. As Mick said, Nazi Germany was seen as a bulwark against the spread of Revolution.

The vast majority of the Brittish public did not know what was going on, btw - there was an agreement to maintain Press silence on the affair in the hope that it would all blow over and Edward would move on to someone else as he had done in the past and not too many peoplke would know of his dalliance with a divorcee. The American and Continental Press were under no such agreement and as a result, far more was known in America and on the Continent than in Britain. Eventually of course rumours began to circulate, Edward became insistent that the situation be resolved and in a matter of months, the Crisis grew and had to be settled.

[Emil Miller]

There has, not surprisingly, been a lot of nonsense talked about the abdication, but the the most likely reason for it is that he didn't want the responsibilities that being King would entail. He knew that war was coming and his admiration for Hitler and Germany's pre-war achievements doesn't alter the fact that he was the archetypal playboy who was more akin to Bertie Wooster than a future King of England. He probably didn't want any part of it, even though he is supposed to have had contact with Germany during his banishment to the Bahamas.

[kiki1982]

I think I must agree with Kasie on that one... The secret service was already spying on Edward and Simpson even before talk of a serious relationship was out... The peculiar thing is that she was accepted as his mistress, but that when it lasted too long, people started to get irritated. She witnessed the funeral of Edward's father in the latter's private quarters, but then, obviously, she was expected to let him go as, of course, the king could not marry a diverosee, or not be seen with one at least... Of course, she refused and that's when the whole problem kicked off, with Elizabeth, her potential sister-in-law, as the main instigator.

As far as his 'admiration' goes... I think that was, if there was any at all, either based on what Hitler accomplished on the surface (Wirtschaftswunder which was/is actually pretty astonishing, but not if you see what was behind it really) or, if there was none at all, based on Simpson's fascination with sensation. I think anything would have done to keep in the press, but, certainly in those days (I don't wish to be offensive here) what did Americans really know? At least they had another perception of Germany than even the people in Britain. And it is known that Edward was more dependant on Simpson than she on him. If there was anyone who directed where they went, it was she, not him. he followed because, in the words of a biographer I think, 'without her, he was not a man'.

The Belgian king has also been accused of admiring Hitler and nothing is less true, so I do not buy it from other people.

[OrphanPip]

Accusations of Simpson being involved with espionage, and Edward actively betraying British secrets, are likely exaggerated. However, it should be noted that Edward had politically sympathized with fascist causes openly, including resisting sanctions against Italy and socializing on a personal level with Hitler. So, it is fair to accuse him of being a fascist sympathizer.

His abdication though, like BB said, probably had more to do with him being an immature playboy.

[Jozanny]

E2 must find the parallels between her uncle and son ironic; as a writer, I don't know what to do with this, my fascination with it and the debate around it, but maybe I'll think of something.

[Emil Miller]

E2 must find the parallels between her uncle and son ironic; as a writer, I don't know what to do with this, my fascination with it and the debate around it, but maybe I'll think of something.

Which parallels are you referring to?

[Paulclem]

They're a funny old lot the Royals - though William and Kate seem normal compared to the rest of them. And they always have been. This heir nonsense goes back to a time when things were sorted out in a "My army is bigger and tougher than your army" basis, and has just continued because the priviledged need a figurehead to justify tradition and uphold the myth of rightful heirs.

Edward is a case in point of what could have been a really bad king. I couldn't say that his brother was a good King in the sense that he made any radical impact or contribution - as Elizabeth hasn't. I suppose the best that can be said is that they haven't done anything garishly wrong.

Charles might be a different proposition. I wonder why they called him Charles? If it were me, I wouldn't have named him after the King who succumbed and was executed by Parliament.

[Emil Miller]

. I wonder why they called him Charles? If it were me, I wouldn't have named him after the King who succumbed and was executed by Parliament.

It might well have been in defiance of Parliament.

[Paulclem]

It might well be in defiance of Parliament.

I hadn't thought of that. They would have felt pretty secure to have done so, and it was on the crest of their popularity after WW2.

Still, neither Queen nor Phillip strike me as Machiavellian...or is that them winning..?...

[Jozanny]

Which parallels are you referring to?

I am old enough to remember the courtship and the pre-mania for Diana, and there was a great deal of chatter in the American press about who Charles was sleeping with, if he kept Camilla on the sly, if the shadow of Mrs. Simpson forever loomed...

[kasie]

....... I wonder why they called him Charles? If it were me, I wouldn't have named him after the King who succumbed and was executed by Parliament.

Perhaps they had Charles II in mind - the Merry Monarch? He was the king of the Restored Monarchy after the Commonwealth fell apart. (He had the odd mistress or two, as well. :))

[kiki1982]

Yes, that I thought as well. Who would want to call his son after one who wasn't really in touch with modern times as they stood then, at all? It must have been Charles II then, they called him after. Slightly more in touch with modern times and personal friends with Louis XIV... Wouldn't you call your cild after that?

[Emil Miller]

The American media's presentation of the Royals is only slightly more manic than that of the UK's tabloid press but it seems that people in the US have a peculiarly distorted view of what goes on. The Queen has a number of adviser's (quaintly known as courtiers) who are on hand to guide her along the royal path. If the Royal family were left to their own devices, they would have disappeared long ago, but their activities are arranged for them and the press gets to know only what is considered necessary. When something dangerous threatens, there is a general closing of ranks and the threat is conveniently disposed of despite the inquisitorial nature of the media.
Prince Charles' marriage to Diana Spenser was arranged because it was deemed that he was well into marriageable age. The incredible hysteria surrounding the event and the subsequent divorce and death of Lady Diana almost destroyed the myth that has always been so carefully nurtured for public consumption.
Now that a suitable time has elapsed, another royal wedding is on its way to bolster the badly damaged institution of the Monarchy.

[Jozanny]

They're a funny old lot the Royals - though William and Kate seem normal compared to the rest of them. And they always have been. This heir nonsense goes back to a time when things were sorted out in a "My army is bigger and tougher than your army" basis, and has just continued because the priviledged need a figurehead to justify tradition and uphold the myth of rightful heirs.

Edward is a case in point of what could have been a really bad king. I couldn't say that his brother was a good King in the sense that he made any radical impact or contribution - as Elizabeth hasn't. I suppose the best that can be said is that they haven't done anything garishly wrong.

Charles might be a different proposition. I wonder why they called him Charles? If it were me, I wouldn't have named him after the King who succumbed and was executed by Parliament.

I used to be like those on the far left Paul, and in my brash American way saw the British royal family as a waste of time and an outdated extravagance, and that they may be, but one need look no further than Hollywood, California to see that Americans too conflate the glitter of tinsel town as larger than life, so we seem stuck with the necessity, whether it be a decorative monarchy, to use Niall Ferguson's phrase, or a Hollywood movie star, like John Wayne. And if we look closely at Helen Mirren in her biopic of Elizabeth II after Diana's death, it isn't easy to decide if the modern monarch sacrifices herself to her duty to the state, or to that of being a museum piece, however cognizant or not.

She still has power, though it is not that of the Elizabethan age for which she is named, and Edward too was seemingly caught in this crux of the symbolic figure without function beyond a show piece.

[Paulclem]

It's funny that the King's Speech was released this year. Oh the wave of pro-Royal feeling that will gush forth from the press and those lick spittle BBC news programmes. A faintly partial term the Free press.

Of course some bounder will spoil the show when they start asking questions about how much they cost us each year again.

If they do a good job then let's employ them. We can have a bit of accountability then.

[OrphanPip]

William is supposed to be having an official visit to Canada this summer, they cost a few million dollars every time they step foot here.

Edit: On top of the other institutions of the crown that are maintained year round in Canada, like the Governor General.

[Paulclem]

I used to be like those on the far left Paul, and in my brash American way saw the British royal family as a waste of time and an outdated extravagance, and that they may be, but one need look no further than Hollywood, California to see that Americans too conflate the glitter of tinsel town as larger than life, so we seem stuck with the necessity, whether it be a decorative monarchy, to use Niall Ferguson's phrase, or a Hollywood movie star, like John Wayne. And if we look closely at Helen Mirren in her biopic of Elizabeth II after Diana's death, it isn't easy to decide if the modern monarch sacrifices herself to her duty to the state, or to that of being a museum piece, however cognizant or not.

She still has power, though it is not that of the Elizabethan age for which she is named, and Edward too was seemingly caught in this crux of the symbolic figure without function beyond a show piece.

I have nothing personally against any of them, but I resent the implications of their positions - that they are superior - when they are clearly mediocre people in positions bolstered by courtiers who arrange everything for them.

So I'm of your opinion too, and I agree about all the Hollywood guff, and the worshipping of celebrity and youth. So much fluff really masking a very experienced and capable money making machine. I actually dont mind that - we can choose to buy into it or not, but I don't like the expectation that we should think it's anything more than it is, just as I don't like the expectation that we should think of the Royals as anything but unremarkable people who happen to be in remarkable positions.

There are a great many talented and hardworking people who are much less recognised than these daft celebrities and ivory towered Royals who deserve much more recognition. Yet the TV here is going to be full of Royalty rubbish as the wedding approaches, and then we'll go back to mindless celebrity rubbish again. Bah

Anyway, I'm off to my CA meeting soon - Curmudgeon's Anonymous. :lol:

[jocky]

The mystique of the Royal family is gone, apart from the professional palace watchers and the glossy magazine journos. What did it matter if Edward was a Nazi sympathiser? Parliament is supreme and has been since 1649. Serious historians do not concern themselves with the blurb, but concentrate on the times when Monarchy actually had power, when their policy affected the lives of everyone. While I accept that their doings are interesting , for example Prince Andrew's strange friends, they are now consigned to the pages of Hello magazine.

[Paulclem]

The mystique of the Royal family is gone, apart from the professional palace watchers and the glossy magazine journos. What did it matter if Edward was a Nazi sympathiser? Parliament is supreme and has been since 1649. Serious historians do not concern themselves with the blurb, but concentrate on the times when Monarchy actually had power, when their policy affected the lives of everyone. While I accept that their doings are interesting , for example Prince Andrew's strange friends, they are now consigned to the pages of Hello magazine.

Agreed. Strange friends indeed. But then they're a bit strange.

Do you remember the history we were taught at school - that the Roundheads were the baddies? It wasn't so overtly put, but that's definately how it came across.

There was a myth that on the night that Cromwell died, England was struck by the biggest storm in living history. They said it was the Devil come to collect his soul. A right piece of Royalist propaganda if ever I heard any. Probably referring to the Divine Right of Kings.

[jocky]

James V1 wrote two treatises on Kingship, for my sins I had to write my dissertation on them. The ' Divine Right Of Kings ' and ' Basilikon Doron ' Greek meaning Royal Gift. He was a King that mattered ( not because I is Scottish :) ) He has been given a really bad press. He also penned pamphlets ranging from tobacco to witchcraft. Henry 1V of France termed him " The wisest fool in Christendom " My point being he was the last Monarch who exercised absolute power, at the same time having the nouce to work with Parliament. His son Charles was an idiot and the supreme example of why primogeniture never worked.

[prendrelemick]

The Royals are like your Granny's ornamental pottery, useless but nice to keep for old times' sake.

I hope young Kate knows what she is letting herself in for.

[Paulclem]

Yes. Though they seem a bit more out of it all living apart from the Royal circle.

Following Jocky's idiot theme - you then get the Czar Nicholas - not the sharpest tool in the box, to put it kindly, and The Kaiser who liked to "dress up" as a soldier. Both these blokes were roundly unfit for running an ice cream stall let alone a country. Bad thngs happened, which may have happened anyway, but which they did nothingto help. Of course they were both relations of Queen Vic for whom there are lots of stories, but not much about what she said.

[Emil Miller]

I Yet the TV here is going to be full of Royalty rubbish as the wedding approaches...

Unfortunately you are right. It wouldn't be so bad if it was just for a day and that was it, but if it's going to be anything like Prince Charles wedding, I shudder to think about it. The sheer sycophantic hysteria that attended that occasion actually drove me abroad. The whole thing was so ballyhooed it was probably one of the greatest single assaults on human intelligence the UK has ever experienced. I have been a republican since I was about six-years-old when the headmistress told the school assembly that "You should love your Queen." One word formed in my mind then and it still remains unanswered...'Why?' I do have some respect for Prince Charles blocking lunatic architectural schemes but apart from that I wish they would adopt a lower profile or simply go away.

[Paulclem]

I agree. It'll be terrible, and the lower profile/ go away option works for me too. They are all well off, so they could go and live where they liked.

[Emil Miller]

I agree. It'll be terrible, and the lower profile/ go away option works for me too. They are all well off, so they could go and live where they liked.

Well I hope it will be less frenetic than his father's wedding, because it's not far off. My recollection of his father's marriage was a grotesque, even by British tabloid experience, concentration on the wedding months before it happened.
Royalty is not going to go away, because the Queen is at the centre of a vast web of patronage where various gongs are handed out to the 'great and the good' for services rendered to various organisations and, in consequence, to the status quo.

[MarkBastable]

There was a myth that on the night that Cromwell died, England was struck by the biggest storm in living history. They said it was the Devil come to collect his soul. A right piece of Royalist propaganda if ever I heard any.


...not that you could claim Cromwell scored somewhere between Santa Claus and Papa Smurf on the jolly-loveability scale.

[Paulclem]

...not that you could claim Cromwell scored somewhere between Santa Claus and Papa Smurf on the jolly-loveability scale.

True - but at least he had talent. And he wasn't forever by his own insistence. You have to admire someone's warts and all honesty. I don't agree with the whole Puritan thing - banning Christmas and all that, but it needed someone with strong moral fibre to usurp the King in the first placce and not be corrupted in turn by the power.

[Paulclem]

Well I hope it will be less frenetic than his father's wedding, because it's not far off. My recollection of his father's marriage was a grotesque, even by British tabloid experience, concentration on the wedding months before it happened.
Royalty is not going to go away, because the Queen is at the centre of a vast web of patronage where various gongs are handed out to the 'great and the good' for services rendered to various organisations and, in consequence, to the status quo.

I didn't watch much telly then, and so it affected me less. Perhaps Will and kate will want it to be more low key given what happened to Charles and Diana.

I know that patronage is not going to go away easily. The only way it will is if they do it themselves. Charles has displayed a certain talent for bad choices in the past. I'm not so sure about William though.

[qimissung]

Can anyone explain why he married Diana given that he was having an affair with Camilla? I don't mean that he shouldn't have had the affair-although it would not be my choice to marry someone who could do that-more that that sort of behavior seems to go with that kind of power or wealth-and whoever he married probably should have been a little more savvy to that.

[MarkBastable]

True - but at least he had talent. And he wasn't forever by his own insistence. You have to admire someone's warts and all honesty. I don't agree with the whole Puritan thing - banning Christmas and all that, but it needed someone with strong moral fibre to usurp the King in the first placce and not be corrupted in turn by the power.

And at least he made the executions run on time.

I think it is possible to concede that the long term constitutional repercussions of the Civil War were a Good Thing, and simultaneously to believe that Cromwell was a Bad Man. I mean, come on - a religiously fuelled control-freak backed up by a partisan army - how often does that lead to truth, liberty and gin-and-tonics for all?

Also, you have to wonder what would have happened without Cromwell. Republican revolution? Nothing? Who knows, but I'd be willing to bet that whatever the catalyst, the outcome would have been much the same - to wit, two-legged pigs in charge, and celebrity weddings every few years.

[Jozanny]

Can anyone explain why he married Diana given that he was having an affair with Camilla? I don't mean that he shouldn't have had the affair-although it would not be my choice to marry someone who could do that-more that that sort of behavior seems to go with that kind of power or wealth-and whoever he married probably should have been a little more savvy to that.

As Emil has previously indicated, the Prince of Wales married Diana because Buckingham said it was time, and if memory serves, sources claimed there was significant anxiety that Charles was going to create a scandal with a divorced mistress. I grant that Edward lived in extraordinary times and Charles is not the replica of his great uncle, but the establishment wanted to avoid any comparison, only to create another set of follies.

I know very little about kid Willie, but it seems he is aware of his father's mistakes, presents a more assured public image, and won't give Fleet Street a field day just yet.

[MarkBastable]

Can anyone explain why he married Diana given that he was having an affair with Camilla?

Yes, I'll give it a shot.

He was a relatively weak but well-intentioned man, crushed by a lifetime of brainwashing into believing that personal feelings are valueless, public image is paramount and that the sustenance of the monarchy is all that matters. His parents, his advisors and the history of his own family made it impossible for him to marry Camilla, and he was put under huge pressure to marry Diana, who was young, quite stupid, utterly naive and very photogenic. He knew he didn't want to do it and that it would make him unhappy, and everyone else knew it too, but no one, including Charles, thought that the future king's happiness was relevant. Neither, incidentally, was Diana's - though it seems unlikely that they considered her sufficiently evolved to be capable of emotions.

And that, in the end, is why I'm not generally in favour of the monarchy. I don't mind the money they cost, or the constitution they represent, or the privilege in which they live. I just don't like what the Royal Family does to the people in it.

[Paulclem]

And at least he made the executions run on time.

I think it is possible to concede that the long term constitutional repercussions of the Civil War were a Good Thing, and simultaneously to believe that Cromwell was a Bad Man. I mean, come on - a religiously fuelled control-freak backed up by a partisan army - how often does that lead to truth, liberty and gin-and-tonics for all?

Also, you have to wonder what would have happened without Cromwell. Republican revolution? Nothing? Who knows, but I'd be willing to bet that whatever the catalyst, the outcome would have been much the same - to wit, two-legged pigs in charge, and celebrity weddings every few years.

I think it's probable that anyone in power can be disliked - particulary where war or revolution are involved - Tony Blair's an example. They certainly have to make decisions that make them hated - Ireland for Cromwell. I think there's certainly bad press concerning Cromwell stemming from the restoration, but I agree that doesn't make him good, just like the monarchs. To be part of the overthrow of the Monarchy, I think they would all have needed a strong religious background that opposed the prevailing Divine Right of Kings idea.

As for civil war without him - I thought he was involved in developing the New Model Army - but that might just be my schoolboy history perceptions. He did have a key role in the battles though.

But don't you think the whole Parliamentary episode was given a spin when history was taught? I remember Blue Peter going on about some Cavalier - the one with the dog - Rupert was it?, and how brave he was etc. They didn't mention losing a key battle because his cavalry went on to loot the baggage train of the Roundheads after routing a section of the army.

[Paulclem]

Can anyone explain why he married Diana given that he was having an affair with Camilla? I don't mean that he shouldn't have had the affair-although it would not be my choice to marry someone who could do that-more that that sort of behavior seems to go with that kind of power or wealth-and whoever he married probably should have been a little more savvy to that.

I think she was eligible in that she fit the requirements of being a Princess Qimi. There was a limited choice, and she had the criteria. I think the question of why she married him - a decade her senior - has to be asked also.

[MarkBastable]

But don't you think the whole Parliamentary episode was given a spin when history was taught? I remember Blue Peter going on about some Cavalier - the one with the dog - Rupert was it?, and how brave he was etc. They didn't mention losing a key battle because his cavalry went on to loot the baggage train of the Roundheads after routing a section of the army.

Yeah - but I'm pretty sure I've seen Blue Peter do a pro-Cromwell thing too. I don't think you can expect Blue Peter to be consistent. I mean, one day they're all for saving energy by turning your computer off and the next they're turning on the Christmas lights in Oxford Street. Hypocrites. Hanging's too good for them.

[Jozanny]

The mystique of the Royal family is gone, apart from the professional palace watchers and the glossy magazine journos. What did it matter if Edward was a Nazi sympathiser? Parliament is supreme and has been since 1649.

No one can get in Edward's head, but I am interested in the dialectic surrounding him as a public figure because it is nearly a contradiction in terms. I can use Michael Jackson as a rough illustration of what I mean: He starts out as the cute Motown kid in white bell bottoms presented as part of a nuclear singing black family. He resurfaces with Thriller and virtually invents M-TV, and then he transforms himself into a pariah, not really black anymore, not white, not masculine, not feminine, and yet still the most globally recognized musical figure who eludes any definitive understanding. The same can be said of Edward on a lesser scale.

Mark: This is not a thread about Crowell and the Reformation's excesses; you can create your own thread on the topic.

[kasie]

........apart from that I wish they would adopt a lower profile or simply go away.

But image the alternative........

Who would you want as Head of State? Imagine who would want to be Head of State - it doesn't really bear thinking about. And we'd have to have Presidential Elections - no, thank you, all the same, I think I'd rather maintain the present system.

[MarkBastable]

Mark: This is not a thread about Crowell and the Reformation's excesses; you can create your own thread on the topic.

Yes, miss. Sorry, miss. It was Paul who started it, miss.

[Emil Miller]

Perhaps Will and kate will want it to be more low key given what happened to Charles and Diana.

The abdication has been discussed ad nauseum ever since it took place and, as this thread shows, it invariably develops into a discussion on the relevance of the monarchy but, in relation to the coming wedding, you may be right about it being a lower keyed affair than the Charles/Dianna ceremony. On that occasion, the media were practically frothing at the mouth in it's coverage of the event and I had given up on newspapers until it was over. But of course, it wasn't over until the crash in which Dianna was killed, because the ludicrous shenanigans of their relationship were THE staple news item from Charles's first reported meeting with Diana until her death and the funeral, which must rank among the most maudlin ceremonies ever. I don't pay much attention to royalty but it would appear that William is being presented as a decent Hooray Henry type and his fiancee as a clean cut no-nonsense young lady quite different from the publicity seeking Dianna.

[MarkBastable]

Incidentally, I find myself in the unaccustomed position of being as one with Brian Bean on this wedding thing. I've arranged to be on a beach three thousand miles away when the entire country goes confetti-happy.

[Paulclem]

Incidentally, I find myself in the unaccustomed position of being as one with Brian Bean on this wedding thing. I've arranged to be on a beach three thousand miles away when the entire country goes confetti-happy.

I'm with you chaps - though 'll be in jolly old England.

I think it was my fault the divergence. It's just the ebb and flow of conversation.

[Emil Miller]

BBC radio reported this morning that Prince William and Kate Middleton have been 'flipping pancakes' in Northern Ireland. Things are obviously getting into their stride.
Watch this space.
They certainly sound rather dull compared to Edward the eigth's circle judging by this extract from Google:

Known as “Baba” to her father’s Indian servants, and to her friends ever after, she was a remarkable woman. She was said to be lovely, if somewhat imperious like her father. Although romanced by royals, she married Edward Dudley “Fruity” Metcalfe, the best friend of Edward VIII, the king who left his throne and became the Duke of Windsor so that he could marry Wallis Warfield Simpson, a twice-divorced American. Not one to desert a friend, Fruity served as the Duke’s Best Man at his wedding in exile. (In 1940, Fruity was rewarded for his loyalty by being abandoned when the Duke and Duchess fled Paris, and left to find his own way home as the German army advanced.)

Fruity Metcalfe? You couldn't make it up.

[jocky]

Fruity Metcalfe? You couldn't make it up.

I am not so sure about that Brian. Evelyn Waugh's depiction of the Aristocracy in 'Brideshead Revisited' does seem to represent a snapshot of the dying embers of upper class eccentricity.

[jocky]

Fruity Metcalfe? You couldn't make it up.

I am not so sure about that Brian. Evelyn Waugh's depiction of the Aristocracy in 'Brideshead Revisited' does seem to represent an accurate snapshot of the prevailing upper class eccentricity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RG5KEsVbds

It still seems to with us, unfortunately.

[Paulclem]

BBC radio reported this morning that Prince William and Kate Middleton have been 'flipping pancakes' in Northern Ireland. Things are obviously getting into their stride.
Watch this space.
They certainly sound rather dull compared to Edward the eigth's circle judging by this extract from Google:

Known as “Baba” to her father’s Indian servants, and to her friends ever after, she was a remarkable woman. She was said to be lovely, if somewhat imperious like her father. Although romanced by royals, she married Edward Dudley “Fruity” Metcalfe, the best friend of Edward VIII, the king who left his throne and became the Duke of Windsor so that he could marry Wallis Warfield Simpson, a twice-divorced American. Not one to desert a friend, Fruity served as the Duke’s Best Man at his wedding in exile. (In 1940, Fruity was rewarded for his loyalty by being abandoned when the Duke and Duchess fled Paris, and left to find his own way home as the German army advanced.)

Fruity Metcalfe? You couldn't make it up.

Sounds like a pudding ... perhaps that's what they meant.

Abandonment? No fruity did his duty, as did Edward VIII by preserving his Royal Personage.

[MarkBastable]

****Deleted, because I decided not to start an argument that I don't have the time to pursue. Especially as it was in support of Bean, and he can look after himself.*****

[Paulclem]

Awww go on. Miss isn't around.:biggrin5:

[Emil Miller]

If ever I needed confirmation that republicanism is better, a quick glance at Google is all that's required. If you thought that Fruity Metcalfe was Wodehouseian, how about this from a profile of the Duke?

Though perhaps not in possession of a keen intelligence, the future king was a good soul who enjoyed gardening, bagpipe-playing, and charming women.

[kasie]

And you believe everything you read on Google?

There are, after all, worse hobbies than gardening, playing bagpipes and enjoying the company of attractive ladies - they are hardly reasons to dismantle the monarchy.

[MarkBastable]

The more Wodehousian you paint them, the more I like them.

[Emil Miller]

And you believe everything you read on Google?

There are, after all, worse hobbies than gardening, playing bagpipes and enjoying the company of attractive ladies - they are hardly reasons to dismantle the monarchy.

You forgot to mention: Though perhaps not in possession of a keen intelligence.
When one looks at his choice of marriage partner we can see just how euphemistic that is, here is another extract from an item on Wallis Simpson:

The government was also aware that Wallis Simpson was in fact involved in other sexual relationships. This included a married car mechanic and salesman called Guy Trundle and Edward Fitzgerald, Duke of Leinster. More importantly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation believed that Wallis Simpson was having a relationship with Joachim von Ribbentrop, the German Ambassador to Britain, and that she was passing secret information obtained from the king to the Nazi government.