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...]



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.