Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: Before There Was Harry and Meghan . . . There Was Edward and Wallis
I have found it impossible to carry the heavy burden of responsibility and to discharge my duties as King as I would wish to do without the help and support of the woman I love.
On December 10, 1936, what might be described as Britain’s “long national nightmare” came to an end when Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David, Edward VIII, By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India, threw in the towel and bailed on both his throne and his country.
“And a jolly good thing he did,” is probably the reaction you’d get from most older Brits today (those in the younger generations who haven’t heard it mentioned in early episodes of The Crown probably haven’t formed an opinion yet).
Edward’s leaving paved the way for his younger brother, the painfully shy and socially awkward “Bertie” to ascend to the throne as King George VI, where, along with his wife, Queen (Consort) Elizabeth, he pulled the country back together and cemented the role of the British monarch as emblematic of family, church, and decency, for decades to come. (Oh, and there was also that World War II business; Britons heaved a sigh of relief that they’d seen the back of the appeaser Edward in favor of George and Elizabeth (who Adolph Hitler once called “the most dangerous woman in Europe”).
Although the misty gauze of time and history imbues the story of Edward and Wallis with much sentiment, and, indeed, Edward’s own abdication speech tried to paint a picture of a selfless love, they were a rather unappealing couple. Edward had grown to manhood and into the role of Prince of Wales with a great deal of goodwill and favorable public opinion. He was handsome and rakish, fond of socializing and womanizing, and he was expected to make a noble match with one of the titled families of Europe. He was the star of the Court Circular, as can perhaps best be shown through the hit song of 1927, I’ve Danced with a Man Who’s Danced with a Girl Who Danced with the Prince of Wales. But, under the winning smile, he was superficial, mean and selfish, and his politics were questionable in an England that was beginning to experience rumblings of possible war with Germany.
Wallis Simpson was, when she met Edward in 1931, a married American socialite. The couple maintained a relationship over the course of five years, at which point, Edward acceded to the throne, and Wallis and Ernest Simpson, her second husband began divorce proceedings. Wallis sailed to England with the firm intention of marrying the King when the nasty business was concluded.
But she reckoned without Parliament and the Prime Minister. And the archbishop. And the press. And just about everybody else.
The ramifications were immense, and the stories proliferated. About her morals. And her nationality! And the King’s sexuality. And her own. Probably the less said about all that the better. Rumors of sadomasochism were just the camel’s nose, as it were. Queen Mary (Edward’s mother, who, when such things were expected of the Royal family, was held up as the arbiter of all things righteous and moral) certainly wasn’t having any of it. The two divorces were an insuperable problem for the Church of England, which would have considered any subsequent marriage a bigamous (trigamous?) relationship.(A civil marriage was out of the question, as it would have negated the monarch’s role as head of the church.) The government threatened to resign if Edward and Wallis went forward with their plan.
And eventually, an embattled and frazzled Stanley Baldwin announced that he would further research the effects of three possible alternatives and make a recommendation among them:
- Marry, and Wallis would become Queen: a royal marriage (what Edward and Wallis wanted)
- Marry, but she would not become Queen, and would receive a “courtesy title” (known as a morganatic marriage)
- Abdicate
The first option was generally held to be out of the question. The second option had no precedent in British history (keep a weather eye out for Camilla, though), and eventually that possibility was ruled out as well. Which left abdication, and after a stressful period of government flurry, and press back and forth in which what we’d consider the more “reputable” newspapers wrote against the marriage, and the “tabloids” favored a morganatic option, abdication was approved, and Edward was told he could make a speech to the nation renouncing the throne on his behalf, and on behalf of his heirs, forever.
Edward signed the Instrument of Abdication on December 10, 1936. and that day he also made the final revisions to his speech, which he delivered on December 11. The full speech is below, and I can’t help noting how whiny and selfish he sounds, both in his voice and in the text.
Post abdication, the newly designated Duke of Windsor moved to France, where he married his lady-love once her divorce from Ernest Simpson was finalized, on June 3, 1937, at which time she assumed the title “Duchess of Windsor.” They lived out their lives largely in obscurity, hobnobbing with Nazis before the war, and being sent to the Bahamas, where the Duke served as Governor for a time, in 1940 (to get him out of the way, one supposes). After the war, the couple returned to Paris, where Edward, Duke of Windsor, died on May 28, 1972. His remains were brought back to England and buried at Frogmore (hello, Harry and Meghan), marking the first time that Wallis, Duchess of Windsor, had been in the United Kingdom since 1936. Somehow, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother summoned the grace to stand at her side, although her dislike of the woman she blamed for the early death of her own husband was legendary (perhaps HM the QM had a few of her favorite cocktails before the event. Just saying).
Wallis herself died on April 24, 1986, and “the woman he loved” is buried beside her husband in the Royal Burial Ground at Frogmore, Windsor.
The legends and stories surrounding the couple did not subside with their deaths, and they make regular appearances in all things media, including books, TV, films, video games, and alternative histories.
My own fond memory of the two of them though, is much more mundane, albeit, appropriately seasonal.
It’s of my Mum (who never met a rowdy or bawdy song she didn’t like), and who was eight years old when Edward abdicated, bellowing out most years on December 10, or as soon thereafter as she thought of it:
Hark the Herald Angels sing
Mrs. Simpson’s got our king!
Merry Christmas, all.
Published in General
Britons are probably looking at us and saying the same thing about our form of government.
Loved The King’s Speech, may have to check out the series . . .
The difference is that they would be wrong.
You do see the prejudice inherent in your saying so, don’t you? 😜
Besides, a republic is almost always on the verge of falling. They generally only last a few hundred years before transitioning to oligarchy, monarchy, or democracy (which quickly transitions to Hell on Earth). Name a republic that has lasted as long as a republic as Britain’s monarchy. Much more stable.
Thank you. I will look into that.
Enjoying this exchange. I do acknowledge that the mid-range crop are pretty depraved. But I’m not willing to go as far as you in terms of carpet-bombing the lot. As I said somewhere else, I think on this thread, I’m hoping HM outlasts Charlie Boy, at which point, things might improve. I think there is something to be said for separating the head of state from the head of government. That being said, I’m not sure a head of state is absolutely essential. But it’s good for tourism (I think folks from the United States are the biggest takers in that regard. Not you. Check.)
The Roman Republic lasted 500 years. Britain’s monarchy (in its current incarnation) has only existed since 1688. Even if you count the starting point as the restoration (1660) that only gives the British monarchy 360 years.
There’s no reason prejudiced opinions can’t be accurate. Blind pig, etc.
I’m not sure I’d call Britain’s system of government a Republic. Is there a difference between a parliamentary democracy and a representative republic?
“Name a republic that has lasted as long as a republic” is one clause. I should have put the “as long” in a slightly different spot: Name a republic that has lasted as a republic as long as Britain’s monarchy…
There are many republics that have morphed into other things. There are also very small republics, such as San Marino or the former Republic of Lucca, which did last for considerable periods. But the Republic of Venice and Republic of Genoa both became oligarchies long before dissolution.
So, you’re saying it’s post FDR?
The Republic of Venice was founded in 697. It was conquered in 1797, an 1100-year stretch. The British monarchy has lasted only 360 years since the Restoration in 1660. (You should remember that.) So, even if became an oligarchy after a third of its existence, it would have been a Republic for 367 years. Actually, it was almost certainly a republic through the conquest of Constantinople so that would give it 400+ years.
Britain’s Parliamentary system from 1660 through the 1830 reforms was an oligarchy.
One might say so, but it has been the same family as kings and queens, even though through a number of collateral lines, since Grandpa Willie and his bros came over from Normandy.