U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-04-2019, 03:25 PM
 
Location: too far from the sea
18,916 posts, read 18,036,137 times
Reputation: 31980

Advertisements

I always despised her. However, he was addicted to her. As already mentioned, he apparently enjoyed being humiliated and she was willing to do it to him. I even remember reading that he enjoyed being tied up. He had a weak, sick personality.

I think I remember reading that she tried to get out of marrying him but when he abdicated for her, it didn't leave her much choice.

But what sort of a king would he have made anyway? Very strange person and as previously mentioned in the OP's article, a case of mumps had left him sterile--so no heir to the throne would be possible.

How sad it must have been to live in exile, for him especially. So desperate that he even befriended Hitler in an attempt to go home. Crazy behavior leads to crazier behavior. I don't have much sympathy for either of them--both crazy people, apparently--and he apparently had nothing for self control, he was obsessed with her.

Probably good that he left. Sad for his brother who was never groomed to become king and sad for their mother, very sad for Princess Elizabeth too, of course. And his idiotic actions set the stage for the entire Charles-Diana fiasco in future years because Charles had to avoid another scandal at all costs. And, with so much pressure to avoid scandal, he, ironically, produced a scandal.

It's an interesting era of royalty. I don't have much sympathy for either of them though, although maybe he was born somehow defective and she...she? I guess we have to read the book to find out about her!
__________________
my posts as moderator will be in red. Moderator: Health&Wellness~Genealogy. The Rules--read here>>> TOS. If someone attacks you, do not reply. Hit REPORT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2019, 03:47 PM
Status: "I don't have to agree." (set 2 days ago)
 
Location: Texas
8,120 posts, read 3,041,639 times
Reputation: 17112
I'd like to read that book.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2019, 04:31 PM
 
19,390 posts, read 12,691,110 times
Reputation: 13111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
In 2003 secret government MI5 and Special Branch files on the 1936 abdication crisis were released and it became clear that Wallis Simpson took a Mayfair car salesman called Guy Marcus Trundle (a married man from York) as her lover while she was in a relationship with Edward, Prince of Wales.

Joseph Kennedy, the American ambassador at the time, described Mrs Simpson as a "tart", and his wife, Rose, refused to dine with her.

BBC NEWS | UK | Mrs Simpson's secret lover revealed

Wallis Simpson's extraordinary collection of lovers | Daily Mail Online

Car dealer was Wallis Simpson's secret lover | UK news | The Guardian

King Edward VIII bugged during abdication crisis - BBC News


Gwad, just read the Daily Fail piece; Wallis Simpson was certainly no better than she should have been. As for her long list of lovers; what did they see in her?


Edward FitzGerald, 7th Duke of Leinster was a sad bit of work it seems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward...ke_of_Leinster

Last edited by BugsyPal; 03-04-2019 at 05:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2019, 05:30 PM
 
Location: too far from the sea
18,916 posts, read 18,036,137 times
Reputation: 31980
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/so...er-abdication/

This is another book I'd like to read. The except sounds good and I like Andrew Morton.
__________________
my posts as moderator will be in red. Moderator: Health&Wellness~Genealogy. The Rules--read here>>> TOS. If someone attacks you, do not reply. Hit REPORT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2019, 06:44 PM
 
11,358 posts, read 4,626,492 times
Reputation: 16663
There's a doc I've been watching called "Wallis Simpson: The Secret Letters". They are a series of 15 discovered letters she wrote to her husband Earnest which she of course divorced. She reveals her true feelings about Edward, who it seems she never loved nor wanted to marry. Rather she tried desperately not to have him abdicate, but he was so in love, nothing else mattered to him. Edward gave his abdication speech without the consent of Wallis and then any route left open to her not to marry him was closed off. It's a fascinating account of how things happened from her viewpoint as things were happening.
Their affair started as just fun until Edward's father died and Edward became King. Edward became more and more obsessed with her, and she became less and less enchanted by Edward. Once their affair became public, their was no escaping Edward without publicly humiliating him, which she wouldn't do. She wrote letters to Edward also telling him they would never be happy together and continuing their relationship was a big mistake. Edward would threaten to slit his wrists if she left him. Her only hope of escaping Edward was that Edward would find a younger and more attractive women, but that never happened. She and her husband Earnest had a nickname for Edward which was "Peter Pan", because Edward was always going to be a child and behave like one. The worse she would behave towards him, the more Edward wanted her.
Wallace never stopped loving her husband Earnest but remained by Edwards side for the rest of his life.

Last edited by marino760; 03-04-2019 at 07:32 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2019, 07:28 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
38,940 posts, read 18,018,616 times
Reputation: 17778
Does anyone argue that the course of history was altered because George VI was on the throne rather than his older brother? Apparently neither one had that great an interest in holding the ceremonial post. Edward clearly preferred personal pursuits and George was terrified of being revealed in public as a stammerer. And the throne of England is largely a public relations job, not steering the course of the nation, so what real difference does it make who is on the throne?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2019, 07:43 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
6,939 posts, read 9,644,646 times
Reputation: 6213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Does anyone argue that the course of history was altered because George VI was on the throne rather than his older brother? Apparently neither one had that great an interest in holding the ceremonial post. Edward clearly preferred personal pursuits and George was terrified of being revealed in public as a stammerer. And the throne of England is largely a public relations job, not steering the course of the nation, so what real difference does it make who is on the throne?
You raise a very good point. Perhaps you can make an argument that George VI helped saved the popularity of the British monarchy from the low point it reached under Edward and even into the labor party takeover after WW2.

As for Wallace Simpson, I always had a low opinion of her. I am not sure if I am buying this theory that she did not want Edward. I believe she was an opportunist (she was already married twice) and deliberately targeted him. No one has a relationship with the heir to the British throne by accident.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2019, 07:47 PM
 
16 posts, read 752 times
Reputation: 24
She was no Greta Garbo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2019, 07:50 PM
 
11,358 posts, read 4,626,492 times
Reputation: 16663
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
You raise a very good point. Perhaps you can make an argument that George VI helped saved the popularity of the British monarchy from the low point it reached under Edward and even into the labor party takeover after WW2.

As for Wallace Simpson, I always had a low opinion of her. I am not sure if I am buying this theory that she did not want Edward. I believe she was an opportunist (she was already married twice) and deliberately targeted him. No one has a relationship with the heir to the British throne by accident.
It wasn't by accident. Wallace had the affair for personal gain and her husband was complicit. Edward showered her with very expensive gifts and jewelry. The 3 of them would hang out together, holiday together and appeared to be best of friends until things spiraled out of control.
The letters she wrote aren't a theory, they are from her own handwriting and her own words. There was no reason whatsoever for her to state what she did in her personal letters other than telling her husband Earnest the truth about how she felt about Edward. Those letters remained unknown until recently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2019, 08:07 PM
 
Location: too far from the sea
18,916 posts, read 18,036,137 times
Reputation: 31980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Does anyone argue that the course of history was altered because George VI was on the throne rather than his older brother? Apparently neither one had that great an interest in holding the ceremonial post. Edward clearly preferred personal pursuits and George was terrified of being revealed in public as a stammerer. And the throne of England is largely a public relations job, not steering the course of the nation, so what real difference does it make who is on the throne?
No, neither one wanted the job. The job eventually would have gone to Queen Elizabeth II anyway but what a botched up mess Edward made of it, what a spectacle and one that would have repercussions going forward on the royal family. He was an embarrassment, what he did could have been responsible for the mess that was Princess Margaret and her inability to be granted consent to marry Peter Townsend, and definitely was responsible for the Prince Charles scandal because it was almost like an echo the way the family tried too hard to make sure another mistake wasn't made. He overcompensated by not marrying anyone until it was too late--and when he finally did marry, disaster resulted.

I'd like to see that documentary, Wallis Simpson: The Secret Letters. I do think both of them were somewhat crazy and both seemed to have sexual issues of some kind. She seemed to love to chase men and she liked to perform some kinky sexual acts with them. Also, she looked a little bit mannish while he looked a little bit feminine. She acted more like the traditional man and he like the traditional woman. She said she didn't love her ex husband, Ernest but was sick or being alone with no money so he was good enough. Seems that she still thought of him as a friend even after she divorced him to marry Edward if she kept writing letters to him.

The only good thing was that it got Elizabeth II on the throne much earlier than she otherwise would have been. Maybe not great for her, but neither of those two men would have been any good for the country.

She didn't want to be royalty so why did she have an affair with him? She was already married and didn't need the money. Maybe she is to be pitied a little bit because he trapped her by threatening to harm himself. What if she had walked away? She could still have walked away even after he made that speech. What would have happened if she had just refused to marry him?

edit: just read Marino's reply. So the THREE of them were friends and it was for the money. Edward became obsessed with her and she couldn't get out of it. Still, was there no way on earth for her to leave?
__________________
my posts as moderator will be in red. Moderator: Health&Wellness~Genealogy. The Rules--read here>>> TOS. If someone attacks you, do not reply. Hit REPORT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top