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 03-06-2019, 01:34 AM
 
Location: Glasgow Scotland
15,020 posts, read 12,088,413 times
Reputation: 21603

Advertisements

George had a terrible stutter and very shy.. and I dont think he ever wanted to be at the front or lead to be king , I really feel for him and what his selfish uncaring brother left him with..although I hate to think of what it might have been like with Edward as King....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-06-2019, 01:44 PM
 
19,461 posts, read 12,739,365 times
Reputation: 13174
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzybint View Post
George had a terrible stutter and very shy.. and I dont think he ever wanted to be at the front or lead to be king , I really feel for him and what his selfish uncaring brother left him with..although I hate to think of what it might have been like with Edward as King....


Oh there was more that went on behind the scenes....


When the Prince of Wales became Edward VIII he inherited assets (properties, jewels, etc.... ) that are passed from monarch to heir. Duke of Windsor forced his brother (now King George VI) to *buy* back the lot. Parliament had to vote funds to the king as he didn't have that kind of money lying about spare.


But George VI got his own back in many ways.


Once when waiting for a call from the king on some matter (likely with his begging cap out), the Duke of Windsor became busy doing something else. When call finally came through DofE informed HM we was busy and could he ring back later (via servants). HM (via his own servants) told DofE he bloody well wouldn't, and if the duke wanted to speak with HM he had better do so *NOW*.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2019, 02:31 PM
 
5,059 posts, read 4,883,021 times
Reputation: 9427
Quote:
Originally Posted by greatblueheron View Post
You can never tell when the love bug will hit....

Let Darla tell you about it...




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf0WpuxkIcA
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2019, 05:17 PM
 
11,387 posts, read 4,641,712 times
Reputation: 16684
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?
We'll never know to what extent long term history was changed. There was never a guarantee that Edward would have children. He was in his late 30s when he gave up the crown and I think Simpson was a year older. If he didn't abdicate and married Simpson regardless, they probably never would have had children and George would still have been heir to the thrown with Elizabeth 3rd in line after her father. So if Edward remained King and childless, Elizabeth would still be queen today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2019, 05:37 PM
 
Location: too far from the sea
18,960 posts, read 18,063,822 times
Reputation: 32043
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
We'll never know to what extent long term history was changed. There was never a guarantee that Edward would have children. He was in his late 30s when he gave up the crown and I think Simpson was a year older. If he didn't abdicate and married Simpson regardless, they probably never would have had children and George would still have been heir to the thrown with Elizabeth 3rd in line after her father. So if Edward remained King and childless, Elizabeth would still be queen today.
As I said before, he was sterile due to a case of mumps. That's what I read anyway. Wallis had a botched abortion but a doctor said she still could have had children. Elizabeth wouldn't have been queen for a long time, that's one difference; the other big difference is the scandal it caused and that it echoed down through the generations to affect Charles, who didn't dare marry anyone until it was too late to fine someone he loved.
__________________
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 03-06-2019, 08:16 PM
 
19,461 posts, read 12,739,365 times
Reputation: 13174
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
We'll never know to what extent long term history was changed. There was never a guarantee that Edward would have children. He was in his late 30s when he gave up the crown and I think Simpson was a year older. If he didn't abdicate and married Simpson regardless, they probably never would have had children and George would still have been heir to the thrown with Elizabeth 3rd in line after her father. So if Edward remained King and childless, Elizabeth would still be queen today.

Yes, but it would have spared the Duke of York from having to come to the throne, and all the upheaval for that family including the young princesses which came with the abdication.


Elizabeth in particular could have spent more of her life as "heir presumptive" rather than the heir which would have taken a bit of the pressure off; allowing her to live perhaps a different sort of life until called to the throne.


Think of all the implications.


Duke of Windsor outlived his brother (George VI) by nearly two decades. Maybe the Duke of York might have lived longer without the stress brought on by inheriting.


Above would have at least meant (assuming things happened as they did anyway), the Princess Elizabeth would have had twenty years more before becoming queen (in 1972 instead of 1952). Time that could have been spent with her children for a start.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2019, 09:12 PM
 
11,387 posts, read 4,641,712 times
Reputation: 16684
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
Yes, but it would have spared the Duke of York from having to come to the throne, and all the upheaval for that family including the young princesses which came with the abdication.


Elizabeth in particular could have spent more of her life as "heir presumptive" rather than the heir which would have taken a bit of the pressure off; allowing her to live perhaps a different sort of life until called to the throne.


Think of all the implications.


Duke of Windsor outlived his brother (George VI) by nearly two decades. Maybe the Duke of York might have lived longer without the stress brought on by inheriting.


Above would have at least meant (assuming things happened as they did anyway), the Princess Elizabeth would have had twenty years more before becoming queen (in 1972 instead of 1952). Time that could have been spent with her children for a start.
Of course, you and New England are correct. My only point, really was that the line of succession wouldn't have changed. Elizabeth would have still eventually become Queen, Charles next and so on. There's no doubt all of the drama changed personal lives, but in the big picture not the Monarchy as a whole nor the main characters involved since Edward wasn't going to produce any heirs. It was always going to be George's family to carry on the legacy regardless of what Edward did at that point in his life. Maybe that's one reason why Edward married who he pleased, because in the long run, it wasn't going to be his son or daughter next in line to the throne if he was sterile or he thought he was sterile.

Last edited by marino760; 03-06-2019 at 09:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2019, 01:49 AM
 
Location: Glasgow Scotland
15,020 posts, read 12,088,413 times
Reputation: 21603
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
Of course, you and New England are correct. My only point, really was that the line of succession wouldn't have changed. Elizabeth would have still eventually become Queen, Charles next and so on. There's no doubt all of the drama changed personal lives, but in the big picture not the Monarchy as a whole nor the main characters involved since Edward wasn't going to produce any heirs. It was always going to be George's family to carry on the legacy regardless of what Edward did at that point in his life. Maybe that's one reason why Edward married who he pleased, because in the long run, it wasn't going to be his son or daughter next in line to the throne if he was sterile or he thought he was sterile.
The story goes too that Edward had a son who it was said was his godson but looked very much like him.... Australian woman he was known to have had a relationship with produced a son who bore a remarkable resemblance to him. The boy became his godson, and Edward took an interest in how the boy was developing. This is from the linked article, which shows a photograph of the child in question with his brother.

WHEN the Duke of Gloucester visited

Australia not long ago, the King,

then Prince of Wales, asked him to

"look Tony up, and tell me exactly what

he is like." https://www.quora.com/Did-Edward-the...g-in-Australia

I remember years ago seeing this man Chisolm on a chat show and he did look very like Edward but who knows. https://www.quora.com/Did-Edward-VIII-have-any-children
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2019, 04:59 AM
 
11,387 posts, read 4,641,712 times
Reputation: 16684
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzybint View Post
The story goes too that Edward had a son who it was said was his godson but looked very much like him.... Australian woman he was known to have had a relationship with produced a son who bore a remarkable resemblance to him. The boy became his godson, and Edward took an interest in how the boy was developing. This is from the linked article, which shows a photograph of the child in question with his brother.

WHEN the Duke of Gloucester visited

Australia not long ago, the King,

then Prince of Wales, asked him to

"look Tony up, and tell me exactly what

he is like." https://www.quora.com/Did-Edward-the...g-in-Australia

I remember years ago seeing this man Chisolm on a chat show and he did look very like Edward but who knows. https://www.quora.com/Did-Edward-VIII-have-any-children
Fascinating! I had no idea. Thank you for sharing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2019, 05:22 AM
 
Location: Glasgow Scotland
15,020 posts, read 12,088,413 times
Reputation: 21603
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
Fascinating! I had no idea. Thank you for sharing.
whether true or not I dont know...but the man I saw on tv who was maybe in his later forties by then was Edwards double..
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