Edward and Wallis

[franksolich]

I just re-read The Windsor Story (Joseph Bryan and Charles Murphy, 1979, William Morrow & Co.), and as usual was left in tears at the ending, the deathbed of the abdicated Edward VIII in 1972, and the further decline of Wallis Warfield Simpson, who died a few years after the book came out.

I always feel "down" upon finishing a biography, with its deathbed scene.  I get especially caterwaulingly lachrymose when reading the deathbed scenes of Henry R. Luce and Gen. Douglas MacArthur; it's all so sad.

Anyway, I've read this book before, some years ago, when trying to analyze the neuroses and psychoses of the sparkling husband primitive, whose marriage is eerily similar with that of Edward and Wallis some forty years preceding.

I used to have A King's Story, written by H.R.H. the Duke of Windsor in 1947 (for Henry R. Luce), and The Heart Has Its Reasons, written by the Duchess of Windsor in 1956, but gave them away because they were just puff pieces.

The Windsor Story seems to be pretty much the definitive work on the couple.

[debk]

I just re-read The Windsor Story (Joseph Bryan and Charles Murphy, 1979, William Morrow & Co.), and as usual was left in tears at the ending, the deathbed of the abdicated Edward VIII in 1972, and the further decline of Wallis Warfield Simpson, who died a few years after the book came out.

I always feel "down" upon finishing a biography, with its deathbed scene.  I get especially caterwaulingly lachrymose when reading the deathbed scenes of Henry R. Luce and Gen. Douglas MacArthur; it's all so sad.

Anyway, I've read this book before, some years ago, when trying to analyze the neuroses and psychoses of the sparkling husband primitive, whose marriage is eerily similar with that of Edward and Wallis some forty years preceding.

I used to have A King's Story, written by H.R.H. the Duke of Windsor in 1947 (for Henry R. Luce), and The Heart Has Its Reasons, written by the Duchess of Windsor in 1956, but gave them away because they were just puff pieces.

The Windsor Story seems to be pretty much the definitive work on the couple.

They were truly a love story....maybe one of the greatest in history.

[franksolich]

They were truly a love story....maybe one of the greatest in history.

You got to be kidding, madam.

[vesta111]

You got to be kidding, madam.

I have to go with Frank on this one, nothing happends in royalty that has not been planed out .

I watched the Auction of the personal property of MS Wallis and that was a killer booty she had.

Edward would have made a terrible king, he knew it so did the Crown.  He was not above suspicion of being Gay and to get him to abdicate his position had to have a darn good reason.

To explain his abdicating they had to find a reason that wasn't above reproach--- So the love of a woman was their excuse.

Both Edward and Wallis played their parts well,  both lived the high life even as they were refused admittance to Great Brittin. [ I wonder why]

Edward was free to travel most of the world and play party hardy, Wallis also could play and just keep collecting a rich life style.

There may have come about a genuine friendship between the two, but heterosexual love was not the reason.

The romantic bubble burst years ago.

[franksolich]

Oh now, vesta, madam, it's a great deal more complicated than that.

In the first place, the Duke of Windsor while a wimp, was no gay.

There are suspicions that one of his younger brothers, George the Duke of Kent (1902-1942) might have dabbled lightly--very lightly--in gayeity, but Edward, Albert (the later George VI), and Henry were notorious heterosexuals.

There are startling similarities between the Duke of Windsor and the sparkling husband primitive on Skins's island; they're so similar it's eerie.

Total self-imposed subjugation to the whims and caprices of the woman he "loved."

Wallis lost no opportunity to denigrate and humiliate him, and the more she did it, the more he "loved" her.

This was no Henry R. Luce-Clare Boothe Luce sort of marriage; this was a really dysfunctional marriage.

It was very unfortunate that the Duke of Windsor, when the Prince of Wales, did not ultimately match up with one of his earlier loves, Fredda Dudley Ward, Lady Diana Cooper, or Thelma Lady Furness; his associations with them caused scandal, but all of them were better women than Wallis.

The Duke of Windsor's mother, Queen Mary, consort of George V, was correct in her assessment of her oldest son; he wished to have fun, not purpose, in life.  Which would have made him a lousy king-emperor.

Most Freudians say that the problem lay in the Duke of Windsor's father, George V, who was remote, cold, and aloof from his children, especially his heir--but that was the common Hanoverian problem, from George I to George II to George III to George IV to William IV to Victoria to Edward VII too; they all loathed their heirs.

I dunno why that happened; maybe it was something in the water at Hanover.

I spoke a little bit too broadly; actually William IV doted on his niece Victoria, and Edward VII loved his son George V, but you get the idea.

It was very fortunate that England and the Empire ended up with Albert the Duke of York (the second son, who took the name George VI), who ended up being just about the best possible king-emperor one could have.

I could never understand the dismissal of Henry, the third son, later Duke of Gloucester and Governor-General of Australia.  His friendliness and gregariousness was, oddly, described as his not being very bright.  His oldest brother surely didn't care for him.

Maybe it was a military thing; Edward, Albert (later George VI), and George were Navy, and Henry was Army.

[vesta111]

Oh now, Vesta, madam, it's a great deal more complicated than that.

In the first place, the Duke of Windsor while a wimp, was no gay.

There are suspicions that one of his younger brothers, George the Duke of Kent (1902-1942) might have dabbled lightly--very lightly--in gayeity, but Edward, Albert (the later George VI), and Henry were notorious heterosexuals.

There are startling similarities between the Duke of Windsor and the sparkling husband primitive on Skins's island; they're so similar it's eerie.

Total self-imposed subjugation to the whims and caprices of the woman he "loved."

Wallis lost no opportunity to denigrate and humiliate him, and the more she did it, the more he "loved" her.

This was no Henry R. Luce-Clare Boothe Luce sort of marriage; this was a really dysfunctional marriage.

It was very unfortunate that the Duke of Windsor, when the Prince of Wales, did not ultimately match up with one of his earlier loves, Fredda Dudley Ward, Lady Diana Cooper, or Thelma Lady Furness; his associations with them caused scandal, but all of them were better women than Wallis.

The Duke of Windsor's mother, Queen Mary, consort of George V, was correct in her assessment of her oldest son; he wished to have fun, not purpose, in life.  Which would have made him a lousy king-emperor.

Most Freudians say that the problem lay in the Duke of Windsor's father, George V, who was remote, cold, and aloof from his children, especially his heir--but that was the common Hanoverian problem, from George I to George II to George III to George IV to William IV to Victoria to Edward VII too; they all loathed their heirs.

I dunno why that happened; maybe it was something in the water at Hanover.

I spoke a little bit too broadly; actually William IV doted on his niece Victoria, and Edward VII loved his son George V, but you get the idea.

It was very fortunate that England and the Empire ended up with Albert the Duke of York (the second son, who took the name George VI), who ended up being just about the best possible king-emperor one could have.

I could never understand the dismissal of Henry, the third son, later Duke of Gloucester and Governor-General of Australia.  His friendliness and gregariousness was, oddly, described as his not being very bright.  His oldest brother surely didn't care for him.

Maybe it was a military thing; Edward, Albert (later George VI), and George were Navy, and Henry was Army.

Odd how history repeats itself.

Queen Elisabeth was not known as a doting mother, in fact I remember seeing a photo of her arriving home after a month or more overseas and little Charles at 3-4 years of age solemnly shaking her hand. Big difference between the pictures of delight on Diana's face when her boys ran into her arms, went on trips with the kids and walked the kids to school.

I get the idea that the horrid expression "Children should be seen but not heard" came from that generation.

Charles, Ann and Edward grow up looking out windows as children, --later off to boarding schools, seldom seen in public with just their Mom or Dad.

It was the separation of the leaders and their subjects that I believe led to the rejection of having their children act anything like the common street kids.

With Diana and Fergie so young and insisting on being real Moms to their children, if must have caused the old Guard much confusion.  I remember when the girls dressed up in police uniforms and snuck out to go bar hopping.

Poor Charles, to have his rowdie boys jumping on him and demanding attention ---something he would never thought to do with his father---so far away from his wife's generation, his sons had to be well on their way to manhood before he felt at ease with them.

Few of us have any idea what life is for a child that by LAW must bow or curtsy to their own parents before dinner, if they are in fact allowed to eat with the parents.

Then there is Charles brother Edward, some believed for years he was gay until he finally married.   Poor Ann under her mothers thumb for life.

Then Elisabeth's sister Margerat that gave up the love of her life because it was so ordered.

Now it seems like the Queen is still interfearing with the lives of her grandchildren and who they marry. The wife of my grandson must have a profession.

It was unpresidented to have a funeral for Diana, and to allow Charles to marry his mistress.
The photo of her sons wife having her toes sucked in a pool and her demands they divorce  must have aged her by 20 years.

How does the expression go Frank, " Uneasy lies the head  beneath the crown"--

Colorful bunch of leaders, perhaps that is why some hold such facination for the British Royality.    Hell, I waited for 4 hours in the blazing sun to get a chance to see the Queen in DC a couple of years ago.

This is the first time in history we the common people have been bystanders to what actually goes on in the personal lives of our leaders. ----When William was a year old Charles was asked whar his sons favorite toy was, Charles with unconnon uneasiness replied that it was the bath time rubber duckie. Then he looked embarased to have said or even known that fact.

Reminds me of a time very long ago when a young boy was given a gift of leather boots, he was refered to as Little Boots for years after.

[franksolich]

Actually, vesta, madam, it is, or was, tradition that the English king (or queen) could not dote on one's children, because the people in general were to be the subject of the king's affection, not just his children.

This generally worked, but the Hanoverians (1714-present day) turned it into something negative, by overdoing it a bit much.

George I (r. 1714-1727) imprisoned, while still in Hanover, his own wife and his own son, who became

George II (r. 1727-1760) loathed and detested his heir, Frederick the Prince of Wales, and was not disappointed when the Prince of Wales died early, meaning his grandson succeeded him as

George III (r. 1760-1820) was happily married but had no liking for his heir, a bon vivant and a wastrel, who grew to the size of the gigantic primitive, and was a decadent old man when he became

George IV (r. 1820-1830) hated his wife but loved his daughter, Charlotte the Princess of Wales (and hence heiress to the throne), who predeceased her father, making a younger brother of George IV

William IV (r. 1830-1837) who loved his wife but had no heirs or heiresses surviving infancy, and who despised his sister-in-law, widow of one of his brothers, but doted on his niece, who became

Victoria (r. 1837-1901) who loved her husband and all of her children with the sole exception of her heir who became in old age

Edward VII (r. 1901-1910) a playboy and hedonist who, oddly, cared very much for his prim, strait-laced heir

George V (r. 1910-1936) who loved his wife but had something against his playboy-hedonist heir who became

Edward VIII (r. 1936-1936) who, instead of having children had some, uh, deep and intense psychological problems, and gave it all up in favor of his younger brother who became

George VI (r. 1936-1952), perhaps the most well-adjusted and balanced of the Hanoverians despite severe impediments of speech and a too-strict father, who loved his wife uxoriously and his two daughters, one of whom became

Elizabeth II (r. 1952-present) who has faithfully fulfilled her responsibility of loving all Englishmen, not just her own children.

Anyone interested in studying the history of neuroses and psychoses is advised to read of the lives of past kings and queens, so as to get an insight into those same things which afflicted commoners, peasants, serfs.

The neuroses and psychoses of the commoners, peasants, and serfs were not written about, while those of the kings and queens were.  So it gives one a good idea of what it was like, for the anonymous multitudes of any particular time in the past.  

[vesta111]

Actually, vesta, madam, it is, or was, tradition that the English king (or queen) could not dote on one's children, because the people in general were to be the subject of the king's affection, not just his children.

This generally worked, but the Hanoverians (1714-present day) turned it into something negative, by overdoing it a bit much.

George I (r. 1714-1727) imprisoned, while still in Hanover, his own wife and his own son, who became

George II (r. 1727-1760) loathed and detested his heir, Frederick the Prince of Wales, and was not disappointed when the Prince of Wales died early, meaning his grandson succeeded him as

George III (r. 1760-1820) was happily married but had no liking for his heir, a bon vivant and a wastrel, who grew to the size of the gigantic primitive, and was a decadent old man when he became

George IV (r. 1820-1830) hated his wife but loved his daughter, Charlotte the Princess of Wales (and hence heiress to the throne), who predeceased her father, making a younger brother of George IV

William IV (r. 1830-1837) who loved his wife but had no heirs or heiresses surviving infancy, and who despised his sister-in-law, widow of one of his brothers, but doted on his niece, who became

Victoria (r. 1837-1901) who loved her husband and all of her children with the sole exception of her heir who became in old age

Edward VII (r. 1901-1910) a playboy and hedonist who, oddly, cared very much for his prim, strait-laced heir

George V (r. 1910-1936) who loved his wife but had something against his playboy-hedonist heir who became

Edward VIII (r. 1936-1936) who, instead of having children had some, uh, deep and intense psychological problems, and gave it all up in favor of his younger brother who became

George VI (r. 1936-1952), perhaps the most well-adjusted and balanced of the Hanoverians despite severe impediments of speech and a too-strict father, who loved his wife uxoriously and his two daughters, one of whom became

Elizabeth II (r. 1952-present) who has faithfully fulfilled her responsibility of loving all Englishmen, not just her own children.

Anyone interested in studying the history of neuroses and psychoses is advised to read of the lives of past kings and queens, so as to get an insight into those same things which afflicted commoners, peasants, serfs.

The neuroses and psychoses of the commoners, peasants, and serfs were not written about, while those of the kings and queens were.  So it gives one a good idea of what it was like, for the anonymous multitudes of any particular time in the past.  

Something is tickling my memory here, was there not a birth deformity that ran through one of these family's, a club foot or some such ?

[franksolich]

Something is tickling my memory here, was there not a birth deformity that ran through one of these family's, a club foot or some such ?

Not that I'm aware of.

There was, or is, a propensity to develop some sort of disease of the blood, pophyrhia (? not sure of spelling), triggered by, of all things, consumption of beef.

If it gets bad enough, it drives one nuts.

George III had it, as did his sons George IV, William IV, Augustus Duke of Sussex, and Edward Duke of Kent (father of Victoria) although to a lesser extent (but none of them lived as long as their father had).

Characteristics of pophyria, although not the disease itself, have been evident in most of the family since then, with the exceptions of George VI and Elizabeth II.

It was the Portuguese, Spanish, and Austrian ruling families that, throughout the centuries, had propensities towards physical defects, about half of them caused by health conditions of the time, half of them genetic.  Some of them were actually monsters, in the strictly physical meaning of the term.

The only English king (or queen) known to have a significant physical defect was, of course, the much-maligned Richard III (r. 1483-1485), who had a withered arm (not a hunched back).  Richard III was a very late, and the last, child born of his mother, and the usual speculation is that it was probably polio, a condition virtually unknown during the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

When I worked at the Nebraska Department of Health, as an experiment, I showed a large copy of the only portrait of Richard III known to accurately depict him as he really was, to three physicians, none of whom had any idea who he was.

The portrait does not show him below the shoulders, and hence no withered arm is visible.  But it was uncanny, that all three of them described him as probably afflicted with some sort of neuro-muscular paralysis.

It was a good thing I was wearing brown pants when one of them commented the subject was probably monogamous, faithful to his wife, which was the bull's-eye within the bulls'-eye.

Startled at this accurate perception, I asked him how he figured that out.  He said the lips of the subject indicated paralysis, and so probably had great difficulty kissing.

[DixieBelle]

Great thread! I could read this kind of stuff all day. When i was in high school, I had a broken leg and was relegated to the library for P.E. I fell in love with history books and autobiographies during that time. You brought back some great memories!!

[vesta111]

Not that I'm aware of.

There was, or is, a propensity to develop some sort of disease of the blood, pophyrhia (? not sure of spelling), triggered by, of all things, consumption of beef.

If it gets bad enough, it drives one nuts.

George III had it, as did his sons George IV, William IV, Augustus Duke of Sussex, and Edward Duke of Kent (father of Victoria) although to a lesser extent (but none of them lived as long as their father had).

Characteristics of pophyria, although not the disease itself, have been evident in most of the family since then, with the exceptions of George VI and Elizabeth II.

It was the Portuguese, Spanish, and Austrian ruling families that, throughout the centuries, had propensities towards physical defects, about half of them caused by health conditions of the time, half of them genetic.  Some of them were actually monsters, in the strictly physical meaning of the term.

The only English king (or queen) known to have a significant physical defect was, of course, the much-maligned Richard III (r. 1483-1485), who had a withered arm (not a hunched back).  Richard III was a very late, and the last, child born of his mother, and the usual speculation is that it was probably polio, a condition virtually unknown during the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

When I worked at the Nebraska Department of Health, as an experiment, I showed a large copy of the only portrait of Richard III known to accurately depict him as he really was, to three physicians, none of whom had any idea who he was.

The portrait does not show him below the shoulders, and hence no withered arm is visible.  But it was uncanny, that all three of them described him as probably afflicted with some sort of neuro-muscular paralysis.

It was a good thing I was wearing brown pants when one of them commented the subject was probably monogamous, faithful to his wife, which was the bull's-eye within the bulls'-eye.

Startled at this accurate perception, I asked him how he figured that out.  He said the lips of the subject indicated paralysis, and so probably had great difficulty kissing.

Bells Palsy effects the nerves in the face, Hubby developed it years before I met him and was not given proper proper treatment. 

When I met him he was possibly the ugliest man I had ever seen--He made my dog Howl.
One side of his face kind of melted from his eye to his chin.

I got the bright idea one day and dared him to grow a beard, What a difference, he became  most distinguished looking.

Terrable affliction for a woman to have, no way to hide the disfigurement.

Then there is a most horrid disease that affected just the nerve in the face, pain is excruciating. last resort was to cut the nerve and that led to no feeling on that side of the face, people had to carry a hankie at all times as they could not tell if they were drooling or not.  With no feeling in the side of the face people often died from tooth abscesses.

You mentioned Popheria, could that be another name for Gout?  That seems to be inherited and all beef products, wine and tobacco cause flare ups even today. Another extremely painfull experience and it can spread to all parts of the body.  Before they developed medication for Gout people could not walk, and in a bad case could not even have a light cloth over their foot==big toe== as just a breeze could cause such burning in the foot people went mad.

The poor subjects seldom got Gout, as their diet was so limited only the wealthy could afford this ailment.

Rickets's was before sailors found the lime, a bad problem back then for all classes.

I have heard that Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo because of such a severe case of Hemorrhoids he could  not mount his horse.

It is a wonder any of the nobility survived in London or other large city's, descriptions of their castles with human waste running down the sides of the walls, Royalty just stuck their bum out a window and let fly. Open sewers in the streets, at one time it was said one could almost walk across the Thames on top of animal and human carcases just dumped into it.  Streets full of animal droppings and people dumping the bed pans out the window into the street, then the Plague hit. Those in prison survived as they ate the rats. 

Every time I drive into New York I think think of this as up go the car windows, I can smell the city from 10 miles out, like dirty socks.   Imagine the stench of London way back then.

If you are into American History there are some fascinating books about what life was like in Chicago before sewers were built, Same with New York, disease everywhere, but enough people had some immunity and survived the epidemics. I cant remember if it was Philadelphia that kept Mather Washington inside for 6 weeks due to Cholera or Typhis that killed thousands, her maid writes about body's in the street outside her window.

[DixieBelle]

It's called Porphyria. Very fascinating to me....

http://people.virginia.edu/~jlc5f/charlotte/porphyria.html

[franksolich]

It's called Porphyria. Very fascinating to me....

http://people.virginia.edu/~jlc5f/charlotte/porphyria.html

Thank you, madam.

That's one of those words I could never spell correctly.

I was disappointed however that the web-site didn't mention consumption of beef as something that triggers it (not in ordinary people, but in people with that particular genetic make-up).

I had forgotten all about Mary Queen of Scots, James I, and Anne.

However, it needs noted that dead fish, and not beef, have killed more English kings.

Three of them.

Edward IV (r. 1461-1483), George I (r. 1714-1727), and a third one whom I forget. 

They all liked raw eels, and died from it.