Wallis Simpson’s lawyer proposed buying off Wallis to leave King Edward VIII

There’s so much talk of Wallis Simpson these days. Surprisingly, the Telegraph’s latest history lesson isn’t a desperate attempt to force a comparison between Wallis and the Duchess of Sussex. A short primer: Wallis Simpson was the American divorcee who had several torrid affairs in the 1930s, and one of her lovers was with the then-Prince of Wales and then King Edward VIII. Historian Christopher Wilson has done a new deep dive into all of the government papers from 1936, the Year of Three Kings. The year King George V died, King Edward VIII ascended the throne and then abdicated, leaving his younger brother to be king (King George VI, Elizabeth II’s father). The big headline from Wilson’s research: Wallis Simpson’s lawyer suggested that the government buy her off to end her relationship with the king.

As the Abdication crisis reached boiling-point in the dying days of 1936, was Wallis Simpson ready and willing to be bought out of her forthcoming marriage to King Edward VIII? Newly viewed Cabinet documents indicate that, at the height of the crisis, the question of a cash settlement to get rid of the twice-divorced American was actually proposed by her lawyer.

Had the deal been struck it could have had far-reaching consequences lasting down to the present day, 88 years later, resulting in a different monarch occupying the throne – not King Charles. The proposal mercifully came to nothing. But for a fleeting moment it looked as if, in return for a large sum of money, “The woman I love” would abandon the hapless king to his fate and disappear over the horizon.

The evidence comes in the contemporary account of Sir Horace Wilson, the senior Whitehall mandarin entrusted by prime minister Stanley Baldwin to collate the avalanche of information coming in as the crisis grew. Though it came to the outside world as a seismic shock, the hurried exit of an errant king and installation of a reliable substitute appeared a seamless process administered with professionalism and dignity. But according to Wilson’s papers, nothing could be further from the truth – the whole thing was a shambles, one which could have ended with the present Duke of Kent, 88, being crowned king.

What I uncovered was a picture of panic and despair as the clock ticked down to December 11, the day King Edward signed the Instrument of Abdication – among people who should have been better prepared. In all, it took just 25 short days from the moment Edward loftily told the prime minister he was going to marry Mrs Simpson until his ignominious flight to obscurity.

Despite being told that a marriage between the head of the Church of England and a divorcee would precipitate a constitutional crisis, the king was confident he could have his cake and eat it – “you’ll be Queen, Empress of India, the whole bag of tricks” he promised Wallis. And meantime, over in Whitehall, there was a shockingly misplaced confidence that Edward could easily be deflected by financial sanction from taking what seemed an impossible step.

Those in the know were aware from the moment Edward inherited the throne in January 1936 that there was a problem over his relationship with Mrs Simpson. That he had caved in to her superior will was well-known. So too was King George V’s prediction that his son and heir would not last the course as sovereign. Yet no formal preparations were made – no Plan B formulated. And so in Wilson’s papers we see the first signs of the wheels falling off…

Horace Wilson receives a visit from Theodore Goddard, Wallis’s solicitor. Wilson notes, incredulously: “After some further talk, I discovered that what Mr Goddard was really saying, in effect, was what price could be paid to Mrs Simpson for clearing out.”

The civil servant, veteran of many cabinet crises, finds himself speechless at the thought of providing a massive pay-off to get rid of the problem. Goddard drops the idea like a hot potato when he realises he’s overstepped the mark.

[From The Telegraph]

It’s funny that the prime minister balked at the idea of paying Wallis to leave the king? Like… that might have actually been the solution to all of their problems, if they had more imagination. But it’s also clear that Edward VIII freaked out all of the British power players, he was too weak-willed and too compromised across the board. What’s also funny about these newly-discovered papers is that the government had next to no faith in King George VI, then the Duke of York. They saw him as a scared mama’s boy who wasn’t up to the job.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

100 Responses to “Wallis Simpson’s lawyer proposed buying off Wallis to leave King Edward VIII”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. StillDouchesOfCambridge says:

    Is this Willie Wanker hinting he’d like to payoff kate so she goes away? Or is the telegraph suggesting that Eggplant Willie is too weak and scared to be the next king. Both are true

    • Sydneygirl says:

      I highly recommend a 3-part series called A Very Royal Crisis: Countdown to Abdication.

      Articles are always trying to make the comparison between Wallis and Edward and Harry and Meghan, but the reality is when it gets down to brass tacks – Edward, his personality, arrogance, lack of spine and self sabotaging his shot at the throne has far more in common with William.

      I’ve never been more convinced after watching it that William’s reign (if indeed he ever takes the throne) will be an unmitigated disaster.

      Highly recommended viewing.

      • Sunday says:

        Yes! thank you both for saying this! I think the American divorcee similarity was a convenient way for the tabloids to suggest they were talking about Meghan and Harry, but really the entire story of Wallis fits with Will and Kate.

        Edward wasn’t fit for duty for a variety of reasons. Wallis was the excuse. I think at least a small contingent is panicked enough about Will’s reign that they’re trying to run the same play.

      • BlueNailsBetty says:

        “ I’ve never been more convinced after watching it that William’s reign (if indeed he ever takes the throne) will be an unmitigated disaster.”

        This, so much. I’ve invested in popcorn shares because when that weasel becomes king everyone is going to be watching the sh*tshow and I expected popcorn sales to zoom sky high.

      • KeKe Swan says:

        What an irony. It turns out THE SPARE is the only family member with anything vaguely resembling kingly qualities! And he’s the one they ran out of the country. SMH.

      • aftershocks says:

        I think it pays to read all historical accounts, documentaries, and relevant interconnected histories of the time period, before running this way and that way with various theories and changing interpretations.

        From relevant, well-researched accounts, Wallis was not interested in marrying David (Edw VIII). She was perfectly happy wielding personal power bts as mistress of the King of Great Britain. She did not want to divorce her second husband, Edward Simpson. It was David who was abnormally obsessed with Wallis. He was determined to marry her. When she tried to convince him that he should remain king and let her go quietly, or simply be satisfied with her being his mistress, David threatened Wallis that he would kill himself. That’s supposedly why she finally agreed to go along with his ultimate desperate alternative to abdicate in order to marry her. It was not what she truly wanted.

        Apparently, this new documentation simply reveals that at the height of the crisis, Wallis’ attorney made a bold payoff request (which he quickly abandoned). Does the report indicate Wallis’ input on that payoff request? Maybe it was at an early stage in the crisis, prior to David threatening Wallis that he would kill himself if she refused to marry him.

      • molly says:

        @aftershocks- That’s always been my interpretation too. Wallis and David were never this deep love story of two people who couldn’t be kept apart, no matter the global stakes.

        She sought the power and influence of high society and he was immature, petulant, and as incapable of a healthy relationship as the centuries of royals before him.

      • kirk says:

        Had never heard of the series “A Very Royal Crisis: Countdown to Abdication.” Looks like I can get it on Amazon Prime or Apple TV+ if I sign up for BBC Select through them, 1-week free trial is available on both platforms, possibly also available on Roku Premium.
        Not sure I’ll bother though since britmedia keeps bangin’ the hate Meghan drum with comparisons to Wallis Simpson. I like @equality and @aftershocks comments below about more accurate comparisons / profiles.

      • aftershocks says:

        Spot-on @Molly! 💯 I am in full agreement with you based on all the factual evidence available. Exactly! 🎯

        🫡 Aye, aye @Kirk!

        Regarding this documentary series mentioned by @SydneyGirl, I imagine it is a new production/ investigation? If so, I will have to check it out to compare with what I already know. Thanks everyone.

  2. Lolo86lf says:

    So they didn’t like Wallis Simpson back then because she was a divorced woman, and they don’t like Meghan Markle now because she is not white. Prejudice is the poison of the mind isn’t it? I do wonder just how much money they would have offered each lady for leaving their royal boyfriends.

    • MrsBanjo says:

      Wallis was also a Nazi friend of Hitler. It wasn’t just about her being divorced. Divorce was the excuse.

      • equality says:

        Actually, Ed was the one with ties to Hitler and who expressed his admiration for him and went to meet him. Wallis went with him, but never expressed admiration or commented on her viewpoint. It’s the usual “blame the woman” view of the UK.

      • aftershocks says:

        @LOLO86LF, I think the Edw VIII & Wallis Simpson saga is much more complicated than saying ‘Wallis wasn’t liked because she was a divorcee.’ That’s just the conventional line, always coupled with the false depiction of the two of them being so deeply in love. 🙄 Not true! It is a fact though, that Wallis was accepted in aristo circles as David’s mistress.

        Upper class Brits, aristos, and royals historically engaged in affairs bts. Among upperclass Britons, there are all kinds of unwritten rules associated with conducting marital affairs (some of which I heard about in connection with Chuck & Camzilla’s long-running relationship). Despite being accepted in aristo social circles, Wallis was probably secretly looked down on as an American from a lower middle class background.

        There are different things to distinguish about this famous affair when we look back. It is when David became mulishly determined to marry Wallis that things became dicey for her. Of course, she was completely unacceptable for the future king to marry, and she knew it, even if he didn’t accept that reality! On the other hand, the government, along with dying George V, understood without a doubt that David was unsuitable personality-wise and character-wise to serve as King. Thus, his obsessive relationship with Wallis was ultimately seen by the government as a convenient way of manipulating David to abdicate before the scheduled coronation. The manipulation worked, thankfully. Although, it didn’t work out for Wallis because she became tied to (entrapped with) David for the rest of her life, without the perks of him as King.

        All the superficial attempts to connect the David & Wallis relationship to the Sussexes makes absolutely no sense. And that’s an understatement. Neither is W&K’s relationship at all similar to D&W’s. 🤦‍♀️ Yet, obvious comparisons can be made to Willy’s and to David’s personal unsuitabilities to serve as King.

    • jemmy says:

      I think they are basically telling on themselves since Meghan is often likened to Wallis Simpson the American Divorcee. , that (possibly) some financial incentive been offered to Meghan for her to stay away from Harry.

      • Tessa says:

        Yet the current king and queen consort were both divorced from their first spouses

      • lanne says:

        I thought I saw a report somewhere that Meghan was offered 50 million dollars to leave Harry. Meghan was no “gold digger” (gold digger is an epithet attached to any woman who isn’t okay with being at the complete mercy of a man–listen to all the men calling stay-at-home moms who want compension to be “gold diggers”)–she had her own gold, but the arrogance of thinking they could dangle money at her nauseated me. That’s why I want her to writer her memoir someday. I think she experienced some seriously f-ed up things, and I think the palaces are embarrased and terrified at those things coming out.

      • BlueNailsBetty says:

        @Tessa True but the minute Diana died it cleared the way for Charles to remarry.

        I mean, that alone is a wtf moment because Diana’s death didn’t change the fact that they divorced. But the British monarchy has a long and stupid history of twisting things to get their way. Charles needed to rehab his image so he insisted in marrying Camilla to prove they were “soul mates” and “love delayed”.

        Anyway, all things are possible under God and the manipulations of the Crown and the Firm or something like that, I guess.

      • Tessa says:

        Bluenailsbetty I think Charles was preparing the way for the marriage before Diana died. Bol land the mentor for Camilla was already at work and a charity event attended by Charles and Camilla was planned for fall 1997 which of course had to be canceled. There may have been a delay had Diana lived. Also Charles had to wait anyway because the queen mother did not want c and c to marry in her lifetime.

      • aftershocks says:

        Hmm @Jemmy, you are making an assumption not backed up by factual evidence. Even in the case of this new information about Wallis Simpson, it mentions her attorney making an offer to the prime minister, which he quickly dropped. I don’t know if there is further documentation regarding Wallis’ intentions or involvement in her attorney’s payoff offer. There is documented evidence that during the crisis Wallis understandably feared for her life and her uncertain future. She did not want David (Edw VIII) to abdicate, nor did she have any ambition to marry him. She simply gave in when he threatened to kill himself if she refused to marry him.

        Obviously, the rota enjoys making sly, underhanded allusions to and connections between Wallis and Meghan. However, I am unaware of any evidence to support speculation of monetary offers to Meghan in order to ‘get rid of her.’ OTOH, money was offered to certain people in attempts to defame Meghan. But none of those attempts worked. I think it has always been very clear that Harry and Meghan are deeply in love with each other. It is a ‘winning’ love that can’t be broken by jealous haters and gaslighters.

        Certainly, there was a lot of investigation into Meghan’s background and multiple attempts at bribing family members and former associates for a variety of purposes. But the rota’s and royal firm insiders’ ultimate aim of finding something with which to destroy Meghan and to break-up the H&M relationship, NEVER materialized. To this day, it still hasn’t! Periodt! 🫳🏽

      • bluhare says:

        My understanding is Wallis did not want to marry Edward/David, and tried to get out of it. Her lawyer wouldn’t have offered if she wasn’t onboard.

        Apparently there are letters she wrote which confirm it — if I remember correctly they were to Ernest Simpson.

    • SarahLee says:

      Divorced was merely the polite reason they used to cover up their true concerns – that she was a Nazi sympathizer, as was King Edward. Getting him off the throne was important, particularly so if Wallis remained to have pillow talk with him. Bertie was weak and unprepared, but he wasn’t compromised. The government could work with that. And, Bertie, as King George, ended up being just what England needed as a war King.

      • AlpineWitch says:

        Isn’t that hinted at in the film The King’s Speech too? I’ve seen it years ago now so I might misremember the whole Edward’s part….

      • Sunday says:

        100%. I think some courtiers had fantasies about running the same play with Harry due to Will’s unfitness, except their racism and abuse of Meghan made that impossible.

      • Chrissy says:

        @SarahLee
        I agree with you about Bertie but I also think that his wife Elizabeth was his secret weapon, as seen in the King’s Speech. Her charm, charisma, total belief in Bertie and her stable family life made all the difference at the time.

      • Dee says:

        I read that there were “plans” shown to Edward that almost immediately were sent to the Nazis. Was it one of them or both? It didn’t matter at that point, since they were together.

      • C says:

        Many members of the royal family had Nazi ties. Google Charlie Coburg who was welcomed at Windsor while being a preferred agent of Hitler or the Duke of Kent possibly collaborating, not to mention Philip with his sisters.
        David was unsuitable for many reasons but the Nazi excuse was magnified for other political reasons.
        There were plenty of royal and non royal people who thought appeasement/peace negotiations were better than war even if it meant the Nazis stayed in power in Germany.

      • aftershocks says:

        Well, Bertie (George VI) was malleable, and apparently, essentially decent enough. It was actually his strong-willed, self-centered wife (Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon) with her inherently sheltered, snobby upbringing who was the power and stabilizing force behind Bertie.

    • Keke Swan says:

      Actually I think it was Thomas Markle who took the payoff. He actually said as much on a now deleted Aussie TV interview. That he was paid to stop the wedding and Williams hatchet man, blanking on the name, the one who testified against Meghan and made the bullying claims (Knauf?), was the go-between.

    • Jaded says:

      She was more than just an American divorcee. She had a very shady past and it’s quite probable that she carried on an affair with Joachim von Ribbentrop, the Nazis’ foreign minister when he was ambassador to Britain in 1936. She was also close friends with Princess Stephanie von Hohenlohe, a Nazi spy being monitored by British intelligence. Between Wallis and David, their Nazi leanings were a huge red flag and by then senior Nazis were inferring that David would be given the crown back as a “puppet king” for Germany once England was bombed into submission.

      • Kit says:

        Edward VIII was tight with his Nazi cousins back in Germany. The Germans released his letters to the German cousins but the UK government refused to open files to historians. Edward’s enchantment with Nazi Germany was his to own. It has nothing to do with Wallis.

        Edward VIII remained fascinated by Hitler’s Germany after his abdication. The British government had him monitored while they lived in the Bahamas. He wasn’t a Nazi but he was sympathetic and he was an anti-Semite like many of the aristocracy of the time. Edward wasn’t alone with this fascination for fascism. The first owners (the Harmsworth brothers) of the Daily Mail also had an unhealthy interest and were avid fascists. The DM wasn’t the only paper at the time that openly supported Moseley’s black shirts in England. The Mirror did too. They openly supported Mussolini and Hitler.

        So let’s not blame the woman again.

        Give due to the men.

  3. Concern Fae says:

    So, these courtiers not knowing what to do when more than just being nasty and judgmental is needed isn’t a new thing.

    Assuming someone with a stutter is mentally weak is also there. Things really don’t change.

    We’ll find out what is really going on with Wills right now at some point. It surely can’t just be my brother has destroyed my life. Very curious to find out.

  4. equality says:

    They could have done all kinds of things, up to making provisions for Wallis to be accepted. The COE was founded to allow divorce for a king and its first leader was divorced. The bottom line was that they wanted rid of Edward.

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      Equality: Yes! They were using Wallis as an excuse to get rid of Edward. And her own letters have revealed that she was not nearly as infatuated with him as he with her. She was actually looking for a way out too. But the government needed her in the picture to cover for their “overthrowing” him because that’s what they were doing.

      • Nic says:

        That’s interesting Brassy, I haven’t heard that before although she did later regret the marriage. If she were looking for a way out, why didn’t she simply leave him and return to the US? She left her second marriage for him so she must have had some expectation it would work out, no?

      • equality says:

        Maybe it’s the “opposite” thing with royal reporting again. Maybe the truth was she was paid to keep on with him.

      • Tessa says:

        They did not have children. Some reports said her first husband Winfield Spencer who abused his wife physically and emotionally caused her to miscarry. Or Edward was sterile although Some one came forward some years ago claiming to be Edward’s son. Princess elizabeth probably would have gotten to be queen anyway.

      • bisynaptic says:

        @Nic, she tried to leave him; he threatened to kill himself.

      • Brassy Rebel says:

        Nic: I think she wanted to keep the aristocratic European lifestyle she was enjoying. Also, she probably did not want to embarrass Edward. She was ambivalent about marrying him though.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        The gov wanted rid of Edward because he was dangerous due to his Nazi sympathies – there has been long held theories/rumours that he was passing UK state secrets to the Nazi’s, thus committing treason. Churchill is alleged to have covered it up by destroying evidence.

        Wallis was the scapegoat for him. I agree with others who have said that she never wanted to marry him, she was content to continue to be the mistress as she didn’t want to divorce her husband at the time – she was said to have been quite fond of him.

      • Ciotog says:

        I read an account of the abdication that stated that she didn’t want to marry him, but because he was royal/the King she felt she couldn’t leave him. It really shows how brave Diana was.

      • aftershocks says:

        @Brassy Rebel. I think evidence supports that Wallis cared somewhat for David (Edw VIII), yet she wasn’t in love with him. She enjoyed the status and perks of being his mistress. But once their affair became an international incident, she wanted out, just as you said. However, I don’t think Wallis was in any way worried about ’embarrassing’ Edward. He had been overindulging in shameless, embarrassing behaviors all along.

        Wallis was more concerned about her own safety, her own fortunes, and her own future. She was worried about death threats she had received, and she was worried about how she would be viewed and treated if Edward succeeded in killing himself, as he threatened to do if she didn’t marry him.

    • sevenblue says:

      “The bottom line was that they wanted rid of Edward.”

      @equality, so true. I would also add that Edward was using Wallis to escape from his duty of being the King. If he really wanted the job, he would find a way to do both: marrying Wallis and being the King, just like how Charles did.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ Not true @SevenBlue. Edw VIII (David) liked being king. He just couldn’t be bothered to properly concern himself with the disciplined work required to be a competent king. As a result, he was inept and problematic as king, which British gov’t officials clearly knew and feared. Thus, the prime minister, along with other gov’t officials, had the power to prevent Edw VIII from remaining king and marrying Wallis. That’s what the hidden history of the Edward & Wallis saga is about.

      • sevenblue says:

        @aftershocks, interesting. I thought the monarch had more power at those times. I read that the press loved him and was supportive of him, so public opinion would be shaped favorably with their help. If he was so thirsty for the job like Charles, I believe he would find a way to marry her and not lose his position. I am sure he loved the castles, money, but the job itself, especially in war times, wouldn’t be so appealing for him if he gave it up so easily.

      • aftershocks says:

        @SevenBlue, I’m sorry, but you are coming at this from an inaccurate angle. Yes, David (Edw VIII) was popular with the British public. But that was a superficial popularity, based on his good looks and on the media’s false, romanticized fantasy narratives (similar to Willy’s faux popularity today). Please understand that David was abnormally obsessed with Wallis. They did not have a healthy relationship. Furthermore, she was not interested in marrying him. She preferred the perks of being mistress to a king. They did not lead a happy existence as Duke & Duchess of Windsor.

        In addition, check out the history of the British monarchy and the British government. Nope, in the 20th-century, British monarchs were (and still are) essentially symbolic figure heads, with diminshed powers, like Charles is today, and like Elizabeth II was throughout her reign.

        What is it you are having a hard time understanding about the fact that Edw VIII was an unfit, irresponsible monarch?! And why can’t you accept that he did not have the power to stay on the throne and get his way to make Wallis his Queen? Going to the public to make his case was not something that would have worked at all!!!

  5. Shoegirl77 says:

    Are they trying to bring the topic of abdication into the mix?

  6. Nic says:

    England was better for his abdication. Historians believe David/former King Edward VIII was a Nazi collaborator who both encouraged the continued blitz on London and provided secret information about England’s military operations to the Nazis.

    If the Nazis had prevailed, he and Wallis were hopeful to be reinstated as puppet monarchs. It goes without saying they were racist, bigoted and antisemetic. Nevertheless, the marriage was a case of careful what you wish for.

    • Honey says:

      This is my understanding, too. Neither of the brothers were suited to be king, but George was a less objectionable fit. Elizabeth II, whatever people may think of her, was probably the best fit for the times.

  7. MrsBanjo says:

    If they had tried that and succeeded things would’ve turned out so much worse. Hitler would’ve got his puppet king in Edward VIII.

  8. Eurydice says:

    What this says to me is that, more often than not, the UK’s monarchs have been ill-prepared and ill-suited for the job, and that chaos at the palace tends to be the norm, rather than the exception. So, William should do just fine.

    • JudyB says:

      The fact that so many of the monarchs have been ill-prepared and ill-suited for the monarchy tells us a LOT about primogeniture and how the young monarchs-to-be are raised and educated. Maybe being a spare, while painful, produces better-prepared individuals than being the heir!

      Also, for the past several hundred years, there have been problems with the staff running the palaces. Even strong Tudor kings had problems with back-biting, internal fighting, and even murders occurring among the men who Diana referred to the “men in grey.” There has hardly been a monarch any time who has not had his/her life in constant danger, even from the people who are supposed to protect him or her. Something serious needs to be done with the way these people are hired, paid, promoted, and managed so they are not the ones in charge instead of the monarch.

  9. Krista says:

    I’ve been looking for a book about Ed and Wallis to read – but I wanted one that didn’t put a shine on their “love” story – one that told the unvarnished truth. Does anyone have any suggestions?

    • Tessa says:

      I strongly recommend the book called the Windsor story.

    • Sarah says:

      Traitor King is really good. I learned a lot from it.

    • Sydneygirl says:

      I wrote this above but my suggestion would be – rather than a book, to watch a great 3-part series called A Very Royal Crisis: Countdown to Abdication.

      The archival footage is incredible and there was so much revealed that I wasn’t aware of.

    • bisynaptic says:

      Find a book that tells the truth: Edward trapped Wallis. The stories told by men, so far, blame her.

    • Becks1 says:

      Wallis in Love by andrew morton was pretty good. She’s neither victim nor villain in it but she’s not that sympathetic either.

    • H says:

      I really enjoyed “That Woman” by Anne Sebba – but is just a bio of Wallis. I found it thorough and fairly neutral, though it’s been a few years since I’ve read it.

    • Jaded says:

      A good starting point would be King Edward VIII by Philip Ziegler. I would also highly recommend a older PBS series called Edward and Mrs. Simpson (you can get it on Amazon) and to this day I still watch it as the acting is superlative and shows how hapless Edward was under the scheming hand of Wallis. Here’s a link: https://www.amazon.com/Edward-Mrs-Simpson-Fox/dp/B000742G06

      • Kit says:

        It’s interesting how the British can’t get over the fact that Edward VIII was responsible for his own actions. Edward VIII was his own man long before he met Wallis. His faults, his weakness, his proclivities all there, all indulged before he met Wallis. But yeah, nope, gotta blame a foreigner. Can’t blame his family, nor the ridiculous institution that nurtured him. Not the society of the haves and have nots, the awful class system that repressed the working class, the vainglorious empire days.

        It’s fascinating to see how a country just can’t get over itself. The one thing I’ll say about Germany and Japan is that they, as losers of WW2, acknowledged their guilt, their weaknesses, their failures. Even now, they have an uncomfortable and dubious regard for militarism.

      • aftershocks says:

        For sure @Kit. Both Edw VIII & Wallis were full grown adults, responsible for their actions. Their relationship apparently was a game for her, in the beginning. Plus, she enjoyed the status and perks of being mistress to a British prince who was heir to the throne.

        Obviously, the game later turned into a bit of a nightmare for her, once he insisted upon marrying her and the British government got involved. Edw VIII/ David had become obsessed with Wallis, in a very needy and likely sadomasochistic way. David’s neediness surely has roots in the fact that his mother, Queen Mary, was never able to show her children any demonstrable, tactile love. Plus, their father, King George V, was militaristically strict and gruff. To boot, David and Bertie had suffered physical and mental abuse from their nannies when they were babies! 😳 The nannies were sacked when the abuse was finally recognized, but the untold lasting damage could not be undone.

      • aftershocks says:

        The familial dysfunction goes all the way back to Queen Victoria’s mother who only gave birth to Victoria in order to conceive a legitimate heir for the Hanovers. Sadly, Victoria’s mother treated her like a possession, not like a human being. While Victoria fortunately ended up in a happy marriage herself, she did not like giving birth and she didn’t really understand how to be a good mother because she had never experienced loving care from her own mother. When Victoria’s husband, Albert, died fairly young, Victoria’s melancholic grief completely took over her life along with adversely impacting her children’s lives. 💔

        In turn, Edward VII, Victoria’s oldest son, was a self-indulgent adulterer and a gruff, distant father. His long-suffering wife, Queen Alexandra (a Princess of Denmark) was said to be a good mother despite being afflicted by deafness. But their second son, George V, while well-nurtured by his mother, the absence of him receiving good fathering deeply compromised his own fathering abilities.

  10. Tessa says:

    The Windsor story is the best. It was ab honest book and was one of the first to include the story of Wallis affair with James Donahue the Woolworth heir. He also was abusive to wallis.

  11. bisynaptic says:

    These people are frankly delusional. As we’ve seen with Charles, the monarch’s marrying a divorcee has precipitated no constitutional crisis whatever—in fact, the church of England was founded on (the monarch’s) divorce. They’ve been forever selling the British public and the world on the idea that Wallis schemed to catch Edward VIII, where all they had to do was look in her own writing, to find that it was the other way around: Wallis was trapped by Edward. If her lawyer truly made this offer, it boggles the mind to think how ill served she really was by all the men in her life.

    So is the idea that, had Edward not abdicated, the line of succession would have been different. Edward, in fact, did not have any children —and showed no interest in having children—so that’s clearly bunk. But they keep selling it, anyway. I’m beginning to think the whole monarchical edifice is built on a pile of bunkum.

    • Jaded says:

      The actual constitutional crisis (Nazi sympathies) was masked under pearl-clutching about her salacious past, when in actuality they could have had a Morganatic marriage which is a marriage between people of unequal social rank, wherein an inherited title prevents the principal’s position or privileges being passed to the spouse, or any children born of the marriage.

      • bisynaptic says:

        Exactly. Edward was quite popular, as Prince of Wales—more popular than Charles—he could have used his social/political capital on making Wallis acceptable as consort, if not Queen. For whatever reason, he didn’t want to do it.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ No @Bisynaptic. Edward VIII/ David didn’t want to abdicate. He would have tried anything to get his way AND remain king. The government simply wasn’t going to allow it, because he wasn’t a good king. He was too self-centered, careless with classified government documents, undisciplined, and emotionally needy. Wallis served his physical and emotional needs. He had no intention of giving her up. Thus, as explained upthread, the government resorted to using his obsession with Wallis to force his abdication.

      • bisynaptic says:

        @Aftershocks, I read Alexander Larman’s books covering the abdication and its aftermath. It’s more complicated, than that. In the end, Edward DIDN’T try everything he could, to remain king. He wanted everything the way he wanted; and, when he met firm resistance, he folded, fairly quickly.

  12. Tessa says:

    Definitely one or both of them could not have children. Edward was absolutely besotted with Wallis and he always thought he made the right decision. There was one man who claimed to be Edward’s illegitimate son. Not proven or disproven. He actually played the king in the opening scenes of king ralph.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      He wasn’t besotted with her – he was obsessed with her. Her letters paint a picture of a very immature and insecure man child who would follow her around the house – she would go into one room and he would follow her like a child would. She was always throwing parties etc.. as a way to keep him entertained and occupied. She was never really a wife to him in the normal sense of the word, she was his carer/mother and he was a dead weight around her neck as she couldn’t do anything without him.

      PS I LOVE her wedding dress – the woman had impeccable style and taste. Her jewel collection was to die for. Those who knew her paint her as an intelligent witty woman, who had a real interest in others. Like everyone else she had her issues but she was not the monster that she was painted to be – history did her wrong.

      • lanne says:

        Her racism makes her a villian in my eyes–just read what she said about the people in the Bahamas. I love the idea of her being stuck with Edward–the two of them stuck together whining about losing what they thought they deserved.

        Wallis was a racist cow with great style and a great jewelry collection and had a husband who needed her to mother him, which exasperated her so much that she ultimately took a lover openly for years. Edward just moped and whined about it.

      • Tessa says:

        James Donahue her lover was abusive to Wallis and after he got physically violent with her during his visit with the Windsor Edward evicted him for good.

      • Jais says:

        Lol @lanne, a racist cow with a great jewelry collection and great style could describe so many aristo women😂

    • Thena says:

      Edward may have been infertile after having the mumps while attending Royal Naval College. He didn’t father any children with his long-term married mistresses before Wallis, and they obviously didn’t have children together.

  13. Wesley says:

    Wallis Simpson: The Secret Letters, a 2011 documentary reviewed letters to her hudband which indicated she didnt want to marry Edward at all. Allegedly she wanted to return to her husband after escaping from England, but he refused.

    • shockedandappalled says:

      Yes! I watched that doc. It’s amazing that this Edward and Wallace, Duke and Duchess of Windsor story has been marketed as a great a love story. Wallis didn’t love King Edward, didn’t want to marry him, and did try to get out of it. What it really should be called is David: Wallis just isn’t that into you. The payoff offer by her lawyer is just one more piece of evidence of that. It’s embarrassing, really.

      • BeanieBean says:

        He was as hapless as William is now.

      • aftershocks says:

        I wouldn’t call it ‘amazing’ that the Wallis/ David relationship was marketed as a huge love story. Just consider the time period and the context of the actual events which forced his abdication. David (Edw VIII) certainly viewed himself as being in love. But of course, it was a lot more complicated than love. It was dependency and obsession.

        When you understand the truthful details, then it all becomes clearer. Plus, it was not about Wallis ‘not being into David.’ She very much enjoyed being mistress to the Prince of Wales, and briefly to the King of Great Britain. She enjoyed the perks, the power, and the status of being his mistress. But that all blew up when the relationship became globally over-exposed. She never had any ambition to marry him. She preferred to remain married to her second husband, Ernest Simpson.

        But don’t get wrong what Wallis and David actually felt for each other. She had some fondness for him, because he allowed her to mother him and to discipline him, which gave her a sense of power before the tables drastically turned when he was forced to abdicate. Before he had solely been dependent upon her. But as the peripatetic Duke & Duchess of Windsor, they each became dependent upon one another.

        Also, realize that the framing of the Edw VIII/ David & Wallis saga as a romantic love story is very similar to the false narratives consistently put out by the media, government, and the BRF, in order to hide unfortunate truths.

  14. Tessa says:

    Both of them liked to be with wealthy and famous. Wallis enjoyed throwing dinner parties. Marlene Dietrich had some really funny accounts of her visits and mentioned how Wallis told Edward to change to Scottish attire and dance and he did. Dietrich wrote later he looked like someone in the chorus of brigadoon.

  15. Mary Pester says:

    There’s an old saying “it’s usually the black sheep of the family that is telling the truth”, and how right this has proved to be, in the time since “spare” was published we have seen more and more how Harry was and is the only Windsor telling the truth about the Palace of cards. That’s the reason the family has made him and his little family outcasts, it’s the reason the press has gone in hard on everything he says and does. The palaces DONT want daylight shone on their deeds and the press can’t afford to lose that secret contract. Negotiations are well under way obviously, because that’s the only reason for bringing this up now, oh and it was the solicitor who suggested the big bucks, not Wallace

  16. kelleybelle says:

    She didn’t even want to marry him. He got too attached to her while Wallis and her husband were basically playing a game. Then he threatened to kill himself if she left. There are some good videos on YouTube about it. She called him a fool for abdicating and treated him like dirt for the rest of his life. He died alone, moaning to a nurse with Wallis nowhere around. George VI, the spare, was a good king. Edward VIII was a playboy male airhead, basically.

    • Ladiabla says:

      This is what I’ve read, that she treated him like shit and wasn’t even there when he was dying and calling for her. What a love story/s.

    • Tessa says:

      It was also about a competition that Wallis had with his previous mistress Thelma Furness great aunt of Anderson Cooper. Furness left on a trip and told Wallis to take care of David until she returned. When she returned she saw Wallis hit David’s hand playfully and then looked at Furness. Furness packed her things and left as Wallis took over as mistress. I don’t think Wallis thought in terms of marrying him. He wanted her around for good

  17. QuiteContrary says:

    So William has inherited Edward’s qualities — useless, weak, spoiled — but there’s no Wallis in the wings to use as an excuse to boot William. (Maybe the alleged Russian girlfriend could reenter the scene and play the Wallis scapegoat role.)

    Good luck, England.

  18. Jay says:

    So basically, a lawyer for Wallis *may* have insinuated that she was open to a payoff? Given that David was the one seemingly hellbent on marrying her, it seems unlikely to have worked.

    But I would argue that the “pay off” strategy was not crazy. Arguably, that’s exactly what the royal family did once the two were married – made them governor generals of ( I think) Bermuda and paid out a nice allowance for the rest of David’s life. Maybe Wallis’ lawyer could have saved everyone a lot of time and money.

  19. LynZey says:

    Wallis did not want to marry Edward, or David as she referred to him, and ran away several times to avoid it. She knew she would be stuck with this dreary man forever and was actually in love with someone else. I’m sure she would have been delighted to have been paid to leave him alone. She found him exceedingly dull and wasn’t even at his bedside when he was dying. Theirs was hardly the love story they like to paint.

    • Mary Pester says:

      Now that sounds more like camzilla, she didn’t want to divorce Andrew. It was only when Charles admitted the affair on national television that Andrew filed for divorce! But oh my, they are still VERY, VERY close

      • aftershocks says:

        Right @Mary Pester. Once an aristo affair becomes publicly exposed, that’s it. The presumed wronged spouse acts to save face. Meanwhile, when things were kept quiet, even despite everyone in their circle knowing, Andrew P-B was fine with being cuckolded by his friend, the Prince of Wales. As soon as Chuck spilled his guts naming Camzilla on television during the Dimbleby interview, the jig was up. Andrew P-B was not really a wronged party, of course. From their dating years and throughout their marriage, Andrew & Camzy knowingly and fashionably cheated on each other by unwritten rules in play.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “Andrew P-B was fine with being cuckolded by his friend, the Prince of Wales.”

        True, but Andrew P-B was screwing anything female that moved.

        “Andrew & Camzy knowingly and fashionably cheated on each other by unwritten rules in play.”

        Charles FORCED Andrew P-B to divorce Camilla.

  20. BeanieBean says:

    If true, then Wilson was an idiot. And I still don’t see how the current Duke of Kent would have ended up being crowned. These people are such lazy writers! Is it the historian who’s so bad, or the Telegraph? Or both? And with Wallis out of the picture, you wouldn’t have necessarily still had Eddie VIII staying on the throne until his death. They would have figured out another way to get rid of him. They knew he was a danger to the crown.

    • Tessa says:

      The duke of Kent George was thought of as successor to Edward instead of George since the duke of Kent had a son and heir and albert later George the 6 had daughters. The duke of Kent ended up being killed in a plane crash a few years later.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Oh, I see, gotcha.

      • aftershocks says:

        Inaccurate @Tessa. See my post below. The Gloucesters were/ are next in line before the Kents. Succession does not have to do with popularity, nor with who has sons vs daughters.

        In any case, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, ended up having two sons, albeit he was likely not married at the time of the abdication crisis. When he did marry, it took awhile (and multiple miscarriages) before he and his wife had their first son, Prince William, and second son, Prince Richard.

      • Tessa says:

        I know after shocks but the idea was discussed . And of course rejected
        .I read this in some books about the abdication and prior. I know daughters can inherit but this was actually chronicled historically that George duke of Kent as next king was discussed. I know how the line of succession works but this talk of duke of Kent surprised me.

    • aftershocks says:

      True @Beaniebean regarding the Kents not being next-in-line of succession. If the government wished to try and bypass King George V’s second oldest son, Bertie, for his supposed failings, then the Gloucesters were actually next in line. Shy, retiring, forgettable Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, was the third son of George V, in line for the throne. Henry’s older son, Prince William of Gloucester, would have been a fine king and a wise leader. But as many of us know, he died young in 1972 after being denied the right to marry the love of his life. No, not again. 😱 Yes, again, but it was real love, very similar to the deep love shared by H&M. The current Duke of Gloucester, Prince Richard, is Henry’s younger son.

      Prince George, Duke of Kent, the fourth son, was more popular than Henry, but George had mysteriously died in an air crash during WWII (quietly considered a blessing in disguise since he had a serious drug habit and wild sexual proclivities that could lead to scandal or compromised situations). George’s older son, Prince Edward, the current Duke of Kent, seemingly would have been a good king. FWIW, the rumors about George of Kent’s dealings with the Nazis truthfully had to do with George acting as a go-between for his brother David (Edw VIII), in getting messages to Hitler (when David was hoping Hitler would win the war and place him back on the British throne). 🤦‍♀️

  21. May says:

    Totally off topic but I never noticed how in that wedding photo one of the duchess’ eyebrows is not “done.” For a woman who was always so perfectly dressed and coiffed, she must have been horrified when she saw that photo!

  22. The Queen says:

    Edward use Wallis to get off the throne!

    • aftershocks says:

      ^^ Nope, not true at all. Edw VIII very much enjoyed the status and perks of inheriting the throne. But he was unsuitable for the role, plus selfish and irresponsible in regard to competently fulfilling required duties.

      Far from Edward ‘using Wallis to get off the throne,’ it was the British government that ‘used Wallis to get Edward VIII off the throne.’ 🙅‍♀️