Talk:Edward VIII

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Duke and Duchess of Windsor, Cascais.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Nazist ?!?

In time of peace, I can't see any problems in visiting the German head of state. And I guess that visiting-role was cast for him after the abdication. How should he have greeted Hitler in 1937 ? Didn't Chamberlain visit Hitler too ? Etc. I guess this something of a baby born in the infamous British tabloids. And then the Nazi-story was blown up again by some hard line Royalist historian. Personally I think Edward VIII was a great man, who chose love ahead of being King. I don't believe he knew much about the NSDAP or Hitler, and I don't believe he hated Jews - or thought it was a jolly good idea to start a new war 20 years after the madness in the trenches. It could be noted that he made a Nazi-greeting at a visit in Germany. But that's about it. And - "A full greeting" , what's meant by that ? Had it been better to make a two third or a half such greeting, which by the way wasn't a Nazi invention even. The Romans used this greeting too, 2000 years earlier but said "Ave !" instead of "Heil Hitler". What expectations could Britain have on a man born, raised and protected to become a King ? And who, when his time came, wasn't allowed to marry the one he loved ? Did he really wish to meet Hitler ? And wasn't that a work that his brother ought to have done instead ? Representing his country, I mean ? Boeing720 (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• What have you read? Read more. This is at the top of a google search for: was edward VIII a nazi sympathizer. The debate is well established. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you find any Nazi-allegation before the abdication ? The debate may be established, but how about the actual truth ? Boeing720 (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That source points out more or less the entire Royal Family as Nazists. Quote: "Intelligence reports and German, Spanish and Russian documents show members of the British royal family were indeed far closer to Nazi Germany than has previously been recognised." ("Members" in plural). I think there may have been some kind of sympathy with Germany, but that's very different from being a Nazi sympathizer. Also the Versailles Treaty was a quite different peace when compared to the Woodrow Wilson Doctrine. The idea of giving Germany all the blame for that war (that began with the Serbian nationalists assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Arch-Duke) wasn't quite fair. To believe, or by time realise that, doesn't make one a Nazi. But for Edward VIII , I would very much like to see any Nazi-allegations put forward before the abdication or before September 1939 at least. Boeing720 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

He, and others, had “sympathies”. Did they actually do anything? I think, actually, no. The allegation is of sympathies. It leads to speculative debate. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between having some sympathies for Germany after WWI and having sympathies for the Nazists. By 1937 perhaps not crystal clear. My Grand-mother (mother's mother) got married in January 1932, and my grandparents made a Honey-journey to Berlin. (Which is located a train night ferry away from Malmö). They later made more trips to Germany during the 1930's. My Grandmother said they had seen marching men a few times, but also that she didn't know anything what was going on. The world wasn't enlightened enough about the Nazists. That "full" Hitler greeting could easily just have been something similar to "taking the customs where you are". And yes, you're correct allegations on sympathies leads to speculative debates - and parts of articles. Boeing720 (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Historicity. Of course you are right, difference between having some sympathies for Germany after WWI and having sympathies for the Nazists. But in 1935, playboy princes reverted to traditional behaviours, their mostly German heritage, and it wasn’t the style to distinguish between government and nation. I think the common references to their pre-war “Nazi sympathies”, of the Royal family excluding George V, don't distinguish between “Nazi” and “German”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The pro-Nazi British Union of Fascists (1932-1940) did manage to attract a number of British nobles. Such as Patrick Boyle, 8th Earl of Glasgow, Harold Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere (owner of the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror), Josslyn Hay, 22nd Earl of Erroll (more famous for his unsolved murder than his political activities), David Freeman-Mitford, 2nd Baron Redesdale, Edward Russell, 2nd Baron Russell of Liverpool, Edward Russell, 26th Baron de Clifford, and Hastings Russell, 12th Duke of Bedford (the noted ornithologist). I would not be surprised if some Royals shared its ideas. But following the start of the war, most of them either joined the war effort or wisely kept quiet over such ideas. Dimadick (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not overwhelmingly certain that British Union of Fascists resembled the NSDAP in Germany. Why didn't they use "National Socialism" instead of "Fascism". Did they blame more or less every bad thing on the Jews (for instance)? I must than SmokeyJoe for his explanation, thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Queen's visit

On 18 May 1972, Queen Elizabeth II visited the Windsors...

That was ten days before his death, which they obviously knew was imminent. Apparently the Queen had sent Prince Charles on a reconnaisance visit in advance, which he detested. Some report of that might be of interest. Valetude (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Bisexuality

In the book Full Service, written by Lionel Friedberg from 150 hours of interviews with the famous Hollywood escort and pimp Scotty Bowers, published in 2012, in the 8-pages chapter A Royal Affair (p. 131-138), Bowers recalls being introduced to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor by Cecil Beaton, during one of their frequent visits to Hollywood in the "late forties or early fifties". Beaton told him that the duke "was a classic example of a bisexual man" (similarly to his younger brother Prince George, Duke of Kent who is also said to have had an affair with Beaton). Bowers continues: "I could hardly believe it." According to Beaton, "the whole myth of the great royal romance was a fabrication, a giant cover-up... to conceal the truth about Edward's sexual preferences. A king could not possibly get away with living the kind of lifestyle as that favored by Edward. It would have stifled him. Apparently Wallis Simpson shared similar bisexual urges. Because of that she was the ideal candidate to become Edward's wife. Although she was portrayed as the great love of his life and the person behind his reason for abdicating from the British throne she was in actual fact the perfect partner to share his double life with him. He liked boys. She liked girls. Occasionally they even had sex with each other, but, essentially, he was gay and she was a dyke. What better way to save face and ensure that they would have the freedom to live their lives in peace and out of the public spotlight than to marry one another?" Bowers then continues: Edward gently pulled me aside and said, "you know, Scotty, a lot of people have told me about you, long before Wally and I came to California", among them Beaton, British millionaire Albert Brown who hosted the couple in his Los Angeles mansion, the actor Peter Bull and film director Brian Desmond Hurst. "It was obvious that his relationship with those four men transcended mere platonic friendship. This became patently clear less than twenty minutes later when he and I slipped into the guesthouse at the bottom end of the garden, stripped off, and began making out." Bowers continues: "In all the years when they visited California I arranged tricks for them...", mostly in a garden bungalow of the Beverly Hills Hotel. "While they were there it was easy for me to bring over a bunch of new young people for them. We would have a mixture of half a dozen males and females engage in a display of gay and straight sex in the bungalow and then Eddy, Wally, and I would each pair off with the one we fancied most. Eddy liked a three-way with a girl, too, now and again, and occasionally he wanted a woman only, and there were indeed occasions when he got involved in a three-way with Wally and another woman. But his preference was definitely for the boys." "I often tricked Eddy myself. We became good friends and were very attached to one another." - Surely this is "salacious gossip" (Sunday Telegraph), yet Gore Vidal, who also knew the Windsors at the time, confirmed at the release of the book: "Scotty doesn't lie". Moreover, the story highlights some hardly known aspects about the "love of a century", a marriage which indeed altered the course of history. I believe this most important background of the marriage should at least be shortly mentioned in the article. Equord (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

It's made-up garbage. DrKay (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps. But more likely it isn't. Tim Teeman, US correspondent for The Times, wrote in a book published in 2013 (Tim Teeman: In Bed with Gore Vidal. Hustlers, Hollywood and the Private World of an American Master, Magnus Books, New York 2013, p. 72): "Some have questioned the veracity of Bowers' stories. But the biographer William J. Mann, who spoke to Bowers when researching his 2006 book Kate: The Woman Who Was Hepburn, said "I found him forthright and honest and not interested in personal fame or gain... Several people I respect vouched for Scotty's truthfulness and liability as a source", including Dominick Dunne, John Schlesinger and Gore Vidal. Matt Tyrnauer produced the film Scotty and the Secret History of Hollywood (2017). (See: "Cannes: Two Hot Hollywood-Themed Docs to Get Sneak Screenings (Exclusive)". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved November 18, 2017.) The reviewer Todd McCarthy commented in The Hollywood Reporter: "At a certain point, anyone who reads Bowers’ book or sees this film has to decide whether to believe him or not. At this stage, there is no reason not to; Scotty does not seem remotely like a braggart or someone desperate for a sliver of late-in-life fame." (Todd McCarthy, 'Scotty and the Secret History of Hollywood': Review, The Hollywood Reporter, September 9, 2017, -- Equord (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Why would he say 'Edward' and 'Eddy'? Only someone who didn't know the Duke would call him that. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The answer to this is in the book (p. 134-135): "The very first person to grab my hand and shake it warmly was the duke himself. I wasn't sure what to call him. He must have sensed that because he smiled and said, 'Please call me Edward'. 'Hi, Eddy', I said. I've always had a habit of shortening people's names to catchy nicknames. Why should Edward be different, ex-king or not? Fortunately, he didn't seem the least bit offended by my informality and then introduced me to his wife, who he referred to as Wally. So that's what I called her, too'". Keep in mind that styling habits may differ between the UK and California. And wouldn't it have been a bit odd to ask someone like Scotty Bowers to call him Royal Highness or Sir, especially with regard to what happened "twenty minutes later"? - Equord (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

His name was David. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

David was the last of his seven given names (which were Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David). Only members of his family and his wife would call him David. All other friends and contacts it was Edward. You've been influenced too much by the media and fictionalised productions such as 'The Crown'.Ds1994 (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I've only been influenced by reading history books. I don't watch The Crown or any similar programmes. It's Scotty's claim that is fictional, not mine. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

demonstrably affectionate

Article sez:

Edward's father, though a harsh disciplinarian, was demonstrably affectionate, and his mother displayed a frolicsome side with her children that belied her austere public image.

I'm wondering if this should be "demonstratively affectionate"; that is, he showed his affection in a way that could be perceived? "Demonstrably" means that it is possible to prove, now, that he was affectionate, which seems an odd thing to say. There's a citation to "Ziegler, pp. 30–31", which doesn't help much without the book. --Trovatore (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

FAR

Sadly this 2008 promotion (never reviewed in the last 12 years) just does not meet FA criteria, what with uncited paragraphs and citations to unreliable sources, such as Albert Speer's memoir. I am adding it to the list of FAs to be reviewed. buidhe 18:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with quoting from Speer, as long as it is attributed to him in the text. DrKay (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Change of phrasing in lead

I changed the phrasing of the very first sentence to be, in my view, more intuitive: from "until his abdication that December" to "until his abdication in December of the same year". I then noticed that this is a Featured Article and that I should have probably proposed it here first. If you oppose the change, feel free to change it back. Lennart97 (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

He did not personally assent to the Abdication Act

We say: The next day [11 December 1936], the last act of his reign was the royal assent to His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936.

This reads as if Edward personally signed Royal Assent to his own Abdication Act. That seems not to be the case. I quote from Michael Bloch, The Reign and Abdication of Edward VIII (1990), p. 198:

While the King was lunching with Churchill, the Abdication Bill passed its third reading in the House of Commons and was hurried through all its stages in the House of Lords in a matter of minutes. As it was to take effect immediately, the King's consent had to be given on his behalf in the Upper House by three Lords Commissioners. It was a traditional ceremony, which did not fail to move the few who were present to witness it. The Commissioners doffed their cocked hats; all the King's titles were solemnly read out; there was a reference to it being the first year of his reign; and the clerk proclaimed le roy le veult with tragic emphasis. Thus, at eight minutes to two on the afternoon of Friday the eleventh of December 1936, ended the reign of Edward the Eighth.

This detail needs to make its way into the article. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Whilst that’s true, royal assent by the monarch in person hasn’t been given since 1854 (Queen Victoria) but it’s still always referenced as though it’s a personal act (“the Queen’s given assent to...”). Royal Assent by Commission is the norm. See the then applicable Royal Assent by Commission Act 1541. It remains an act of the monarch even if executed via the monarch’s representatives. So I don’t think it’s misleading the way it’s written but no harm in changing it to include the detail in Bloch’s book - provided it’s made clear that this was the usual procedure. In fact, it should be an addition rather than a change since the royal assent was, by definition, the “last act” of his reign as it immediately ended it. The current wording is literally correct. DeCausa (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

On further thought, it’s probably too much detail for this article and is better suited to Abdication of Edward VIII.DeCausa (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all the above. One other positive is the precise moment Edward's reign ended and George VI's commenced, which I haven't read anywhere else. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

One more thing. The Royal Assent by Commission link you provided suggests that Royal Assent is given before the assembled members of both houses, normally well over 1,000 people. Yet Bloch refers to "the few who were present to witness it". Why the difference? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it’s given before the assembled members who happen to be present. Thinking of the empty benches you see of televised parliamentary sessions most of the time i.e. when it’s not a big occasion like Prime Minister's Questions...that’s not necessarily a lot of people. DeCausa (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The abdication of a monarch - how much bigger than that could a piece of legislation be? Or is it that the Royal Assent part of the procedure is completely taken for granted and not considered worth waiting around for? Surely the houses would have been more than usually full for the actual debates (if any) and votes? But then most of them left for the bar or wherever. It's like going to the movies to see a grand epic blockbuster, and then not waiting for the closing credits. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it is taken for granted. The vote and announcement of the result is the big event. The assent doesn’t happen at the same time - it’s a whole separate process subsequently - usually days afterwards, and it’s a foregone conclusion. The monarch doesn’t have a choice in the modern era. According to our article on it, the last time the assent was withheld was 1708! I suspect MPs dont consider it of much importance as a ceremony. More like the lights coming up and the litter being collected than the credits... However, Bloch implies that the assent did occur (unusually) immediately after the vote because it was all rushed through so quickly. Of course, the abdication was a huge emotional trauma for the establishment at the time. It’s possible that it was just that no one wanted to hang around for the final death blow. DeCausa (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, your explanations are very clear. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Please double-check something

The coat of arms listed for Edward VIII as Prince of Wales is undoubtedly correct for the time after World War One, when the Saxony shield (German) would have been removed. Other sources say his father King George V erased the Saxony inescutcheon (shield), from all of Prince Albert's descendants' arms that had it, in 1917. My hunch would be that this is when the Saxony shield was removed from the Prince of Wales's Coat of Arms. So wouldn't it be the case that as Prince of Wales Edward bore, from 1911 to 1917, the same Coat of Arms as his father had borne as Prince Of Wales until the removal of the Saxony shields from Coats of Arms, and bore the coat of arms depicted as Prince of Wales (which are the same as the current Prince of Wales's Coat of Arms) only AFTER 1917?2603:7000:9906:A91C:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson