Talk:Edward VIII

older entries

Excellent footnote, 66. . . Really good work. (You know you really should sign in under some identity. Typing 66 . . . is a bit of a mouthful.) wikilove. FearÉIREANN 03:58, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Styles

According to the Yorkshire Post for December 12 1936 (page 11, column 2 - I spotted it whilst looking through the month today), after Edward abdicated he was initially just "Edward Windsor, Esq." (and the BBC introducing his broadcast as His Royal Highness Prince Edward was innaccurate) and would remain so until the new King conferred titles upon him.

Does anyone know if this is correct, or journalistic error? If it is then when exactly did he become the Duke of Windsor et al? Timrollpickering 17:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect. As a descendant of his father (surprise, surprise) he has the style, title and dignity of HRH & Prince under the Letters Patent of 1917. He only lost the various knighthoods he had received, but he lost those on becoming King. George VI awarded these to him agai, which ade him the only commoner in all eight orders - 8 seyts of post-nominal letters, quite a handful.

According to his autibiography George VI mentioned a what royal dukedom to give him on the night of the abdication, but he remained Prince Edward for several months until the letters paent were prepared (just as today in the New Years Honours lists, the Queen awards Fred Bloggs an OBE and he becomes Fred Bloggs OBE straight away, but the list says She intends creating Fred Bloggs Lord Whatsit, and he stays Fred Bloggs until the Letters Patent are signed. IIRC this happened shortly before his wedding in June 1937. --garryq 18:48, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The minutiae of styles really should always go at the bottom of an entry like this, with just enough detail at the top to enable the reader to follow the central story. The first paragraph, as with mere mortals, should very briefly identify the subject. Wetman 06:35, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am a little confused and it will be a little confusing to read -so please bear with me. We are all agreed that the Queen is legally the Queen and that her official title is Queen Elizabeth II. However, when the Queen dies she will not legally be the Queen but will still be known as Queen Elizabeth II as she is the second Queen Elizabeth to have graced the throne of England. Now, when King Edward VIII seised to be King, he was known as the Duke of Windsor respectfully BUT was he still King Edward VIII as he too was the eighth King Edward to have graced the throne of England. Okay, he was not His Majesty anymore as that was the title of the new King but surely he was still King Edward VIII or Edward VIII. He must have been as nobody else could use such a title. For instance, in the case of his mother Queen Mary - she had been known respectfully as Her Majesty The Queen while her husband was alive but was subsequently known during her widowhood as Her Majesty Queen Mary and not Her Majesty the Queen. Surely the Duke of Windsor was also King Edward VIII regardless of whether he had abdicated or not and if not, who was? regardless of that, there could never be a King Edward VIII in the future so why not call him that? --Huw 18:43, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

True, but he would have been ex-King Edward VIII because he gave the throne up. King was what he was BEFORE, not after he abdicated. The other kings and queens are referred to as King George VI etc because that was what they were when they died because they died whilst they were on the throne.

Basically, when Edward abdicated, he was no longer King Edward VIII. Yes, he HAD been that, for 11 months, but after he gave it up he ceased to be a king, and he couldnt be known as such afterwards because he RELINQUISHED it and therefore had to have another title afterwards to live his life by. He could have styled himself Edward VIII but the point is that "Edward VIII" no longer existed - there HAD been a king called that, but when he abdicated there was no king by that title except historically (much as a dead monarch). Queen Mary could style herself a queen because she always WAS a queen, she never ceased being one, albeit a dowager. Edward was not a king afterwards, so he couldnt style himself one.

And if a future king chooses Edward as his throne name, he will be Edward IX. --StanZegel 19:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

So theoretically, he could still have signed himself Edward VIII but not King Edward VIII? I don't see how he stopped becoming Edward VIII because he was still Edward VIII and not King Edward VIII and another point to raise is that he wouldn't have been ex-King Edward VIII because he was still Edward VIII as nobody could use that name any longer! however, ex-King Edward might have been more appropriate or even Edward VIII but not King Edward VIII? Would that be more truthful? After all in the case of Diana, Princess of Wales..she was still allowed to use the title as a name rather than a title (as does the Duchess of York) but she wasn't Princess of Wales, Princess or any other title by marriage! --Huw 21:20, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

No, he couldn't have styled himself Edward VIII, because he DID stop being Edward VIII. The point is that when he abdicated his title, name & ordinal became historic. When a king dies, both the person and the title cease to exist - namely because the holder is dead. In Edwards case he didn't "die" but his title did. You're right that no-one could use that name any longer BUT it worked in the same way as a dead king. George VI, for example, is dead - because he's dead he can't be a king anymore (or, in fact, anything else), although he WAS a king and is always remembered as such. There isn't really a difference between the titles of "King Edward VIII" and "Edward VIII" because both titles are used to refer to a living current monarch (Elizabeth II, Queen Elizabeth II), the ordinal refers to his position as King of the United Kingdom, so putting King is emphasising the kingly status. (Elizabeth II doesn't stop becoming a queen if you don't calle her "Queen Elizabeth II") Edward DID stop becoming Edward VIII - he only held that title during 1936, after that he was a PRINCE, not a KING, so he couldn't be referred to as one. I think theoretically he would've been able to be ex-king Edward VIII, with the "ex" referring to ALL of that title (because the word "king" and the ordinal "VIII" both refer to his position, he wasn't just an ex-KING, but an ex "VIII" - as you said no-one else could be an Edward VIII after him - he was no longer the 8th king called Edward, he renounced that) but that would have been in bad taste in the light of the situation, and I think that style is more usually used by monarchs who have been forcefully deposed. He couldn't have been known as Edward VIII because that implies (as it does with any monarch) that he was still king. Re: Diana, Princess of Wales - that was slightly different as she was a divorcee and had got her title Princess of Wales from her husband alone (courtesy title) - Edward's kingly title was his by right. Diana gave up her marriage, and therefore the title, whereas Edward just gave up his title. I think the confusion here arises that Edward VIII is and will be the only person to be named as such, the next king named Edward would be Edward IX, BUT the core of the matter is that Edward could not possibly have been known as Edward VIII because he simply WASN'T Edward VIII any longer, in any way. When a king dies, because the actual person dies, the title therefore goes from him to the next person - because the former king is dead he can therefore be referred to as Edward VII or George VI or whatever because there's no chance he'll get mixed up with the present, living monarch - it's quite clear that because he's dead he's a king past. When Edward abdicated,HE didn't die but his title acted as though he had done - and went to the next person, so "Edward VIII" was an historic title, NOT a title in use. It's quite complicated - though I think you're right re: the title of ex-King Edward VIII, because that is what he was also as well as Duke of Windsor.Edward VIII was an historic title only relegated to history books, and you can't use historic titles in present day situations. Diana, Princess of Wales was called such because her ex-title acted as her surname - she was actually after divorce "Lady Diana, Princess of Wales" but dropped the "Lady", so she was actually reverting to her maiden status. It is misleading that she was called "Princess of Wales" even though she wasn't a princess anymore, but it was just a surname, nothing more - apparantly when the divorce happened the Queen didn't know quite what to refer to her as because there had never been a precedent of a Princess of Wales divorcing, so they referred to divorced peeresses. However, Diana was called as such after her divorce because in all divorces surnames act like that - because Prince Charles is never known as Mr. Charles Windsor Diana therefore (although she could've) wasn't known as such. Diana was Diana, Princess of Wales, or Diana, Duchess of Cornwall, or Diana, Duchess of Rothesay, etc just as she was theoretically Lady Diana Windsor, as a normal divorcee would be (but how would THAT have looked? Especially since she was the mother of the future king, I think they did it to give her a bit more respect). Anyhow, the point I'm making is that Diana's title was the normal product of a divorce and that Diana's title wasn't really the issue, her marriage was, since she wasn't giving up any office of her own since everything she had was by courtesy. Diana didn't use the title of Princess of Wales afterwards - she had NO royal titles afterwards - it just so happened her surname was very like the title she once held. Edward VIII was quite the opposite - everything he had was by right, and was relinquishing what was HIS. You made the point that no-one else could be Edward VIII - true, but what people neglect is the fact that that included Edward himself - "Edward VIII" didn't exist except in history books. (jayboy2005)

What if...

Am I correct in thinking that if Edward had not abdicated (but everything else remained the way it really happened), Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester would today be King? When Edward died in 1972, he had no children (at least no legitimate ones; we don't know for sure if Scott Chisholm's grandfather was really his son) and his only surviving sibling was Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. Surely Henry would then have become king, rather than Elizabeth becoming queen, wouldn't he? Henry died in 1974, and his oldest son Prince William of Gloucester had already died in '72, leaving Richard next in line to the throne. Right? --Angr/_comhrá 12:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester. In short - no, Elizabeth would have become queen. john k 13:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong about Prince William he was still living when Edward died, and if his father became King, he may not have died do to the added security of an heir. If all of this occurred Elizabeth would have become queen anyway, as the line of succession goes from siblings, than their children and then the next sibling and their children. If the sibling is deceased, their children would remain in the same spot in the line of succession, and still take precedence over younger siblings. So, if Edward had not abdicated and had no children at the time of his death the line of succession would have been: 1. HRH Princess Elizabeth 2. HRH Prince Charles 3. HRH Prince Andrew 4. HRH Prince Edward 5. HRH Princess Anne 6. HRH Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester 7. HRH Prince William of Gloucester (Still living at the time of the Duke's death) 8. HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester etc.

((Cooldoug111 17:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)))

Not quite, After Princess Anne, (1972 line-of-succession) it would have been Princess Margaret, David Armstrong-Jones, Sarah Armstrong-Jones & then Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. GoodDay 23:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Had Edward VIII not abdicated, he may well have died before 1972 - and Prince Albert, Duke of York (George VI) may have lived much longer due to not having the stress of being King during WWII. Therefore, if Edward VIII was indeed incapable of fathering children, and died in say the 1950s, he would have been succeeded by his younger brother Prince Albert, who would have become George VI anyway...only much later. When he died, say, in the 1960s-80s, presuming he had no sons (only Elizabeth and Margaret), Elizabeth would then have still become Elizabeth II. However, it is very questionable whether she would have married Prince Philip of Greece had her father not been King in 1947; therefore, she may have had either different children, or no children. In the latter scenario, all other things being equal, and if Princess Margaret either didn't marry or (due to the greater freedom of being farther from the Throne) didn't remain married long enough to bear legitimate children, the present Duke of Gloucester would almost certainly be King Richard IV right now. Lord Charlton 15:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter in the slightest when anyone died; the order of succession is one of birth, not death. Just because Edward died well after his next oldest brother in no way negates that brother's place, and those of his heirs, in the succession. Elizabeth would simply have been allowed to live a quieter life until 1972. THAT would have bee the only difference.

Edward VIII at Exeter Cathedral

In Exeter Cathedral, close to the main entrance on the left hand wall, there is a plaque with one of the few mentions of Edward VIII as king. (There are also a few other objects, plaques and other items associated with him - which could be listed.)

Why has the article page been blocked against vandalism?

Jackiespeel 15:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's because someone keeps adding that he was called "von Wettin", which is incorrect. He was from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, which is a branch of the Wettin family, but the British Royal Family were never known as "von Wettin" themselves. Others, quite correctly, keep removing this falsehood. Unfortunately it was protected with the "von Wettin" bit in - so we are the only source in the world saying Edward used to be von Wettin!! Yippee!!jguk 08:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

H.R.H The Prince Edward, The Duke of Windsor

Is this where the page should be locatate???. After all he was only King for 320 days and this is what he was when he died. Also why is someone trying to force von Wettin

The above sentence seems to have been abandoned untimely.Jackiespeel 18:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be located at Prince Edwar, Duke of Windosr. After all he abdicated the throne. Mac Domhnaill 21:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor also abdicated. So do you want him listed as "Charles, Lord of Yuste"? --StanZegel (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

You've got a point but I think he should be referred to as his highest title, which was king. "The Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor" implies he only ever was that all his life. His place is within the list of British kings because he was one - just because he abdicated doesn't change that. (jayboy2005)

Edward VIII and Crystal Palace

Crystal Palace burnt down a few days before Edward's abdication was announced.

Jackiespeel 18:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I am a devout Monarchist, but any man who would cast away his people to marry a whore of no importance does not deserve to be referred to as King. In my book he is HRH The Prince Edward Duke of Windsor.

I too am a monarchist but to call Her Grace The Duchess of Windsor a whore is a little extreme. We should all remember that HRH The Duchess of Cornwall was married before and HRH The Prince of Wales referred to his relationship with her as 'non negotiable'. Is he not fit to be King as a result? and should h relinquish his titles also? I ssay let he who is without sin cast the first stone and I hope this rediculous notion of having a Princess Consort instead of a Queen quite bewildering. Consider the possibility of referring to someone with the legal style of Majesty as 'Your Royal Highness'. It would make the very heart of the monarchy a national laughing stock.

Coronation

Edward VIII was never crowned. The date that was planned (and that was printed on mugs!) was re-used for his brother. Should we mention this? Morwen - Talk 15:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

We could, as it is mentioned in his brother's (George VI) article.Prsgoddess187 15:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Only a Mug would suggest this!

His Excellency The Governor of the Bahamas

I have re-read this, and it does not make sence to me. In Canada, when the Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn became Governor General of Canada, he was styled His Royal Highness the Governor General of Canada. Why is this not the case for the late Prince Edward when he was Governor of the Bahamas? His Excellency, even though this is a high title, is lesser than HRH, isn't it? I could understand why his wife could have the title of Her Excellency, seeing that she did not recieve the title of Her Royal Highness. Christophe T. Stevenson 03 Jan. 06

Dandy?

Don't know much about this, but maybe somebody else does. Apparently Edward VIII was admired by dandys the world over for his unique style of clothing and indeed his whole lifesyle. Could somebody write something on this aspect of Edward's life? Oddly enough the German article on Edward has more on this - including information on safaris he went on in East Africa... Edward is also mentioned in the dandy article.

Only abdicate one throne?

Could Edward theoretically only have abdicated selective thrones? For example, abdicating all but the Irish throne, being just King of Ireland? I don't see why he didn't do this, since Ireland wanted to be separate at the time.

No- constitutional conventions established in 1931 decided that no realm could pass laws regarding the succession of the throne independently of the others. Astrotrain 09:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Edward did remain as King of Ireland for one day longer than elsewhere, due to a delay in passing the External Relations Act which recognised the abdication. To put it bluntly, Éamon de Valera screwed up the abdication laws, hence the delay. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A bit of nitpicking

Here is the excerpt:

The couple appeared on Edward R. Murrow's television interview show "Person to Person" and were invited to a state dinner at the White House by President Richard M. Nixon;

In 1951 the president was Dwight Eisenhower; should it perhaps read as such, or was it Vice President Nixon who made the invitation? RashBold ^Talk 17:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Not nitpicking. It was President Nixon who invited the Windsors to the White House, two decades after the "Person to Person" interview. Perhaps the date should be inserted.Masalai 05:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What actually happended!

When Edward VIII abdicated he gave up the throne for himself and his descendants, he also had to relinquish all titles which he held. Had he not given up all his titles he may have been able to still attribute all the titles and privilages of Heir Apparent. As he was Sovereign of all the Orders of Chivalry it would have been difficult to determine which orders he should be a Knight of and which ones he should give up.

Overall it was easier for him to give up everything and start again. King George VI granted Edward the style and title held by a younger son of the Monarch and the Dukedom of Windsor. Thus he became His Royal Highness The Prince Edward of the United Kingdom, The Duke of Windsor.

Never before in British history had a Monarch abdicated, as such there must have been a diffcult discussion of what to refer to Edward VIII when he abdicated. It would have been out of the question for him to still possess the title of King in some form or another or even that of Emeperor, as he was Emperor of India.

Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth (The Queen Mother) held the titles of Queen because their husbands were Kings. Although when each of their husbands died they ceased to be "The Queen Consort" they were still Queens has the had not given up their positions. When a King dies his Queen Consort automatically becomes a Queen Dowager.

Had Edward VIII still held the title of King in some form after his abdication, it would have been difficult for King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (The Queen Mother) in their new positions as they would be overshadowed by Edward. This is also a reason why The Duke of Windsor as he then bacame has to remain in exile for a year following the adbication.

King

He couldn't have been styled "king" afterwards because he was no longer king. He had himself voluntarily relinquished the throne (unlike deposed monarchs who continued to be titled "king" out of courtesy - they were forced to give up the throne against their will). He was in no way still a king after abdication; he differs from queen consorts in this way because the queen consorts, when their husband dies, do not voluntarily relinquish their status. Edward could not have held the titles of the heir apparant since they can only be held by the heir apparant - which he was not, after his abdication.

Adrift?

This title seems rather POV-ish. 'Later Years' is the more accepted heading for biographical entries. I also dispute the notion that the Windsors were 'forgotten'. Open any glossy magazine of the time or read contemporary gossip colums, and they feature heavily during the 50s and 60s. It was only after the Duke's illness and during the Duchess's final years that they disappeared from the public consciousness. --Stevouk 11:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

clarification required

does this phrase make sense "The British Parliament passed His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 the next day and, on receiving the Royal Assent from Edward VIII, he legally ceased "

who received the royal assent parliment on edward??

Second or third (or fourth) shortest reign?

I believe that Lady Jane Grey is regarded as having had the shortest reign of any British (or English) monarch. That would make Edward VIII the third shortest after LJG and Edward V. N'est-ce pas? King Hildebrand 09:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thinks: Harold II reigned for only about 9 months in 1066. So maybe Edward VIII is actually 4th? King Hildebrand 10:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Lady Jane Grey wasn't a monarch. Hence why she is a Lady and not a Queen Jane. Astrotrain 10:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As Astrotrain says, Lady Jane Grey is not in the official list of English monarchs. Officially, Mary is considered to have immediately acceded upon Edward VI's death, per the terms of their father's will, which had been given legal force to determine the succession by parliament. Generally, counts like this are referring only to monarchs since the Norman conquest, but we should say that explicitly (second shortest since the Norman conquest). john k 11:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have edited this bit of the lead as it was clearly disputable if not plain wrong - Sweyn I of Denmark ruled for about 40 days and Duncan II of Scotland for 7 months. There are also a large number of lesser kings, Elfweard of Wessex, Oswald of Northumbria, Egfrith of Mercia, etc. from before the Norman conquest who all ruled for very short periods. DrKiernan 08:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Windsor knot

"The Duke's name also became associated with a fashion item: the Windsor knot, after his fondness for large-knotted ties." The association of this manner of knotting a tie with the Duke dates from his days as fashion trend-setter when Prince of Wales, not his later life as Duke of Windsor. If there are other such minutiae to add, perhaps this could go in a "Trivia" section.Masalai 15:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have re-inserted this passage in a somewhat elaborated section on "royal duties," where it perhaps makes sense. Possibly other editors will have different views.Masalai 04:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

His title

The title "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" didn't come into existence until Elizabeth's coronation in 1953. The title used between 1927 and 1953 was "King (Queen) of Great Britain and Ireland." This indicated that the British monarch was still King of Ireland (until 1949), even though Ireland was now outside the United Kingdom. Between 1922 and 1927 George V still used "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland," although that United Kingdom no longer included the Irish Free State. john k 20:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

All the texts I have seen say that the and between Great Britain and Ireland was axed in 1927 in the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act. (George V was unhappy about the decision.) The fact that they were different kingdoms was indicated in the royal title by separating the kingdoms using a comma, making it Great Britain, Ireland . . . And was used when they were the one kingdom. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually John, the title until 1949 was

of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Emperor of India. (Instrument of Abdication)

In 1949 Northern Ireland replaced Ireland (with the comma after Great Britain dropped as they were the one kingdom, not separate ones, as was the case with Great Britain and Ireland. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

The quotations have been selectively included solely on the basis of controversy. Childish and arrogant; this is an encyclopaedia not a place for point scoring or character assassination. 86.7.208.240 12:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Princess Royal

I wanted to add a wiki link to the Princess Royal article in the 'Later Life' section, second paragraph. Prior to reading this article I was unaware of the title, but also uncertain if linking to the Princess Royal article would be in poor taste. That article features a photo of the current Princess Royal, but in the paragraph I mention The Prince attends a funeral for the then Princess Royal.

I was about to just add the link, but the photo on the Princess Roytal article caused me to hesitate. What do people more familiar with the topc have to say about adding this wiki link?
- Rockthing 13:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture Resized

The picture "Edward-viii-sm.jpg" seems to be somewhat distorted in the actual article. Something is causing it to be scaled up by the browser, and I can't work out how to fix it. Most browsers do a terrible job of scaling images.

The actual image is 240x323 pixels, but in the article it appears 262x353. -- Techtoucian 19:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

quotation

I see two times in this article "See Quotations below" but I see no quotations area on the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.47.50 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

You're quite right. Some officious person had removed them. Masalai 20:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't Wikiquotes. If someone wants to read quotes, they can click the link...but there is no need for 1/3 of this article to be quotations... --JW1805 (Talk) 22:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The quotations are an especially telling demonstration of the character of the man: far more so than any narrative. Wikiquotes is a relatively obscure reference for those who increasingly consult Wikipedia as a first rough reference. You have been cautioned before about peremptory drastic modifications to this article. Kindly enter into discussion on this discussion page before making such interventions again. Masalai 08:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

They tell us nothing about him, other than he had similar views to most upper class males of his generation. I imagine their inclusion here is to present Edward as a racist. I doubt many of them are even true. Astrotrain 09:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

1. There are three links to wikiquotes in the article
2. There is a representative quote from his time in the Bahamas, "He said of Étienne Dupach..."
3. There is a statement, "His unedifying and often deeply racist comments...(see wikiquotes)"

I think, especially given that the article is already quite long, that the three items above are sufficient demonstration of his attitudes. DrKiernan 12:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Quite long" is an irrelevance. The 32 kb limit on articles is long since obviated by improvements in the wiki technology. The article should be as long as the subject demands. Masalai 13:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether they are "true" or not, they are amply documented. They can of course be incorporated into the text passim. He wasn't "most upper class males of his generation": he was the heir to the throne of a world-wide empire. And that such views were his is useful knowledge: that they may have been typical of "upper class males of his generation" is neither here nor there; the fact is that they were his views. They should stay as a section of the article. Masalai 13:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not relevant, and the consensus is to remove them. Astrotrain 13:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Masalai - the 30 kb recommended length is not determined by technology, it is determined by the average attention span of the readers. - The longer the article the less likely the page will be read. DrKiernan 14:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yo. As the "childish and arrogant" person who added the Godfrey quotes, I offer the following: First, the quotes are genuine, and second, I think British royals, even more than most, should be allowed to speak for themselves. There are so many rumours about them, endlessly repeated as fact, that anything directly attributable to them should trump second hand stories. Prince Edward's letters to Freda Dudley Ward reveal a very troubled person. There are repeated references to depression and suicide in them, and this, as much as 'racism' perhaps accounts for his lashing out at the people he visited, as well as at his parents and his brothers. However, this, together with his later apparent fusion of identity with his wife calls for greater psychiatric skills than I possess to interpret. Margaret

Precisely. Masalai 01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Main Picture

Does anyone else feel that albeit the picture is of HRH, having the cover of his memoirs as the main image of HRH is a bit...(insert word that expresses discomfort/disapproval/feelings of tackiness here). Maybe it's just me. LancasterII 04:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was my first reaction to the page. Is there a more...I guess official(?) portrait we could use of him instead? Irish♣Pearl 04:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite apart from the fact that the caption notwithstanding, it is made very clear in all respectable biographies of the Duke that his participation in the writing of the memoirs was sporadic at best and generally reluctant once the realisation set in that even with a ghost writer taking the lion's share of the responsibility the project did involve a certain amount of application and industry on the Duke's part which he was unwilling to provide. Masalai 05:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have placed an offical Portrait of the King from 1937 on the page, it is not in copyright as it is an offical government picture for use in publicity. Hope you like it. --Duncanbruce 12:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• You need to give a source! It looks strange that it was released 11 months after his abdication. DrKiernan 12:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me I am not completely sure how to give a source, can you advice where I put the information, Yes the Portrait was not going to be released because it was painted in November 1936 and not completed till after his abdication, however the government felt it should be released I guess.--Duncanbruce 14:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The easiest way is to just write it in the summary on the image page. DrKiernan 14:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the Licensing Tag to Template:PD-UKGov however I presume the link is broken as it seems to bring up something about an enviroment agency. --Duncanbruce 14:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've changed it to Template:PD-BritishGov. DrKiernan 14:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is it posible to know about his illegitimate children? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.160.146.211 (talk • contribs)

• He had none. DrKiernan 07:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Real story behind abdication?

I see no mention of what I've always been told was open knowledge in the U.K.: that Edward was known to be almost as pro-Nazi as Unity Mitford, and that the Wallis affair was an excuse to preclude the risk of the throne being occupied in wartime by a monarch who favored the enemy. Any comments by more pro-Windsor editors than my sources (mostly republican and Old Labour)? --Orange Mike 01:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• See main article: Edward VIII abdication crisis. DrKiernan 07:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Richmond was not part of London in 1894

When he was born, Richmond was a municipal borough in Surrey. This should be changed in the box. Calle Widmann 12:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term "Anglo-American"

Because the context is completely devoid of which meaning of "Anglo" this is referring to, and because the part chilean reference between the two uses suggests the "non-hispanic white" meaning, the term should be removed, replaced or clarified. pschemp | talk 23:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Style At Birth

The article states, without direct attribution, that Edward VIII was styled HH Prince Edward of York at his birth. I am not aware that Highness as opposed to Royal Highness is now or has ever been a titled used in either Great Britain or in England. I haven't edited the article as of yet, because I would like to hear others views on this subject. Frazzle 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Prior to 1917, the children, male-line grandchildren and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales were HRH. All other male-line descendants were HH. Edward VIII, at his birth, was not the eldest son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales. He was the eldest son of the second son of the Prince of Wales. Charles 02:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Education and nanny

I just want to point out two things which the article omits. I believe these things are very important to mention. One, the nanny who abused him: She did more than pinch! She twisted his arm and then she would pinch him! He describes this exactly in those words "twist my arm and pinch me" in his memoirs. I feel it's important to mention the twisting his arm because that is so horrible, and you can see why he would cry so much! Secondly, about his education, you don't mention anything about his time at Magdalene College, Oxford, which was the alma mater of his tutor Hansell. Why no mention of it? It was a reasonably important part of his early life. --Ashley Rovira 14:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Cites? --Orange Mike 21:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are these things "very important to mention"? Masalai 22:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Racism

Can someone explain to me why it is necessary to give an authorial judgement on a quotation that a reader can easily judge for himself?

If I had objected to the idea of showing Edward VIII's unpleasant views about various non-whites I would have made far more deletions. What I deleted were phrases I considered out of place in encyclopaedic material.

It is possible to write that Edward VIII has been accused of racism because of x, y, z. But the tone of the comments I altered was not dry and dispassionate, I felt, as befits an encyclopaedia.

If you wish to say that he made "racist comments", then it is not necessary to reproduce said comments, surely?

I think Edward VIII was a fairly vile man, but I would hesitate to say he was "a racist" because I don't know that he had concrete racial theories. It is possible, and his (apparent) Nazi sympathies suggest such an inclination, but it should be stated as a theory, not a fact.

The writer seems to believe he is writing a biography, or a profile of Edward VIII, like some latter day Matthew of Parris writing his views on men of his time in the annals of his day and age.

On top of these things, I may explain my views by noting my belief that "racism" and "racist" have become colloquialisms of vague and ambiguous meaning; and to take what I consider to be a more clear cut case than Edward VIII, I would at least hesitate to describe Nick Griffin, of the BNP, or his comments, as "racist" in an encyclopaedia - although in virtually any other context I would not hesitate to refer to him/them as such.

Finally, if the editor of my previous edits (Dr Kiernan) objected to my first substantive edit, why not the second (the substance of which may, simplified, be described as changing "racist attitudes" to "contemptuous attitudes")? I would also note that his rewording does at least leave unrestored the part I most objected to, about "revealing his racist attitudes", which sounded much alike to the words of a fiery leftwing orator about to reveal the dark secrets at the heart of the Zionist world empire, etc etc. At any rate - they felt personal and inappropriate to an encyclopaedia to me.

I have not described in any detail my opinion of Edward VIII and whether or not he was a racialist/similair, because that isn't the purpose of the page. I have written on the principle that contentious subjects should be written upon drily and with judgements carefully expressed in an encyclopaedia.

I am afraid that I am prepared to contest the paragraph in question (2nd paragraph under "royal duties") indefinitely. I felt that I should not reverse the reversions as this would be unproductive, but that does not mean that I can't be bothered to pursue the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJ Gordon (talk • contribs) 18:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (edited to include signature and to remove a typing error) (RJ Gordon (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

Question

"He [George V] later said of Prince Albert's daughter, the Princess Elizabeth, (whom he called "Lilibet"): " (sic)
Why does it say "Prince Albert's daughter" here? Shouldn't it say George (or Bertie possibly)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.3.184.247 (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

GBE and GCMG omitted?

A question at the Humanities Ref Desk prompted me to check Guinness (2002 edition) for the person with the most different knighthoods. Of the British orders of chivalry, it says that the Duke of Windsor had 9: KG, KT, KP, GCB, GCSI, GCMG, GCIE, GCVO, GBE. Our list shows only 7 of these, with no mention of GBE or GCMG. Is Guinness wrong? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Complete Peerage indicates he was not specifically invested with those orders, but he was Grand Master of both. So, the question becomes: "Does being a Grand Master of an Order invest you with that Order's highest honor?" DrKiernan (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It would seem absurd for a Grand Master of an order not to be invested with its highest honour; I've never heard of such a case. Yet, I agree they are separate concepts. A member of the order chosen at random is not necessarily its Grand Master, and I suppose the converse has to follow as well. Becoming Grand Master does not, in and of itself, constitute an investment in any particular level of the order. If not already at the highest level, or a member at all, there would normally be a separate investment procedure in concert with the appointment (or whatever) to Grand Master. So, I wonder why Edward was specifically invested with the other honours, but not these two. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Banqueting House

How can we be sure that the plans are for an actual coronation as opposed to the rehearsal held in early 1937? Are the drawings dated? Is Wallis mentioned by name, or could two thrones be placed for George and Elizabeth? DrKiernan (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Illegal currency trading

Sarah Bradford says: "Among the Duke's other sins, of which British intelligence had knowledge at this time, was illegal currency dealing, again through pro-Nazi connections". This view is shared by Andrew Roberts and Antonia Fraser. Of the books listed in the references of this article, I have read Bloch, Menkes, Ziegler and the Duke's memoirs. They either agree with this assessment or do not dispute it.

Consequently, the claim that the Duke of Windsor did trade currency illegally during the war appears to be the accepted version of history, and no evidence has been provided that this claim is contentious. In the absence of proof to the contrary, such as a published expert disputing the claim, I see no reason either to remove it or qualify it with weasel words. DrKiernan (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Even Colin Matthew, who is fairly pro-Edward, says "...currency restrictions further complicated a life lived in several countries, and the duke sometimes pulled rank to avoid them." DrKiernan (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

==No evidence of illegal currency trading --

Edward VIII was a King Of England, and as such is prone to wild and unfair accusations unlike other citizens of the United Kingdom. Sarah Bradford, Andrew Roberts and Antonia Fraser were not around at the time of the alleged transactions.

Because the Duke is not here to defend himself at the present time, it seems unfair that articles written about him on an encyclopedia should include unproven accusations. If there is documentary evidence of these illegal transactions it should be presented here for perusal - otherwise any comment about them should be withheld. Many people read wikipedia and accept its articles as fact. Your comment "appears to be the accepted version of history" is not sufficient to convict anyone. Just because a few people have written a few books about Edward does not make their accusations true.

Furthermore, what defines an expert? On whose definition are these people experts?

Under English law, for a person to be convicted of a criminal offence there must be overwhelming evidence - in other words, their guilt must be established beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is upon the prosecution not the defence. It is quite clear that a few books do not amount to such evidence.

Furthermore, the comment "in the absence of proof to the contrary" is nonsensical. It is impossible to prove a negative. No one can prove that illegal currency transactions did not take place - and there is no necessity to do so. What is necessary is for the accuser to prove their case and this has not been done.

I am quite happy to argue out the evidence on this forum, and if it is proved beyond doubt that these transactions did take place I will accept that but as many millions of people use wikipedia and accept it as an authorative source (whether they should or shouldn't do) people have a right to a fair hearing.

If there is any documentary evidence of what happened, rather than a lot of hearsay (what other people have said about what happened) these comments should be left off until there is firm evidence.