![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
At his death however it was deemed that he would once again be reffered to as King Edward VIII I believe. That is the usance in the Netherlands where the Princesses Juliana and Wilhelmina, when they died, are refered to once again as Queen Wilhelmina and Queen Juliana. I think something similar goes for Edward VIII. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 21:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
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)))
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.
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)
Technically, until 1917 that was correct. All the Dukes of Saksony and Princes of Saxe Coburg and Gotha (which the British royals were untill that year) belonged to the House of Wettin. That title was never actually in use in Britain however. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 21:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Only a Mug would suggest this!
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
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.
I agree with Ventresca's comment. Edward VIII's influence on male fashion was notable. Unfortunately I lack the background knowledge to add something sufficiently verifiable. Centrepull ( talk) 23:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
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.
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)
Technically that would delay his abdication for all realms one day, as the act has to be passed by all realms to bedome law. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 20:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This is what I found about it at www.rulers.org "The Dáil, in accepting the abdication of Edward VIII on 12 Dec 1936, did not proclaim the succession of George VI, but merely provided for the use of the U.K. crown for purposes of foreign representation, while leaving a hiatus in the transition to the new constitutional arrangements. There was no explicit provision for an interim head of state until the new constitution was to take effect on 29 Dec 1937. The domestic functions of the sovereign were exercised in part by the chairman of Dáil Éireann (Frank Fahy) and in part by the president of the Executive Council (Eamon de Valera)." Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 21:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is the excerpt:
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)
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.
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.
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)
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??
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)
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. DrKay 08:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
Some Irish officials at the time of the Free State have argued that their state was included in the phrase "British Dominions beyond the Seas" and that "Ireland" in the title referred to Norther Ireland. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 20:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
I think, especially given that the article is already quite long, that the three items above are sufficient demonstration of his attitudes. DrKay 12:09, 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. DrKay 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is it posible to know about his illegitimate children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.160.146.211 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Kay) 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))
"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)
No, it shouldn't say George. There was a Prince George---the duke of Kent. During the lifetime of George V there was only one Prince Albert---the future King George VI and then duke of York, and I think its well known that George VI's first given name was Albert.
Chuckw-nj (
talk) 06:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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? DrKay ( talk) 09:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
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. DrKay ( talk) 06:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
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 who have articles written about them 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. So you should present it now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.102 ( talk) 21:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to Ziegler? I think he might quote from the original documents on page 404, but this is from my personal notes and I want to check the actual biography. Thanks, DrKay ( talk) 12:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how someone can make an allegation and present it as fact on an encyclopedia.
I am not an anonymous defender of royals.
Where do you get this statement from?
How do you know I am even a royalist or believe in the monarchy?
I simply believe that Edward VIII is entitled to fairness the same as everyone else. Furthermore, this has been explained above. What constitutes evidence? Perhaps those above should look it up on wikipedia? "Evidence in its broadest sense includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."
Just because it has been written down by someone else does not make it suitable to be presented as fact.
Many 'experts' in the disappearance of young children believe that Madeline Mcann was killed by her parents. I can present numerous sources, from experts in the field that claim this. Yet, if I were to write this on an article on wikipedia about the disappearance this would not be correct, because it has not been proven. Wikipedia's job is not to conduct a trial but because it is used by millions upon millions of people worldwide it has a responsibility to ensure its articles are accurate.
I am not some insane person who blindly believes that the royalty does no wrong.
Is it really such a difficult task for the writer of these allegations to produce some evidence here on this forum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.114.118 ( talk) 17:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the "some historians" language because the weasel words made this sound like a fringe theory rather than the consensus of writers on the topic. This is not a biography of a living person; we follow historical standards rather than libel laws. -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think its a bit off of you to call them "weasel words". I'm trying to reach some agreement with Dr Kay on this subject and the best way to phrase the allegations.
You say that on wikipedia you follow historical standards rather than libel laws, but I'm not trying to follow either. My argument is that these allegations should not be presented as fact on this encyclopedia without at the least presenting some evidence.
The article on the Duke reports all sorts of information as fact, such as date of birth, titles, period of his reign, and people believe these articles contain 100% factual statements. The Duke was never convicted of illegal currency trading so why should this be presented without some evidence?
OrangeMike, don't you at least believe that everyone has the right to a fair hearing? For many years, Richard III was accused of killing two relatively unknown princes of England in the tower of London. Now historical experts believe that he did not commit the crime, however his reputation amongst a significant number of the general public who are aware of him believe those words written about him in Shakespeare's play. If wikipedia had been out in 1908 then an article about Richard III would have accused him of the crime, and all sorts of ridiculous statements such as walking with a stoop and with a large humpback. None of this is actually true. Because historical experts at the time concurred on that theory you would have thought such comments should be on the site, without any firm evidence. You would have been wrong and another man would have been mis-represented without the opportunity for
a) The allegations to have been phrased in such a way so that they were not presented as fact b) Without the opportunity to defend himself, or to allow others to defend him
How is this fair? Wikipedia should not blindly report what other historians say without checking the facts themselves first. If wikipedias job is simply to write down what has been written elsewhere it is not worthy of its reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.213.93 ( talk) 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have added the statement "it is claimed that he benefited from illegal currency transactions". I hope you understand Dr Kay, I am not some mad monarchist blinded by the pomp and grandeur of the British Royals, I merely believe people have a right to have a report on their life be fair and accurate. Unfortunately because of their position within society, the royal family are subject to many wild and unfair accusations which may or may not be true. The royal family do not sue for libel or slander, and Edward VIII is not alive to defend his reputation. Again, like Richard III, he is a much-maligned King.
Many school children with impressionable young minds look to wikipedia as a source of fact, and any reporting on this encyclopedia would be taken by them as fact. I hope they understand that wikipedia is as unreliable as any other source on the internet.
I now understand that neither wikipedia, its editors, or its writers, are concerned with the difference between the truth, facts and allegations. Do we really want to go down the road of having an encyclopedia that cannot be trusted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.248 ( talk) 15:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Inserting the word reported instead of claimed makes nonsense of the compromise reached with Dr Kay. Reported is what happens when a journalist covers the war in Iraq "Rageh Omah reported the deaths of 100 Iraqi civilians caused by the bombing" compared to "Rageh Omah claimed that 100 Iraqi civilians had died in the bombing". The first statement states that 100 deaths did occur whereas the latter statement only that 100 had died without firm knowledge.
You could insert the statement, Sarah Bradford reports that he benefited from illegal currency transactions, I would be happy with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.248 ( talk) 19:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
OrangeMike: What you've done throughout the whole discussion I've had with Dr Kay on this subject is to interfere when you're not required. Now I find out the reason for this and the many accusations you have placed at my door - actually you do not like any of the British Royal Family - or probably any Royal family or any person born into a place of status or privilege- for no other reason than the position they were born into.
You've obviously let your own personal feelings towards Edward VIII interfere with how you have edited the changes to this article - you are a disgrace to yourself and wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.248 ( talk) 00:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The claim is neither inaccurate nor unfair. You have clearly throughout your editing of this article made several unfair and unsupported claims about my own views on the Royal Family - which I have rebutted most vigorously and which you failed to answer. Furthermore, it has been quite clear throughout that you have your own feelings on the subject, and on Edward VIII.
What is perfectly plain to me is that your own asinine thoughts and feelings on the subject have clouded your judgment when accusations of wrong-doing have been made about a British King. You obviously have some deep-seated feelings about the English (judging from all the groups you support such as Scottish independence [which the Scots don't even want], or a united Ireland [which the Northern Irish don't want]). You have absolutely no idea about what the crown and our consitution mean to the British people.
Furthermore, you obviously have no idea about how well-loved Edward was by his people, how when during the abdication crisis opinion polls consistently showed support for the King and a wish to see him stay as sovereign. I suggest in future you take more interest in the facts than your own prejudices. Judging from your own profile, I would have thought that someone in your position would be more careful not to judge people on first appearances - I'm sure you yourself have experienced a lot of prejudice.
One last point, I think whilst researching your Veteran status, I've worked out the reason you keep changing everything on here without reason or justification. You obviously want to further your position as an editor to a "lord high tutnum" or whatever ridiculous language you use to describe your iniquitous deeds - go use someone else, "hands-off our King"!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.248 ( talk • contribs)
- Direct quotes from Orange Mike
1. I would hope that "school children with impressionable young minds" would read this article and see what a despicable piece of arrogant aristotrash this guy was 2. I removed the "some historians" language because the weasel words 3. some anonymous defender of royals has removed without explanation. Reversion of vandalism (which this unexplained blanking constitutes) is not subject to the 3RR.
I wonder if an inspection of all your other edits would reveal equally ignominious statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.248 ( talk) 15:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't expect an apology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.248 ( talk) 16:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I have found references to original documents in: Andrew Roberts (1994). Eminent Churchillians. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 0-297-81247-5
p.280 Victor Waddilove, the Duke of Windsor's private secretary writing to Walter Monckton, 15 December 1958, "I have operated on the black market on their [the Duke and Duchess's] behalf for the past ten years against my own conscience and the advice of the late Sir George Allen [the Duke's solicitor]. Unfortunately, I did not take that advice and in devotion to my employers continued these illegal operations to please them, and to benefit them to the extent of well over £200,000...I am now very worried that with the extension to others of the knowledge of these transactions there may be a leak of information. They have totalled over one and half billion Francs and have only been known to my principals and myself."
p.281 Walter Monckton's memorandum of the affair, dated 12 May 1959 in the Monckton Papers, "the deals in which the Duke has been engaged in French Francs on the black market...is something like FF 1.5 billions, and that in the last year or two a profit of something like FF 600 million...Lacazes, who is now in gaol, appears to have been one of the dealers for the Duke...on occasions he [John Masters, a former employee of Barings Bank who was investigating the deals] believes the Duke has done the actual work on the market himself personally...the fact of the Duke's business in the black market is known to Montreal bankers"
Consequently, I have removed "it is claimed". DrKay ( talk) 06:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
YUK! Well I do have to accept that this evidence is appears well sourced - and I do know Monckton's closeness to Edward so I won't undo your revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.27.28 ( talk) 00:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This article says Edward's post-abdication arms had a "royal crown proper" on the center point of the label in his arms. The article Duke of Windsor says it was a "royal crown or". In other words, this article says the crown on the center dangling banner should be coloured as in real life, but the other article says it should be gold. The source given in this article appears to support the gold crown assertion. Does anyone have access to a source that gives the correct blazon? I know it's a small point, but the articles should consistent and accurate. - Rrius ( talk) 07:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I made an edit making numerous changes to the Later life section. I mention it here because it touches on the currency allegations discussed above.
First, there was a clump of three main clauses presented as a list with no obvious connection among them (income tax exemption, currency allegations, and duty-free purchases.
Second, several ideas were jumbled up with no logical flow or connection. I divided them into sentences describing their lifestyle (e.g., they hosted parties) and those related to income (government perks, book royalties, currency shenanigans, etc.).
I also made some minor edits (grammar, usage, punctuation). - Rrius ( talk) 07:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
May need to be substantially reviewed and rewritten. Some documents purporting to support the claim that the Duke being sympathetic to fascism have been proven to be recent forgeries inserted into WW2 era files in the National Archives. [3] 203.7.140.3 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
May I ask whether this issue has moved forward? As I understand it we have charges that were never brought, accusations which were never substantiated, a complete failure to link Allen directly with the undoubted forgeries, an unexplained "tip off" to that well known bastion of truth, the Daily Telegraph and an explanation by Allen which, if (and only if) his book is accurate is wholly believable. I hold no position, either pro or con, but when I see the establishment gathering around with such gusto (bearing in mind their complete disregard of the truth during the Edward VIII scandal itself) my eyebrows tend to rise a little. Allen's description of Blunt is largely borne out by the Blunt biography, as a nasty, cowardly, predatory homosexual, who had young people placed in his care by the very same esablishment when it was well known that he couldn't keep his hands out of a male stundents trousers for more than 10 minutes. (Ring any recent (church) bells?) And yet it is now accepted that he was protected at the highest level. Allen's case is that it was Blunt who was sufficiently under control to be sent to Germany to fillet any records of contact between Hitler and Windsor to avoid even further embarassment to the family. If that is true, and no-one has said it isn't AFAIK merely that there is no proof - what a surprise - then that of itself deserves questions. Drg40 ( talk) 10:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I would love to see someone with the knowledge expand the end of the article with a short paragraph discussing his legacy and how the British generally perceive him today. You get bits and pieces from the article, but something more synthesized would be quite useful. Brando130 ( talk) 23:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask on what grounds this man is referred to as King Edward VIII? Unless the Coronation is merely a tourist event, it is on that occasion that the heir apparent is recognised as head of the Church and State and the Lords and Commons together swear allegiance. Until the coronation he/she remains the heir apparent. I draw a parallel in that President Obama did not formally become President until one of the US courts said he was. In the case of David Windsor he was never ever remotely likely to become King, not least because it was extremely unlikely that the Commons would have permitted the Speaker of the House to swear allegiance on their behalf. Indeed it was Stanley Baldwin (then PM) who was instrumental in giving the silly and unpleasant man his marching orders. For those who doubt the supremacy of the Lords and Commons in this matter I refer them to history, particularly, but not only, the selection of William and Mary as joint King and Queen. Although Mary had a some right of succession, William had none. I recognise that in deference to the current Queen and, bearing in mind the great difficulties David caused the Windsor family, we might in kindness gloss over the issues by generally referring to him as Edward VIII for clarity; but the truth is that he never was, and was never likely to be, King.
80.58.205.99 ( talk) 12:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
DrKay disrespectfully self-reverted all my changes. I restored these and will give an explanation here:
Str1977 (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
You are incorrect as the reference I added from Speer's book is even acknowledged in the next few paragraphs:
Many historians have suggested that Hitler was prepared to reinstate Edward as King in the hope of establishing a fascist Britain.[70] It is widely believed that the Duke (and especially the Duchess) sympathised with fascism before and during World War II, and had to remain in the Bahamas to minimise their opportunities to act on those feelings.
If you are going to remove that quote, then you may as well remove and reedit Edward's World War II section in its entirety. Quoting Hitler directly, which is what Speer does, essentially confirms these suggestions by historians and even Churchill's suspicions that was also noted in this same article, that Hitler did have a use for Edward. In several alternative history novels written by various authors where the Nazis do win the war, Edward is the King of England. Eman007 (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
For starters, I never said anything about, nor did Speer apparently say anything either, about Hitler reinstating Edward VII had he conquered the UK. I said and I quote: Hitler had pinned his future relations with Britain on Edward. Which is true. You are incorrect about Hitler & Edward. Hitler wanted Edward VIII on the throne so it would have not only made conquering Britain and the world much easier, but forming an alliance with the UK which is something Hitler actually preferred than fighting Britain as he admired the British Empire. This is well known and not alternative history.
Quoting Speer who quotes Hitler, in the page right before the quote about Edward's abdication:
"Hitler was pacing back and forth in the garden at Obersalzberg. "I really don't know what I should do. It is a terribly difficult decision. I would by far prefer to join the English. But how often in history the English have proved perfidious. If I go with them, then everything is over for good between the Italy and us.""
And again later on that page:
"The decision must be taken in terms of the long view, he said. He spoke of his readiness to guarantee England's empire in return for a global arrangement-a favorite idea of his, which he was to voice often."
And the whole quote in addition to what I had posted.
"Whereupon he would launch into remarks about sinister anti-German forces who were deciding the course of British policy. His regret at not having made an ally out of England ran like a red thread though all the years of his rule. It increased when the Duke of Windsor and his wife visited Hitler at Obersalzerg on October 22, 1937, and allegedly had good words to say about the achievements of the Third Reich."
So, it doesn't make sense to put in: "Hitler considered Edward to be friendly towards Nazi Germany, saying "His abdication was a severe loss for us."[62]" (and yes I must point it out to you to make you understand) and essentially paraphrase what it seems to be is your point of view, rather than to put in the entire quote which is all I did and shore up and make sense the latter half of this article, as well as the general consensus made by historians that Hitler did in fact intend to use Edward as a puppet monarch, or at least had he stayed King, used him to sway over the UK under his control and not reinstate him which is what you claim and speculate later in the article. Eman007 (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
the introduction to the article says "Edward VIII (Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David; later The Duke of Windsor; 23 June 1894 – 28 May 1972) was King of the United Kingdom and the British dominions, and Emperor of India from 20 January 1936 until his abdication on 11 December 1936." it repeats the date "1936" and I doubt he started his reign as emperor lasted only a year, if this is the case, at least specify the months in between which this happened--Angry Mushi 02:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Angry Mushi (
talk •
contribs)
It seems rather unlikely that Edward was promoted from the naval rank of lieutenant to captain in 1919 unless it was an honorary promotion. Likewise, his promotion in 1939 to major-general. The "military" sub-section in the "Titles, styles, honours and arms" section implies otherwise. Greenshed ( talk) 00:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I know this was touched on before, so sorry if I repeat stuff, or misunderstand things. I think one has to distinguish how titles are written, and what political entitles one actually has authority over.
Regardless of how his titles were written, I understand Edward VIII literally was the king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not the king of Ireland. It is only ok to use the text "King of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, and Emperor of India" *if* we keep it in quotes, and do NOT wiki link the parts. I think it's technically wrong and misleading to link to Ireland (in this context) as this implies we're saying he was King of Ireland. The link to Great Britain sends the reader to an article, which shows Great Britain is (since 1801) just a geographical component of a larger political entity (note the infobox doesn't identify the current monarch). I understand we're using certain text to match what was written on official documents, but if we don't put text in quotes, we're stating it as fact, inappropriately.
To make an analogy, George W. Bush is "President of the United States of America", but he is not President of the United States of America. -- Rob ( talk) 01:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
What does this mean? He had only 1 PM, Baldwin. 10:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The reference may be clear to folks in Britain, but I, too, was taken aback by "various Prime Ministers". I understand what was meant -- now that it has been explained -- but I believe the average reader may better understand if the language was modified to something like "prime ministers of his various dominions"
No connection beyond the timing, but The Crystal Palace burnt down less than two weeks before the abdication. (Factoid for quiz-setters) Jackiespeel ( talk) 14:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I found "making him the only monarch of Britain, and indeed any Commonwealth Realm, to have voluntarily relinquished the throne". Has there ever been a monarch of a commonwealth realm who was not also monarch of Britain? If not is the second part of this sentence really necessary? DJ Clayworth ( talk) 15:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
What about rulers of the Indian princely states and the Kabaka of Buganda? Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I was going through fixing links to disambiguation pages, here, and ran across a link to the disambiguation page throat cancer. Although I was semi-suprised to find that as a disambiguation page, it can apparently refer to either Esophageal cancer or the more general Head and neck cancer. Do we happen to know which link would be more appropriate? -- Natalya 21:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
and New Zealand, having never even heard of Mrs. Simpson before, vacillated in disbelief from the 07.08.08. The meaning of this phrase is not unclear, however it sounds rather amusing to my ear. "New Zealand" is of course meant to stand for '"His Majesties Government in New Zealand" but this brings to mind the image of an entire bewildered country staggering in the light of Wallis Simpson. -- Francis Burdett ( talk) 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
A few months ago there was a discussion concerning the blazon of the charge on the label of the arms. I have found an online source that describes the charge. Since the article is FA and I am a new user, I am posting here before I edit in case discussion is desired. If anyone wants to check the reference Flags of the Royal Family,United Kingdom
Point well taken, re revert of my last; (I have not read the source). But, I was guided by this fact: it is already reported in the article that Edward knew of the huge implications --including the likely fall of the Baldwin government-- if he married without abdicating first. I think it valuable to recapitulate --in three words-- the fact here; i.e., to record this knowledge was part of his final deliberations and decision-making.-- Jbeans ( talk) 08:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Near the end of the Later Life section, there's a sentence that begins, "Increasingly senile and frail, the Duchess died 14 years later..." This use of the word "senile" is rarely used anymore (at least in the United States), because it inaccurately, and to many people offensively, implies a close or causative relationship between age and dementia. "Senile" has largely been replaced (in the U.S.) with the word "demented". I would have liked to replace the word "senile" with the word "demented" in this section, but I see that the page is semi-protected. Also, I've been informed that in England, the word "demented" is not used this way. In any case, since there seems to be so much controversy over the historical character involved, maybe a blander word or phrase would fit better here. "Confused" would work, wouldn't it? Or maybe someone else has a better suggestion. At any rate, I strongly suggest removing the offensive word "senile". Sylvia A ( talk) 00:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to go back to basics, but:
Can I ask on what grounds this man is referred to as King Edward VIII? Unless the Coronation is merely a tourist event, it is on that occasion that the heir apparent is recognised as head of the Church and State and the Lords and Commons together swear allegiance. Until the coronation he/she remains the heir apparent. I draw a parallel in that President Obama did not formally become President until one of the US courts said he was. In the case of David Windsor he was never ever remotely likely to become King, not least because it was extremely unlikely that the Commons would have permitted the Speaker of the House to swear allegiance on their behalf. Indeed it was Stanley Baldwin (then PM) who was instrumental in giving the silly and unpleasant man his marching orders. For those who doubt the supremacy of the Lords and Commons in this matter I refer them to history, particularly, but not only, the selection of William and Mary as joint King and Queen. Although Mary had a some right of succession, William had none. I recognise that in deference to the current Queen and, bearing in mind the great difficulties David caused the Windsor family, we might in kindness gloss over the issues by generally referring to him as Edward VIII for clarity; but the truth is that he never was, and was never likely to be, King.
Drg40 ( talk) 13:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but, that speech is made by Garter King of Arms (?) very soon after the death of the monarch, and certainly without the formal authority of the various organs of state. It might seem terrific, but it merely records the continuity of the monarchy, not necessarily at the individual level. In other words a great piece of typically British theatre. If you don't believe in the "King by divine right" (and I'm afraid I don't), but rather that the monarchy is a most convenient and effective way of selecting someone in whom the separation of powers is vested, then he wasn't King. Remember we fought a civil war because the Charles I thought he had divine rights - amongst other reasons. I am aware that he (David) had some strange view that he was King by God's hand and also believed that some of the roles of the democratically elected government should no longer be discharged by those elected but returned to the Monarch (the determination of Foreign Policy, for example). One suspects this, he hoped, would enable a rapprochment with Herr Hitler. But just because he wished it so, doesn't make it right. After all, although the media of the time worshipped him and so, as a result did most of the British people, it's difficult to get round the fact that many people who knew him well (including particularly his mother and father) thought him to be a deeply unpleasant man. As I read it it was only sycophants like Mountbatten who poured all this nonsense into his head (whilst participating and encouraging him in his sexual extravaganzas) who were responsible for egging this feeble man on. He wasn't ever going to be King until they poured oil over him, pushed orb and sceptre into his hands, clapped a crown on his head and bowed (or curtsied) low. And we didn't. Drg40 ( talk) 12:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou for your help. I have a feeling that matter will be tested sorely in the not too distant future, but perhaps we shall have to wait and see. 80.58.205.99 ( talk) 11:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
1) Quite right the Heir Apparent or Heir Presumptive immediately becomes Sovereign at the death of the previous Sovereign. If Officers of State and the Heir Apparent/Presumptive are present at the moment of death all bow to the new Sovereign and the hand is kissed in sign of fealty. 2) An Accession Council is immediately convened in which the new Sovereign is acknowledged and the new title of the Sovereign is announced first in the public square of St James's Palace. This Accession Council is made up of the principle members of the Privy Council (senior members of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, and senior members of the Royal Family). Parliament as a body HAS NO SAY WHATSOEVER IN THIS ACCESSION COUNCIL. However, if there are any questions to the suitability of the new Sovereign, this is the Forum where any issues may be discussed. The Accession Council has the authority, if it deems necessary, to block the accession of the Sovereign and pass the Crown to whovever it feels is fit to govern. The Accession Council must meet, agree to the Accession of the new Sovereign, and declare the new Sovereign at the Courtyard of St James's Palace, within three days of the death of the previous Sovereign. 3) The new Sovereign, although Monarch, may not wear the Royal Regalia until they are actually crowned. So at the State Opening of Parliament, if the Sovereign has not been formally crowned, they may not wear the Imperial State Crown. Edward VIII duly did not wear the Crown at the State Opening in November 1936: instead he wore a uniform of the Admiral of the Fleet, and carried an Admiral's hat with him into the Chamber of the House of Lords. 4) There are only two instances in English and British history where the Sovereign has not been crowned: King Edward V (1483) and King Edward VIII (1936). Ds1994 ( talk) 12:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought Wikipedia articles were meant to use the subject's most recent title upon death which would have been Edward, Duke of Windsor. So it seems sensible that the article should have that emboldened first and then say ruled as King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom etc from Jan-Dec 1936. 92.26.137.49 ( talk) 20:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Ahh you raise an interesting point. Was him being King and Emperor the most important thing about him. Surely if you ask anyone about Edward VIII the most important thing they would remember was his abdication and secondly the fact that there is evidence to suggest he was a Nazi Sympathiser when he was known as Duke of Windsor. I'm not going to change the article again but it's food for thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.137.49 ( talk) 20:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
For me,the cause of his abdication remains a mistery.The will to marry Wallis Simpson doesn't explains nothing to me.The English law doesn't had or has nothing against or about a king to marry, with a divorceé.English law is only against the king to marry with a catholic. Prince Charles now is married with a divorceé, Camilla Parker Bowles, without no problems.Well, we aren't living in 1930 decade, but I don't know why he abdicated.i readin many sites that he abdicated, because he was a nazist and when this was discovered, he chose to abdicate to be forgived. Agre22 ( talk) 03:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)agre22
I added a few sentences and a reference to a Time Magazine cover story published in 1929. Edward was still only age 34, but the article was already speculating about the possibility that he might abdicate. Forthermore they were re-printing rumours that he himself had already discussed his desire not to be king. This article was published almost 7 years before his father died. It is an important part of the story. The abdication crisis was not really an unexpected event but was probably developing for about a decade. I thought it went well with the earlier sentence that his father hoped that he wouldn't marry and have children. Please do not delete without coming to the talk page. Pacomartin ( talk) 19:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly not verifiable, but it's long been asserted that the Wallis mess was just an excuse: that one or more of the U.S. and U.K. intelligence agencies had solid proof that Eddy was not merely a defeatist and a layabout, but a genuine Nazi sympathizer (Wallis, too, in some versions) to such an extent that parliamentary government was not deemed safe with him on the throne. As the tale is told, he was confronted with said proof and took the easy way out, becoming the world's richest remittance man, safely sequestered where he could never become head of a fascist puppet state and with patriotic guards who knew their duty if the need arose. You'll find all sorts of stuff on the Internet about this theory, pro and con. Nobody seems to deny that he found Hitler sympatico on their visit to him; the question is rather how anti-democratic he was, and whether that was actually the reason for his departure from office. -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It is generally accepted now that King Edward VIII was forced to abdicate by the government because he had made it known on several occasions that he was not prepared to act as a constitutional monarch, and would interfere in politics if he felt it was in the country's best interests. ( 92.10.25.106 ( talk) 18:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC))
Well, there is no doubt at all that it was because of his refusal to be the kind of monarch the government wanted and that the Mrs Simpson thing was merely a sideshow. Had his father died in November 1928 then Edward would still have been forced to abdicate. ( 92.10.25.106 ( talk) 22:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC))
Some, like Alan Lascelles and Alan Hardinge, and apparently even George VI himself, believed that Edward had never wanted to be king anyway. Churchill however noted during World War II that it would have been impossible for Edward VIII to remain the monarch, given his pro-German and pro-appeasement views. ( 92.11.214.41 ( talk) 22:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC))
Hey that's an interesting note, Edward VIII's abdication taking effect December 12. For a few hours, the brothers were concurrently Kings. George VI of the UK, Edward VII of the IFS. GoodDay ( talk) 23:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no way in which Edward could have been King of Ireland or Canada without simultaniously being King of the UK as well. The titles for all realms were at the time, King of GB, Ireland and the British Dominions (now the style for every Realm is, King of realm X and all his other realms). The notion of a King of Canada or Ireland seperate from being King of the Uk did and does not exist. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 23:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll restrain from requesting protection, if the edit spats have ended. GoodDay ( talk) 00:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
He watched it from his bedroom window in Marlborough House which was his home at the time. From that window he would have had an excellent view of the balcony at St James's Palace where the proclamation takes place. He would not have had anything like such a good view from any window of St James's Palace (where incidentally he was not living). If he had asked to go into St James's Palace it would have caused all sorts of furore, given it wasn't protocol for him to be doing this at all - and he was supposed to be in mourning. I was first told that he viewed it from his window in Marlborough House by a curator on a visit to Marlborough House organised for London Blue Badge Guides. And of course it makes perfect sense. There is some footage of him and Wallace watching a bit furtively from a little back from the window, which was shown in Andrew Marr's History of Britain programme on 25 November - and it's OBVIOUSLY architecturally Marlborough House. So could you either believe me and stop changing it back, or view the footage (probably still available on i-player), or consult curator at Marlborough House, and please stop changing it back. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizduparcq ( talk • contribs)
But does it say in his memoirs 'a room in St James's Palace'? St James's is the area in which both St James's Palace and Marlborough House are located. Maybe he didn't want to be too specific about exactly which room he watched it from. The very clear film footage is NOT my only source. The curator of Marlborough House who showed me and other Blue Badge Guide colleagues round on 15 February 2000 was at great pains to point out exactly where he watched it from. And it is only from Marlborough House that a good view would be possible. And that's where he lived. It simply wouldn't have been possible from St James's Palace with its different design of windows for him to see it without craning out of the window, which he certainly wasn't doing in the footage shown on Andrew Marr's programme last week. And how would he and Wallace have got into St James's Palace when it was so contrary to Royal Protocol? And yes I did of course understand the issue of Royal Protocol before I commented on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizduparcq ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for being so polite. I hadn't been able for a while to go and check again exactly what all these windows look like, but you will be pleased to read I did so today. The St James's Palace windows along the south side of Friary Court are all quite small casements so these are definitely not the windows from which Edward and Wallis watched. The only sashes are very large ones BEHIND the balcony on the west side. So it's clear that the window was not in St James's Palace. The Marlborough House windows are exactly right and indeed the only possible ones I'm afraid. We can't tell exactly at what stage in the proceedings Edward and Wallis craned to look at something to their left, or what they were looking at, but it could of course have been a guards band striking up, or the gun salute that follows the proclamation (I haven't been able to find out where a proclamation gun salute is fired - Hyde Park as for e.g. birthdays, Green Park as for e.g. Birthday Parade and State Opening, or conceivably St James's Park), or they could simply have been doing what people at big events do all the time - just look where everyone else suddenly looks. The only other clue was that I think the rather bad clip used in the Andrew Marr programme showed a lot of creeper around the window in question. Of course none of these palaces along The Mall have creeper on them now, but it is hard to see how St James's Palace could ever have had creeper around the windows facing on to Friary Court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.101.97 ( talk) 16:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Above was Liz du Parcq again - sorry I was having some Explorer crash problems! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lduparcq ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 12:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 12:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The investiture medal was redone by the Graphics Lab per MOS on opaque backgrounds. Further the black background was splotchy, uneven and unencyclopedic. "Aesthetically, I prefer..." is not a reason to favor the jpg.-- Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 18:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention his visit to Chile. In September 1925, the Chilean President Arturo Alessandri received Edward onboard the dreadnought Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre. The visit briefly quelled domestic unrest, and it marked the beginning of negotiations for a British naval mission, which arrived in the following year. pp.393–394.
His father was the second son of The Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) and The Princess of Wales (formerly Princess Alexandra of Denmark).
Because it allows more links to articles where the titles are explained and because it gives their positions at both birth and later, I prefer "He was the eldest son of the Duke and Duchess of York (later King George V and Queen Mary). The Duke was the second son of the Prince and Princess of Wales (later King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra), and the Duchess was the eldest daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Teck, Francis and Mary Adelaide." DrKay ( talk) 19:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Can someone provide an official source for his appointment as a Major-General in 1939? I can't find any mention of it in the London Gazette, so to say he was "gazetted" a Major-General seems to be wrong. Opera hat ( talk) 23:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Pirus12345 has been attempting to insert bogus information into the article. His edit falsely claims, among other things, that Alan Lascelles' Daily Mail article claims that Edward had affairs with married men, not women, and that Freda Dudley Ward was half-Jamaican, not half-American. Ylee ( talk) 18:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Someone is vandalizing this page, I know for a fact that this
His attitudes towards many of the Empire's subjects and various foreign peoples, both during his time as Prince of Wales and later as Duke of Windsor, were little commented upon in their time but have soured his reputation subsequently.[20] He said of Indigenous Australians: "they are the most revolting form of living creatures I've ever seen!! They are the lowest known form of human beings & are the nearest thing to monkeys."[21]
seems very odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.20.127 ( talk) 07:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the introduction should mention that Edward VIII was the last British monarch to serve his entire reign as Emperor of India and King of Ireland. It is a significant point, as people often look back at his reign as the last time when Britain seemed like a great world power. ( 92.10.130.1 ( talk) 21:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC))
"They hosted parties and shuttled between Paris and New York; many of those who met the Windsors socially, including Gore Vidal, reported on the vacuity of the Duke's conversation." The only source for this is Vidal himself, so I'm not sure how you can say "many of those" when the source just refers to one guy's opinion. Keep in mind I don't know anything about this guy but it seems more sources would be needed to imply a lot of people thought that. AaronY ( talk) 12:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. (Message added manually; RM bot seems not to be working.)-- Kotniski ( talk) 06:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I might be wrong but information seems to be duplicated in Duke of Windsor. Is there any point in having both articles? 109.158.120.149 ( talk) 21:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The phrase (introductory paragraphs) that he remained unmarried until "his accession" is surely inaccurate, as in fact he was unmarried until after his short reign. I will rephrase the statement accordingly. Cloptonson ( talk) 18:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.150.22 ( talk) 20:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Were the titles granted to Edward VIII by George VI hereditary? I.e. were they meant to descend to Edward's "heirs male of the body lawfully begotten"? Surtsicna ( talk) 16:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Not quite. There were life peerages created before the 20th century (for example the Dukedom of Ireland, the creation of Margaret, 2nd Duchess of Norfolk, but their creation was sporadic. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 23:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
He should be referred to in the title as the Edward, Duke of Windsor not Edward VIII as he was never crowned. Once a monarch abdicates he is only known by his monarchical title if he was crowned. This is why the current uncrowned heads of the previous ruling European houses are known as - say - Prince of Prussia, rather than German Emperor & King of Prussia - as just one example. Had Edward been crowned he wouldn't have been Duke of Windsor after he abdicated, he'd have remained Edward VIII in the same way Constantine II of Greece and Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg have. 121.73.7.84 ( talk) 12:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
These need references!!!
E.g. "Grand Cross of the Order of the Southern Cross, 1933"
The article for that does NOT list Edward VIII as a notable recipient
90.196.111.155 ( talk) 19:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The line "Edward knew that the government led by British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin would resign if the marriage went ahead, which could have dragged the king into a general election and would ruin his status as a politically neutral constitutional monarch" is unclear grammatically, and I cannot find further details in the article regarding this "general election" that the king would be dragged into. Is the king himself going to face a general election (e.g. we are going to elect a new king (?!?)) because that is a logical reading of the sentence, or is it a parliamentary election we are speaking of here...please clarify the wording. Twunchy ( talk) 06:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Known to his family as David( Coachtripfan ( talk) 19:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC))
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move, leaning towards a consensus against. Either way these articles aren't going anywhere for the time being. There has been some support only for Edward VIII to move and although I don't think there is a consensus for it in this discussion I would say there's no prejudice against a new RM that solely focuses on Edward's article title. Jenks24 ( talk) 07:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
– Prior to Victoria of the United Kingdom, all Wikipedia articles on British monarchs include in their titles "of the United Kingdom" (sovereigns between George III and George VI, inclusive), "of Great Britain" (sovereigns between Anne and George II, inclusive), or "of England" (sovereigns before Anne). The moves requested would help distinguish the monarchs in question from other royalty with their respective names, and maintain consistency with the most-often used Wikipedia titling convention. Today I made moves on pages allowed: (1) "Edward VII" became "Edward VII of the United Kingdom"; (2) "George V" became "George V of the United Kingdom; (3) "George VI" became "George VI of the United Kingdom. The three articles I am herein requesting to change are currently move-protected. Matthew David González 20:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Minor nitpick; 'TFD', none of the Stadtholders of the Dutch Republic were ever de jure Head of State of it; the States General, as a collective entity was. The Oath of Allegiance taken by the members of the Dutch Army, right up to 1795 (and up to 1813 in exile) was always to the States General and not the Stadtholder. The Stadtholder was only ever Head of the Army, Navy, and of various Provinces (up to 1747 anyway, after which it was always of all of them) of the Netherlands. Stadtholder was not, in law anyway, a position analogous to Lord Protector in the British Commonwealth, or Doge in the Republics of Venice and Genoa, who unquestionably were the Heads of State of the Republics they governed. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 07:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 20:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
We call the article "ice cream" because that is the most common name for it. Similarly, we call the article "Bill Clinton", not "William Jefferson Clinton", because that is the name by which he is most commonly known. Even in this article, no one has suggested that we include all the king's names as part of the title, just the one by which he is most commonly remembered. TFD ( talk) 04:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The above RM has closed. Which (I assume) makes this discussion moot. GoodDay ( talk) 10:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I made it clear I was continuing a previous discussion by posting my comment after the previous discussion in the section above. [24] Pete then removed my reply [25] and put it in a new discussion thread, which he for some reason called "Full name of monarch." [26] I was not arguing for removing Edward's given names. TFD ( talk) 08:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
These edit summaries aren't helpful. Proper explanations for the reverts are wanting. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Info-boxes are not a good place for extensive pedantic detail. I would use the date for the United Kingdomm which is used by reliable sources. Incidentally if legally he remained king in Ireland until Ireland accepted the abdication, he would have remained king in the UK too, because the Statute of Westminster "require[s] the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom." However it is debatable whether that sentence, which is part of the introductory text only has legal rather than merely moral weight.
The description of his office btw is wrong. It says he was "was King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Empire...." In fact his title was "of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King." His was king everywhere in the Empire and there is no reason that "British Dominions" refers exclusively to states other that had dominion status.
TFD ( talk) 00:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
There are a number of reliable sources that disagree with both of your opinions.
Even the article on the abdication crisis recognises the diffent day on which the Irish Free State recognised the abdication:
What are we to do about all that? -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Early biographies always mention how much he needed the support of his close friends Hardinge and Major 'Fruity' Metcalfe during the crisis. Can't see why they've been airbrushed from more recent coverage. Valetude ( talk) 00:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
While I added Zech's report to the article [41] [42] [43] [44], I think quoting the entire report is overkill. It gives it an importance that is not matched by the biographical sources, which only mention it in passing if at all. The amount of material in the article on each point should reflect the amount of coverage that is given to each point in reliable biographies. The report, with the addition of the lengthy footnote, is now given far greater coverage in the article than in any of the secondary sources. Biographies of Edward do not quote the entire report, and so neither should the wikipedia article, which should mirror the practice employed by reputable biographies not quote extensively from primary material. DrKay ( talk) 21:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
There arose a dispute about the proper extent of the Duke of Windsor's wartime activities in regards the German Nazi regime. An editor feels that the pro-Nazi sympathies and activities, including one act that in his personal view is an act of treason, is not reflected with the appropriate due weight in the article, and believes that the insertion of an extract of a German embassy cable should be added, as a footnote. Another editor feels that quoting the entire text of the cable is overkill, and that overall the article is consistent with the views that are presented in scholarly discourse and presents them with due weight and cites them to reliable sources.
The question is put forth to Wikipedia editors whether to Support the addition of the contested material in a footnote or Oppose it. For illustrative purposes, the extract from the cable is quoted herebelow in full:
14:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)124/122669 Minister Zech to State Secretary Weizsäcker SECRET, The Hague, February 19, 1940. Dear Weizsäcker: The Duke of W., about whom I wrote to you in my letter of the 27th of last month, has said that the Allied War Council devoted an exhaustive discussion at its last meeting to the situation that would arise if Germany invaded Belgium. Reference was made throughout to a German invasion plan said to have been found in an airplane that made a forced landing in Belgium. On the military side, it was held that the best plan would be to make the main resistance effort in the line behind the Belgian-French border, even at the risk that Belgium should be occupied by us. The political authorities are said to have at first opposed this plane: after the humiliation suffered in Poland, it would be impossible to surrender Belgium and the Netherlands also to the Germans. In the end, however, the political authorities became more yielding. Heil Hitler! Zech
FRS, I support only if theres a WP:RS that supports this. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 14:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The article states: "With a reign of 326 days, Edward was one of the shortest-reigning monarchs in British history". Which makes me wonder what reign was shorter. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 22:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Have you seen the BBC-Documentary >Abdication: A Very British Coup>? It will say all! - Ok, almost all ^_^ -- 93.184.30.196 ( talk) 18:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't he groomed to an Italian princess? -- YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII ( talk) 18:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I've replaced the infobox photo with another similar one - both in uniform at around the same time, but while the old one is an official portrait, it feels a bit strange - very bright whites, and the eyes are almost washed out. The new one also feels a little more generally human. Commenting in case of objections... Andrew Gray ( talk) 00:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Edward VIII is known to have suffered from
mumps as an adolescent, various sources show he didn't form an adult relationship with women & he didn't produce children. I intend to add a
wp:rs referencing mumps as the reader may wish to know that the disease was a credible cause of his problems.
JRPG (
talk) 10:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Edward VIII. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
At his death however it was deemed that he would once again be reffered to as King Edward VIII I believe. That is the usance in the Netherlands where the Princesses Juliana and Wilhelmina, when they died, are refered to once again as Queen Wilhelmina and Queen Juliana. I think something similar goes for Edward VIII. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 21:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
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)))
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.
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)
Technically, until 1917 that was correct. All the Dukes of Saksony and Princes of Saxe Coburg and Gotha (which the British royals were untill that year) belonged to the House of Wettin. That title was never actually in use in Britain however. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 21:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Only a Mug would suggest this!
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
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.
I agree with Ventresca's comment. Edward VIII's influence on male fashion was notable. Unfortunately I lack the background knowledge to add something sufficiently verifiable. Centrepull ( talk) 23:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
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.
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)
Technically that would delay his abdication for all realms one day, as the act has to be passed by all realms to bedome law. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 20:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This is what I found about it at www.rulers.org "The Dáil, in accepting the abdication of Edward VIII on 12 Dec 1936, did not proclaim the succession of George VI, but merely provided for the use of the U.K. crown for purposes of foreign representation, while leaving a hiatus in the transition to the new constitutional arrangements. There was no explicit provision for an interim head of state until the new constitution was to take effect on 29 Dec 1937. The domestic functions of the sovereign were exercised in part by the chairman of Dáil Éireann (Frank Fahy) and in part by the president of the Executive Council (Eamon de Valera)." Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 21:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is the excerpt:
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)
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.
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.
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)
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??
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)
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. DrKay 08:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
Some Irish officials at the time of the Free State have argued that their state was included in the phrase "British Dominions beyond the Seas" and that "Ireland" in the title referred to Norther Ireland. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 20:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
I think, especially given that the article is already quite long, that the three items above are sufficient demonstration of his attitudes. DrKay 12:09, 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. DrKay 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is it posible to know about his illegitimate children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.160.146.211 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Kay) 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))
"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)
No, it shouldn't say George. There was a Prince George---the duke of Kent. During the lifetime of George V there was only one Prince Albert---the future King George VI and then duke of York, and I think its well known that George VI's first given name was Albert.
Chuckw-nj (
talk) 06:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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? DrKay ( talk) 09:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
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. DrKay ( talk) 06:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
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 who have articles written about them 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. So you should present it now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.102 ( talk) 21:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to Ziegler? I think he might quote from the original documents on page 404, but this is from my personal notes and I want to check the actual biography. Thanks, DrKay ( talk) 12:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how someone can make an allegation and present it as fact on an encyclopedia.
I am not an anonymous defender of royals.
Where do you get this statement from?
How do you know I am even a royalist or believe in the monarchy?
I simply believe that Edward VIII is entitled to fairness the same as everyone else. Furthermore, this has been explained above. What constitutes evidence? Perhaps those above should look it up on wikipedia? "Evidence in its broadest sense includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."
Just because it has been written down by someone else does not make it suitable to be presented as fact.
Many 'experts' in the disappearance of young children believe that Madeline Mcann was killed by her parents. I can present numerous sources, from experts in the field that claim this. Yet, if I were to write this on an article on wikipedia about the disappearance this would not be correct, because it has not been proven. Wikipedia's job is not to conduct a trial but because it is used by millions upon millions of people worldwide it has a responsibility to ensure its articles are accurate.
I am not some insane person who blindly believes that the royalty does no wrong.
Is it really such a difficult task for the writer of these allegations to produce some evidence here on this forum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.114.118 ( talk) 17:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the "some historians" language because the weasel words made this sound like a fringe theory rather than the consensus of writers on the topic. This is not a biography of a living person; we follow historical standards rather than libel laws. -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think its a bit off of you to call them "weasel words". I'm trying to reach some agreement with Dr Kay on this subject and the best way to phrase the allegations.
You say that on wikipedia you follow historical standards rather than libel laws, but I'm not trying to follow either. My argument is that these allegations should not be presented as fact on this encyclopedia without at the least presenting some evidence.
The article on the Duke reports all sorts of information as fact, such as date of birth, titles, period of his reign, and people believe these articles contain 100% factual statements. The Duke was never convicted of illegal currency trading so why should this be presented without some evidence?
OrangeMike, don't you at least believe that everyone has the right to a fair hearing? For many years, Richard III was accused of killing two relatively unknown princes of England in the tower of London. Now historical experts believe that he did not commit the crime, however his reputation amongst a significant number of the general public who are aware of him believe those words written about him in Shakespeare's play. If wikipedia had been out in 1908 then an article about Richard III would have accused him of the crime, and all sorts of ridiculous statements such as walking with a stoop and with a large humpback. None of this is actually true. Because historical experts at the time concurred on that theory you would have thought such comments should be on the site, without any firm evidence. You would have been wrong and another man would have been mis-represented without the opportunity for
a) The allegations to have been phrased in such a way so that they were not presented as fact b) Without the opportunity to defend himself, or to allow others to defend him
How is this fair? Wikipedia should not blindly report what other historians say without checking the facts themselves first. If wikipedias job is simply to write down what has been written elsewhere it is not worthy of its reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.213.93 ( talk) 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have added the statement "it is claimed that he benefited from illegal currency transactions". I hope you understand Dr Kay, I am not some mad monarchist blinded by the pomp and grandeur of the British Royals, I merely believe people have a right to have a report on their life be fair and accurate. Unfortunately because of their position within society, the royal family are subject to many wild and unfair accusations which may or may not be true. The royal family do not sue for libel or slander, and Edward VIII is not alive to defend his reputation. Again, like Richard III, he is a much-maligned King.
Many school children with impressionable young minds look to wikipedia as a source of fact, and any reporting on this encyclopedia would be taken by them as fact. I hope they understand that wikipedia is as unreliable as any other source on the internet.
I now understand that neither wikipedia, its editors, or its writers, are concerned with the difference between the truth, facts and allegations. Do we really want to go down the road of having an encyclopedia that cannot be trusted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.248 ( talk) 15:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Inserting the word reported instead of claimed makes nonsense of the compromise reached with Dr Kay. Reported is what happens when a journalist covers the war in Iraq "Rageh Omah reported the deaths of 100 Iraqi civilians caused by the bombing" compared to "Rageh Omah claimed that 100 Iraqi civilians had died in the bombing". The first statement states that 100 deaths did occur whereas the latter statement only that 100 had died without firm knowledge.
You could insert the statement, Sarah Bradford reports that he benefited from illegal currency transactions, I would be happy with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.248 ( talk) 19:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
OrangeMike: What you've done throughout the whole discussion I've had with Dr Kay on this subject is to interfere when you're not required. Now I find out the reason for this and the many accusations you have placed at my door - actually you do not like any of the British Royal Family - or probably any Royal family or any person born into a place of status or privilege- for no other reason than the position they were born into.
You've obviously let your own personal feelings towards Edward VIII interfere with how you have edited the changes to this article - you are a disgrace to yourself and wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.248 ( talk) 00:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The claim is neither inaccurate nor unfair. You have clearly throughout your editing of this article made several unfair and unsupported claims about my own views on the Royal Family - which I have rebutted most vigorously and which you failed to answer. Furthermore, it has been quite clear throughout that you have your own feelings on the subject, and on Edward VIII.
What is perfectly plain to me is that your own asinine thoughts and feelings on the subject have clouded your judgment when accusations of wrong-doing have been made about a British King. You obviously have some deep-seated feelings about the English (judging from all the groups you support such as Scottish independence [which the Scots don't even want], or a united Ireland [which the Northern Irish don't want]). You have absolutely no idea about what the crown and our consitution mean to the British people.
Furthermore, you obviously have no idea about how well-loved Edward was by his people, how when during the abdication crisis opinion polls consistently showed support for the King and a wish to see him stay as sovereign. I suggest in future you take more interest in the facts than your own prejudices. Judging from your own profile, I would have thought that someone in your position would be more careful not to judge people on first appearances - I'm sure you yourself have experienced a lot of prejudice.
One last point, I think whilst researching your Veteran status, I've worked out the reason you keep changing everything on here without reason or justification. You obviously want to further your position as an editor to a "lord high tutnum" or whatever ridiculous language you use to describe your iniquitous deeds - go use someone else, "hands-off our King"!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.248 ( talk • contribs)
- Direct quotes from Orange Mike
1. I would hope that "school children with impressionable young minds" would read this article and see what a despicable piece of arrogant aristotrash this guy was 2. I removed the "some historians" language because the weasel words 3. some anonymous defender of royals has removed without explanation. Reversion of vandalism (which this unexplained blanking constitutes) is not subject to the 3RR.
I wonder if an inspection of all your other edits would reveal equally ignominious statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.248 ( talk) 15:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't expect an apology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.248 ( talk) 16:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I have found references to original documents in: Andrew Roberts (1994). Eminent Churchillians. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 0-297-81247-5
p.280 Victor Waddilove, the Duke of Windsor's private secretary writing to Walter Monckton, 15 December 1958, "I have operated on the black market on their [the Duke and Duchess's] behalf for the past ten years against my own conscience and the advice of the late Sir George Allen [the Duke's solicitor]. Unfortunately, I did not take that advice and in devotion to my employers continued these illegal operations to please them, and to benefit them to the extent of well over £200,000...I am now very worried that with the extension to others of the knowledge of these transactions there may be a leak of information. They have totalled over one and half billion Francs and have only been known to my principals and myself."
p.281 Walter Monckton's memorandum of the affair, dated 12 May 1959 in the Monckton Papers, "the deals in which the Duke has been engaged in French Francs on the black market...is something like FF 1.5 billions, and that in the last year or two a profit of something like FF 600 million...Lacazes, who is now in gaol, appears to have been one of the dealers for the Duke...on occasions he [John Masters, a former employee of Barings Bank who was investigating the deals] believes the Duke has done the actual work on the market himself personally...the fact of the Duke's business in the black market is known to Montreal bankers"
Consequently, I have removed "it is claimed". DrKay ( talk) 06:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
YUK! Well I do have to accept that this evidence is appears well sourced - and I do know Monckton's closeness to Edward so I won't undo your revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.27.28 ( talk) 00:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This article says Edward's post-abdication arms had a "royal crown proper" on the center point of the label in his arms. The article Duke of Windsor says it was a "royal crown or". In other words, this article says the crown on the center dangling banner should be coloured as in real life, but the other article says it should be gold. The source given in this article appears to support the gold crown assertion. Does anyone have access to a source that gives the correct blazon? I know it's a small point, but the articles should consistent and accurate. - Rrius ( talk) 07:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I made an edit making numerous changes to the Later life section. I mention it here because it touches on the currency allegations discussed above.
First, there was a clump of three main clauses presented as a list with no obvious connection among them (income tax exemption, currency allegations, and duty-free purchases.
Second, several ideas were jumbled up with no logical flow or connection. I divided them into sentences describing their lifestyle (e.g., they hosted parties) and those related to income (government perks, book royalties, currency shenanigans, etc.).
I also made some minor edits (grammar, usage, punctuation). - Rrius ( talk) 07:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
May need to be substantially reviewed and rewritten. Some documents purporting to support the claim that the Duke being sympathetic to fascism have been proven to be recent forgeries inserted into WW2 era files in the National Archives. [3] 203.7.140.3 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
May I ask whether this issue has moved forward? As I understand it we have charges that were never brought, accusations which were never substantiated, a complete failure to link Allen directly with the undoubted forgeries, an unexplained "tip off" to that well known bastion of truth, the Daily Telegraph and an explanation by Allen which, if (and only if) his book is accurate is wholly believable. I hold no position, either pro or con, but when I see the establishment gathering around with such gusto (bearing in mind their complete disregard of the truth during the Edward VIII scandal itself) my eyebrows tend to rise a little. Allen's description of Blunt is largely borne out by the Blunt biography, as a nasty, cowardly, predatory homosexual, who had young people placed in his care by the very same esablishment when it was well known that he couldn't keep his hands out of a male stundents trousers for more than 10 minutes. (Ring any recent (church) bells?) And yet it is now accepted that he was protected at the highest level. Allen's case is that it was Blunt who was sufficiently under control to be sent to Germany to fillet any records of contact between Hitler and Windsor to avoid even further embarassment to the family. If that is true, and no-one has said it isn't AFAIK merely that there is no proof - what a surprise - then that of itself deserves questions. Drg40 ( talk) 10:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I would love to see someone with the knowledge expand the end of the article with a short paragraph discussing his legacy and how the British generally perceive him today. You get bits and pieces from the article, but something more synthesized would be quite useful. Brando130 ( talk) 23:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask on what grounds this man is referred to as King Edward VIII? Unless the Coronation is merely a tourist event, it is on that occasion that the heir apparent is recognised as head of the Church and State and the Lords and Commons together swear allegiance. Until the coronation he/she remains the heir apparent. I draw a parallel in that President Obama did not formally become President until one of the US courts said he was. In the case of David Windsor he was never ever remotely likely to become King, not least because it was extremely unlikely that the Commons would have permitted the Speaker of the House to swear allegiance on their behalf. Indeed it was Stanley Baldwin (then PM) who was instrumental in giving the silly and unpleasant man his marching orders. For those who doubt the supremacy of the Lords and Commons in this matter I refer them to history, particularly, but not only, the selection of William and Mary as joint King and Queen. Although Mary had a some right of succession, William had none. I recognise that in deference to the current Queen and, bearing in mind the great difficulties David caused the Windsor family, we might in kindness gloss over the issues by generally referring to him as Edward VIII for clarity; but the truth is that he never was, and was never likely to be, King.
80.58.205.99 ( talk) 12:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
DrKay disrespectfully self-reverted all my changes. I restored these and will give an explanation here:
Str1977 (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
You are incorrect as the reference I added from Speer's book is even acknowledged in the next few paragraphs:
Many historians have suggested that Hitler was prepared to reinstate Edward as King in the hope of establishing a fascist Britain.[70] It is widely believed that the Duke (and especially the Duchess) sympathised with fascism before and during World War II, and had to remain in the Bahamas to minimise their opportunities to act on those feelings.
If you are going to remove that quote, then you may as well remove and reedit Edward's World War II section in its entirety. Quoting Hitler directly, which is what Speer does, essentially confirms these suggestions by historians and even Churchill's suspicions that was also noted in this same article, that Hitler did have a use for Edward. In several alternative history novels written by various authors where the Nazis do win the war, Edward is the King of England. Eman007 (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
For starters, I never said anything about, nor did Speer apparently say anything either, about Hitler reinstating Edward VII had he conquered the UK. I said and I quote: Hitler had pinned his future relations with Britain on Edward. Which is true. You are incorrect about Hitler & Edward. Hitler wanted Edward VIII on the throne so it would have not only made conquering Britain and the world much easier, but forming an alliance with the UK which is something Hitler actually preferred than fighting Britain as he admired the British Empire. This is well known and not alternative history.
Quoting Speer who quotes Hitler, in the page right before the quote about Edward's abdication:
"Hitler was pacing back and forth in the garden at Obersalzberg. "I really don't know what I should do. It is a terribly difficult decision. I would by far prefer to join the English. But how often in history the English have proved perfidious. If I go with them, then everything is over for good between the Italy and us.""
And again later on that page:
"The decision must be taken in terms of the long view, he said. He spoke of his readiness to guarantee England's empire in return for a global arrangement-a favorite idea of his, which he was to voice often."
And the whole quote in addition to what I had posted.
"Whereupon he would launch into remarks about sinister anti-German forces who were deciding the course of British policy. His regret at not having made an ally out of England ran like a red thread though all the years of his rule. It increased when the Duke of Windsor and his wife visited Hitler at Obersalzerg on October 22, 1937, and allegedly had good words to say about the achievements of the Third Reich."
So, it doesn't make sense to put in: "Hitler considered Edward to be friendly towards Nazi Germany, saying "His abdication was a severe loss for us."[62]" (and yes I must point it out to you to make you understand) and essentially paraphrase what it seems to be is your point of view, rather than to put in the entire quote which is all I did and shore up and make sense the latter half of this article, as well as the general consensus made by historians that Hitler did in fact intend to use Edward as a puppet monarch, or at least had he stayed King, used him to sway over the UK under his control and not reinstate him which is what you claim and speculate later in the article. Eman007 (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
the introduction to the article says "Edward VIII (Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David; later The Duke of Windsor; 23 June 1894 – 28 May 1972) was King of the United Kingdom and the British dominions, and Emperor of India from 20 January 1936 until his abdication on 11 December 1936." it repeats the date "1936" and I doubt he started his reign as emperor lasted only a year, if this is the case, at least specify the months in between which this happened--Angry Mushi 02:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Angry Mushi (
talk •
contribs)
It seems rather unlikely that Edward was promoted from the naval rank of lieutenant to captain in 1919 unless it was an honorary promotion. Likewise, his promotion in 1939 to major-general. The "military" sub-section in the "Titles, styles, honours and arms" section implies otherwise. Greenshed ( talk) 00:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I know this was touched on before, so sorry if I repeat stuff, or misunderstand things. I think one has to distinguish how titles are written, and what political entitles one actually has authority over.
Regardless of how his titles were written, I understand Edward VIII literally was the king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not the king of Ireland. It is only ok to use the text "King of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, and Emperor of India" *if* we keep it in quotes, and do NOT wiki link the parts. I think it's technically wrong and misleading to link to Ireland (in this context) as this implies we're saying he was King of Ireland. The link to Great Britain sends the reader to an article, which shows Great Britain is (since 1801) just a geographical component of a larger political entity (note the infobox doesn't identify the current monarch). I understand we're using certain text to match what was written on official documents, but if we don't put text in quotes, we're stating it as fact, inappropriately.
To make an analogy, George W. Bush is "President of the United States of America", but he is not President of the United States of America. -- Rob ( talk) 01:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
What does this mean? He had only 1 PM, Baldwin. 10:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The reference may be clear to folks in Britain, but I, too, was taken aback by "various Prime Ministers". I understand what was meant -- now that it has been explained -- but I believe the average reader may better understand if the language was modified to something like "prime ministers of his various dominions"
No connection beyond the timing, but The Crystal Palace burnt down less than two weeks before the abdication. (Factoid for quiz-setters) Jackiespeel ( talk) 14:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I found "making him the only monarch of Britain, and indeed any Commonwealth Realm, to have voluntarily relinquished the throne". Has there ever been a monarch of a commonwealth realm who was not also monarch of Britain? If not is the second part of this sentence really necessary? DJ Clayworth ( talk) 15:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
What about rulers of the Indian princely states and the Kabaka of Buganda? Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I was going through fixing links to disambiguation pages, here, and ran across a link to the disambiguation page throat cancer. Although I was semi-suprised to find that as a disambiguation page, it can apparently refer to either Esophageal cancer or the more general Head and neck cancer. Do we happen to know which link would be more appropriate? -- Natalya 21:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
and New Zealand, having never even heard of Mrs. Simpson before, vacillated in disbelief from the 07.08.08. The meaning of this phrase is not unclear, however it sounds rather amusing to my ear. "New Zealand" is of course meant to stand for '"His Majesties Government in New Zealand" but this brings to mind the image of an entire bewildered country staggering in the light of Wallis Simpson. -- Francis Burdett ( talk) 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
A few months ago there was a discussion concerning the blazon of the charge on the label of the arms. I have found an online source that describes the charge. Since the article is FA and I am a new user, I am posting here before I edit in case discussion is desired. If anyone wants to check the reference Flags of the Royal Family,United Kingdom
Point well taken, re revert of my last; (I have not read the source). But, I was guided by this fact: it is already reported in the article that Edward knew of the huge implications --including the likely fall of the Baldwin government-- if he married without abdicating first. I think it valuable to recapitulate --in three words-- the fact here; i.e., to record this knowledge was part of his final deliberations and decision-making.-- Jbeans ( talk) 08:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Near the end of the Later Life section, there's a sentence that begins, "Increasingly senile and frail, the Duchess died 14 years later..." This use of the word "senile" is rarely used anymore (at least in the United States), because it inaccurately, and to many people offensively, implies a close or causative relationship between age and dementia. "Senile" has largely been replaced (in the U.S.) with the word "demented". I would have liked to replace the word "senile" with the word "demented" in this section, but I see that the page is semi-protected. Also, I've been informed that in England, the word "demented" is not used this way. In any case, since there seems to be so much controversy over the historical character involved, maybe a blander word or phrase would fit better here. "Confused" would work, wouldn't it? Or maybe someone else has a better suggestion. At any rate, I strongly suggest removing the offensive word "senile". Sylvia A ( talk) 00:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to go back to basics, but:
Can I ask on what grounds this man is referred to as King Edward VIII? Unless the Coronation is merely a tourist event, it is on that occasion that the heir apparent is recognised as head of the Church and State and the Lords and Commons together swear allegiance. Until the coronation he/she remains the heir apparent. I draw a parallel in that President Obama did not formally become President until one of the US courts said he was. In the case of David Windsor he was never ever remotely likely to become King, not least because it was extremely unlikely that the Commons would have permitted the Speaker of the House to swear allegiance on their behalf. Indeed it was Stanley Baldwin (then PM) who was instrumental in giving the silly and unpleasant man his marching orders. For those who doubt the supremacy of the Lords and Commons in this matter I refer them to history, particularly, but not only, the selection of William and Mary as joint King and Queen. Although Mary had a some right of succession, William had none. I recognise that in deference to the current Queen and, bearing in mind the great difficulties David caused the Windsor family, we might in kindness gloss over the issues by generally referring to him as Edward VIII for clarity; but the truth is that he never was, and was never likely to be, King.
Drg40 ( talk) 13:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but, that speech is made by Garter King of Arms (?) very soon after the death of the monarch, and certainly without the formal authority of the various organs of state. It might seem terrific, but it merely records the continuity of the monarchy, not necessarily at the individual level. In other words a great piece of typically British theatre. If you don't believe in the "King by divine right" (and I'm afraid I don't), but rather that the monarchy is a most convenient and effective way of selecting someone in whom the separation of powers is vested, then he wasn't King. Remember we fought a civil war because the Charles I thought he had divine rights - amongst other reasons. I am aware that he (David) had some strange view that he was King by God's hand and also believed that some of the roles of the democratically elected government should no longer be discharged by those elected but returned to the Monarch (the determination of Foreign Policy, for example). One suspects this, he hoped, would enable a rapprochment with Herr Hitler. But just because he wished it so, doesn't make it right. After all, although the media of the time worshipped him and so, as a result did most of the British people, it's difficult to get round the fact that many people who knew him well (including particularly his mother and father) thought him to be a deeply unpleasant man. As I read it it was only sycophants like Mountbatten who poured all this nonsense into his head (whilst participating and encouraging him in his sexual extravaganzas) who were responsible for egging this feeble man on. He wasn't ever going to be King until they poured oil over him, pushed orb and sceptre into his hands, clapped a crown on his head and bowed (or curtsied) low. And we didn't. Drg40 ( talk) 12:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou for your help. I have a feeling that matter will be tested sorely in the not too distant future, but perhaps we shall have to wait and see. 80.58.205.99 ( talk) 11:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
1) Quite right the Heir Apparent or Heir Presumptive immediately becomes Sovereign at the death of the previous Sovereign. If Officers of State and the Heir Apparent/Presumptive are present at the moment of death all bow to the new Sovereign and the hand is kissed in sign of fealty. 2) An Accession Council is immediately convened in which the new Sovereign is acknowledged and the new title of the Sovereign is announced first in the public square of St James's Palace. This Accession Council is made up of the principle members of the Privy Council (senior members of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, and senior members of the Royal Family). Parliament as a body HAS NO SAY WHATSOEVER IN THIS ACCESSION COUNCIL. However, if there are any questions to the suitability of the new Sovereign, this is the Forum where any issues may be discussed. The Accession Council has the authority, if it deems necessary, to block the accession of the Sovereign and pass the Crown to whovever it feels is fit to govern. The Accession Council must meet, agree to the Accession of the new Sovereign, and declare the new Sovereign at the Courtyard of St James's Palace, within three days of the death of the previous Sovereign. 3) The new Sovereign, although Monarch, may not wear the Royal Regalia until they are actually crowned. So at the State Opening of Parliament, if the Sovereign has not been formally crowned, they may not wear the Imperial State Crown. Edward VIII duly did not wear the Crown at the State Opening in November 1936: instead he wore a uniform of the Admiral of the Fleet, and carried an Admiral's hat with him into the Chamber of the House of Lords. 4) There are only two instances in English and British history where the Sovereign has not been crowned: King Edward V (1483) and King Edward VIII (1936). Ds1994 ( talk) 12:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought Wikipedia articles were meant to use the subject's most recent title upon death which would have been Edward, Duke of Windsor. So it seems sensible that the article should have that emboldened first and then say ruled as King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom etc from Jan-Dec 1936. 92.26.137.49 ( talk) 20:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Ahh you raise an interesting point. Was him being King and Emperor the most important thing about him. Surely if you ask anyone about Edward VIII the most important thing they would remember was his abdication and secondly the fact that there is evidence to suggest he was a Nazi Sympathiser when he was known as Duke of Windsor. I'm not going to change the article again but it's food for thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.137.49 ( talk) 20:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
For me,the cause of his abdication remains a mistery.The will to marry Wallis Simpson doesn't explains nothing to me.The English law doesn't had or has nothing against or about a king to marry, with a divorceé.English law is only against the king to marry with a catholic. Prince Charles now is married with a divorceé, Camilla Parker Bowles, without no problems.Well, we aren't living in 1930 decade, but I don't know why he abdicated.i readin many sites that he abdicated, because he was a nazist and when this was discovered, he chose to abdicate to be forgived. Agre22 ( talk) 03:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)agre22
I added a few sentences and a reference to a Time Magazine cover story published in 1929. Edward was still only age 34, but the article was already speculating about the possibility that he might abdicate. Forthermore they were re-printing rumours that he himself had already discussed his desire not to be king. This article was published almost 7 years before his father died. It is an important part of the story. The abdication crisis was not really an unexpected event but was probably developing for about a decade. I thought it went well with the earlier sentence that his father hoped that he wouldn't marry and have children. Please do not delete without coming to the talk page. Pacomartin ( talk) 19:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly not verifiable, but it's long been asserted that the Wallis mess was just an excuse: that one or more of the U.S. and U.K. intelligence agencies had solid proof that Eddy was not merely a defeatist and a layabout, but a genuine Nazi sympathizer (Wallis, too, in some versions) to such an extent that parliamentary government was not deemed safe with him on the throne. As the tale is told, he was confronted with said proof and took the easy way out, becoming the world's richest remittance man, safely sequestered where he could never become head of a fascist puppet state and with patriotic guards who knew their duty if the need arose. You'll find all sorts of stuff on the Internet about this theory, pro and con. Nobody seems to deny that he found Hitler sympatico on their visit to him; the question is rather how anti-democratic he was, and whether that was actually the reason for his departure from office. -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It is generally accepted now that King Edward VIII was forced to abdicate by the government because he had made it known on several occasions that he was not prepared to act as a constitutional monarch, and would interfere in politics if he felt it was in the country's best interests. ( 92.10.25.106 ( talk) 18:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC))
Well, there is no doubt at all that it was because of his refusal to be the kind of monarch the government wanted and that the Mrs Simpson thing was merely a sideshow. Had his father died in November 1928 then Edward would still have been forced to abdicate. ( 92.10.25.106 ( talk) 22:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC))
Some, like Alan Lascelles and Alan Hardinge, and apparently even George VI himself, believed that Edward had never wanted to be king anyway. Churchill however noted during World War II that it would have been impossible for Edward VIII to remain the monarch, given his pro-German and pro-appeasement views. ( 92.11.214.41 ( talk) 22:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC))
Hey that's an interesting note, Edward VIII's abdication taking effect December 12. For a few hours, the brothers were concurrently Kings. George VI of the UK, Edward VII of the IFS. GoodDay ( talk) 23:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no way in which Edward could have been King of Ireland or Canada without simultaniously being King of the UK as well. The titles for all realms were at the time, King of GB, Ireland and the British Dominions (now the style for every Realm is, King of realm X and all his other realms). The notion of a King of Canada or Ireland seperate from being King of the Uk did and does not exist. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 23:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll restrain from requesting protection, if the edit spats have ended. GoodDay ( talk) 00:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
He watched it from his bedroom window in Marlborough House which was his home at the time. From that window he would have had an excellent view of the balcony at St James's Palace where the proclamation takes place. He would not have had anything like such a good view from any window of St James's Palace (where incidentally he was not living). If he had asked to go into St James's Palace it would have caused all sorts of furore, given it wasn't protocol for him to be doing this at all - and he was supposed to be in mourning. I was first told that he viewed it from his window in Marlborough House by a curator on a visit to Marlborough House organised for London Blue Badge Guides. And of course it makes perfect sense. There is some footage of him and Wallace watching a bit furtively from a little back from the window, which was shown in Andrew Marr's History of Britain programme on 25 November - and it's OBVIOUSLY architecturally Marlborough House. So could you either believe me and stop changing it back, or view the footage (probably still available on i-player), or consult curator at Marlborough House, and please stop changing it back. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizduparcq ( talk • contribs)
But does it say in his memoirs 'a room in St James's Palace'? St James's is the area in which both St James's Palace and Marlborough House are located. Maybe he didn't want to be too specific about exactly which room he watched it from. The very clear film footage is NOT my only source. The curator of Marlborough House who showed me and other Blue Badge Guide colleagues round on 15 February 2000 was at great pains to point out exactly where he watched it from. And it is only from Marlborough House that a good view would be possible. And that's where he lived. It simply wouldn't have been possible from St James's Palace with its different design of windows for him to see it without craning out of the window, which he certainly wasn't doing in the footage shown on Andrew Marr's programme last week. And how would he and Wallace have got into St James's Palace when it was so contrary to Royal Protocol? And yes I did of course understand the issue of Royal Protocol before I commented on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizduparcq ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for being so polite. I hadn't been able for a while to go and check again exactly what all these windows look like, but you will be pleased to read I did so today. The St James's Palace windows along the south side of Friary Court are all quite small casements so these are definitely not the windows from which Edward and Wallis watched. The only sashes are very large ones BEHIND the balcony on the west side. So it's clear that the window was not in St James's Palace. The Marlborough House windows are exactly right and indeed the only possible ones I'm afraid. We can't tell exactly at what stage in the proceedings Edward and Wallis craned to look at something to their left, or what they were looking at, but it could of course have been a guards band striking up, or the gun salute that follows the proclamation (I haven't been able to find out where a proclamation gun salute is fired - Hyde Park as for e.g. birthdays, Green Park as for e.g. Birthday Parade and State Opening, or conceivably St James's Park), or they could simply have been doing what people at big events do all the time - just look where everyone else suddenly looks. The only other clue was that I think the rather bad clip used in the Andrew Marr programme showed a lot of creeper around the window in question. Of course none of these palaces along The Mall have creeper on them now, but it is hard to see how St James's Palace could ever have had creeper around the windows facing on to Friary Court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.101.97 ( talk) 16:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Above was Liz du Parcq again - sorry I was having some Explorer crash problems! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lduparcq ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 12:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 12:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The investiture medal was redone by the Graphics Lab per MOS on opaque backgrounds. Further the black background was splotchy, uneven and unencyclopedic. "Aesthetically, I prefer..." is not a reason to favor the jpg.-- Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 18:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention his visit to Chile. In September 1925, the Chilean President Arturo Alessandri received Edward onboard the dreadnought Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre. The visit briefly quelled domestic unrest, and it marked the beginning of negotiations for a British naval mission, which arrived in the following year. pp.393–394.
His father was the second son of The Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) and The Princess of Wales (formerly Princess Alexandra of Denmark).
Because it allows more links to articles where the titles are explained and because it gives their positions at both birth and later, I prefer "He was the eldest son of the Duke and Duchess of York (later King George V and Queen Mary). The Duke was the second son of the Prince and Princess of Wales (later King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra), and the Duchess was the eldest daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Teck, Francis and Mary Adelaide." DrKay ( talk) 19:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Can someone provide an official source for his appointment as a Major-General in 1939? I can't find any mention of it in the London Gazette, so to say he was "gazetted" a Major-General seems to be wrong. Opera hat ( talk) 23:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Pirus12345 has been attempting to insert bogus information into the article. His edit falsely claims, among other things, that Alan Lascelles' Daily Mail article claims that Edward had affairs with married men, not women, and that Freda Dudley Ward was half-Jamaican, not half-American. Ylee ( talk) 18:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Someone is vandalizing this page, I know for a fact that this
His attitudes towards many of the Empire's subjects and various foreign peoples, both during his time as Prince of Wales and later as Duke of Windsor, were little commented upon in their time but have soured his reputation subsequently.[20] He said of Indigenous Australians: "they are the most revolting form of living creatures I've ever seen!! They are the lowest known form of human beings & are the nearest thing to monkeys."[21]
seems very odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.20.127 ( talk) 07:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the introduction should mention that Edward VIII was the last British monarch to serve his entire reign as Emperor of India and King of Ireland. It is a significant point, as people often look back at his reign as the last time when Britain seemed like a great world power. ( 92.10.130.1 ( talk) 21:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC))
"They hosted parties and shuttled between Paris and New York; many of those who met the Windsors socially, including Gore Vidal, reported on the vacuity of the Duke's conversation." The only source for this is Vidal himself, so I'm not sure how you can say "many of those" when the source just refers to one guy's opinion. Keep in mind I don't know anything about this guy but it seems more sources would be needed to imply a lot of people thought that. AaronY ( talk) 12:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. (Message added manually; RM bot seems not to be working.)-- Kotniski ( talk) 06:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I might be wrong but information seems to be duplicated in Duke of Windsor. Is there any point in having both articles? 109.158.120.149 ( talk) 21:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The phrase (introductory paragraphs) that he remained unmarried until "his accession" is surely inaccurate, as in fact he was unmarried until after his short reign. I will rephrase the statement accordingly. Cloptonson ( talk) 18:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.150.22 ( talk) 20:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Were the titles granted to Edward VIII by George VI hereditary? I.e. were they meant to descend to Edward's "heirs male of the body lawfully begotten"? Surtsicna ( talk) 16:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Not quite. There were life peerages created before the 20th century (for example the Dukedom of Ireland, the creation of Margaret, 2nd Duchess of Norfolk, but their creation was sporadic. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 23:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
He should be referred to in the title as the Edward, Duke of Windsor not Edward VIII as he was never crowned. Once a monarch abdicates he is only known by his monarchical title if he was crowned. This is why the current uncrowned heads of the previous ruling European houses are known as - say - Prince of Prussia, rather than German Emperor & King of Prussia - as just one example. Had Edward been crowned he wouldn't have been Duke of Windsor after he abdicated, he'd have remained Edward VIII in the same way Constantine II of Greece and Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg have. 121.73.7.84 ( talk) 12:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
These need references!!!
E.g. "Grand Cross of the Order of the Southern Cross, 1933"
The article for that does NOT list Edward VIII as a notable recipient
90.196.111.155 ( talk) 19:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The line "Edward knew that the government led by British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin would resign if the marriage went ahead, which could have dragged the king into a general election and would ruin his status as a politically neutral constitutional monarch" is unclear grammatically, and I cannot find further details in the article regarding this "general election" that the king would be dragged into. Is the king himself going to face a general election (e.g. we are going to elect a new king (?!?)) because that is a logical reading of the sentence, or is it a parliamentary election we are speaking of here...please clarify the wording. Twunchy ( talk) 06:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Known to his family as David( Coachtripfan ( talk) 19:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC))
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move, leaning towards a consensus against. Either way these articles aren't going anywhere for the time being. There has been some support only for Edward VIII to move and although I don't think there is a consensus for it in this discussion I would say there's no prejudice against a new RM that solely focuses on Edward's article title. Jenks24 ( talk) 07:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
– Prior to Victoria of the United Kingdom, all Wikipedia articles on British monarchs include in their titles "of the United Kingdom" (sovereigns between George III and George VI, inclusive), "of Great Britain" (sovereigns between Anne and George II, inclusive), or "of England" (sovereigns before Anne). The moves requested would help distinguish the monarchs in question from other royalty with their respective names, and maintain consistency with the most-often used Wikipedia titling convention. Today I made moves on pages allowed: (1) "Edward VII" became "Edward VII of the United Kingdom"; (2) "George V" became "George V of the United Kingdom; (3) "George VI" became "George VI of the United Kingdom. The three articles I am herein requesting to change are currently move-protected. Matthew David González 20:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Minor nitpick; 'TFD', none of the Stadtholders of the Dutch Republic were ever de jure Head of State of it; the States General, as a collective entity was. The Oath of Allegiance taken by the members of the Dutch Army, right up to 1795 (and up to 1813 in exile) was always to the States General and not the Stadtholder. The Stadtholder was only ever Head of the Army, Navy, and of various Provinces (up to 1747 anyway, after which it was always of all of them) of the Netherlands. Stadtholder was not, in law anyway, a position analogous to Lord Protector in the British Commonwealth, or Doge in the Republics of Venice and Genoa, who unquestionably were the Heads of State of the Republics they governed. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 07:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 20:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
We call the article "ice cream" because that is the most common name for it. Similarly, we call the article "Bill Clinton", not "William Jefferson Clinton", because that is the name by which he is most commonly known. Even in this article, no one has suggested that we include all the king's names as part of the title, just the one by which he is most commonly remembered. TFD ( talk) 04:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The above RM has closed. Which (I assume) makes this discussion moot. GoodDay ( talk) 10:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I made it clear I was continuing a previous discussion by posting my comment after the previous discussion in the section above. [24] Pete then removed my reply [25] and put it in a new discussion thread, which he for some reason called "Full name of monarch." [26] I was not arguing for removing Edward's given names. TFD ( talk) 08:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
These edit summaries aren't helpful. Proper explanations for the reverts are wanting. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Info-boxes are not a good place for extensive pedantic detail. I would use the date for the United Kingdomm which is used by reliable sources. Incidentally if legally he remained king in Ireland until Ireland accepted the abdication, he would have remained king in the UK too, because the Statute of Westminster "require[s] the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom." However it is debatable whether that sentence, which is part of the introductory text only has legal rather than merely moral weight.
The description of his office btw is wrong. It says he was "was King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Empire...." In fact his title was "of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King." His was king everywhere in the Empire and there is no reason that "British Dominions" refers exclusively to states other that had dominion status.
TFD ( talk) 00:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
There are a number of reliable sources that disagree with both of your opinions.
Even the article on the abdication crisis recognises the diffent day on which the Irish Free State recognised the abdication:
What are we to do about all that? -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Early biographies always mention how much he needed the support of his close friends Hardinge and Major 'Fruity' Metcalfe during the crisis. Can't see why they've been airbrushed from more recent coverage. Valetude ( talk) 00:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
While I added Zech's report to the article [41] [42] [43] [44], I think quoting the entire report is overkill. It gives it an importance that is not matched by the biographical sources, which only mention it in passing if at all. The amount of material in the article on each point should reflect the amount of coverage that is given to each point in reliable biographies. The report, with the addition of the lengthy footnote, is now given far greater coverage in the article than in any of the secondary sources. Biographies of Edward do not quote the entire report, and so neither should the wikipedia article, which should mirror the practice employed by reputable biographies not quote extensively from primary material. DrKay ( talk) 21:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
There arose a dispute about the proper extent of the Duke of Windsor's wartime activities in regards the German Nazi regime. An editor feels that the pro-Nazi sympathies and activities, including one act that in his personal view is an act of treason, is not reflected with the appropriate due weight in the article, and believes that the insertion of an extract of a German embassy cable should be added, as a footnote. Another editor feels that quoting the entire text of the cable is overkill, and that overall the article is consistent with the views that are presented in scholarly discourse and presents them with due weight and cites them to reliable sources.
The question is put forth to Wikipedia editors whether to Support the addition of the contested material in a footnote or Oppose it. For illustrative purposes, the extract from the cable is quoted herebelow in full:
14:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)124/122669 Minister Zech to State Secretary Weizsäcker SECRET, The Hague, February 19, 1940. Dear Weizsäcker: The Duke of W., about whom I wrote to you in my letter of the 27th of last month, has said that the Allied War Council devoted an exhaustive discussion at its last meeting to the situation that would arise if Germany invaded Belgium. Reference was made throughout to a German invasion plan said to have been found in an airplane that made a forced landing in Belgium. On the military side, it was held that the best plan would be to make the main resistance effort in the line behind the Belgian-French border, even at the risk that Belgium should be occupied by us. The political authorities are said to have at first opposed this plane: after the humiliation suffered in Poland, it would be impossible to surrender Belgium and the Netherlands also to the Germans. In the end, however, the political authorities became more yielding. Heil Hitler! Zech
FRS, I support only if theres a WP:RS that supports this. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 14:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The article states: "With a reign of 326 days, Edward was one of the shortest-reigning monarchs in British history". Which makes me wonder what reign was shorter. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 22:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Have you seen the BBC-Documentary >Abdication: A Very British Coup>? It will say all! - Ok, almost all ^_^ -- 93.184.30.196 ( talk) 18:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't he groomed to an Italian princess? -- YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII ( talk) 18:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I've replaced the infobox photo with another similar one - both in uniform at around the same time, but while the old one is an official portrait, it feels a bit strange - very bright whites, and the eyes are almost washed out. The new one also feels a little more generally human. Commenting in case of objections... Andrew Gray ( talk) 00:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Edward VIII is known to have suffered from
mumps as an adolescent, various sources show he didn't form an adult relationship with women & he didn't produce children. I intend to add a
wp:rs referencing mumps as the reader may wish to know that the disease was a credible cause of his problems.
JRPG (
talk) 10:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Edward VIII. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)