Read The Duchess Of Windsor Online
Authors: Greg King
The Duchess Of Windsor (42 page)
“What could I answer,” Jardine wrote. “I am afraid a lump came to my throat at the pathos of this ex-King denied what is the right of every man, king or commoner, the blessing of God on his wedding day. Seeing I did not answer, he went on to tell how they had sought for someone to perform the ceremony and had failed.”
“Pardon my language, Jardine,” David said, “but you are the only one who had the ‘guts’ to do this for me.”
18
The Duke introduced Wallis and asked Jardine to join them for dinner; when the meal was over, the couple gave him a pair of gold cuff links crested with their joint initials.
18
The Duke introduced Wallis and asked Jardine to join them for dinner; when the meal was over, the couple gave him a pair of gold cuff links crested with their joint initials.
As the date for the wedding approached, public interest in the curious ceremony grew, fed by increasing articles in the world press. On May 27, the
Daily Express
declared in an editorial:
Daily Express
declared in an editorial:
Isn’t it possible that the Duke of Windsor is being treated with rather too much of a rough edge? As his marriage day draws near, a series of penalties and prohibitions are laid against him and against those who may desire to show him friendship or affection. First, the Church to which he belongs refuses to countenance the wedding in any way. The grounds for this boycott are that the Duke’s bride is a woman who has divorced two previous husbands, though on both occasions she was the innocent and injured party. The Church of England, it is true, doesn’t look with favour on divorce. But it by no means absolutely excludes divorce. Next, there is the ban placed upon the attendance at the ceremony of the Duke’s family, the brothers and sister with whom he grew up, and who have remained in his companionship even after the events of last December. And then there are the friends of his circle who were also members of his personal staff and who now hold offices or posts in the service of the regime which succeeded his own. It has been intimated to these that it would be suitable if they also were among those “unavoidably absent.” What justification can there be for such a prohibition of private friendship? Has the Duke . . . broken the law in any degree? Never. Did he ever damage even our constitutional usage? No, he did not. So why impose this increasingly severe form of ostracism on those who are about to marry? If it is done to punish Mrs. Warfield it must be pointed that she has not transgressed the laws of the country either. Mrs. Warfield, by a decree of the British Courts of Justice, is fully free to marry, and, of course, is entitled to do so. Plainly it all comes back to the attitude of opposition taken up by the leaders of the Church.
19
Ironically, on the same day that this plea for reconciliation and justice appeared, David learned of what
Burke’s Peerage
, the British bible of social rank, would later call “the most flagrant act of discrimination in the whole history of our dynasty.”
20
Burke’s Peerage
, the British bible of social rank, would later call “the most flagrant act of discrimination in the whole history of our dynasty.”
20
26
The King‘s Wedding Present
O
n Thursday, 27 May, Sir Alexander Ulick telephoned Candé and told the former King that Walter Monckton was on his way from London with a letter from George VI, containing “not very good news.”
1
Monckton arrived later that evening; he took the Duke aside and handed him the letter from his brother. It was then that David learnt that Wallis, on her marriage, would receive the title of Duchess of Windsor, but that, contrary to all custom and practice, she would be denied the usual style of “Her Royal Highness.” “This is a nice wedding present,” David commented bitterly to Monckton.
2
n Thursday, 27 May, Sir Alexander Ulick telephoned Candé and told the former King that Walter Monckton was on his way from London with a letter from George VI, containing “not very good news.”
1
Monckton arrived later that evening; he took the Duke aside and handed him the letter from his brother. It was then that David learnt that Wallis, on her marriage, would receive the title of Duchess of Windsor, but that, contrary to all custom and practice, she would be denied the usual style of “Her Royal Highness.” “This is a nice wedding present,” David commented bitterly to Monckton.
2
No other act on the part of George VI toward his exiled brother and American sister-in-law was to cause so much anger and humiliation as his decision to deprive Wallis of the style of “Her Royal Highness.” Although Wallis would later claim that she had not cared about the style, she was deeply hurt, not only for herself but for the sake of David, who was unable to comprehend such a public insult to his wife.
In his letter, the King explained that he had consulted the heads of the Dominion and Empire countries, and that all had advised that they considered that David had lost all royal rank when he abdicated and was no longer entitled to the use of Prince or the style of “His Royal Highness.” George VI declared that he did not wish to see his brother go through life as plain Mr. Edward Windsor and would therefore issue letters patent re-creating him His Royal Highness The Prince Edward, the Duke of Windsor. But he also declared that he could not and would not extend this style to Wallis, who would be known simply as the Duchess of Windsor.
Such a decision was utterly contrary to both accepted royal practice and to British common law. A wife automatically took her status from her husband on marriage; the only exception to this was if the wife herself held a higher rank than her spouse—for example, when Edward VIII’s sister Mary, the Princess Royal, married Viscount Lascelles, she retained her royal title and the style of “Her Royal Highness” because they superseded those held by her husband.
“Whoever was responsible for withholding from the Duchess the style of Royal Highness ensured her a unique place in history,” writes royal authority Marlene Eilers. “No woman before had ever been accorded her husband’s title, but been denied his style.”
3
3
Indeed, all women who have married into the British Royal Family this century—with the sole exception of Wallis—were accorded the title and style held by their husbands. In 1923, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon married the future George VI. The 28 April edition of the
Times
reported that, “in accordance with the general settled rule, that a wife takes the status of her husband, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon on her marriage has become Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York.”
4
Times
reported that, “in accordance with the general settled rule, that a wife takes the status of her husband, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon on her marriage has become Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York.”
4
In 1934, David’s brother George, the Duke of Kent, married Princess Marina, who was already a Royal Highness in her own right by birth. A year later, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, married Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott, who became Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester; this was the last wedding of a male member of the Royal Family until the Duke of Windsor married Wallis in 1937. Thereafter, the pattern to the present day is absolutely consistent and without exception: in 1961, Edward, Duke of Kent married Miss Katharine Worsley, who became Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Kent; in 1972, Prince Richard of Gloucester, the present Duke, married Miss Birgitte van Deurs, who became Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Gloucester; in 1978, Prince Michael of Kent married Baroness Marie Christine von Reibnitz, who became Her Royal Highness Princess Michael of Kent; in 1981, Charles, Prince of Wales married Lady Diana Spencer, who became Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales; and, in 1986, Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, married Miss Sarah Ferguson, who became Her Royal Highness The Duchess of York.
Thus, Wallis, on her marriage, should have become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Windsor. Because it had been agreed to treat the former King as a junior Royal Duke, his wife would have ranked in precedence just behind her two sisters-in-law, the Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester. This is what would have happened, by virtue of hundreds of years of tradition and common law, had George VI not stepped in deliberately to deprive Wallis of the style of Her Royal Highness.
Clearly, there was a great deal of uncertainty over the status of the former King. On the day of his accession, 11 December, 1936, George VI noted: “Lord Wigram & Sir Claude Schuster (as representative of the Lord Chancellor) came to see me...to ask me what my brother King Edward VIII was going to be known as after his abdication. The question was an urgent one, as Sir John Reith (Director of the BBC) was going to introduce him on the air that night as Mr. Edward Windsor. I replied—That is quite wrong. Before going any further I would ask what has he given up on his abdication? S[Schuster] said I am not sure. I said, It would be quite a good thing to find out before coming to me. Now as to his name. I suggest HRH D of W. He cannot be Mr. E. W. as he was born the son of a Duke. That makes him Ld. E. W. anyhow. If he ever comes back to this country, he can stand & be elected to the H of C. Would you like that? S replied No.” As D of W he can sit & vote in the H of L. Would you like that? S replied No. Well if he becomes a Royal Duke he cannot speak or vote in the H of L & he is not being deprived of his rank in the Navy, Army, or R. Air Force. This gave Schuster a new lease of life and he went off quite happy.”
5
5
This indicates the extent of the initial confusion over David’s title and style, as well as the desire to quickly move to isolate him from any potential position of power and influence. George VI seemed genuinely unaware of precisely what status his brother had given up. Nevertheless, he ordered that he be introduced that evening by Sir John Reith as His Royal Highness The Prince Edward.
This decision was also confirmed at the new King’s Accession Council at St. James’s Palace. Speaking to the assembled members of the Privy Council, George VI declared that David ”will henceforth be known as His Royal Highness the Duke of Windsor.”
6
6
David himself had suspected that, due to both the circumstances of his leaving and the antipathy surrounding his relationship with Wallis, when they married, someone might try to use the issue of the title she was due to punish either or both of them for their actions. The day before the Abdication, David himself brought up the subject in a talk with his brother, and the future George VI assured him that Wallis would duly take her place within the Royal Family on her marriage. When the Duke of Windsor later learned of his brother’s decision to deprive his wife of the style of Her Royal Highness, therefore, he was justifiably angered. “My brother promised me there would be no trouble over the title!” he declared. “He promised me!”
7
7
But George VI had not counted on the formidable opposition he was to face from both his mother and his wife. Both women flatly declared that they would not receive the hated Wallis, and demanded that the new King find a way to deprive her of the style of Her Royal Highness. Queen Mary was particularly vehement that the issue be settled to her satisfaction. Her biographer, James Pope-Hennessy, who had a chance to study her private papers, later admitted that the decision to deny Wallis the style of Her Royal Highness had been made in part “at the insistence of Queen Mary.” This seems to have been one of the ways in which she coped with the Abdication—by channeling her anger over her eldest son’s decision at the one person she most held responsible and whom she was most in a position to hurt: Wallis. One of the Queen’s friends later admitted as much, writing, “HM is still angry with the Duke, & I really think that helps her to bear what she called ‘the humiliation’ of it all.”
8
8
Undoubtedly, George VI realized how such a decision to deprive Wallis of what should rightfully have been hers on marriage would deeply hurt his brother. The fact that he discussed the issue prior to the Abdication and agreed that he would not withhold the style indicates both that David was worried about this possibility, and, perhaps more importantly, that Bertie himself saw no reason to interfere in the natural process laid down by tradition and common law.
David, however, underestimated his brother’s notoriously weak character, as well as the hold Queen Mary and his wife Elizabeth had over him. As the weeks passed into months, he grew increasingly unsettled at the idea of Wallis taking her place within the Royal Family. Additionally, very few people expected that a marriage between the Duke of Windsor and the often-wed Wallis Warfield Simpson was likely to last. Her track record of keeping her husbands was admittedly bad, whatever the circumstances of her divorces. After consulting with his advisors, George VI explained to Baldwin that this was one reason why he wished to deprive Wallis of the style of Her Royal Highness; according to the King’s argument, once a person became a Royal Highness, she kept that style for life, no matter what occurred. Thus, according to the King, were his brother and Wallis to divorce, she would remain Her Royal Highness Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; even remarriage would not strip her of her right to style herself as a Royal Highness.
9
9
The King and his advisors were, in fact, quite mistaken on this issue. The style of Royal Highness was one which came with the marriage, but which belonged to the spouse only for the duration of the union. Because the status and style came with the rank, which in turn came through marriage, both disappeared in the event of divorce. Had David and Wallis divorced, she would have remained simply Wallis, Duchess of Windsor. The recent loss of the style of Her Royal Highness by both the late Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York merely indicates that George VI either was unaware of the complexities of the issue, or deliberately misinformed his Prime Minister over the matter.
George VI, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth—no doubt along with most of the other members of the Royal Family as well as a good percentage of their subjects—believed Wallis an unsuitable person to bear the style of Royal Highness. The desire, therefore, to protect the image and tradition of the monarchy, is understandable, but the deception and illegal reasoning by which Wallis was to be deprived of the style remain a highly dishonourable episode in the history of the House of Windsor.
It has been argued that the King was legally entitled to withhold the style of “Her Royal Highness” from Wallis. In Great Britain, the sovereign holds a position known as the Fountain of Honours; all titles, awards and peerages thus are said to descend via the Throne through the monarch. Because the sovereign, in this position as Fountain of Honours, held control over such matters, it has been alleged that George VI was thus empowered to deprive his sister-in-law of the style.
However, this is a questionable reading of the situation. The sovereign, as Fountain of Honours, had not had any role in the acquisition of the style of Her Royal Highness on the marriages of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon to the Duke of York, Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott to the Duke of Gloucester, Katharine Worsley to the Duke of Kent, nor any of the other royal marriages which took place this century in which such issues were involved. In all of these cases, the style simply followed through common law and tradition, not through any act of the sovereign as the Fountain of Honours. In short, George VI, as Fountain of Honours, had no role unless he deliberately intervened in the issue where Wallis was concerned. The style of Her Royal Highness would simply devolve on her on her marriage through no act of the Throne.
Were the ordinary issuance of the style within the province of the sovereign as the Fountain of Honours, the King certainly would have been aware of this. Thus, he would have been in a position to make a decision without recourse to consultation. This was not the case in the deprivation of the style where Wallis was concerned. Instead, George VI was careful to seek consultation from others and to cloak his decision in a cloud of impromptu legal authority.
The King spent the spring of 1937 trying to find a way in which to deprive Wallis of the style of Royal Highness. To add some form of legitimacy to his decision, he asked Sir John Simon, the Home Secretary, Lord Hailsham, the Lord Chancellor, and Sir Donald Somervell, the Attorney-General, to try to find some legal means on which he could act. These men met repeatedly throughout the winter of 1937, examining documents and working on various schemes.
The Office of the Parliamentary Council was also discreetly advised of the King’s wish and asked to seek a solution. At first, the response was uniformly against the King’s decision: it was illegal, under British common law, to deny the status of a husband to a wife; not even the sovereign was empowered to alter centuries of accepted custom. But Bertie, pushed by his wife and his mother, was beside himself with agitation over the idea that the hated Wallis Simpson would become Her Royal Highness. He dispatched Lord Wigram to see Granville Ram of the Office of the Parliamentary Council to engage in a little royal arm twisting.
Wigram presented the King’s arguments, but Ram offered little hope. When Wigram suggested that custom and the law could be ignored or altered in this special case, Ram told him bluntly that as far as he was concerned, there was nothing the King could legally do to prevent Wallis from becoming Her Royal Highness.
10
“The title seems to me to follow,” Ram said, “not from the King’s consent, but from the validity of the marriage . . . I sincerely hope that the Home Secretary’s ingenious mind may find some way of reaching a more satisfactory conclusion, but for the life of me, I cannot see how he will ever achieve it.”
11
10
“The title seems to me to follow,” Ram said, “not from the King’s consent, but from the validity of the marriage . . . I sincerely hope that the Home Secretary’s ingenious mind may find some way of reaching a more satisfactory conclusion, but for the life of me, I cannot see how he will ever achieve it.”
11
Other books
Tied Up In Heartstrings by Felicia Lynn
Crossing the Line by J. R. Roberts
WiredinSin by Lea Barrymire
The Shrinking Man by Richard Matheson
The Story Teller by Margaret Coel
A Pinstriped Finger's My Only Friend by Robert T. Jeschonek
Summer Ball by Mike Lupica
The Erection Set by Mickey Spillane
A Chance at Love by Beverly Jenkins
Brother and Sister by Joanna Trollope
