Posted by Jane
on 25/9/2009, 21:42:59, in reply to "Re: A different view on "eveyone's favourite granny""
71.120.91.212
--Previous Message--
: The idea that Queen Elizabeth’s dislike of the
: Windsors was somehow caused by her obsess
: ional love of Edward VIII is instantly
: debunked by the simple fact that throughout
: the 1920s and 1930s she was indeed quite
: tolerant of Edward’s many married
: mistresses, socialising with them both
: privately and publicly.
But as none was his official wife, Elizabeth's position as the second ranked lady in the land (right behind her mother-in-law, the formidable Queen Mary) was not threatened.
: I suspect Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was quite
: comfortable with men having dalliances and
: indeed even the women they had dalliances
: with, provided those women always knew their
: place. Wallis Simpson was a mistress who
: aspired to be a royal bride, to someone like
: Queen Elizabeth I suspect that was
: staggering.
This only underscores my point above: Elizabeth MUST have felt a certain possessiveness toward Edward -- as sort of an unofficial consort to him, as the wife he should have (in her mind) married him but didn't.
: Queen Mary was horrified that her son could
: give up his throne for Wallis Simpson, she
: placed duty above all else, including
: personal happiness and presumably Queen
: Elizabeth felt likewise.
Edward would not have had to give up his throne to marry Wallis, had the establishment been willing to accept her as queen. The fact is that he wanted BOTH to be king AND have Wallis as his official wife (not just a mistress). If he could have had his way, he would have entered into a morganatic marriage with Wallis -- meaning that she would not have been crowned as queen, despite his being king.
As it was, because morganaticism was illegal in the UK -- meaning that any legal wife of a king had to be acknowledged as queen (something that could not be countenanced, for a twice-divorced American commoner) -- Edward was obliged to abdicate his throne.
If it were simply a matter of blaming something or somebody, for the circumstances that placed her beloved husband (the Duke of York) on a throne he didn't want, then Elizabeth might have seen fit to blame the Establishment. After all: there should, in principle, have been nothing to stop them from approving Wallis as official queen (although practically speaking, it was hardly a feasibility, given the times. While a highborn titled British commoner, never divorced, might have been an acceptable wife for a royal after World War I, not the likes of Wallis).
: What is also
: overlooked is that the Duke and Duchess of
: Windsor’s conduct in the years immediately
: after their marriage was not necessarily
: helpful, becoming international jetsetters,
: socialising with Hitler etc were not things
: which would look good or help the badly
: damaged image of the British monarchy while
: it was trying to recover from one of its
: most shocking moments.
I find this explanation revisionistic with respect to the British royal family -- i.e. the family of King George VI. The image of it being anti-German, anti-Nazi, and anti-Hitler is highly suspect: that may well have been the case OVER TIME -- as the years passed, World War II broke out, and Great Britain fought in the Allied cause.
It's difficult to see this being the case before Germany's invasion of Poland. One should realize that durin the worldwide depression of the 1930's, most people were struggling to survive a daily existence -- and hence were unaware of the goings on in the Nazi regime. In particular, Hitler was a master deceiver who fooled MANY people -- the British royals being no exception. As such, there were many non-Nazis who actually admired him -- unaware of his atrocious policies as head of the Third Reich.
I can't see that King George VI was THAT significantly different from his older brother, in his perception of Der Fuehrer -- at least prior to the war.
: I’ve never recalled any suggesstion that
: Queen Elizabeth was personally ambitious for
: the throne, she came to love the role and
: position of Queen but it was not one for
: which she hankered for or actively pursued,
: given she had married a second son its not
: really something one can actively campaign
: for.
This is highly debatable: there is good evidence that at least at an early point in her life, Elizabeth DID harbor ambitions for the throne. Why else was she so slow and relucant to accept the proposal of the Duke of York (twice, in fact, "the third time being a charm") -- when there was a much more eligible royal bachelor in the person of the Prince of Wales?
I believe that the POW did, in fact, say that "it was me she wanted to marry" -- a view shared by the Duchess. As no proposal came from the better catch, Elizabeth really had no choice but to accept the lesser catch -- as some sort of consolation prize. One can rationalize things in many ways (she would be better off married to the Duke of York than not, she would upgrade her status to royalty, she would be the second officially ranked lady in the land as long as the Prince of Wales remained unmarried, the Duke was a fine man with admirable qualities she had previously overlooked, etc).
There are plenty of cases in royal history where a woman who aspired to something higher learned to gracefully accept something lower. In this case, as I suggested, Elizabeth (ironically enough) never experienced a demotion in rank -- despite marrying into a position where this was a liability.
I've always suspected a strong attraction between her and the Prince of Wales (without doubting the sincerity of love she eventually came to harbor for her husband) -- and that she was deeply resentful and jealous that someone so lowborn and disreputable as Wallis had managed to acquire a "hold" on him that was more than just fancy or infatuation (as in the case of his previous mistresses). That he was simply waiting for his sovereign father (King George V) to die, so as to make her into his wife.