Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Duke and duchess of Windsor - Pictures  (Read 9028 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
lellobeetle

Large Member
******

Reputation: 280

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1166



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2015, 09:16:04 PM »

And they lived vapidly ever after. I find these two incredibly sad.
Logged

Lady Alice

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1066

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3513





Ignore
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2015, 11:46:43 PM »

And they lived vapidly ever after. I find these two incredibly sad.

Yeah, what a wasted life Edward had. Once he forsook everything for her, it cost him everything and their life was incredibly empty. Naturally, he never admitted that.

He's a perfect warning for Billy Middleton: be careful what you ask for.
Logged

christina01
Board Helper
Humongous Member
************

Reputation: 834

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5107


Play Time after a long day of Dishing.




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2016, 09:58:40 AM »

It's amazing what people can get away with then they're considered beautiful and elegant..
and sadly it seems to be thin/skinny women who are considered elegant, despite how they really look
Logged
Principessa

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 996

Offline Offline

Netherlands Netherlands

Posts: 14434


I am the Queen




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2016, 12:16:00 PM »

Recently I have read John Boyne's book for younger readers: The boy at the top of the mountain

It describes the experiences of an orphaned boy who comes to live at the Berghof on top of the Obersalzberg during WW II. In other words when it is the retreat of Hitler. A visit of Edward and Wallis to Hitler at the Obersalzberg is also described from the view of the boy.
Logged
Tinika

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 475

Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1818





Ignore
« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2016, 03:12:52 PM »

There's plenty to be said negatively about Wallis for sure, but I do think she was stunning.
Logged
DuchessofDuh

Micro Member
**

Reputation: 28

Offline Offline

Posts: 134





Ignore
« Reply #20 on: April 10, 2016, 09:57:30 PM »

It's amazing what people can get away with then they're considered beautiful and elegant..
and sadly it seems to be thin/skinny women who are considered elegant, despite how they really look

That is very true and very sad.  Elegance, to me, comes from within and you can't help but notice it regardless of what size someone is.
Logged
Kat in a Hat
Banned
Warned
Micro Member
**

Reputation: 55

Offline Offline

Posts: 193





Ignore
« Reply #21 on: May 13, 2016, 02:15:33 AM »

I wish the queen would have said no to Waity and Will abdicated and then the two of them moved far away. Like toa cute place in Greenland.
Logged
Duchess of Verona

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 310

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1084





Ignore
« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2016, 10:28:25 PM »

^ A more accurate comparison would be if QEII had said 'no' to Camilla. After all, the only reason her father was King, and she is Queen was because a divorced spouse for the POW or King was completely unacceptable and incompatible with his future role as Head of the Church of England.
Logged
cordtx

Warned
Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 869

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 6450





Ignore
« Reply #23 on: May 13, 2016, 10:39:38 PM »

^ A more accurate comparison would be if QEII had said 'no' to Camilla. After all, the only reason her father was King, and she is Queen was because a divorced spouse for the POW or King was completely unacceptable and incompatible with his future role as Head of the Church of England.

That's exactly correct and why I have always found her the biggest hypocrite
Logged

There's a feeling I get when I look to the West....and my Spirit is crying for leaving
Kat in a Hat
Banned
Warned
Micro Member
**

Reputation: 55

Offline Offline

Posts: 193





Ignore
« Reply #24 on: May 14, 2016, 01:28:06 AM »

Say no to Camilla and then what? What would Prince Charles do then? Who else would want him after his Camilla tampon talk? Camilla was his only choice, and the only one that would accept the job. Kind of like Waity.
Logged
Duchess of Verona

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 310

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1084





Ignore
« Reply #25 on: May 14, 2016, 01:54:05 AM »

^ If Windsor history was to be  a precedent , it would be 'Yes" to Camilla=abdicate your place in the throne, go off to Tuscany and paint watercolors. His place as Head of the Church with Camilla as spouse is a bit dicey.
Logged
ronda

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 427

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 2142





Ignore
« Reply #26 on: May 14, 2016, 09:32:48 AM »

^ A more accurate comparison would be if QEII had said 'no' to Camilla. After all, the only reason her father was King, and she is Queen was because a divorced spouse for the POW or King was completely unacceptable and incompatible with his future role as Head of the Church of England.
 

   Even if Edward was allowed to marry Wallis in 1936, our present Queen would still have
   been our Queen today as Edward had no heirs and I doubt very much that Wallis would
   have a child as she was already in her forties. So really the royal family hierarchy
   would still be as it is today. IMO
Logged

Smiley...Knowledge is Power...Smiley
Duchess of Verona

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 310

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1084





Ignore
« Reply #27 on: May 14, 2016, 09:53:01 PM »

^ A more accurate comparison would be if QEII had said 'no' to Camilla. After all, the only reason her father was King, and she is Queen was because a divorced spouse for the POW or King was completely unacceptable and incompatible with his future role as Head of the Church of England.
 

   Even if Edward was allowed to marry Wallis in 1936, our present Queen would still have
   been our Queen today as Edward had no heirs and I doubt very much that Wallis would
   have a child as she was already in her forties. So really the royal family hierarchy
   would still be as it is today. IMO

I read somewhere that the 'no kids' was part of the financial agreement between Bertie and David at the time of the financial negotiations re: Balmoral, etc. Quite likely you are right...but fate has proved itself capricious. Who knows, perhaps Wallis might have died in a car crash and David remarried... :-D
Logged
Hibou

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 598

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3748





Ignore
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2016, 12:52:26 AM »

^ A more accurate comparison would be if QEII had said 'no' to Camilla. After all, the only reason her father was King, and she is Queen was because a divorced spouse for the POW or King was completely unacceptable and incompatible with his future role as Head of the Church of England.
 

   Even if Edward was allowed to marry Wallis in 1936, our present Queen would still have
   been our Queen today as Edward had no heirs and I doubt very much that Wallis would
   have a child as she was already in her forties. So really the royal family hierarchy
   would still be as it is today. IMO

There were always rumors that Wallis had fertility problems.  Wallis had been married twice before with a living Ex-husband. Back then divorce really was highly unlikely and not favored by the church.
Logged
rosella

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 487

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 2266





Ignore
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2016, 01:01:41 AM »

Yes, I don't think the Royal family's lawyers were worried about Wallis producing a family. There'd been two marriages and several affairs (including the one with the car salesman at the same time as the one with King Edward) and no sign of any babies. And she was already in her forties.

I think the great worry was if this marriage didn't last (and she had already had two divorces, of course) Edward might in his loneliness marry again (perhaps to another 'adventuress') and produce a child or two. That could well lead to an unholy mess when the elder reached twenty one. If that clause about heirs hadn't been put in that person could have challenged King George's right to the throne through the courts and the House of Lords. It would have been catastrophic, and that's what I always think of when people suggest William could do the same with his children.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: