lellobeetle
|
And they lived vapidly ever after. I find these two incredibly sad.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lady Alice
|
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
|
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: 2425
Offline
 Netherlands
Posts: 44907
I am the Queen
|
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
|
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
Posts: 134
|
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: 56
Offline
Posts: 193
|
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
|
^ 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
|
^ 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kat in a Hat
Banned
Warned
Micro Member

Reputation: 56
Offline
Posts: 193
|
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
|
^ 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
|
^ 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
|
 ...Knowledge is Power... 
|
|
|
|
|
Duchess of Verona
|
^ 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
|
^ 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
Banned
Banned
|
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
|
|
|
|
|