The Duchess Of Windsor (39 page)

Authors: Greg King

BOOK: The Duchess Of Windsor

3.43Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub

In addition, as Prince of Wales and as sovereign, David had not paid income tax. If and when he returned to England, however, this would likely change. His tax then would be the standard rate of 22.5 percent, with an additional top rate of surtax due on any income over £20,000. In short, this would amount to an additional 47.5 percent, making any potential income-tax payments on his return nearly three-fourths of his entire income.
³⁷

An agreement in principle had already been reached whereby the King would surrender both Sandringham and Balmoral in return for £25,000 a year, payable for the duration of his life. No one knew who would pay this money, and there was some thought that indeed Parliament would vote it into consideration for the civil list for the new reign. Both Monckton and Allen had been assured by Sir John Simon, the home secretary, and the chancellor of the exchequer, Neville Chamberlain, that there did not seem to be any reason why Parliament would refuse to support the former King. This evening, however, the Duke of York promised to pay his brother the agreed upon sum if the government did not.

At midnight on Thursday, December 10, the Instrument of Abdication took effect, and Edward VIII ceased to be King, replaced by the Duke of York, who took the name George VI. On the eleventh, Monckton met the new King at No. 145 Piccadilly to again discuss the former King’s titles. “I pointed out,” Monckton recalled, “that the title ‘His Royal Highness’ was one which the Abdication did not take away, and one which would require an Act of Parliament for its removal. The King, for himself and his successors, was renouncing any right to the Throne but not to his Royal Birth which he shared with his brothers. The Duke saw the point and was ready to create his brother Duke of Windsor as the first act of the new reign.”
³⁸

David had finally received permission to address his subjects that Friday evening. Before this, there was a family dinner at Royal Lodge with Queen Mary, the Princess Royal, the royal brothers, and Queen Mary’s brother the Earl of Athlone and his wife, Princess Alice. David left at half-past nine to go to Windsor to make his speech. The dinner itself was fairly cheerful, Athlone recalled. Contrary to the popular myth that he was utterly confused and unprepared for his new role, the new King promptly took charge of the situation. He waited for his older brother to leave, then turned to his younger brothers and said, “If
You
Two think that, now that I have taken this job on, you can go on behaving just as you like, in the same old way, you’re very much mistaken! You Two have got to pull yourselves together.”
³⁹

At Windsor Castle, David prepared himself for his speech. At ten o’clock, Sir John Reith, director of the British Broadcasting Corporation, announced in a deep voice, “This is Windsor Castle. His Royal Highness, Prince Edward.” The former King then read his speech to the nation:

At long last I am able to say a few words of my own.
I have never wanted to withhold anything, but until now it has not been constitutionally possible for me to speak.
A few hours ago I discharged my last duty as King and Emperor, and now that I have been succeeded by my brother, the Duke of York, my first words must be to declare my allegiance to him. This I do with all my heart.
You all know the reasons which have impelled me to renounce the Throne, but I want you to understand that in making up my mind I did not forget the Country or the Empire, which, as Prince of Wales and lately as King, I have for twenty-five years tried to serve.
But you must believe me when I tell you that I have found it impossible to carry the heavy burden of responsibility and to discharge my duties as King, as I wish to do, without the help and support of the woman I love, and I want you to know that the decision I have made has been mine and mine alone. This was a thing I had to judge for myself. The other person most nearly concerned has tried, up to the last, to persuade me to take a different course. I have made this, the most serious decision of my life, only upon the single thought of what would in the end be best for all.
This decision has been made less difficult to me by the sure knowledge that my brother, with his long training in the public affairs of the Country, and with his fine qualities, will be able to take my place forthwith without interruption or injury to the life and progress of the Empire, and he has one matchless blessing, enjoyed by so many of you, and not bestowed on me, a happy home with his wife and children.
During these hard days I have been comforted by my Mother and by my Family.
The Minister of the Crown, and in particular Mr. Baldwin, the Prime Minister, have always treated me with full consideration. There has never been any constitutional difference between me and them and between me and Parliament. Bred in the constitutional tradition by my Father, I should never have allowed any such issue to arise.
Ever since I was Prince of Wales, and later on when I occupied the Throne, I have been treated with the greatest kindness by all classes wherever I have lived or journeyed throughout the Empire. For that I am very grateful.
I now quit public affairs, and I lay down my burden. It may be some time before I return to my native land, but I shall always follow the fortunes of the British race and Empire with profound interest, and if, at any time in the future, I can be found of service to His Majesty in a private station, I shall not fail.
And now we all have a new King.
I wish Him, and you, His people, happiness and prosperity with all my heart.
God bless you all.
God Save The King.
⁴⁰

That evening, everyone at Villa Lou Viei gathered around the radio in the drawing room to listen to the King’s abdication speech. Wallis sobbed openly as David spoke. When the speech was over, one by one, they fled the room, leaving her alone, curled on the sofa, crying uncontrollably.
⁴¹

After completing his speech, David returned to Royal Lodge to say his goodbyes. His brother George stood crying in a corner of the entrance hall, saying over and over, “It isn’t possible! It isn’t happening!”
⁴²

The Princess Royal was in tears as her brother bid her farewell. The only member of the Royal Family who appeared utterly unmoved was Queen Mary. “Edward,” Lord Brownlow recalled, “went up to Queen Mary and kissed her on both hands and then on both cheeks. She was as cold as ice. She just looked at him.”
⁴³

The former King returned to the Fort, where the last of his personal luggage was being packed and loaded. At midnight, he finally climbed into his Buick and left his beloved house. Driven by George Ladbrooke, the car raced through the darkness to Portsmouth. They were delayed by the heavy rain, and Ladbrooke had to pull the car to the side of the road several times before he could continue on. Originally, the former King was to sail on the Royal Navy’s
Enchantress
, but after realizing the ironic implications of the name, the ship was changed to HMS
Fury
. The car got lost along the docks, and they had to drive back and forth several times before Ladbrooke found the correct berth. Finally, they pulled up to the pier and, joined by Major Ulick Alexander, keeper of the privy purse, and by his new equerry, Sir Piers Legh, David boarded the ship. At two in the morning, in heavy seas and blowing winds, HMS
Fury
slowly steamed out of the harbor toward the open sea.

Rat Week

W
ITH TOUCHING SIMPLICITY
,” wrote Arthur Bryant of the King’s abdication in the
Illustrated London
News, “he made his renunciation, and nothing in his whole brilliant and generous career of service became him like the leaving it.”
¹

Not all opinion, however, was as generous. The abdication was a great shock. Only a week earlier, almost no one in England outside of government, aristocratic, and court circles had known who Mrs. Simpson was. A few individuals with friends and relatives on the Continent or in America had read news clippings outlining her story, but the great majority of the King’s subjects remained ignorant of the relationship. The feeling of loss and betrayal, therefore, was all the greater when they learned that their beloved King had abandoned them. It was even worse that he had left owing to his desire to be with a twice-divorced woman he could not live without. The lower and working classes on the whole supported the King and would likely have remained loyal to his cause had the issue come to its divisive head; the middle classes, however, opposed the relationship on moral and religious grounds. To them, Wallis, in the words of Caroline Blackwood, “symbolized sex and evil.”
²

The aristocracy and members of the court greeted the abdication with relief. They owed their allegiance not to the sovereign but to the continued existence of the throne; it is no surprise that they readily abandoned the King for his brother. As Harold Nicolson noted on December 9: “What is so tragic is that now the people have got over the first sentimental shock, they
want
the King to abdicate. I mean opinion in the House is now almost wholly anti-King. ‘If he can first betray his duty and then betray the woman he loves, there is no good in the man.’ “
³

The American consul in Plymouth reported to the secretary of state that it was not a question of Wallis being an American or even “the inherent distate for divorce” that turned the British people against the marriage. Rather, he declared, “the people here consider the proceedings leading up to the second divorce were too much of a farce for them to endure.” It was “the middle class, which includes the dyed-in-the-wool non-conformists and the greater part of the Church of England adherents” who had objected most strongly. Many of the latter “stated openly that it would be quite all right if the King were to follow the example set by some other Kings in the past, and make Mrs. Simpson his mistress. They appeared incapable of realizing the hypocrisy of this view, and find no difficulty in saying, almost in the same breath, that the King must set a moral example for his people.”
⁴

Public acclaim seemed to fall to Baldwin. After the abdication, Alan Lascelles wrote to the
Times
that “the King had no more loyal and devoted subject than Mr. Baldwin then or at any other time.”
⁵And Sir Eric Mieville, the private secretary to the Duke of York, recalled: ”It is totally unfair and untrue to say that Baldwin had stage managed the whole thing to get rid of the King. A sentimental man, he was just as upset as everyone else. He hated every minute of it.”
⁶

Abroad, the reaction was mixed, and many believed that the abdication might have been forced on the King. Certainly, this was the view in Germany. On January 2, 1938, Ribbentrop reported to Hitler that “Edward VIII had to abdicate, since it was not certain whether, because of his views, he would cooperate in an anti-German policy.”
⁷Hermann Goering told his wife that Mrs. Simpson had only been used as a pretext for getting rid of the King.
⁸Hitler thought the “real reason for the destruction of the Duke of Windsor was . . . his speech at the old veterans’ rally in Berlin, at which he declared that it would be the task of his life to effect a reconciliation between Britain and Germany.”
⁹

In America, copies of the abdication speech were being sold at a rapid pace, but there was a curious prohibition of sales in England. John Gunther wrote: “It is somewhat shocking . . . that a country which traditionally prides itself on free speech and fair play should submit to the stupid censorship which prevented phonograph records of this speech being bought anywhere in England. Of course, the ruling classes, trying desperately to ’build up’ the Duke of York, did everything possible to bury Edward and his memory at once.”
¹⁰

Novelist Upton Sinclair was unstinting in his praise for the King: “You have, by one magnificent gesture, done more to dignify womanhood and give woman her rightful place, than many great people have been able to do by long and laborious effort.”
¹¹

America was enraptured by the Romeo and Juliet quality of the story, the romance of a King giving up his throne for love; and the fact that Wallis was an American. Crowds watching newsreels of the participants the week of the abdication at the Embassy Theatre in Times Square in New York City reportedly made their feelings quite clear, as a writer from
Time
magazine noted: “Prince Edward (cheers); Mrs. Simpson (cheers); her first husband Commander Spencer, U.S.N. (boos); her second and present husband Mr. Simpson (cheers and boos); the Archbishop of Canterbury (boos); new Crown Princess Elizabeth (boos); new King George and Queen Elizabeth (boos); Prime Minister Baldwin (prolonged catcalls and boos); King Edward and Mrs. Simpson bathing in Mediterranean (cheers).”
¹²

Among those who had known Wallis, reaction to the abdication was also mixed. Chips Channon wrote: “I really consider that she would have been an excellent Queen.... She has always shown me friendship, understanding, and even affection, and I have known her do a hundred kindnesses and never a mean act. There is nothing sordid or vulgar in her make-up, but she is modern certainly . . . . She would prefer to be grand, dignified and respectable, but if thwarted she will make the best of whatever position life gives her.”
¹³

Others were not as supportive. In London, Emerald Cunard and Sir Philip Sassoon, among others, quickly backed away from their former friends; even before the abdication, this disreputable flood began. On December 9, Harold Nicolson noted of Lady Cunard: “She came to Maggie Greville and said, ‘Maggie darling, do tell me about this Mrs. Simpson—I have only just met her.’ “
¹⁴

In February 1937 the Winston Churchills were present at a dinner party given by Chips Channon. Clementine Churchill, who had disagreed with her husband over support of the King, shared, however, his view of those who now turned their backs on the former sovereign. Chips wrote: “Lord Granard tactlessly attacked the late King and Mrs. Simpson to his neighbour, Clemmie Churchill, who turned on him and asked crushingly, ‘If you feel that way, why did you invite Mrs. Simpson to your house and put her on your right?’ A long embarrassed pause followed. . . .”
¹⁵

The most famous chronicle of this disassociation was a small poem written by Osbert Sitwell. Called “Rat Week,” the verse was a stunning indictment of these former friends and supporters and began:

Where are the friends of yesterday
That fawned on Him,
That flattered Her;
Where are the friends of yesterday,
Submitting to His every whim,
Offering praise of Her as myrhh
To Him?
¹⁶

Sitwell was no fan of either David’s or Wallis’s, and the undercurrent of his poem was criticism not only of their friends but ultimately of the pair at the center of the crisis. Copies of the poem were privately printed and circulated with much glee among London society, particularly by Mrs. Ronald Greville, the dedicated enemy of the King and Wallis and great friend of the new King and Queen.

The most hurtful
volte-face
came from the Royal Family itself. When he left England, David carried letters of support and love from many members of his family, including his sister-in-law, the new Queen Elizabeth. Only Queen Mary appeared unmoved, releasing a message to the British people:

I need not speak to you of the distress which fills a mother’s heart when I think that my dear son has deemed it to be his duty to lay down his charge, and that the reign, which had begun with so much hope and promise, has so suddenly ended. I know that you will realize what it has cost him to come to this decision; and that, remembering the years in which he tried so eagerly to serve and help his Country and Empire, you will ever keep a grateful remembrance of him in your hearts. I commend to you his brother, summoned so unexpectedly and in circumstances so painful, to take his place . . . . With him I commend my dear daughter-in-law, who will be his Queen.
¹⁷

On Sunday, December 13, the nation gathered in their churches and cathedrals for the first time since the abdication. While most religious figures concentrated their sermons on the future, there were several exceptions where Christian charity was notably absent. The Archbishop of York referred to the “sad, humiliating story” of the King’s decision to give up the throne for “another man’s wife.” Then he added, “A man of honour would have acted differently.”
¹⁸The Bishop of Portsmouth, Dr. Frank Patridge, declared: “Events have shown the soundness of the English temperament and its aversion from evil things. Almost universally there was a shudder at the indecency and impropriety of wild conduct that knew no law, of which there had been such plain signs. English people would not stand it. They hate Pharisaism and cannot abide smugness. They have a sense of propriety in great places and in great affairs, and will not tolerate headlong slips into the abyss of shamefulness.”
¹⁹

The most virulent denunciation, not surprisingly, came from Cosmo Lang, Archbishop of Canterbury, who had been one of the King’s most vocal enemies. The Archbishop declared of the King:

From God he had received a high and sacred trust. Yet by his own will he has abdicated—he has surrendered the trust. With characteristic frankness he has told us his motive. It was a craving for private happiness. Strange and sad it must be that for such a motive, however strongly it pressed upon his heart, he should have disappointed hopes so high and abandoned a trust so great. Even more strange and sad is that he should have sought his happiness in a manner inconsistent with the Christian principles of marriage, and within a social circle whose standards and ways of life are alien to all the best instincts and traditions of his people. Let those who belong to this circle know that today they stand rebuked by the judgment of the nation which had loved King Edward.

He ended melodramatically by saying, “The pity of it, O, the pity of it.”
²⁰

Although the public might have been critical of the King’s abdication, few thought the Archbishop correct in abusing Edward VIII in such a public manner. His official residence, Lambeth Palace, was flooded with angry letters, all of which took great umbrage at his condemnation of the former King.
²¹

The Royal Family, however, appeared to support this very public humiliation, providing some evidence that they were quite out of touch with the general mood of the nation. Queen Mary wrote to the Archbishop immediately, congratulating him on the speech.
²²

Despite the very warm letter she had written to David when he left England, Queen Elizabeth quickly turned on him. Undoubtedly, in this she was influenced by Queen Mary, who remained at the center of the House of Windsor. Queen Elizabeth was particularly supportive of the almost universally condemned speech by Lang. She wrote to Victor Cazalet: “I don’t think you need feel the Archbishop failed to express the right thing.
She
[Queen Mary] felt he said exactly what he should and was grateful to him. All the family feels the same. I think the nation vaguely felt it, but he put the issue dearly and as no one else had the right to do. Nowadays we are inclined to be too vague about the things that matter, and I think it well that for once someone should speak out in plain and direct words, what after all was the truth. . . .”
²³

This reaction became typical for the Royal Family. David’s elderly aunt, Queen Maud of Norway, wrote of Wallis: “Wish something could happen to her!” She described Wallis as “one bad woman who has hypnotized him.” She concluded: “I hear that every English and French person gets up at Monte Carlo whenever she comes in to a place. Hope she will feel it.”
²⁴And David’s great-aunt Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll, took great delight in repeating a joke to her brother that Wallis must spend lots of time in the bathroom, since it was the ”only throne she would ever sit on.”
²⁵

Lady Iris Mountbatten, a great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria, recalled: “The finality with which David . . . disappeared out of thoughts and even memories was shocking. I almost expected that when I mentioned him, I would receive the reply, ‘Who?’ Aunt May [Queen Mary] ... actually seemed unchanged by the great loss of her eldest son. I could see no outward sign that she had been tormented by heartbreak. Her attitude seemed simply to be, ’I do not see how anyone can expect me to understand or accept this.’ “ Such a severe attitude greatly upset Lady Iris: “I think this was the emotion that shocked me most in those around me, they
did
not,
would
not,
could
not allow themselves to begin to understand or think with compassion. It brought home to me a sense that I had always had, that my family was not motivated by love or human emotions.”
²⁶

Other books

Supernatural: Night Terror by Passarella, John

Fallen Ward (Deepwoods Saga Book 3) by Honor Raconteur

Life On the Refrigerator Door by Alice Kuipers

Down River by Karen Harper

España, perdiste by Hernán Casciari

Rat Runners by Oisín McGann

Loki's Daughters by Delle Jacobs

Lisette's List by Susan Vreeland

Heart: An American Medical Odyssey by Cheney, Dick, Reiner, Jonathan

The Careful Use of Compliments by Alexander Mccall Smith