|Did David ever meet Anna Anderson and if so what did he think of her?|
I don’t know if the two met or not, though I can think of plenty of times it would have been reasonable for them to cross paths. In fact, I was thinking that it’s rather strange that they didn’t meet considering that David would have probably been intrigued by the whole matter (from what I know of his personality) and as I said there are plenty of times when they could have crossed paths (at many points during her long stay in Germany or during one of David’s later trips to the US after she had moved to Charlottesville).
But see, here’s the thing. Anna Anderson was a fake, and she generally went out of her way to avoid people who knew or were related to the real Anastasia unless they were “in on it”, went out of their way to assure her they were open-minded about the whole thing, or just straight-up ambushed her. David had only met Anastasia a few times, when she was a small child, so his word on identity would have been fairly shaky, but he would have probably tried to speak English with Anna Anderson (the Romanov girls spoke it; Anna Anderson knew very little) or asked her questions about the family she might have struggled with. Also he was a good friend of Louis Mountbatten, who went on a very public “Anna Anderson is a fake” campaign.
Anna Anderson would NOT have wanted to meet him, and I doubt David cared enough about the whole mess to ambush her, as some of the royals closer related to the real Anastasia did. And whenever those meetings did happen, she would hide under a sheet, or put a scarf over her face, and refuse to answer questions.
That said, a fictional meeting between the two would be a great starting point for a one-act-play or art film of some kind.
A letter from Edward, Prince of Wales (Later Edward VIII) to his first mistress, Freda Dudley Ward.
The two - who’s relationship lasted five years - met during an air raid in London, in 1918.
Buckhouse [Buckingham Palace] S.W.
12th May 1919.
My darling beloved little Fredie,
Bless you for your two sweet little letters which have made me so so happy. Particularly the last one saying that you are arriving back this evening & suggesting that I shld [should] look in after the opera. Oh! No I couldn’t possibly do such a common thing as that - - - - !!!!
Sweetheart, how can you say “or shall we wait till Tues”? Of course I must come & am so so overjoyed at the thought of seeing my own precious darling little girl again so soon. I ought to be able to get round about 12:00 & I’ll let myself in as I’ve still got the key!! It’s so so divine of you wanting your little David to come & you just can’t think how happy you’ve made him, beloved one & how much it makes him love & adore you.
[Writing across the top of the letter]
All all my great love & more [??] than I’m capable of sending my very own darling beloved precious little Fredie. Bless you!!
Your devoted and adoring petit(?) [??], David.
* I can’t make out the words marked with [??], can anyone else see what they are? Feel free to add them if you can.
This may be of particular interest to anyone who saw the Downton Abbey Christmas Special.
King George V and Queen Mary with their son David later Edward VIII
|What do you think they meant by the maggot?|
No idea. To be honest, I’ve never heard that they called her that before.
|I know Wallis and Edward called the Queen Mother 'The Fat Scottish Cook' and Princess Margaret 'The Maggot' but do you know if they had nicknames for Elizabeth and Bertie?|
They used to call the then Princess Elizabeth ‘Shirley’ because she looked so much like a young Shirley Temple and I think George VI was always just Bertie! Interestingly, Edward apparently used to call the Queen Mother ‘Queen Elizabeth’ way before the abdication, just to wind her up!
|who do you blame for the abdication? like percentage wise, was Edward 100% to blame?|
No, definitely not. It’s weird to sort-of think of the events that led to Edward abdicating, and who did what because I think in many ways the same thing would have happened (perhaps at a different time) even if people had acted differently.
That said, I break down blame…
40% Edward- He chose to leave, he chose to insist on dealing with the marriage issue before the coronation, he obviously didn’t want it badly enough.
25% Stanley Baldwin- I don’t believe necessarily that he forced Edward out or saw Edward as unfit, but he did lie to Edward about the reaction of the dominions, and prevented any other option from being tried.
20% Archbishop/Church- Their position was basically: divorce is evil, a divorced woman should never be Queen, and Edward doesn’t go to church enough. The relationship between the church and the monarchy is extremely strong, and was even more so then.
10% Wallis Simpson- Unlike everyone else on this list, I am 100% sure Wallis did not want the abdication to happen, but the whole thing could have been prevented if it weren’t for her poor life choices. And no, I don’t mean being twice divorced or having a lot of boyfriends or anything of that nature. I’m talking about the incredibly poor timing of her second divorce (if she’d gone to court a year earlier or a year later the whole situation would have been different) and her idiotic idea to go to France right before the abdication. Among other things.
5% Parliament- Parliament was hostile to Edward and insanely hostile to his #1 supporter Winston Churchill. And various individual members were talking to the press about their refusal to support the marriage (and also just random bullshit about Churchill) which probably further convinced Wallis, Edward, and their supporters that abdication was probably the only option.
Princes George and Alexander of Greece and Prince David of Wales
Dowager Tsarina Maria Fyodorovna of Russia piggyriding prince Edward of Great Britain, later duke of Windsor. 1898
Courtesy of the RCT.
Kittyinva: 1921 photo of the young Prince of Wales at the Herman-Wilde fight.
This painting by William Howard Robinson and entitled A Welsh Victory at the National Sporting Club depicts the Prince of Wales, later Edward VIII, congratulating Welsh boxer Jimmy Wilde who had just outpointed American Joe Lynch over 15 rounds.
This was the first time royalty had entered the prize ring and it legitimised the sport which had been illegal since the days of bare knuckle fights.
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
I’m going to go on a little bit of a rant about some of my favorite haters.
If you’ve ever hung around royal forums, history forums, blogs run by middle-aged men, or any site that has a comments section, you’ve probably heard the allegation that the Duke of Windsor committed “treason” during World War II, that he “betrayed the Allies”, and that “if you or I did what he did we would’ve been shot at dawn!”
And yes, I have even seen this delightful allegation crop up on Tumblr from time to time.
Now, some people respond to these allegations by simply saying “he didn’t do that” or “you’re drunk.” I like to ask questions!
First question: What did David do?
Many of these Youtube scholars will simply respond by repeating the allegation in all caps, usually throwing in some kind of proposed punishment.
"TREASON!!! HE BETRAYED THE ALLIES AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECAPITATED WITH A VERY DULL CHAINSAW!!!"
So, second question: What specifically did he do that you think counts as treason?
To this, if the person even responds (and often they won’t), I’ll get a wide variety of responses.
Here are a few of them:
"He went to Nazi Germany!"
Yes, he did do that. Before that war. A lot of people are confused on that point, but some even realize it was before the war and still think it counts as treason. Okay, so theory time. Say we go to war with North Korea tomorrow. Does that mean we get to kill Dennis Rodman? What about all of those various idiots who just wandered over the border for no good reason? Do we tie them all up and shoot them at dawn? Of course not. It’s not a crime for a private individual to travel to a country their own country is not at war with. Hell, even if the countries are at war it’s not treason. I mean, there’s probably some kind of law broken in that scenario, but I don’t think the punishment is death.
"Well, Wallis committed treason…..”
Okay, first of all anything Wallis might’ve done is not David’s responsibility. How would you like it if the government decided to hold you accountable for some bullshit your significant other got up to? Second of all, I repeat my questions but this time about Wallis. What specifically did Wallis do that you think counts as treason? Note: sometime’s their response to this question is hilariously stupid. Such as: “She had sex with a lot of Nazis!” and “She had sex with Hitler!” and “She was really a man in drag!”
"He conspired with the Nazis to steal back the throne!"
This one’s actually loosely based on something the Nazis actually briefly considered, without David’s knowledge or assistance. It kind of falls apart when you realize that in the same documents suggesting David be put back on the throne when/if the Nazis conquered Britain also suggest that he and Wallis be kidnapped to force them to cooperate. Also, legit question here, why do you think he wanted the throne back?
"He supported Hitler during the war!" or, even more stupidly…. "He joined the Nazi party!"
Some people legitimately think David publicly supported the Nazis (and not Britain) during World War II. I don’t even really know what to say to these people. Sometimes even their fellow treason ranters will swoop in and correct them, saying David was a secret Nazi, not a public one, and really that’s so much worse.
Some people will even back down, if only slightly:
"Well, maybe it wasn’t technically treason, but he still was disloyal/hurt the Allies/had sex with Hitler.”
Then the argument usually morphs into a more rational one about whether or not David had Nazi sympathies or was an appeaser and what that means about his involvement in the war, or his broader legacy.
But those don’t account for 90% of the responses, which are all of a similar vein:
"He gave information to the Nazis."
Or Wallis did, according to some of them, but same difference. These people are completely inconsistent about where and when this apparently took place. A large number of them claim it happened when David was Governor of Bermuda. At no point should you tell them he was Governor of the Bahamas, not Bermuda. Their insistence he was Governor of Bermuda can serve as an alarm of sorts, telling the world of their stupidity before they say anything else.
No one bothers to explain how this would’ve happened either. Did David write Hitler a letter? Did he call him up on the phone? Was there a telegraph? Or were there Nazi spies David and Wallis were in touch with that they shared the information with in person? Really none of this even matters because there are so many other gaps in these stories.
Only one of the many people I’ve seen make this argument actually had a specific scenario for how the treason allegedly played out. He heard about it on a show he saw on A&E. He didn’t say which show, so I’ll just assume it was Duck Dynasty. Anyways, the story goes that David and Wallis were at a dinner party and an American spy told them classified information, which David (or was it Wallis?) then immediately passed along to a Nazi who was also at that same dinner party. In a weird way, this story is actually vaguely plausible. I mean, David and Wallis went to a lot of dinner parties, and they were both kinda lazy so a story that involves them committing treason without actually having to go out of their way to do much is quite fitting. Of course literally everything else about the story is ridiculous. What kind of spy tells classified information to someone, anyone, at a party where an enemy official is present? Furthermore, if this scenario actually happened as reported (and obviously it didn’t) why would this be treason or any other kind of crime on the part of David or Wallis? No sane, rational person is going to think something that some random person told them at a party is classified and most people would not think twice about passing it along to someone else at the same party. That’s called gossip, not treason.
But even if someone did have a plausible scenario in mind, and could tell me the whens, wheres, whos, and hows of the treasonous act, there’s one question they always struggle to answer:
What was the information?
Now, you might get a vague response involving allied invasion plans, or some sort of plot to kill Hitler or other Nazis. But whatever the supposed information is, it has to have certain qualities in order to make this allegation at all plausible. I don’t even mean true or proven, just worthy of any sort of consideration. If you want to accuse David of committing treason by giving information to the Nazis, the supposed information he gave has to be….
1. Something that was true. This seems like sort of an obvious thing to mention, but during a war spreading misinformation to your enemy is often encouraged.
2. Something that David (or Wallis to go down that road again…) knew. From a logical perspective, a lot of these theories fall apart on the simple grounds that David wouldn’t have known a lot of inside information about war plans during the time he was in the Bahamas. You can’t accuse someone of giving information to the enemy that they wouldn’t know.
3. Something that wasn’t widely known. If half the British Army and two-thirds of the Navy knew about something and the Nazis ended up finding out about it, it would be ridiculous to single out one person in particular and blame the leak on them. Unless you had solid proof from the other side it was them, which of course no one has produced. In all likelihood something widely known would get out because of an innocent mistake; when information is widely known people don’t tend to be very protective of it.
4. Something the Nazis did find out about. If something was actually leaked, you have to have evidence of both sides of it. This also seems obvious, but it’s worth noting because David has been accused of being responsible for leaks that never actually happened. And logically when information that’s supposed to be kept quiet leaks out there are going to be noticeable repercussions.
5. Not something you just fucking made up. Like, no, David didn’t leak the American plans to invade Mexico. And I can’t respond to this bullshit by saying that America never invaded Mexico during World War II (and why the fuck would they have even wanted to?) because these idiots will just respond that obviously it didn’t happen and the plan had to be changed because evil David had leaked it to the Nazis.
If you want to accuse David of treason, you have to also say what he fucking did that was treason. If he leaked information, you have to say what that information was, have evidence David knew about it and that it was actually leaked, and explain how you know David was the one that leaked it.
And FINALLY, a few other notes on these theories…..
-If you’re going to mention Martin Allen, who is the original source of the treason story, you should know his books were all based on forged documents.
-The point of this post was not to provide a factual argument against the “treason” story but rather a logical one. It’s hard for me to try and give a factual argument against a story that’s extremely vague and changes every time its told. If you would like my thoughts on any specific allegation or theory you’ve heard, pop into my ask box.
-Some people, rather than claiming treason or Nazi sympathies outright, take an “all this smoke….” approach where they gather up every allegation they’ve ever heard, put it in one place, and leave it without comment. This encourages the reader to put everything together and come to a certain conclusion. David’s Wikipedia article is structured like that. The problem is there’s “smoke” around almost every historical figure of note. When someone is in the public eye, that means a lot of people are going to be talking about them. Quotes that come from people are often presented as being equally valid as quotes that come from a person’s writing. They’re not. You could make a laundry list of allegations about any person you wanted to, and you could make them look as guilty as you wanted. You must take claims on their individual merit, and trace back the source as far as you can. You may be surprised at the origin.
Mainbocher, known for his sense of decorum, created a garment impeccably suited to the occasion. If his design seems conservative, as compared to the modern experiments of others in the 1930s, it was because he sought an unerring gentility. He held decoration to a minimum, favoring refined feminine forms (petal-shaped collar, shirring, small embroideries). Even the gloves were specifically designed to accommodate the wedding ring. While a defect in the stability of the dye has caused the dress to lose its “Wallis” blue, it retains the willful seemliness of a marriage in world view.