Talk:Edward VIII/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

older entries

Excellent footnote, 66. . . Really good work. (You know you really should sign in under some identity. Typing 66 . . . is a bit of a mouthful.) wikilove. FearÉIREANN 03:58, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Styles

According to the Yorkshire Post for December 12 1936 (page 11, column 2 - I spotted it whilst looking through the month today), after Edward abdicated he was initially just "Edward Windsor, Esq." (and the BBC introducing his broadcast as His Royal Highness Prince Edward was innaccurate) and would remain so until the new King conferred titles upon him.

Does anyone know if this is correct, or journalistic error? If it is then when exactly did he become the Duke of Windsor et al? Timrollpickering 17:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect. As a descendant of his father (surprise, surprise) he has the style, title and dignity of HRH & Prince under the Letters Patent of 1917. He only lost the various knighthoods he had received, but he lost those on becoming King. George VI awarded these to him agai, which ade him the only commoner in all eight orders - 8 seyts of post-nominal letters, quite a handful.

According to his autibiography George VI mentioned a what royal dukedom to give him on the night of the abdication, but he remained Prince Edward for several months until the letters paent were prepared (just as today in the New Years Honours lists, the Queen awards Fred Bloggs an OBE and he becomes Fred Bloggs OBE straight away, but the list says She intends creating Fred Bloggs Lord Whatsit, and he stays Fred Bloggs until the Letters Patent are signed. IIRC this happened shortly before his wedding in June 1937. --garryq 18:48, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The minutiae of styles really should always go at the bottom of an entry like this, with just enough detail at the top to enable the reader to follow the central story. The first paragraph, as with mere mortals, should very briefly identify the subject. Wetman 06:35, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am a little confused and it will be a little confusing to read -so please bear with me. We are all agreed that the Queen is legally the Queen and that her official title is Queen Elizabeth II. However, when the Queen dies she will not legally be the Queen but will still be known as Queen Elizabeth II as she is the second Queen Elizabeth to have graced the throne of England. Now, when King Edward VIII seised to be King, he was known as the Duke of Windsor respectfully BUT was he still King Edward VIII as he too was the eighth King Edward to have graced the throne of England. Okay, he was not His Majesty anymore as that was the title of the new King but surely he was still King Edward VIII or Edward VIII. He must have been as nobody else could use such a title. For instance, in the case of his mother Queen Mary - she had been known respectfully as Her Majesty The Queen while her husband was alive but was subsequently known during her widowhood as Her Majesty Queen Mary and not Her Majesty the Queen. Surely the Duke of Windsor was also King Edward VIII regardless of whether he had abdicated or not and if not, who was? regardless of that, there could never be a King Edward VIII in the future so why not call him that? --Huw 18:43, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

True, but he would have been ex-King Edward VIII because he gave the throne up. King was what he was BEFORE, not after he abdicated. The other kings and queens are referred to as King George VI etc because that was what they were when they died because they died whilst they were on the throne.

Basically, when Edward abdicated, he was no longer King Edward VIII. Yes, he HAD been that, for 11 months, but after he gave it up he ceased to be a king, and he couldnt be known as such afterwards because he RELINQUISHED it and therefore had to have another title afterwards to live his life by. He could have styled himself Edward VIII but the point is that "Edward VIII" no longer existed - there HAD been a king called that, but when he abdicated there was no king by that title except historically (much as a dead monarch). Queen Mary could style herself a queen because she always WAS a queen, she never ceased being one, albeit a dowager. Edward was not a king afterwards, so he couldnt style himself one.

And if a future king chooses Edward as his throne name, he will be Edward IX. --StanZegel 19:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

So theoretically, he could still have signed himself Edward VIII but not King Edward VIII? I don't see how he stopped becoming Edward VIII because he was still Edward VIII and not King Edward VIII and another point to raise is that he wouldn't have been ex-King Edward VIII because he was still Edward VIII as nobody could use that name any longer! however, ex-King Edward might have been more appropriate or even Edward VIII but not King Edward VIII? Would that be more truthful? After all in the case of Diana, Princess of Wales..she was still allowed to use the title as a name rather than a title (as does the Duchess of York) but she wasn't Princess of Wales, Princess or any other title by marriage! --Huw 21:20, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

No, he couldn't have styled himself Edward VIII, because he DID stop being Edward VIII. The point is that when he abdicated his title, name & ordinal became historic. When a king dies, both the person and the title cease to exist - namely because the holder is dead. In Edwards case he didn't "die" but his title did. You're right that no-one could use that name any longer BUT it worked in the same way as a dead king. George VI, for example, is dead - because he's dead he can't be a king anymore (or, in fact, anything else), although he WAS a king and is always remembered as such. There isn't really a difference between the titles of "King Edward VIII" and "Edward VIII" because both titles are used to refer to a living current monarch (Elizabeth II, Queen Elizabeth II), the ordinal refers to his position as King of the United Kingdom, so putting King is emphasising the kingly status. (Elizabeth II doesn't stop becoming a queen if you don't calle her "Queen Elizabeth II") Edward DID stop becoming Edward VIII - he only held that title during 1936, after that he was a PRINCE, not a KING, so he couldn't be referred to as one. I think theoretically he would've been able to be ex-king Edward VIII, with the "ex" referring to ALL of that title (because the word "king" and the ordinal "VIII" both refer to his position, he wasn't just an ex-KING, but an ex "VIII" - as you said no-one else could be an Edward VIII after him - he was no longer the 8th king called Edward, he renounced that) but that would have been in bad taste in the light of the situation, and I think that style is more usually used by monarchs who have been forcefully deposed. He couldn't have been known as Edward VIII because that implies (as it does with any monarch) that he was still king. Re: Diana, Princess of Wales - that was slightly different as she was a divorcee and had got her title Princess of Wales from her husband alone (courtesy title) - Edward's kingly title was his by right. Diana gave up her marriage, and therefore the title, whereas Edward just gave up his title. I think the confusion here arises that Edward VIII is and will be the only person to be named as such, the next king named Edward would be Edward IX, BUT the core of the matter is that Edward could not possibly have been known as Edward VIII because he simply WASN'T Edward VIII any longer, in any way. When a king dies, because the actual person dies, the title therefore goes from him to the next person - because the former king is dead he can therefore be referred to as Edward VII or George VI or whatever because there's no chance he'll get mixed up with the present, living monarch - it's quite clear that because he's dead he's a king past. When Edward abdicated,HE didn't die but his title acted as though he had done - and went to the next person, so "Edward VIII" was an historic title, NOT a title in use. It's quite complicated - though I think you're right re: the title of ex-King Edward VIII, because that is what he was also as well as Duke of Windsor.Edward VIII was an historic title only relegated to history books, and you can't use historic titles in present day situations. Diana, Princess of Wales was called such because her ex-title acted as her surname - she was actually after divorce "Lady Diana, Princess of Wales" but dropped the "Lady", so she was actually reverting to her maiden status. It is misleading that she was called "Princess of Wales" even though she wasn't a princess anymore, but it was just a surname, nothing more - apparantly when the divorce happened the Queen didn't know quite what to refer to her as because there had never been a precedent of a Princess of Wales divorcing, so they referred to divorced peeresses. However, Diana was called as such after her divorce because in all divorces surnames act like that - because Prince Charles is never known as Mr. Charles Windsor Diana therefore (although she could've) wasn't known as such. Diana was Diana, Princess of Wales, or Diana, Duchess of Cornwall, or Diana, Duchess of Rothesay, etc just as she was theoretically Lady Diana Windsor, as a normal divorcee would be (but how would THAT have looked? Especially since she was the mother of the future king, I think they did it to give her a bit more respect). Anyhow, the point I'm making is that Diana's title was the normal product of a divorce and that Diana's title wasn't really the issue, her marriage was, since she wasn't giving up any office of her own since everything she had was by courtesy. Diana didn't use the title of Princess of Wales afterwards - she had NO royal titles afterwards - it just so happened her surname was very like the title she once held. Edward VIII was quite the opposite - everything he had was by right, and was relinquishing what was HIS. You made the point that no-one else could be Edward VIII - true, but what people neglect is the fact that that included Edward himself - "Edward VIII" didn't exist except in history books. (jayboy2005)

At his death however it was deemed that he would once again be reffered to as King Edward VIII I believe. That is the usance in the Netherlands where the Princesses Juliana and Wilhelmina, when they died, are refered to once again as Queen Wilhelmina and Queen Juliana. I think something similar goes for Edward VIII.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What if...

Am I correct in thinking that if Edward had not abdicated (but everything else remained the way it really happened), Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester would today be King? When Edward died in 1972, he had no children (at least no legitimate ones; we don't know for sure if Scott Chisholm's grandfather was really his son) and his only surviving sibling was Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. Surely Henry would then have become king, rather than Elizabeth becoming queen, wouldn't he? Henry died in 1974, and his oldest son Prince William of Gloucester had already died in '72, leaving Richard next in line to the throne. Right? --Angr/_comhrá 12:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester. In short - no, Elizabeth would have become queen. john k 13:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong about Prince William he was still living when Edward died, and if his father became King, he may not have died do to the added security of an heir. If all of this occurred Elizabeth would have become queen anyway, as the line of succession goes from siblings, than their children and then the next sibling and their children. If the sibling is deceased, their children would remain in the same spot in the line of succession, and still take precedence over younger siblings. So, if Edward had not abdicated and had no children at the time of his death the line of succession would have been: 1. HRH Princess Elizabeth 2. HRH Prince Charles 3. HRH Prince Andrew 4. HRH Prince Edward 5. HRH Princess Anne 6. HRH Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester 7. HRH Prince William of Gloucester (Still living at the time of the Duke's death) 8. HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester etc.

((Cooldoug111 17:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)))

Not quite, After Princess Anne, (1972 line-of-succession) it would have been Princess Margaret, David Armstrong-Jones, Sarah Armstrong-Jones & then Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. GoodDay 23:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Had Edward VIII not abdicated, he may well have died before 1972 - and Prince Albert, Duke of York (George VI) may have lived much longer due to not having the stress of being King during WWII. Therefore, if Edward VIII was indeed incapable of fathering children, and died in say the 1950s, he would have been succeeded by his younger brother Prince Albert, who would have become George VI anyway...only much later. When he died, say, in the 1960s-80s, presuming he had no sons (only Elizabeth and Margaret), Elizabeth would then have still become Elizabeth II. However, it is very questionable whether she would have married Prince Philip of Greece had her father not been King in 1947; therefore, she may have had either different children, or no children. In the latter scenario, all other things being equal, and if Princess Margaret either didn't marry or (due to the greater freedom of being farther from the Throne) didn't remain married long enough to bear legitimate children, the present Duke of Gloucester would almost certainly be King Richard IV right now. Lord Charlton 15:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter in the slightest when anyone died; the order of succession is one of birth, not death. Just because Edward died well after his next oldest brother in no way negates that brother's place, and those of his heirs, in the succession. Elizabeth would simply have been allowed to live a quieter life until 1972. THAT would have bee the only difference.

Edward VIII at Exeter Cathedral

In Exeter Cathedral, close to the main entrance on the left hand wall, there is a plaque with one of the few mentions of Edward VIII as king. (There are also a few other objects, plaques and other items associated with him - which could be listed.)

Why has the article page been blocked against vandalism?

Jackiespeel 15:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's because someone keeps adding that he was called "von Wettin", which is incorrect. He was from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, which is a branch of the Wettin family, but the British Royal Family were never known as "von Wettin" themselves. Others, quite correctly, keep removing this falsehood. Unfortunately it was protected with the "von Wettin" bit in - so we are the only source in the world saying Edward used to be von Wettin!! Yippee!!jguk 08:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Technically, until 1917 that was correct. All the Dukes of Saksony and Princes of Saxe Coburg and Gotha (which the British royals were untill that year) belonged to the House of Wettin. That title was never actually in use in Britain however.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

H.R.H The Prince Edward, The Duke of Windsor

Is this where the page should be locatate???. After all he was only King for 320 days and this is what he was when he died. Also why is someone trying to force von Wettin

The above sentence seems to have been abandoned untimely.Jackiespeel 18:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be located at Prince Edwar, Duke of Windosr. After all he abdicated the throne. Mac Domhnaill 21:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor also abdicated. So do you want him listed as "Charles, Lord of Yuste"? --StanZegel (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

You've got a point but I think he should be referred to as his highest title, which was king. "The Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor" implies he only ever was that all his life. His place is within the list of British kings because he was one - just because he abdicated doesn't change that. (jayboy2005)

Edward VIII and Crystal Palace

Crystal Palace burnt down a few days before Edward's abdication was announced.

Jackiespeel 18:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I am a devout Monarchist, but any man who would cast away his people to marry a whore of no importance does not deserve to be referred to as King. In my book he is HRH The Prince Edward Duke of Windsor.

I too am a monarchist but to call Her Grace The Duchess of Windsor a whore is a little extreme. We should all remember that HRH The Duchess of Cornwall was married before and HRH The Prince of Wales referred to his relationship with her as 'non negotiable'. Is he not fit to be King as a result? and should h relinquish his titles also? I ssay let he who is without sin cast the first stone and I hope this rediculous notion of having a Princess Consort instead of a Queen quite bewildering. Consider the possibility of referring to someone with the legal style of Majesty as 'Your Royal Highness'. It would make the very heart of the monarchy a national laughing stock.

Coronation

Edward VIII was never crowned. The date that was planned (and that was printed on mugs!) was re-used for his brother. Should we mention this? Morwen - Talk 15:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

We could, as it is mentioned in his brother's (George VI) article.Prsgoddess187 15:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Only a Mug would suggest this!

His Excellency The Governor of the Bahamas

I have re-read this, and it does not make sence to me. In Canada, when the Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn became Governor General of Canada, he was styled His Royal Highness the Governor General of Canada. Why is this not the case for the late Prince Edward when he was Governor of the Bahamas? His Excellency, even though this is a high title, is lesser than HRH, isn't it? I could understand why his wife could have the title of Her Excellency, seeing that she did not recieve the title of Her Royal Highness. Christophe T. Stevenson 03 Jan. 06

Dandy?

Don't know much about this, but maybe somebody else does. Apparently Edward VIII was admired by dandys the world over for his unique style of clothing and indeed his whole lifesyle. Could somebody write something on this aspect of Edward's life? Oddly enough the German article on Edward has more on this - including information on safaris he went on in East Africa... Edward is also mentioned in the dandy article.

Normally I'd be happy to put something together, but my experience in the past is that anything that doesn't have a bunch of links to outside "references", however dubious, gets excised. That being said, I will assemble a short discussion and post it here. Tony Ventresca (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no need. This is an old post and it's already in the article: "He soon became the 1920s version of a latter-day movie star. At the height of his popularity, he became the most photographed celebrity of his time and he set men's fashion." DrKay (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

His impact on men's style was enormous and worth more than a half-sentence, although I've found that clothing and costume is not usually considered a 'serious' topic for discussion, particularly on Wikipedia. Tony Ventresca (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ventresca's comment. Edward VIII's influence on male fashion was notable. Unfortunately I lack the background knowledge to add something sufficiently verifiable. Centrepull (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Only abdicate one throne?

Could Edward theoretically only have abdicated selective thrones? For example, abdicating all but the Irish throne, being just King of Ireland? I don't see why he didn't do this, since Ireland wanted to be separate at the time.

No- constitutional conventions established in 1931 decided that no realm could pass laws regarding the succession of the throne independently of the others. Astrotrain 09:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Edward did remain as King of Ireland for one day longer than elsewhere, due to a delay in passing the External Relations Act which recognised the abdication. To put it bluntly, Éamon de Valera screwed up the abdication laws, hence the delay. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically that would delay his abdication for all realms one day, as the act has to be passed by all realms to bedome law.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is what I found about it at www.rulers.org "The Dáil, in accepting the abdication of Edward VIII on 12 Dec 1936, did not proclaim the succession of George VI, but merely provided for the use of the U.K. crown for purposes of foreign representation, while leaving a hiatus in the transition to the new constitutional arrangements. There was no explicit provision for an interim head of state until the new constitution was to take effect on 29 Dec 1937. The domestic functions of the sovereign were exercised in part by the chairman of Dáil Éireann (Frank Fahy) and in part by the president of the Executive Council (Eamon de Valera)."Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A bit of nitpicking

Here is the excerpt:

The couple appeared on Edward R. Murrow's television interview show "Person to Person" and were invited to a state dinner at the White House by President Richard M. Nixon;

In 1951 the president was Dwight Eisenhower; should it perhaps read as such, or was it Vice President Nixon who made the invitation? RashBold ^Talk 17:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Not nitpicking. It was President Nixon who invited the Windsors to the White House, two decades after the "Person to Person" interview. Perhaps the date should be inserted.Masalai 05:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What actually happended!

When Edward VIII abdicated he gave up the throne for himself and his descendants, he also had to relinquish all titles which he held. Had he not given up all his titles he may have been able to still attribute all the titles and privilages of Heir Apparent. As he was Sovereign of all the Orders of Chivalry it would have been difficult to determine which orders he should be a Knight of and which ones he should give up.

Overall it was easier for him to give up everything and start again. King George VI granted Edward the style and title held by a younger son of the Monarch and the Dukedom of Windsor. Thus he became His Royal Highness The Prince Edward of the United Kingdom, The Duke of Windsor.

Never before in British history had a Monarch abdicated, as such there must have been a diffcult discussion of what to refer to Edward VIII when he abdicated. It would have been out of the question for him to still possess the title of King in some form or another or even that of Emeperor, as he was Emperor of India.

Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth (The Queen Mother) held the titles of Queen because their husbands were Kings. Although when each of their husbands died they ceased to be "The Queen Consort" they were still Queens has the had not given up their positions. When a King dies his Queen Consort automatically becomes a Queen Dowager.

Had Edward VIII still held the title of King in some form after his abdication, it would have been difficult for King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (The Queen Mother) in their new positions as they would be overshadowed by Edward. This is also a reason why The Duke of Windsor as he then bacame has to remain in exile for a year following the adbication.

King

He couldn't have been styled "king" afterwards because he was no longer king. He had himself voluntarily relinquished the throne (unlike deposed monarchs who continued to be titled "king" out of courtesy - they were forced to give up the throne against their will). He was in no way still a king after abdication; he differs from queen consorts in this way because the queen consorts, when their husband dies, do not voluntarily relinquish their status. Edward could not have held the titles of the heir apparant since they can only be held by the heir apparant - which he was not, after his abdication.

Adrift?

This title seems rather POV-ish. 'Later Years' is the more accepted heading for biographical entries. I also dispute the notion that the Windsors were 'forgotten'. Open any glossy magazine of the time or read contemporary gossip colums, and they feature heavily during the 50s and 60s. It was only after the Duke's illness and during the Duchess's final years that they disappeared from the public consciousness. --Stevouk 11:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

clarification required

does this phrase make sense "The British Parliament passed His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 the next day and, on receiving the Royal Assent from Edward VIII, he legally ceased "

who received the royal assent parliment on edward??

Second or third (or fourth) shortest reign?

I believe that Lady Jane Grey is regarded as having had the shortest reign of any British (or English) monarch. That would make Edward VIII the third shortest after LJG and Edward V. N'est-ce pas? King Hildebrand 09:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thinks: Harold II reigned for only about 9 months in 1066. So maybe Edward VIII is actually 4th? King Hildebrand 10:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Lady Jane Grey wasn't a monarch. Hence why she is a Lady and not a Queen Jane. Astrotrain 10:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As Astrotrain says, Lady Jane Grey is not in the official list of English monarchs. Officially, Mary is considered to have immediately acceded upon Edward VI's death, per the terms of their father's will, which had been given legal force to determine the succession by parliament. Generally, counts like this are referring only to monarchs since the Norman conquest, but we should say that explicitly (second shortest since the Norman conquest). john k 11:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have edited this bit of the lead as it was clearly disputable if not plain wrong - Sweyn I of Denmark ruled for about 40 days and Duncan II of Scotland for 7 months. There are also a large number of lesser kings, Elfweard of Wessex, Oswald of Northumbria, Egfrith of Mercia, etc. from before the Norman conquest who all ruled for very short periods. DrKay 08:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Windsor knot

"The Duke's name also became associated with a fashion item: the Windsor knot, after his fondness for large-knotted ties." The association of this manner of knotting a tie with the Duke dates from his days as fashion trend-setter when Prince of Wales, not his later life as Duke of Windsor. If there are other such minutiae to add, perhaps this could go in a "Trivia" section.Masalai 15:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the Duke mentioned in his second book that he rarely used the Windsor knot, prefering instead the half-Windsor knot or four-in-hand. Tony Ventresca (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a paranthetical qualification along these lines in the article, but it was taken out when the sentence on the tie knot was removed (again) [1]. DrKay (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have re-inserted this passage in a somewhat elaborated section on "royal duties," where it perhaps makes sense. Possibly other editors will have different views.Masalai 04:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

His title

The title "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" didn't come into existence until Elizabeth's coronation in 1953. The title used between 1927 and 1953 was "King (Queen) of Great Britain and Ireland." This indicated that the British monarch was still King of Ireland (until 1949), even though Ireland was now outside the United Kingdom. Between 1922 and 1927 George V still used "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland," although that United Kingdom no longer included the Irish Free State. john k 20:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

All the texts I have seen say that the and between Great Britain and Ireland was axed in 1927 in the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act. (George V was unhappy about the decision.) The fact that they were different kingdoms was indicated in the royal title by separating the kingdoms using a comma, making it Great Britain, Ireland . . . And was used when they were the one kingdom. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually John, the title until 1949 was

of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Emperor of India. (Instrument of Abdication)

In 1949 Northern Ireland replaced Ireland (with the comma after Great Britain dropped as they were the one kingdom, not separate ones, as was the case with Great Britain and Ireland. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Some Irish officials at the time of the Free State have argued that their state was included in the phrase "British Dominions beyond the Seas" and that "Ireland" in the title referred to Norther Ireland.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Quotations

The quotations have been selectively included solely on the basis of controversy. Childish and arrogant; this is an encyclopaedia not a place for point scoring or character assassination. 86.7.208.240 12:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Princess Royal

I wanted to add a wiki link to the Princess Royal article in the 'Later Life' section, second paragraph. Prior to reading this article I was unaware of the title, but also uncertain if linking to the Princess Royal article would be in poor taste. That article features a photo of the current Princess Royal, but in the paragraph I mention The Prince attends a funeral for the then Princess Royal.

I was about to just add the link, but the photo on the Princess Roytal article caused me to hesitate. What do people more familiar with the topc have to say about adding this wiki link?
- Rockthing 13:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture Resized

The picture "Edward-viii-sm.jpg" seems to be somewhat distorted in the actual article. Something is causing it to be scaled up by the browser, and I can't work out how to fix it. Most browsers do a terrible job of scaling images.

The actual image is 240x323 pixels, but in the article it appears 262x353. -- Techtoucian 19:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

quotation

I see two times in this article "See Quotations below" but I see no quotations area on the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.47.50 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

You're quite right. Some officious person had removed them. Masalai 20:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't Wikiquotes. If someone wants to read quotes, they can click the link...but there is no need for 1/3 of this article to be quotations... --JW1805 (Talk) 22:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The quotations are an especially telling demonstration of the character of the man: far more so than any narrative. Wikiquotes is a relatively obscure reference for those who increasingly consult Wikipedia as a first rough reference. You have been cautioned before about peremptory drastic modifications to this article. Kindly enter into discussion on this discussion page before making such interventions again. Masalai 08:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

They tell us nothing about him, other than he had similar views to most upper class males of his generation. I imagine their inclusion here is to present Edward as a racist. I doubt many of them are even true. Astrotrain 09:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

1. There are three links to wikiquotes in the article
2. There is a representative quote from his time in the Bahamas, "He said of Étienne Dupach..."
3. There is a statement, "His unedifying and often deeply racist comments...(see wikiquotes)"

I think, especially given that the article is already quite long, that the three items above are sufficient demonstration of his attitudes. DrKay 12:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Quite long" is an irrelevance. The 32 kb limit on articles is long since obviated by improvements in the wiki technology. The article should be as long as the subject demands. Masalai 13:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether they are "true" or not, they are amply documented. They can of course be incorporated into the text passim. He wasn't "most upper class males of his generation": he was the heir to the throne of a world-wide empire. And that such views were his is useful knowledge: that they may have been typical of "upper class males of his generation" is neither here nor there; the fact is that they were his views. They should stay as a section of the article. Masalai 13:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not relevant, and the consensus is to remove them. Astrotrain 13:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Masalai - the 30 kb recommended length is not determined by technology, it is determined by the average attention span of the readers. - The longer the article the less likely the page will be read. DrKay 14:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yo. As the "childish and arrogant" person who added the Godfrey quotes, I offer the following: First, the quotes are genuine, and second, I think British royals, even more than most, should be allowed to speak for themselves. There are so many rumours about them, endlessly repeated as fact, that anything directly attributable to them should trump second hand stories. Prince Edward's letters to Freda Dudley Ward reveal a very troubled person. There are repeated references to depression and suicide in them, and this, as much as 'racism' perhaps accounts for his lashing out at the people he visited, as well as at his parents and his brothers. However, this, together with his later apparent fusion of identity with his wife calls for greater psychiatric skills than I possess to interpret. Margaret

Precisely. Masalai 01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Main Picture

Does anyone else feel that albeit the picture is of HRH, having the cover of his memoirs as the main image of HRH is a bit...(insert word that expresses discomfort/disapproval/feelings of tackiness here). Maybe it's just me. LancasterII 04:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was my first reaction to the page. Is there a more...I guess official(?) portrait we could use of him instead? Irish♣Pearl 04:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite apart from the fact that the caption notwithstanding, it is made very clear in all respectable biographies of the Duke that his participation in the writing of the memoirs was sporadic at best and generally reluctant once the realisation set in that even with a ghost writer taking the lion's share of the responsibility the project did involve a certain amount of application and industry on the Duke's part which he was unwilling to provide. Masalai 05:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have placed an offical Portrait of the King from 1937 on the page, it is not in copyright as it is an offical government picture for use in publicity. Hope you like it. --Duncanbruce 12:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• You need to give a source! It looks strange that it was released 11 months after his abdication. DrKay 12:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me I am not completely sure how to give a source, can you advice where I put the information, Yes the Portrait was not going to be released because it was painted in November 1936 and not completed till after his abdication, however the government felt it should be released I guess.--Duncanbruce 14:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The easiest way is to just write it in the summary on the image page. DrKay 14:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the Licensing Tag to Template:PD-UKGov however I presume the link is broken as it seems to bring up something about an enviroment agency. --Duncanbruce 14:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've changed it to Template:PD-BritishGov. DrKay 14:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is it posible to know about his illegitimate children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.160.146.211 (talk • contribs)

• He had none. DrKay 07:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Real story behind abdication?

I see no mention of what I've always been told was open knowledge in the U.K.: that Edward was known to be almost as pro-Nazi as Unity Mitford, and that the Wallis affair was an excuse to preclude the risk of the throne being occupied in wartime by a monarch who favored the enemy. Any comments by more pro-Windsor editors than my sources (mostly republican and Old Labour)? --Orange Mike 01:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• See main article: Edward VIII abdication crisis. DrKay 07:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Richmond was not part of London in 1894

When he was born, Richmond was a municipal borough in Surrey. This should be changed in the box. Calle Widmann 12:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term "Anglo-American"

Because the context is completely devoid of which meaning of "Anglo" this is referring to, and because the part chilean reference between the two uses suggests the "non-hispanic white" meaning, the term should be removed, replaced or clarified. pschemp | talk 23:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Style At Birth

The article states, without direct attribution, that Edward VIII was styled HH Prince Edward of York at his birth. I am not aware that Highness as opposed to Royal Highness is now or has ever been a titled used in either Great Britain or in England. I haven't edited the article as of yet, because I would like to hear others views on this subject. Frazzle 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Prior to 1917, the children, male-line grandchildren and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales were HRH. All other male-line descendants were HH. Edward VIII, at his birth, was not the eldest son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales. He was the eldest son of the second son of the Prince of Wales. Charles 02:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Education and nanny

I just want to point out two things which the article omits. I believe these things are very important to mention. One, the nanny who abused him: She did more than pinch! She twisted his arm and then she would pinch him! He describes this exactly in those words "twist my arm and pinch me" in his memoirs. I feel it's important to mention the twisting his arm because that is so horrible, and you can see why he would cry so much! Secondly, about his education, you don't mention anything about his time at Magdalene College, Oxford, which was the alma mater of his tutor Hansell. Why no mention of it? It was a reasonably important part of his early life. --Ashley Rovira 14:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Cites? --Orange Mike 21:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are these things "very important to mention"? Masalai 22:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Racism

Can someone explain to me why it is necessary to give an authorial judgement on a quotation that a reader can easily judge for himself?

If I had objected to the idea of showing Edward VIII's unpleasant views about various non-whites I would have made far more deletions. What I deleted were phrases I considered out of place in encyclopaedic material.

It is possible to write that Edward VIII has been accused of racism because of x, y, z. But the tone of the comments I altered was not dry and dispassionate, I felt, as befits an encyclopaedia.

If you wish to say that he made "racist comments", then it is not necessary to reproduce said comments, surely?

I think Edward VIII was a fairly vile man, but I would hesitate to say he was "a racist" because I don't know that he had concrete racial theories. It is possible, and his (apparent) Nazi sympathies suggest such an inclination, but it should be stated as a theory, not a fact.

The writer seems to believe he is writing a biography, or a profile of Edward VIII, like some latter day Matthew of Parris writing his views on men of his time in the annals of his day and age.

On top of these things, I may explain my views by noting my belief that "racism" and "racist" have become colloquialisms of vague and ambiguous meaning; and to take what I consider to be a more clear cut case than Edward VIII, I would at least hesitate to describe Nick Griffin, of the BNP, or his comments, as "racist" in an encyclopaedia - although in virtually any other context I would not hesitate to refer to him/them as such.

Finally, if the editor of my previous edits (Dr Kay) objected to my first substantive edit, why not the second (the substance of which may, simplified, be described as changing "racist attitudes" to "contemptuous attitudes")? I would also note that his rewording does at least leave unrestored the part I most objected to, about "revealing his racist attitudes", which sounded much alike to the words of a fiery leftwing orator about to reveal the dark secrets at the heart of the Zionist world empire, etc etc. At any rate - they felt personal and inappropriate to an encyclopaedia to me.

I have not described in any detail my opinion of Edward VIII and whether or not he was a racialist/similair, because that isn't the purpose of the page. I have written on the principle that contentious subjects should be written upon drily and with judgements carefully expressed in an encyclopaedia.

I am afraid that I am prepared to contest the paragraph in question (2nd paragraph under "royal duties") indefinitely. I felt that I should not reverse the reversions as this would be unproductive, but that does not mean that I can't be bothered to pursue the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJ Gordon (talk • contribs) 18:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (edited to include signature and to remove a typing error) (RJ Gordon (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

Hmm, the poster above appears to labour a common misapprehension about what constitutes racism. An attitude being more common or widely accepted in a past era doesn't make it any less racist. More, to say that Edward could not be racist because "I don't know that he had concrete racial theories" is ludicrous. It is widely believed, (but arguable) that Edward VIII had pungent views on race. That should be plainly stated if the case is made. However, significant quotations should be allowed to stand, even if they upset some (the unmentioned agenda here). `

Agreed, no authorial judgement should be necessary on a quotation, but RJ Gordon then goes further to complain that any quotation indicating Edward VIII's attitudes on race are made at all.

I feel that Edward's pungent views on Indians, Jamaicans, Bahamians and other peoples of the Commonwealth, as well as Italians and others are an important indicator of his make-up, and noting them should not be shirked. Accordingly, I will insert an illustrative quote if I can find one with sufficient verification. Centrepull (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

"He [George V] later said of Prince Albert's daughter, the Princess Elizabeth, (whom he called "Lilibet"): " (sic)
Why does it say "Prince Albert's daughter" here? Shouldn't it say George (or Bertie possibly)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.3.184.247 (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC) No, it shouldn't say George. There was a Prince George---the duke of Kent. During the lifetime of George V there was only one Prince Albert---the future King George VI and then duke of York, and I think its well known that George VI's first given name was Albert. Chuckw-nj (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

GBE and GCMG omitted?

A question at the Humanities Ref Desk prompted me to check Guinness (2002 edition) for the person with the most different knighthoods. Of the British orders of chivalry, it says that the Duke of Windsor had 9: KG, KT, KP, GCB, GCSI, GCMG, GCIE, GCVO, GBE. Our list shows only 7 of these, with no mention of GBE or GCMG. Is Guinness wrong? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Complete Peerage indicates he was not specifically invested with those orders, but he was Grand Master of both. So, the question becomes: "Does being a Grand Master of an Order invest you with that Order's highest honor?" DrKay (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It would seem absurd for a Grand Master of an order not to be invested with its highest honour; I've never heard of such a case. Yet, I agree they are separate concepts. A member of the order chosen at random is not necessarily its Grand Master, and I suppose the converse has to follow as well. Becoming Grand Master does not, in and of itself, constitute an investment in any particular level of the order. If not already at the highest level, or a member at all, there would normally be a separate investment procedure in concert with the appointment (or whatever) to Grand Master. So, I wonder why Edward was specifically invested with the other honours, but not these two. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Banqueting House

How can we be sure that the plans are for an actual coronation as opposed to the rehearsal held in early 1937? Are the drawings dated? Is Wallis mentioned by name, or could two thrones be placed for George and Elizabeth? DrKay (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Illegal currency trading

Sarah Bradford says: "Among the Duke's other sins, of which British intelligence had knowledge at this time, was illegal currency dealing, again through pro-Nazi connections". This view is shared by Andrew Roberts and Antonia Fraser. Of the books listed in the references of this article, I have read Bloch, Menkes, Ziegler and the Duke's memoirs. They either agree with this assessment or do not dispute it.

Consequently, the claim that the Duke of Windsor did trade currency illegally during the war appears to be the accepted version of history, and no evidence has been provided that this claim is contentious. In the absence of proof to the contrary, such as a published expert disputing the claim, I see no reason either to remove it or qualify it with weasel words. DrKay (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Even Colin Matthew, who is fairly pro-Edward, says "...currency restrictions further complicated a life lived in several countries, and the duke sometimes pulled rank to avoid them." DrKay (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No evidence of illegal currency trading

Edward VIII was a King Of England, and as such is prone to wild and unfair accusations unlike other citizens of the United Kingdom. Sarah Bradford, Andrew Roberts and Antonia Fraser were not around at the time of the alleged transactions.

Because the Duke is not here to defend himself at the present time, it seems unfair that articles written about him on an encyclopedia should include unproven accusations. If there is documentary evidence of these illegal transactions it should be presented here for perusal - otherwise any comment about them should be withheld. Many people read wikipedia and accept its articles as fact. Your comment "appears to be the accepted version of history" is not sufficient to convict anyone. Just because a few people have written a few books about Edward does not make their accusations true.

Furthermore, what defines an expert? On whose definition are these people experts?

Under English law, for a person to be convicted of a criminal offence there must be overwhelming evidence - in other words, their guilt must be established beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is upon the prosecution not the defence. It is quite clear that a few books do not amount to such evidence.

Furthermore, the comment "in the absence of proof to the contrary" is nonsensical. It is impossible to prove a negative. No one can prove that illegal currency transactions did not take place - and there is no necessity to do so. What is necessary is for the accuser to prove their case and this has not been done.

I am quite happy to argue out the evidence on this forum, and if it is proved beyond doubt that these transactions did take place I will accept that but as many millions of people use wikipedia and accept it as an authorative source (whether they should or shouldn't do) people who have articles written about them have a right to a fair hearing.

If there is any documentary evidence of what happened, rather than a lot of hearsay (what other people have said about what happened) these comments should be left off until there is firm evidence. So you should present it now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.102 (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not how history works. Wikipedia's job is not to conduct a trial, but to report the consensus of other sources, with notes when an allegation is disputed. I would suggest that people source this allegation properly (fully sourced, with page numbers, etc.), and anybody who knows of historians who disagrees may insert that fact in its proper place. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to Ziegler? I think he might quote from the original documents on page 404, but this is from my personal notes and I want to check the actual biography. Thanks, DrKay (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to add here that DrKay is not in danger of violating the 3RR rule when he restores the properly-sourced information which some anonymous defender of royalsanother editor has removed without explanation. Reversion of vandalism (which this unexplained blanking constitutes) is not subject to the 3RR. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how someone can make an allegation and present it as fact on an encyclopedia.

I am not an anonymous defender of royals.

Where do you get this statement from?

How do you know I am even a royalist or believe in the monarchy?

I simply believe that Edward VIII is entitled to fairness the same as everyone else. Furthermore, this has been explained above. What constitutes evidence? Perhaps those above should look it up on wikipedia? "Evidence in its broadest sense includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."

Just because it has been written down by someone else does not make it suitable to be presented as fact.

Many 'experts' in the disappearance of young children believe that Madeline Mcann was killed by her parents. I can present numerous sources, from experts in the field that claim this. Yet, if I were to write this on an article on wikipedia about the disappearance this would not be correct, because it has not been proven. Wikipedia's job is not to conduct a trial but because it is used by millions upon millions of people worldwide it has a responsibility to ensure its articles are accurate.

I am not some insane person who blindly believes that the royalty does no wrong.

Is it really such a difficult task for the writer of these allegations to produce some evidence here on this forum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.114.118 (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits were made to phrase it as you've suggested ("it is claimed") but you rejected them without explanation [2]. Are you now saying that you will accept the qualification "it is claimed" or "it is alleged", in the same way as we can state that "Many 'experts' in the disappearance of young children believe that Madeline Mcann was killed by her parents." without actually stating that they did so.

If you want to check original documents to see whether they prove the assertion then, as I have said above, see if you can get a copy of Ziegler and look them up. DrKay (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "some historians" language because the weasel words made this sound like a fringe theory rather than the consensus of writers on the topic. This is not a biography of a living person; we follow historical standards rather than libel laws. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think its a bit off of you to call them "weasel words". I'm trying to reach some agreement with Dr Kay on this subject and the best way to phrase the allegations.

You say that on wikipedia you follow historical standards rather than libel laws, but I'm not trying to follow either. My argument is that these allegations should not be presented as fact on this encyclopedia without at the least presenting some evidence.

The article on the Duke reports all sorts of information as fact, such as date of birth, titles, period of his reign, and people believe these articles contain 100% factual statements. The Duke was never convicted of illegal currency trading so why should this be presented without some evidence?

OrangeMike, don't you at least believe that everyone has the right to a fair hearing? For many years, Richard III was accused of killing two relatively unknown princes of England in the tower of London. Now historical experts believe that he did not commit the crime, however his reputation amongst a significant number of the general public who are aware of him believe those words written about him in Shakespeare's play. If wikipedia had been out in 1908 then an article about Richard III would have accused him of the crime, and all sorts of ridiculous statements such as walking with a stoop and with a large humpback. None of this is actually true. Because historical experts at the time concurred on that theory you would have thought such comments should be on the site, without any firm evidence. You would have been wrong and another man would have been mis-represented without the opportunity for

a) The allegations to have been phrased in such a way so that they were not presented as fact b) Without the opportunity to defend himself, or to allow others to defend him

How is this fair? Wikipedia should not blindly report what other historians say without checking the facts themselves first. If wikipedias job is simply to write down what has been written elsewhere it is not worthy of its reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.213.93 (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement "This remains a contentious subject and no firm written evidence has yet been produced." is unsupported by a reference. For that to go in the article, as we've said before, you need to find a reference which shows that it is a source of contention and that written evidence has not been produced. We don't have the resources to check every statement made by every historian. This is a volunteer project. If you want to look at the original documents, you should search for them yourself. I don't see why we should invest effort in searching for them, when the statement, as written, is supported by three very reliable sources from professional biographers and historians.

If you want to qualify the statement, which I will agree to simply to put the issue to rest (obviously I cannot speak for Mike or any other editor), then I suggest "he may have benefitted" or "it is claimed he benefitted" as the most succinct options. DrKay (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have added the statement "it is claimed that he benefited from illegal currency transactions". I hope you understand Dr Kay, I am not some mad monarchist blinded by the pomp and grandeur of the British Royals, I merely believe people have a right to have a report on their life be fair and accurate. Unfortunately because of their position within society, the royal family are subject to many wild and unfair accusations which may or may not be true. The royal family do not sue for libel or slander, and Edward VIII is not alive to defend his reputation. Again, like Richard III, he is a much-maligned King.

Many school children with impressionable young minds look to wikipedia as a source of fact, and any reporting on this encyclopedia would be taken by them as fact. I hope they understand that wikipedia is as unreliable as any other source on the internet.

I now understand that neither wikipedia, its editors, or its writers, are concerned with the difference between the truth, facts and allegations. Do we really want to go down the road of having an encyclopedia that cannot be trusted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.248 (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Claimed Vs Reported

Inserting the word reported instead of claimed makes nonsense of the compromise reached with Dr Kay. Reported is what happens when a journalist covers the war in Iraq "Rageh Omah reported the deaths of 100 Iraqi civilians caused by the bombing" compared to "Rageh Omah claimed that 100 Iraqi civilians had died in the bombing". The first statement states that 100 deaths did occur whereas the latter statement only that 100 had died without firm knowledge.

You could insert the statement, Sarah Bradford reports that he benefited from illegal currency transactions, I would be happy with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.248 (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that's basically what I did. Most historians report that he did this; none that I've seen mentioned so far say otherwise. (And I would hope that "school children with impressionable young minds" would read this article and see what a despicable piece of arrogant aristotrash this guy was; but that's my own personal opinion as an uppity peasant.) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Hands Off Our King"

OrangeMike: What you've done throughout the whole discussion I've had with Dr Kay on this subject is to interfere when you're not required. Now I find out the reason for this and the many accusations you have placed at my door - actually you do not like any of the British Royal Family - or probably any Royal family or any person born into a place of status or privilege- for no other reason than the position they were born into.

You've obviously let your own personal feelings towards Edward VIII interfere with how you have edited the changes to this article - you are a disgrace to yourself and wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.248 (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My suggested edits have been to make the article as appropriate as possible; note that I have conceded that "claimed" is an acceptable verb. My personal feelings about this particular individual are not to be taken as revelatory of my opinions about the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha or any other family. I am proud to say that while I make no secret of my republican sentiments (clearly revealed on my userpage), they don't interfere with my edits, and never will. If they did, that would be grossly unethical, and your accusation would be just; since they don't, it is inaccurate and unfair. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The claim is neither inaccurate nor unfair. You have clearly throughout your editing of this article made several unfair and unsupported claims about my own views on the Royal Family - which I have rebutted most vigorously and which you failed to answer. Furthermore, it has been quite clear throughout that you have your own feelings on the subject, and on Edward VIII.

What is perfectly plain to me is that your own asinine thoughts and feelings on the subject have clouded your judgment when accusations of wrong-doing have been made about a British King. You obviously have some deep-seated feelings about the English (judging from all the groups you support such as Scottish independence [which the Scots don't even want], or a united Ireland [which the Northern Irish don't want]). You have absolutely no idea about what the crown and our consitution mean to the British people.

Furthermore, you obviously have no idea about how well-loved Edward was by his people, how when during the abdication crisis opinion polls consistently showed support for the King and a wish to see him stay as sovereign. I suggest in future you take more interest in the facts than your own prejudices. Judging from your own profile, I would have thought that someone in your position would be more careful not to judge people on first appearances - I'm sure you yourself have experienced a lot of prejudice.

One last point, I think whilst researching your Veteran status, I've worked out the reason you keep changing everything on here without reason or justification. You obviously want to further your position as an editor to a "lord high tutnum" or whatever ridiculous language you use to describe your iniquitous deeds - go use someone else, "hands-off our King"!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.248 (talk • contribs)

Please don't attack other editors. We should be discussing the article, and how it can be improved, not each other. See Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A phrase I used in a prior edit above has clearly given offense, and I have stricken it out. It seems to have rankled, and wish to apologize for that. This does not justify incivility towards me; but I do agree that incivility on my or any other person's part has no place in this project. I also wish to state for the record that I have no animus towards the English people (nor the Manx, Cornish, Welsh, or any other people currently under the UKoGBaNI crown). Such an animus would be absurd from a chap with names like Brooks, Scarbrough and Skinner in his ancestry! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

- Direct quotes from Orange Mike

1. I would hope that "school children with impressionable young minds" would read this article and see what a despicable piece of arrogant aristotrash this guy was 2. I removed the "some historians" language because the weasel words 3. some anonymous defender of royals has removed without explanation. Reversion of vandalism (which this unexplained blanking constitutes) is not subject to the 3RR.

I wonder if an inspection of all your other edits would reveal equally ignominious statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.248 (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Nothing to apologize for there. 2. weasel words is a term of art; it has a direct and specific meaning in Wikipedia editing. 3. I struck out the offensive phrase and apologized. Now can we go back to substantive discussion about the article? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't expect an apology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.248 (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have found references to original documents in: Andrew Roberts (1994). Eminent Churchillians. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 0-297-81247-5

p.280 Victor Waddilove, the Duke of Windsor's private secretary writing to Walter Monckton, 15 December 1958, "I have operated on the black market on their [the Duke and Duchess's] behalf for the past ten years against my own conscience and the advice of the late Sir George Allen [the Duke's solicitor]. Unfortunately, I did not take that advice and in devotion to my employers continued these illegal operations to please them, and to benefit them to the extent of well over £200,000...I am now very worried that with the extension to others of the knowledge of these transactions there may be a leak of information. They have totalled over one and half billion Francs and have only been known to my principals and myself."

p.281 Walter Monckton's memorandum of the affair, dated 12 May 1959 in the Monckton Papers, "the deals in which the Duke has been engaged in French Francs on the black market...is something like FF 1.5 billions, and that in the last year or two a profit of something like FF 600 million...Lacazes, who is now in gaol, appears to have been one of the dealers for the Duke...on occasions he [John Masters, a former employee of Barings Bank who was investigating the deals] believes the Duke has done the actual work on the market himself personally...the fact of the Duke's business in the black market is known to Montreal bankers"

Consequently, I have removed "it is claimed". DrKay (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

YUK! Well I do have to accept that this evidence is appears well sourced - and I do know Monckton's closeness to Edward so I won't undo your revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.27.28 (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Arms

This article says Edward's post-abdication arms had a "royal crown proper" on the center point of the label in his arms. The article Duke of Windsor says it was a "royal crown or". In other words, this article says the crown on the center dangling banner should be coloured as in real life, but the other article says it should be gold. The source given in this article appears to support the gold crown assertion. Does anyone have access to a source that gives the correct blazon? I know it's a small point, but the articles should consistent and accurate. -Rrius (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we hedge our bets by replacing "royal crown proper" with "a crown". DrKay (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The current illustration would seem to support "royal crown proper"; but I concur that we should not state what we cannot verify. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

After failing to find conclusive information, I have e-mailed the College of Arms. Henry Bedingfeld (York Herald) replies that the charge is "...an Imperial Crown proper." Mr Bedingfeld also informs me that there is a picture of the arms in Burke's Peerage, but I do not have access to that reference. I will not make any changes as I do not know if this information would be considered a "citation". If any editor would like further info, let me know. Tide rolls (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Section: Later life

I made an edit making numerous changes to the Later life section. I mention it here because it touches on the currency allegations discussed above.

First, there was a clump of three main clauses presented as a list with no obvious connection among them (income tax exemption, currency allegations, and duty-free purchases.

Second, several ideas were jumbled up with no logical flow or connection. I divided them into sentences describing their lifestyle (e.g., they hosted parties) and those related to income (government perks, book royalties, currency shenanigans, etc.).

I also made some minor edits (grammar, usage, punctuation). -Rrius (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Two comments about the changes made after mine:

1. If the currency transactions occurred during the war, they should not be discussed in Later life. If they occurred before the 1950s retirement, that should be explicitly mentioned. Frankly, it seems that if they are to be included at all, they should be discussed in more detail and in their own section or subsection. There is no discussion of the type of transaction or, more importantly, the severity crime. Did he transport too much cash across international borders without filing the appropriate paperwork? Did he trade in banned currency? Were large amounts involved or small?
2. All those things I said are income are, in fact, income. Income is not restricted to cash revenue. It includes discounts (such the reduced rent and special access to duty-free goods), the waiver or payment by another of income tax, and illegal gains (such as gains on illegal currency transactions). In fact, any positive change in the total value of your possessions is income. If other editors believe that using the word income may be confusing, I accept that. I do believe, however, that the paragraph should have a topic sentence to tie it together.

Section: World War II

May need to be substantially reviewed and rewritten. Some documents purporting to support the claim that the Duke being sympathetic to fascism have been proven to be recent forgeries inserted into WW2 era files in the National Archives.[3] 203.7.140.3 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I read Martin Allen's book during the rewrite of the page. I excluded all mentioned to it, as it is clearly a highly bias account relying on dubious documents. They are not used in the article as currently written. DrKay (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See my addition to the Himmler article, with the actions taken by the National Archives. They have put witness statements and forensic reports about the false documents relating to an alleged assassination of Himmler by the SOE on the website. The police have not prosecuted because Allen is too ill, apparently. But How much else in the archives has been doctored?Peterlewis (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of reference No. 73, all the sources used in the "World War II" section were written at least 10 years before Allen's work. Reference 73 does not use documents from the (UK) National Archives and is only used as a reference to the extremely silly rumors about Wallis, which I would hope no one would seriously believe anyway. So I don't think there are any problems in this article. DrKay (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

May I ask whether this issue has moved forward? As I understand it we have charges that were never brought, accusations which were never substantiated, a complete failure to link Allen directly with the undoubted forgeries, an unexplained "tip off" to that well known bastion of truth, the Daily Telegraph and an explanation by Allen which, if (and only if) his book is accurate is wholly believable. I hold no position, either pro or con, but when I see the establishment gathering around with such gusto (bearing in mind their complete disregard of the truth during the Edward VIII scandal itself) my eyebrows tend to rise a little. Allen's description of Blunt is largely borne out by the Blunt biography, as a nasty, cowardly, predatory homosexual, who had young people placed in his care by the very same esablishment when it was well known that he couldn't keep his hands out of a male stundents trousers for more than 10 minutes. (Ring any recent (church) bells?) And yet it is now accepted that he was protected at the highest level. Allen's case is that it was Blunt who was sufficiently under control to be sent to Germany to fillet any records of contact between Hitler and Windsor to avoid even further embarassment to the family. If that is true, and no-one has said it isn't AFAIK merely that there is no proof - what a surprise - then that of itself deserves questions.Drg40 (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Legacy?

I would love to see someone with the knowledge expand the end of the article with a short paragraph discussing his legacy and how the British generally perceive him today. You get bits and pieces from the article, but something more synthesized would be quite useful. Brando130 (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Title

Can I ask on what grounds this man is referred to as King Edward VIII? Unless the Coronation is merely a tourist event, it is on that occasion that the heir apparent is recognised as head of the Church and State and the Lords and Commons together swear allegiance. Until the coronation he/she remains the heir apparent. I draw a parallel in that President Obama did not formally become President until one of the US courts said he was. In the case of David Windsor he was never ever remotely likely to become King, not least because it was extremely unlikely that the Commons would have permitted the Speaker of the House to swear allegiance on their behalf. Indeed it was Stanley Baldwin (then PM) who was instrumental in giving the silly and unpleasant man his marching orders. For those who doubt the supremacy of the Lords and Commons in this matter I refer them to history, particularly, but not only, the selection of William and Mary as joint King and Queen. Although Mary had a some right of succession, William had none. I recognise that in deference to the current Queen and, bearing in mind the great difficulties David caused the Windsor family, we might in kindness gloss over the issues by generally referring to him as Edward VIII for clarity; but the truth is that he never was, and was never likely to be, King.

80.58.205.99 (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes

DrKay disrespectfully self-reverted all my changes. I restored these and will give an explanation here:

1. "there is only one book written by him listed, therefore it is not necessary to disambiguate." - it is necessary because by itself it is not even clear that "The Duke of Windsor" is the author - it could just as well be a book about him. By adding the book title, things are made clear.
2. You are reverted (without explanation) the changes to the bibliography section, which nonsensically places Edward and Wallis under "Windsor".
3. "Pages is abbreviated "pp." not "p."." - Not necessarily. Disambiguation between "pages" and "page" is unnecessary as the numbers speak for themselves.
4. "Fullstops are unnecessary." - Everything must end in a full stop. They are quite necessary.
5. ""Empress Frederick" not "Empress Victoria"" - To speak of her as "the German Empress Victoria" is perfectly acceptable, even if that was not her formal title after her husband's death. Sometimes formal title (e.g. Princess Royal) will be totally misleading.

Str1977 ^(talk) 09:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I deny that the edit was disrespectful. The edit was fully explained in the edit summary. DrKay (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the double full-stops from refs. 9, 14, 15, 17, 20, 23, 24, etc. DrKay (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It was the fact that it was a blanket revert and that the explanations in the edit summary were highly apodictic that made it disrespectful.

Double full stops were not created by me but by employing pointless templates. However, the text contains a few double dots (not actually full stops). These should be corrected (and will) into the typicall "..." for a hiatus. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect as the reference I added from Speer's book is even acknowledged in the next few paragraphs:

Many historians have suggested that Hitler was prepared to reinstate Edward as King in the hope of establishing a fascist Britain.[70] It is widely believed that the Duke (and especially the Duchess) sympathised with fascism before and during World War II, and had to remain in the Bahamas to minimise their opportunities to act on those feelings.

If you are going to remove that quote, then you may as well remove and reedit Edward's World War II section in its entirety. Quoting Hitler directly, which is what Speer does, essentially confirms these suggestions by historians and even Churchill's suspicions that was also noted in this same article, that Hitler did have a use for Edward. In several alternative history novels written by various authors where the Nazis do win the war, Edward is the King of England. Eman007 ^(talk) 09:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I introduced that material, so you pointing it out to me is somewhat redundant.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] The quote from Speer confirms that Hitler thought that had Edward been King instead of George VI before the war his conquest of Europe would have been easier, not that he's going to reinstate him. The supposition that Hitler plotted to restore Edward comes from authors writing after Speer's death, such as Michael Bloch (see Operation Willi#Further reading) and (the now utterly discredited) Martin Allen (see Talk:Edward VIII/Archive 1#Section: World War II). This article is about real history not the alternative kind. DrKay (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

For starters, I never said anything about, nor did Speer apparently say anything either, about Hitler reinstating Edward VII had he conquered the UK. I said and I quote: Hitler had pinned his future relations with Britain on Edward. Which is true. You are incorrect about Hitler & Edward. Hitler wanted Edward VIII on the throne so it would have not only made conquering Britain and the world much easier, but forming an alliance with the UK which is something Hitler actually preferred than fighting Britain as he admired the British Empire. This is well known and not alternative history.

Quoting Speer who quotes Hitler, in the page right before the quote about Edward's abdication:

"Hitler was pacing back and forth in the garden at Obersalzberg. "I really don't know what I should do. It is a terribly difficult decision. I would by far prefer to join the English. But how often in history the English have proved perfidious. If I go with them, then everything is over for good between the Italy and us.""

And again later on that page:

"The decision must be taken in terms of the long view, he said. He spoke of his readiness to guarantee England's empire in return for a global arrangement-a favorite idea of his, which he was to voice often."

And the whole quote in addition to what I had posted.

"Whereupon he would launch into remarks about sinister anti-German forces who were deciding the course of British policy. His regret at not having made an ally out of England ran like a red thread though all the years of his rule. It increased when the Duke of Windsor and his wife visited Hitler at Obersalzerg on October 22, 1937, and allegedly had good words to say about the achievements of the Third Reich."

So, it doesn't make sense to put in: "Hitler considered Edward to be friendly towards Nazi Germany, saying "His abdication was a severe loss for us."[62]" (and yes I must point it out to you to make you understand) and essentially paraphrase what it seems to be is your point of view, rather than to put in the entire quote which is all I did and shore up and make sense the latter half of this article, as well as the general consensus made by historians that Hitler did in fact intend to use Edward as a puppet monarch, or at least had he stayed King, used him to sway over the UK under his control and not reinstate him which is what you claim and speculate later in the article. Eman007 ^(talk) 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how or why you think I'm trying to impose my "point of view", or that I am "incorrect about Hitler & Edward". Please expand on exactly which of my comments is wrong, and exactly how I am trying to impose a viewpoint which is my own personal interpretation.

I'm confused because your comments here are apparently contradictory:

You agree with me that Hitler did consider Edward to be friendly towards Germany, but then you say that my comment "Hitler considered Edward to be friendly towards Nazi Germany" "doesn't make sense".

You say "Many historians have suggested that Hitler was prepared to reinstate Edward as King in the hope of establishing a fascist Britain...Speer...essentially confirms these suggestions by historians" but then you say "I never said anything about, nor did Speer apparently say anything either, about Hitler reinstating Edward".

If the insertion of the comments mislead me into thinking something that is untrue then a less informed reader will almost certainly make the same mistake. Hence, the need to rephrase to avoid such misunderstandings. DrKay (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC) DrKay (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

the introduction to the article says "Edward VIII (Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David; later The Duke of Windsor; 23 June 1894 – 28 May 1972) was King of the United Kingdom and the British dominions, and Emperor of India from 20 January 1936 until his abdication on 11 December 1936." it repeats the date "1936" and I doubt he started his reign as emperor lasted only a year, if this is the case, at least specify the months in between which this happened--Angry Mushi 02:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Mushi (talk • contribs)

Honorary military ranks

It seems rather unlikely that Edward was promoted from the naval rank of lieutenant to captain in 1919 unless it was an honorary promotion. Likewise, his promotion in 1939 to major-general. The "military" sub-section in the "Titles, styles, honours and arms" section implies otherwise. Greenshed (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the British Royalty style guide, I think the honorary military section should be for things like Honorary Colonelcies of regiments. So, I've moved the substantive ranks to a single section. DrKay (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It still seems odd that he dropped three ranks in going from field marshal in 1936 to major-general in 1939. Generally, British field marshals retain the rank for life. Greenshed (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He was a Field Marshall, Admiral of the Fleet etc ex officio because, as King, he was commander in chief of the armed forces and as such held the highest possible rank in each service. Once he ceased being King then his rank (presumably) reverted to whatever rank he held prior to 1936 or (more likely) he ceased to hold any rank whatsoever until granted one by George VI 86.128.82.79 (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. Does abdication as Monarch expunge all previous honours, held before accession? Would he have been entitled to wear the medals he held in his own right from his WWI service, post-abdication? Field Marshalcy and Fleet Admiralty are indeed for life in every other circumstance - and those titles are only granted 'ex-officio' of certain military assignments and positions - yet undoubtedly persist thereafter unless specifically revoked. This probably falls under the theory that the British Constitution only means what people can get away with, and if he didn't wear the rank, it's possible that he 'abandoned' it or somesuch sophistry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CR1670 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is true that he reverted to his previous rank, why did he not become an admiral, general and air chief marshal, which were the ranks he held before he became king? Greenshed (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

His seniority in rank at that stage would have reflected his position as 1st in line to the throne. Post-abdication he was merely a Royal Duke and a much lower-ranking royal than the Prince of Wales. 195.200.159.2 (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

King of Great Britain, Ireland - inappropriate wiki links

I know this was touched on before, so sorry if I repeat stuff, or misunderstand things. I think one has to distinguish how titles are written, and what political entitles one actually has authority over.

Regardless of how his titles were written, I understand Edward VIII literally was the king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not the king of Ireland. It is only ok to use the text "King of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, and Emperor of India" *if* we keep it in quotes, and do NOT wiki link the parts. I think it's technically wrong and misleading to link to Ireland (in this context) as this implies we're saying he was King of Ireland. The link to Great Britain sends the reader to an article, which shows Great Britain is (since 1801) just a geographical component of a larger political entity (note the infobox doesn't identify the current monarch). I understand we're using certain text to match what was written on official documents, but if we don't put text in quotes, we're stating it as fact, inappropriately.

To make an analogy, George W. Bush is "President of the United States of America", but he is not President of the United States of America. --Rob (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He was King of Ireland. Ireland didn't become a Republic until after World War II. DrKay (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry, and thanks. --Rob (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

His title (for all his realms including Ireland) was "of Greatbritain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Emperor of India, Defender of the Faith". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"various prime ministers"

What does this mean? He had only 1 PM, Baldwin. 10:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, he had six: Baldwin plus the Prime Ministers of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Ireland. DrKay (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference may be clear to folks in Britain, but I, too, was taken aback by "various Prime Ministers". I understand what was meant -- now that it has been explained -- but I believe the average reader may better understand if the language was modified to something like "prime ministers of his various dominions"

Crystal Palace

No connection beyond the timing, but The Crystal Palace burnt down less than two weeks before the abdication. (Factoid for quiz-setters) Jackiespeel (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth

I found "making him the only monarch of Britain, and indeed any Commonwealth Realm, to have voluntarily relinquished the throne". Has there ever been a monarch of a commonwealth realm who was not also monarch of Britain? If not is the second part of this sentence really necessary? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that couldn't happen because the monarchy is shared between those countries. In that sense (and in that sense only) the crown is still indivisible. The title for every commonwealth realm is Of X, and all other realms King (or Queen). That can only apply to one person at the time.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It technically could happen; there's nothing to bind any one realm to have the same monarch as any other except for voluntary adherance to an agreed upon convention that was only ever written out in the preamble of the Statute of Westminster. Thus, because Ireland didn't pass its abdication act at the same time as the other countries, Edward VIII was, for 24 hours, King of Ireland while his brother was King of all the other realms.

If all the realms shared Edward as king, doesn't that make the first part of the sentence redundant? --G2bambino (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If that happened the realm involved would stop being a commonwealth realm I think. The new King of that realm could not be "of X and all the other realms and territories King". The reference to the other realms would have to go. Also, if Edward VIII was King in Ireland still after he ceased to be King in Britain and the other dominions, there would have been two people that day bearing the title "Of GB, Ireland and the British dominions beyond the seas, King". Since that was the title for Ireland as well at the time.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right that once a realm ended up with a different monarch to the others they would cease to be a Commonwealth realm. But, in the case of Edward VIII they, except for Ireland for a very short period, didn't end up with different sovereigns; Edward abdicated in all his realms, and so, thus, became the first to do so in each country. I figured that Britain was separated out in this instance because the history of its monarchy is so much more lengthy than the others. --G2bambino (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Irish law was made valid retroactively. The notion of two seperate monarchs for different realms or dominions did and does not exist. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What about rulers of the Indian princely states and the Kabaka of Buganda? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth realms refers specifically to states within the Commonwealth which share the same monarch as the United Kingdom, such as Canada and Australia, rather than states within the Commonwealth with separate monarchies, such as Malaysia and Lesotho. DrKay (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of throat cancer?

I was going through fixing links to disambiguation pages, here, and ran across a link to the disambiguation page throat cancer. Although I was semi-suprised to find that as a disambiguation page, it can apparently refer to either Esophageal cancer or the more general Head and neck cancer. Do we happen to know which link would be more appropriate? -- Natalya 21:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would not have considered it esophageal cancer (unless it was actually present) because his throat cancer was attributed to the heavy smoking during his lifetime by medical writers following his death. Esophageal cancer is not a disease of the respiratory system, although it has been present in people who were heavy smokers (eg John Thaw).Cloptonson (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand

and New Zealand, having never even heard of Mrs. Simpson before, vacillated in disbelief from the 07.08.08. The meaning of this phrase is not unclear, however it sounds rather amusing to my ear. "New Zealand" is of course meant to stand for '"His Majesties Government in New Zealand" but this brings to mind the image of an entire bewildered country staggering in the light of Wallis Simpson. --Francis Burdett (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Would New Zealanders not have been reading about Wallis Simpson in the newspapers just like the people in England? 86.166.25.149 (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Only after the news broke in early December. DrKay (talk) 06:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that in Britain news of the developing situation was largely kept out of the papers by agreement with the proprietors, so ordinary people didn't know much about it until almost the 11th hour. (It was an open secret among the upper crust, though, but the two circles didn't intersect.) So it wouldn't be surprising that far-flung corners of the Empire such as Australia and New Zealand were kept in the dark for a long time. No such restrictions applied to US papers, and they all knew what was going on long before many parts of the Empire knew. Over and above all this, I'd be surprised if His Majesty's (not Majesties, btw) governments weren't apprised of developments that never made it to the local newspapers. Hence, if anyone in NZ was "vacillating in disbelief" (whatever that's supposed to mean), it would have been ordinary NZ citizens, not members of the NZ government. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bradford p.187 says: "[New Zealand] havered on the brink on condemnation, their Premier never having heard of Mrs Simpson."

Broad p.178 says: "When the news broke the people had not so much as heard of Mrs. Simpson—an ignorance they shared with Bishop Blunt and Mr. Savage, the New Zealand Prime Minister." DrKay (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I live in NZ, so if you'd like i'll ask my 95 year old grandmother whether the NZ public had prior knowledge of the situation as was the case in the U.S. My grandmother was 21 when this all happened. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Arms

A few months ago there was a discussion concerning the blazon of the charge on the label of the arms. I have found an online source that describes the charge. Since the article is FA and I am a new user, I am posting here before I edit in case discussion is desired. If anyone wants to check the reference Flags of the Royal Family,United Kingdom

sorry... i didn't sign the above Tide rolls (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where this source says whether the crown is gold or proper, but I think Burke's as a source for the latter is fine (you mentioned it in the prior discussion). So if your edit will be to say "proper", I say go for it. -Rrius (talk) 06:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

After executing the edit I went to my source to copy and paste the relevant text here,but could not locate it. In putting the cart before the horse I have mis-referenced the change. I am working on finding the proper link now :o\ Tide rolls (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It was there..I missed it in my panic and haste: "In the 1950 Book of Flags Campbell and Evans wrote, 'On the centre point of the [Duke of Windsor's] label is now an Imperial Crown in token of his former rank as King Edward VIII; it appears on the Royal Arms, for he has not yet been granted a flag.' This is repeated in the 1969 edition, only three years before he died." Tide rolls (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Edward knew, re fall of Baldwin government

Point well taken, re revert of my last; (I have not read the source). But, I was guided by this fact: it is already reported in the article that Edward knew of the huge implications --including the likely fall of the Baldwin government-- if he married without abdicating first. I think it valuable to recapitulate --in three words-- the fact here; i.e., to record this knowledge was part of his final deliberations and decision-making.--Jbeans (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Senile" reference in Later Life section

Near the end of the Later Life section, there's a sentence that begins, "Increasingly senile and frail, the Duchess died 14 years later..." This use of the word "senile" is rarely used anymore (at least in the United States), because it inaccurately, and to many people offensively, implies a close or causative relationship between age and dementia. "Senile" has largely been replaced (in the U.S.) with the word "demented". I would have liked to replace the word "senile" with the word "demented" in this section, but I see that the page is semi-protected. Also, I've been informed that in England, the word "demented" is not used this way. In any case, since there seems to be so much controversy over the historical character involved, maybe a blander word or phrase would fit better here. "Confused" would work, wouldn't it? Or maybe someone else has a better suggestion. At any rate, I strongly suggest removing the offensive word "senile". Sylvia A (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. In the UK and elsewhere in the anglophone world "demented" is as touchy as you say "senile" now is in the USA, notwithstanding clinical use of the term "dementia." "Demented" in international English -- surely this is also the case in US English is it not? -- has mildly droll connotations which it would be inappropriate to import here. The Duchess, as is amply documented, in a vegetative state in her latter years; in common use "demented" surely suggests lunacy rather than senility, and the latter is more accurate. Masalai (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Do verifiable sources exist for any of these terms in reference to the Duchess? Tide rolls (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Masalai, I do get that we can't use "demented" since it has comical and insulting connotations in some places. However, I don't agree that "senile" is more accurate. The word does not refer to any actual specific disorder. It's a vague term often used to mean one of several dementias, none of which is actually caused - as the term implies - by age. If the Duchess was in a vegetative state, surely "senile" isn't the most apt word for this. If she was, in fact, demented or "senile", and if there are reliable sources for this, they won't use the word "senile", they'll surely use a more meaningful and accurate term. If there are not reliable sources for it, can't we just remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviaa (talk • contribs) 07:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the article is FA shouldn't we consider properly sourcing any changes? Tide rolls (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Since both "senile" and "demented" have pejorative meanings, I've changed it to the more clinical "senile dementia" PhysicsR (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Title

Sorry to go back to basics, but:

Can I ask on what grounds this man is referred to as King Edward VIII? Unless the Coronation is merely a tourist event, it is on that occasion that the heir apparent is recognised as head of the Church and State and the Lords and Commons together swear allegiance. Until the coronation he/she remains the heir apparent. I draw a parallel in that President Obama did not formally become President until one of the US courts said he was. In the case of David Windsor he was never ever remotely likely to become King, not least because it was extremely unlikely that the Commons would have permitted the Speaker of the House to swear allegiance on their behalf. Indeed it was Stanley Baldwin (then PM) who was instrumental in giving the silly and unpleasant man his marching orders. For those who doubt the supremacy of the Lords and Commons in this matter I refer them to history, particularly, but not only, the selection of William and Mary as joint King and Queen. Although Mary had a some right of succession, William had none. I recognise that in deference to the current Queen and, bearing in mind the great difficulties David caused the Windsor family, we might in kindness gloss over the issues by generally referring to him as Edward VIII for clarity; but the truth is that he never was, and was never likely to be, King.

Drg40 (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

He became king immediately on the death of his father. Hence, "The (old) king is dead. Long live the (new) king!". DrKay (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but, that speech is made by Garter King of Arms (?) very soon after the death of the monarch, and certainly without the formal authority of the various organs of state. It might seem terrific, but it merely records the continuity of the monarchy, not necessarily at the individual level. In other words a great piece of typically British theatre. If you don't believe in the "King by divine right" (and I'm afraid I don't), but rather that the monarchy is a most convenient and effective way of selecting someone in whom the separation of powers is vested, then he wasn't King. Remember we fought a civil war because the Charles I thought he had divine rights - amongst other reasons. I am aware that he (David) had some strange view that he was King by God's hand and also believed that some of the roles of the democratically elected government should no longer be discharged by those elected but returned to the Monarch (the determination of Foreign Policy, for example). One suspects this, he hoped, would enable a rapprochment with Herr Hitler. But just because he wished it so, doesn't make it right. After all, although the media of the time worshipped him and so, as a result did most of the British people, it's difficult to get round the fact that many people who knew him well (including particularly his mother and father) thought him to be a deeply unpleasant man. As I read it it was only sycophants like Mountbatten who poured all this nonsense into his head (whilst participating and encouraging him in his sexual extravaganzas) who were responsible for egging this feeble man on. He wasn't ever going to be King until they poured oil over him, pushed orb and sceptre into his hands, clapped a crown on his head and bowed (or curtsied) low. And we didn't. Drg40 (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The succession is governed by statutes laid down by Parliament. By law, the heir becomes monarch on the death of the incumbent. This did not happen in 1649 because Parliament passed a new law (since revoked), making it unlawful. DrKay (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for your help. I have a feeling that matter will be tested sorely in the not too distant future, but perhaps we shall have to wait and see. 80.58.205.99 (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Dr Kay is dead right about this. Edward became king at the moment of George V's death, by law. The coronation is essentially a side show, having no bearing whatsoever on whether the person is king or not. Edward VIII was never crowned at all, but he was most definitely a king. There are other pieces of ritual, but all they do is confirn what has already happened. The government of the day could decide that the new monarch is not suitable, but if they wanted him to be no longer king, they'd have to introduce a law to have him deemed no longer king, but that would be subject to the wishes of the parliament. The government does not decide who is king or not, the law does, and the parliament is the body that has sole right to change the law. If such a law were passed, the person would have been king from the moment of the previous king's death until the law was passed. If Edward VIII had not been king to begin with, the entire question of abdication could not possibly have arisen. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify a couple of minor points to which JackofOz alludes to.

1) Quite right the Heir Apparent or Heir Presumptive immediately becomes Sovereign at the death of the previous Sovereign. If Officers of State and the Heir Apparent/Presumptive are present at the moment of death all bow to the new Sovereign and the hand is kissed in sign of fealty. 2) An Accession Council is immediately convened in which the new Sovereign is acknowledged and the new title of the Sovereign is announced first in the public square of St James's Palace. This Accession Council is made up of the principle members of the Privy Council (senior members of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, and senior members of the Royal Family). Parliament as a body HAS NO SAY WHATSOEVER IN THIS ACCESSION COUNCIL. However, if there are any questions to the suitability of the new Sovereign, this is the Forum where any issues may be discussed. The Accession Council has the authority, if it deems necessary, to block the accession of the Sovereign and pass the Crown to whovever it feels is fit to govern. The Accession Council must meet, agree to the Accession of the new Sovereign, and declare the new Sovereign at the Courtyard of St James's Palace, within three days of the death of the previous Sovereign. 3) The new Sovereign, although Monarch, may not wear the Royal Regalia until they are actually crowned. So at the State Opening of Parliament, if the Sovereign has not been formally crowned, they may not wear the Imperial State Crown. Edward VIII duly did not wear the Crown at the State Opening in November 1936: instead he wore a uniform of the Admiral of the Fleet, and carried an Admiral's hat with him into the Chamber of the House of Lords. 4) There are only two instances in English and British history where the Sovereign has not been crowned: King Edward V (1483) and King Edward VIII (1936).Ds1994 (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of what has been discussed in this thread is beside the point. What is relevant to specific constitutional issues is not relevant to naming practices. See my post below 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia articles were meant to use the subject's most recent title upon death which would have been Edward, Duke of Windsor. So it seems sensible that the article should have that emboldened first and then say ruled as King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom etc from Jan-Dec 1936. 92.26.137.49 (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is titled according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Sovereigns #7. We usually start with the most important thing about a person, which in this case I would say is being a King-Emperor. DrKay (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh you raise an interesting point. Was him being King and Emperor the most important thing about him. Surely if you ask anyone about Edward VIII the most important thing they would remember was his abdication and secondly the fact that there is evidence to suggest he was a Nazi Sympathiser when he was known as Duke of Windsor. I'm not going to change the article again but it's food for thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.137.49 (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

He should not be referred to as Edward the VIII as he was never crowned. Once a monarch abdicates he is only known by his monarchical title if he was crowned. This is why the current uncrowned heads of the previous ruling European houses are known as - say - Prince of Prussia, rather than German Emperor & King of Prussia - as just one example. Had Edward been crowned he wouldn't have been Duke of Windsor after he abdicated, he'd have remained Edward VIII in the same way Constantine II of Greece and Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg have. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Constantine never abdicated so people still refer to him as King (even if the Greek govt doesn't recognise this). Grand Duke Jean was given this title after abdication. Other former monarchs lose their title upon abdication and are given new ones, i.e. HRH The Duke of Windsor, HRH Princess Juliana of the Netherlands, etc. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether he was crowned or not doesn't come into it. People who have never been monarchs (like the Prince of Prussia) are obviously not called King or Emperor but that is an unrelated issue. In some monarchies abdicated monarchs keep their title (they don't get it after abdication) and in some monarchies they don't. There's no rule of thumb in these matters. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Cause of his abdication

For me,the cause of his abdication remains a mistery.The will to marry Wallis Simpson doesn't explains nothing to me.The English law doesn't had or has nothing against or about a king to marry, with a divorceé.English law is only against the king to marry with a catholic.Prince Charles now is married with a divorceé, Camilla Parker Bowles, without no problems.Well, we aren't living in 1930 decade, but I don't know why he abdicated.i readin many sites that he abdicated, because he was a nazist and when this was discovered, he chose to abdicate to be forgived.Agre22 (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

I am not an expert on this, but it seems to me that the article Edward VIII abdication crisis answers these points. There were certainly religious, legal and moral points argued, but in the end Edward abdicated by his own decision, and none of the legal arguments were put to the test. The case of Prince Charles, though it has parallels, is different, in particular because he already has heirs; and it has been resolved differently by the agreement that the Duchess of Cornwall will not become queen. --ColinFine (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

...except that she will become queen. She will become queen at the moment of her mother-in-law's death, just like she became Princess of Wales at the moment she married the Prince of Wales. She can choose to be styled Princess Consort, but will be queen consort nonetheless. Surtsicna (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a few sentences and a reference to a Time Magazine cover story published in 1929. Edward was still only age 34, but the article was already speculating about the possibility that he might abdicate. Forthermore they were re-printing rumours that he himself had already discussed his desire not to be king. This article was published almost 7 years before his father died. It is an important part of the story. The abdication crisis was not really an unexpected event but was probably developing for about a decade. I thought it went well with the earlier sentence that his father hoped that he wouldn't marry and have children. Please do not delete without coming to the talk page.Pacomartin (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not verifiable, but it's long been asserted that the Wallis mess was just an excuse: that one or more of the U.S. and U.K. intelligence agencies had solid proof that Eddy was not merely a defeatist and a layabout, but a genuine Nazi sympathizer (Wallis, too, in some versions) to such an extent that parliamentary government was not deemed safe with him on the throne. As the tale is told, he was confronted with said proof and took the easy way out, becoming the world's richest remittance man, safely sequestered where he could never become head of a fascist puppet state and with patriotic guards who knew their duty if the need arose. You'll find all sorts of stuff on the Internet about this theory, pro and con. Nobody seems to deny that he found Hitler sympatico on their visit to him; the question is rather how anti-democratic he was, and whether that was actually the reason for his departure from office. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As always, what we rely on here are verifiable facts in reliable sources.Jeppiz (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly concur; but it's no secret that the belief exists and is taken for fact in many circles. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It is generally accepted now that King Edward VIII was forced to abdicate by the government because he had made it known on several occasions that he was not prepared to act as a constitutional monarch, and would interfere in politics if he felt it was in the country's best interests. (92.10.25.106 (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

But 'generally accepted' is not accepted on Wikipedia. WP:RS. --ColinFine (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is no doubt at all that it was because of his refusal to be the kind of monarch the government wanted and that the Mrs Simpson thing was merely a sideshow. Had his father died in November 1928 then Edward would still have been forced to abdicate. (92.10.25.106 (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

There you go again. You may very well be right. On the other hand, you may be putting forward a very controversial and marginal view. Without sources, we can't tell. This is a talk page, so the requirement that everything be sourced does not hold in quite the same way; but making bald unsupported claims does not really advance the discussion. --ColinFine (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Some, like Alan Lascelles and Alan Hardinge, and apparently even George VI himself, believed that Edward had never wanted to be king anyway. Churchill however noted during World War II that it would have been impossible for Edward VIII to remain the monarch, given his pro-German and pro-appeasement views. (92.11.214.41 (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

"Interesting" points but you never mention your sources - simply name-dropping was not enough - you needed to cite the published work of these persons (hopefully with page number) for this to have been considered. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Irish Free State

Hey that's an interesting note, Edward VIII's abdication taking effect December 12. For a few hours, the brothers were concurrently Kings. George VI of the UK, Edward VII of the IFS. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Evidence that the UK had relinquished all legal control over the Dominions by that point in time; Canada even passed its own act of parliament for Edward's abdication as King of Canada (parliament wasn't in session in late 1936). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a tricky technicality here, though. The Statute of Westminster calls for the consent of all Commonwealth Dominions, plus the U.K., to effect a change in the line of succession. Until the consent of the Irish Free State on the 12th of December, that requirement wasn't met. Since the Statute of Westminster was a constitutional document throughout the then-existing Dominions and the U.K., and superseded statute law, there's an argument to be made that the individual acts of succession were of no effect until the relevant parliaments had each approved the change (to meet the constitutional requirement). That would mean that despite the de facto recognition of abdication on the 11th in most of the Commonwealth, the abdication took effect (de jure) on the 12th.

In Canada at least, the Ontario Superior Court and Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the relevant portion of the Statute of Westminster was part of the Constitution and therefore sufficient to prevent a court challenge (on other Constitutional grounds) from changing the line of succession without unanimous consent of the other Commonwealth parliaments. (See O’Donohue v. Canada, in which the judge discussed this abdication in his decision preventing a constitutional challenge of the Act of Settlement.)

There's actually a separate question of whether it is necessary to secure the assent of every parliament as a whole (through statutes), or just of the cabinets (through orders-in-council); the Statute of Westminster would seem to imply the consent of each parliament is required. Accordingly, Canada and South Africa immediately issued orders-in-council, and later followed up with statutes. If the acts were necessary, then for a period in 1936–1937, Edward was still the King of Canada (and arguably the entire Commonwealth) until retroactively dethroned by the act ratifying the order-in-council that acknowledged his abdication as of December 11th.

Of course, it seems that nobody formally expressed any concern about procedural irregularities, and it was therefore assumed that the abdication was effective immediately in each realm.

That's all obviously original research, and isn't going to go in the article—so don't worry about that. As far as Wikipedia goes, that sentence about having two different kings for a day isn't attributed to any source (it just cites the Irish act). Finding a source for this would meet the basic burden of verifiability (in contrast to truth), but wouldn't necessarily confirm or repudiate the constitutional questions I summarized above. Finding one that actually discusses those constitutional technicalities would be a far better solution. In the mean time, I'm going to remove that fact from the article, as unreferenced and too simplistic an explanation (dealing with only the Irish question, rather than the Canadian and South African ones). TheFeds 01:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no way in which Edward could have been King of Ireland or Canada without simultaniously being King of the UK as well. The titles for all realms were at the time, King of GB, Ireland and the British Dominions (now the style for every Realm is, King of realm X and all his other realms). The notion of a King of Canada or Ireland seperate from being King of the Uk did and does not exist. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

I'll restrain from requesting protection, if the edit spats have ended. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Watching his proclamation

He watched it from his bedroom window in Marlborough House which was his home at the time. From that window he would have had an excellent view of the balcony at St James's Palace where the proclamation takes place. He would not have had anything like such a good view from any window of St James's Palace (where incidentally he was not living). If he had asked to go into St James's Palace it would have caused all sorts of furore, given it wasn't protocol for him to be doing this at all - and he was supposed to be in mourning. I was first told that he viewed it from his window in Marlborough House by a curator on a visit to Marlborough House organised for London Blue Badge Guides. And of course it makes perfect sense. There is some footage of him and Wallace watching a bit furtively from a little back from the window, which was shown in Andrew Marr's History of Britain programme on 25 November - and it's OBVIOUSLY architecturally Marlborough House. So could you either believe me and stop changing it back, or view the footage (probably still available on i-player), or consult curator at Marlborough House, and please stop changing it back. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizduparcq (talk • contribs)

The reference given in the article, the Duke of Windsor's memoirs, says explicitly on p.265: "I arranged...to watch the first ceremony from a room in St. James's that provided a good view of the proceedings". The Duke's recollection of where he viewed the ceremony from is a more reliable source than your original research from watching the footage. With regard to the lack of protocol, that is exactly the point. What he did was unprecedented, and was considered quite astonishing to the court at the time, though it seems very mundane to us now. DrKay (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

But does it say in his memoirs 'a room in St James's Palace'? St James's is the area in which both St James's Palace and Marlborough House are located. Maybe he didn't want to be too specific about exactly which room he watched it from. The very clear film footage is NOT my only source. The curator of Marlborough House who showed me and other Blue Badge Guide colleagues round on 15 February 2000 was at great pains to point out exactly where he watched it from. And it is only from Marlborough House that a good view would be possible. And that's where he lived. It simply wouldn't have been possible from St James's Palace with its different design of windows for him to see it without craning out of the window, which he certainly wasn't doing in the footage shown on Andrew Marr's programme last week. And how would he and Wallace have got into St James's Palace when it was so contrary to Royal Protocol? And yes I did of course understand the issue of Royal Protocol before I commented on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizduparcq (talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already tried to explain to you that you need to provide a reliable source. What you've provided so far is just hearsay. The fact that you cannot even spell Wallis's name correctly indicates to me that your professed expertise is not as great as you suppose it to be.

Marlborough House is directly opposite St. James's on the other side of Marlborough Road. If you were looking at St. James's from a window in Marlborough House into Friary Court (where the proclamation is read) you would be looking straight ahead. Looking at the footage, Wallis and the shadowy figure who is supposed to be Edward are craning their necks to look directly to their left. So, if they were in Marlborough House, they'd be looking away from the palace, balcony and proclamation towards the park.

I think they're probably in the south wing of Friary Court, looking to their left towards the balcony.

However, in the interests of communal editing, I shall simply remove all mention of the building. DrKay (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being so polite. I hadn't been able for a while to go and check again exactly what all these windows look like, but you will be pleased to read I did so today. The St James's Palace windows along the south side of Friary Court are all quite small casements so these are definitely not the windows from which Edward and Wallis watched. The only sashes are very large ones BEHIND the balcony on the west side. So it's clear that the window was not in St James's Palace. The Marlborough House windows are exactly right and indeed the only possible ones I'm afraid. We can't tell exactly at what stage in the proceedings Edward and Wallis craned to look at something to their left, or what they were looking at, but it could of course have been a guards band striking up, or the gun salute that follows the proclamation (I haven't been able to find out where a proclamation gun salute is fired - Hyde Park as for e.g. birthdays, Green Park as for e.g. Birthday Parade and State Opening, or conceivably St James's Park), or they could simply have been doing what people at big events do all the time - just look where everyone else suddenly looks. The only other clue was that I think the rather bad clip used in the Andrew Marr programme showed a lot of creeper around the window in question. Of course none of these palaces along The Mall have creeper on them now, but it is hard to see how St James's Palace could ever have had creeper around the windows facing on to Friary Court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.101.97 (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Above was Liz du Parcq again - sorry I was having some Explorer crash problems! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lduparcq (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've restored St James's because from the direction of gaze, the eyewitness account of the Duke and the shape of the window casement and panes, it is clear that the window is the southernmost window on the balcony (with the proclamation being read from immediately in front of the middle window). Compare window far left on Friary Court balcony with Edward stood at the window. Note also the existence of creeper on St James's Palace prior to WWII: [14]. Note that the window cannot be in Marlborough House, because all the windows in Marlborough House are three panes of glass wide (see the front facing Friary Court at File:Marlborough_House_London_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1125749.jpg), whereas the window in which they stood clearly has at least four. DrKay (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 12:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the current RM discussion (which is now at the location linked above as the previous one has been archived) does not affect this page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 12:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

jpg vs png

The investiture medal was redone by the Graphics Lab per MOS on opaque backgrounds. Further the black background was splotchy, uneven and unencyclopedic. "Aesthetically, I prefer..." is not a reason to favor the jpg.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything in the MOS about opaque backgrounds, but the image use policy does say to use jpg formats for photos. png format is for screenshots. You may wish also to read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: if someone reverts your edit, don't revert the revert: discuss. DrKay (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Visit to Chile, 1925?

The article doesn't mention his visit to Chile. In September 1925, the Chilean President Arturo Alessandri received Edward onboard the dreadnought Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre. The visit briefly quelled domestic unrest, and it marked the beginning of negotiations for a British naval mission, which arrived in the following year. pp.393–394.

• Somervell, Philip. "Naval Affairs in Chilean Politics, 1910–1932." Journal of Latin American Studies 16: no. 2 (1984), 381–402. JSTOR 157427. ISSN 1469-767X. OCLC 47076058. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

His extensive overseas tours are covered by Throughout the 1920s Edward, as Prince of Wales, represented his father, King George V, at home and abroad on many occasions. He made dozens of visits. His biographers do not treat the Chilean one as special, and I think long lists of places he visited should be avoided. DrKay (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A chronology of where he was when would be a useful table, though. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Parentage details

His father was the second son of The Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) and The Princess of Wales (formerly Princess Alexandra of Denmark).

• Isn't this a little too over-detailed? I appreciate the point is that Edward VII was not yet a king and Alexandra not yet a queen at the times of either George V's birth or even Edward VIII's birth. But for the purposes of simply saying who George V's parents were, could we not simplify it to:

  His father was the second son of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Because it allows more links to articles where the titles are explained and because it gives their positions at both birth and later, I prefer "He was the eldest son of the Duke and Duchess of York (later King George V and Queen Mary). The Duke was the second son of the Prince and Princess of Wales (later King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra), and the Duchess was the eldest daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Teck, Francis and Mary Adelaide." DrKay (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, but having said who his parents were, why do we need to go any further back at all? Or to rephrase it, why stop at Edward VII? Why not Victoria, William IV ........? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I assumed the descent from Victoria was detailed to explain why his name was His Highness Prince Edward of York at birth and not His Royal Highness or Earl of Inverness. DrKay (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That is an abstruse matter that the general mass of readers could not be expected to grasp. If the entitlement to a particular style is what we're trying to get across, we should come right out and say it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Well how about: "Edward VIII was born on 23 June 1894 at White Lodge in Richmond, England, during the reign of his great-grandmother Queen Victoria. He was the eldest son of the Duke and Duchess of York (later King George V and Queen Mary), and was third in the line of succession to the throne after his father and grandfather Albert Edward, Prince of Wales (later Edward VII). As a great-grandson of the monarch in the male line, Edward was styled His Highness Prince Edward of York at birth." DrKay (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Major-General 1939

Can someone provide an official source for his appointment as a Major-General in 1939? I can't find any mention of it in the London Gazette, so to say he was "gazetted" a Major-General seems to be wrong. Opera hat (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Too searched Gazette but couldn't find it. It's in ODNB. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by Pirus12345

Pirus12345 has been attempting to insert bogus information into the article. His edit falsely claims, among other things, that Alan Lascelles' Daily Mail article claims that Edward had affairs with married men, not women, and that Freda Dudley Ward was half-Jamaican, not half-American. Ylee (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone is vandalizing this page, I know for a fact that this

His attitudes towards many of the Empire's subjects and various foreign peoples, both during his time as Prince of Wales and later as Duke of Windsor, were little commented upon in their time but have soured his reputation subsequently.[20] He said of Indigenous Australians: "they are the most revolting form of living creatures I've ever seen!! They are the lowest known form of human beings & are the nearest thing to monkeys."[21]

seems very odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.20.127 (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability not truth: the reference (reference [21] at time of posting) checks out. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Last Indian emperor/Irish king throughout reign

I think the introduction should mention that Edward VIII was the last British monarch to serve his entire reign as Emperor of India and King of Ireland. It is a significant point, as people often look back at his reign as the last time when Britain seemed like a great world power. (92.10.130.1 (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC))

It isn't mentioned in the biographies, so it is not an appropriate point for the introduction, which should only cover the main points covered by the major sources. DrKay (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is like describing Louis XV as last King of France under the ancient regime; George VI held both titles as well as ever his brother did; he was the last. (And any discussion of the Kingdom of Ireland in 1937 really must acknowledge the attitude of the Free State.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Source question

"They hosted parties and shuttled between Paris and New York; many of those who met the Windsors socially, including Gore Vidal, reported on the vacuity of the Duke's conversation." The only source for this is Vidal himself, so I'm not sure how you can say "many of those" when the source just refers to one guy's opinion. Keep in mind I don't know anything about this guy but it seems more sources would be needed to imply a lot of people thought that. AaronY (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Changed [15]. DrKay (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. (Message added manually; RM bot seems not to be working.)--Kotniski (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Duplicated information

I might be wrong but information seems to be duplicated in Duke of Windsor. Is there any point in having both articles? 109.158.120.149 (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is about an individual, Duke of Windsor is about the title. As the title was created for the individual under very unique circumstances, some overlap is unavoidable. A case might be made that Duke of Windsor could be pared a bit but that discussion should take place at Talk:Duke of Windsor. Just my two cents. Tiderolls 05:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Bachelorhood

The phrase (introductory paragraphs) that he remained unmarried until "his accession" is surely inaccurate, as in fact he was unmarried until after his short reign. I will rephrase the statement accordingly.Cloptonson (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

What would the name on his passport have been?

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.150.22 (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I doubt he had one, but his legal name after the abdication was, briefly, HRH The Prince Edward and thereafter HRH The Duke of Windsor. P M C 11:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

While he was King, he would not have had a passport. The current Queen, Elizabeth II does not possess a passport either. In fact she does not have a driving licence either even though she drives because it is she that has the privelege of driving. That I possess a licence to drive is in reality a licence to infringe on her privelege (under UK law someone must always have a privelege to do something for a licence to be issued to infringe that privelege - that is what a licence is). The Queen does not have number plates or a vehicle excise disc on her official vehicles. They are not insured nor are they subject to an annual vehicle test. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Was his dukedom hereditary?

Were the titles granted to Edward VIII by George VI hereditary? I.e. were they meant to descend to Edward's "heirs male of the body lawfully begotten"? Surtsicna (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Life peerages weren't invented until the 1960s. No life peerage above the rank of Baron has ever been created. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. There were life peerages created before the 20th century (for example the Dukedom of Ireland, the creation of Margaret, 2nd Duchess of Norfolk, but their creation was sporadic. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Dukedom was hereditary. There were however no heirs. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Article title

He should be referred to in the title as the Edward, Duke of Windsor not Edward VIII as he was never crowned. Once a monarch abdicates he is only known by his monarchical title if he was crowned. This is why the current uncrowned heads of the previous ruling European houses are known as - say - Prince of Prussia, rather than German Emperor & King of Prussia - as just one example. Had Edward been crowned he wouldn't have been Duke of Windsor after he abdicated, he'd have remained Edward VIII in the same way Constantine II of Greece and Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg have. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

He was the head of state just like Constantine II and Grand Duke Jean. The uncrowned heads of previously ruling dynasties are just ordinary citizens who have never been head of state. Someone who abdicates was once a king; you appear to have confused that with a pretender who has never been a king. DrKay (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Protocol appears to be as follows: Constantine never abdicated so people still refer to him as King. Grand Duke Jean was given this title after abdication. Other former monarchs lose their title upon abdication and are given new ones, i.e. HRH The Duke of Windsor, HRH Princess Juliana of the Netherlands, etc. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Foreign Honours

These need references!!!

E.g. "Grand Cross of the Order of the Southern Cross, 1933"

The article for that does NOT list Edward VIII as a notable recipient

90.196.111.155 (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Added. DrKay (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Unclear assertion in opening with no followup in the article

The line "Edward knew that the government led by British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin would resign if the marriage went ahead, which could have dragged the king into a general election and would ruin his status as a politically neutral constitutional monarch" is unclear grammatically, and I cannot find further details in the article regarding this "general election" that the king would be dragged into. Is the king himself going to face a general election (e.g. we are going to elect a new king (?!?)) because that is a logical reading of the sentence, or is it a parliamentary election we are speaking of here...please clarify the wording. Twunchy (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It is quite sure it is about parliamentary election. But how exactly that does "ruin his status as a politically neutral constitutional monarch"? If his actions cause the government to resign, then he is not neutral? I mean it is the government's choice to make it political, not his own. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed the situation seems to be covered in Edward VIII#Abdication section of the article. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

David

Known to his family as David(Coachtripfan (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC))

Yes, that's already mentioned in the "Early life" section. Favonian (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move, leaning towards a consensus against. Either way these articles aren't going anywhere for the time being. There has been some support only for Edward VIII to move and although I don't think there is a consensus for it in this discussion I would say there's no prejudice against a new RM that solely focuses on Edward's article title. Jenks24 (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

---

• Edward VIII → Edward VIII of the United Kingdom
• Elizabeth II → Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
• Queen Victoria → Victoria of the United Kingdom

– Prior to Victoria of the United Kingdom, all Wikipedia articles on British monarchs include in their titles "of the United Kingdom" (sovereigns between George III and George VI, inclusive), "of Great Britain" (sovereigns between Anne and George II, inclusive), or "of England" (sovereigns before Anne). The moves requested would help distinguish the monarchs in question from other royalty with their respective names, and maintain consistency with the most-often used Wikipedia titling convention. Today I made moves on pages allowed: (1) "Edward VII" became "Edward VII of the United Kingdom"; (2) "George V" became "George V of the United Kingdom; (3) "George VI" became "George VI of the United Kingdom. The three articles I am herein requesting to change are currently move-protected. Matthew David González 20:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support moving all these articles-in-question, to ...of the United Kingdom. The UK is the kingdom most associated with these monarchs, according to many sources. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all As explained elsewhere: the disambiguation is (1) unnecessary for Edward and Elizabeth [there are no others], (2) in contravention of COMMONNAME for all three; (3) perceived as insulting/bias to the other realms for Elizabeth; (4) consistent with changes in the royal titles and styles through history [Elizabeth II has 16 different ones]; (5) there are other Victorias of the United Kingdom. See Talk:Elizabeth II/Article title and Talk:Queen Victoria/Article title. I have undone the other moves: per Wikipedia:Requested moves, moves should never be performed unilaterally against prior consensus when there has been any past debate about the best title for the page. The present titles adhere to four of the five criteria at Wikipedia:Article titles; naturalness, conciseness, preciseness and recognizability. The monarchs of the Dominions/Realms (Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II) meet all five criteria, since they are also consistent. (And no, you can't argue they're not consistent because James VI and I, Charles I of England, George I of Great Britain, etc. are all different. The monarchs from different time periods in British history fall within consistent groups but they are not all consistent with one another.) DrKay (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In response to your points, I would say that:

(1) It could also be said to be "unnecessary" for Louis XVIII and quite a few other monarchs, including some I listed below, but that is the consistent style Wikipedia uses.

(2) It is consistent with standard consensus for naming conventions for royalty. You could also argue that "Louis XVI" is Louis XVI of France's COMMONNAME – he's pretty well known and there aren't any others – but that is not what his article is called.

(3) The implied primacy of this royal family's not needing a clarifying nation when other royal families do could just as easily be perceived as insulting to or biased against other countries that have or have had monarchies that aren't in union with the UK's. I don't see why a potential insult to Canada, Belize, and Tuvalu should be taken into account if one to Spain, the Netherlands, and Norway is not.

(4) Despite Elizabeth II being queen of several countries, she is generally associated with one of those countries in particular, which also happens to be the one she lives in. Her even visiting the others is apparently notable enough to justify its own article. Acknowledging that is simply ensuring the title gives these facts their due weight.

(4a) The kings and queens from Charles I to William III and Mary II are all "of England" in the title, despite also being kings and queens of Scotland. This also goes to the issue of potential bias.

(5) Yes, but there are also other Annes of Great Britain, which is why the queen is listed as Anne, Queen of Great Britain. Victoria could be listed similarly if that's considered a problem. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are new to the discussion and are under the misapprehension that your comments in points (1), (2) and (4a) are revolutionary and novel. But they are not. We know there is a perception of bias with the English and British monarchs. Why do you think editors have tried to change and successfully changed them? I'm not convinced there is a perception of bias in the other cases you mention in response (3), since no-one has complained about them as far as I know, which is quite unlike the English and British cases where discussion has ranged endlessly over years and pages. On (4) your response is not related to the point I was trying to make. Refer to #4 of my opening comments at Talk:Elizabeth II/Article title for clarification of my opinion. See my previous support as a second choice of the option presented in response (5) at Talk:Queen Victoria/Article title. DrKay (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I reserve my vote for now, but would like to point out that the articles about British monarchs should begin by stating that they are King/Queen of the United Kingdom instead of "King/Queen of 16 Commonwealth realms". DrKay brings up an interesting point of constitutional law, that the soveign is not only monarch of the UK, but of every other country, territory, province or state that recognizes him or her as head of state. But that is highly pedantic and confusing. TFD (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Our function is to explain the complex and confusing. Simplifying and abstracting them to the point where they are misleading and biased is the wrong direction. Elizabeth - and her predecessors - are monarchs of more than one realm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyring (talk • contribs) 22:24, 20 July 2014
    • Indeed we can explain that for example, George III was king of the UK, Virginia, Massachusetts, etc., but we do that in the text of articles, not in the titles or first line. TFD (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • The British Empire was a different polity to what we have now in these days of independent Commonwealth Reams. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Totally irrelevant to whether or not the Crown in the UK, Virginia, Canada etc. are separate. See the House of Lords decision that explains it.[16] TFD (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. We have had this discussion before and before and before. Consensus has always been to drop the "of the United Kingdom". It is understood by most, it is made plain in the body of the article, and it unduly weights the UK above all other realms. The long-established situation - in the real world, not Wikipedia - is that the UK is not pre-eminent, superior or imperial in the matter of the various Commonwealth monarchies. --Pete (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all per DrKay. "Queen Victoria" was named as such according to WP:COMMONNAME and the others to avoid misleading, pro-UK, counter-NPOV wording that explains nothing the articles don't make clear in a contemporaneous and neutral manner in their ledes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as always, per WP:COMMONNAME. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all as per WP:CONCISE. Red Slash 05:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support all for three reasons. Firstly, the WP:CRITERIA consistency. Not only with the articles on the previous monarchs in the England-Britain-UK line, but with the monarchs in other countries, even when there aren't any others of that name. (See Louis XVIII of France, not Louis XVIII; Pope Benedict XVI, not Benedict XVI; Juliana of the Netherlands, not Queen Juliana; Felipe VI of Spain, not Felipe VI; Haakon VII of Norway, not Haakon VII; Gustaf V of Sweden, not Gustaf V; Christian X of Denmark, not Christian X; Umberto II of Italy, not Umberto II; Ivan VI of Russia, not Ivan VI; Zog I of Albania, not Zog I.)

Secondly, the Windsors aren't the only ones with a George V or VI. The titles as they stand go against WP:POVNAMING. They are not NPOV in that they make the presumption that not only are the monarchs of this line inherently the primary topic for any regnal name they might choose, they will continue to be so in the future. According to the article on Prince Charles, he hasn't decided on his yet. Currently, Charles III is a disambiguation page with seventeen different Charles IIIs on it. Is it assumed that the prince will not only be the inherent primary topic among all those, he'll be so from the very moment he assumes the throne? Then there's William V to contend with. Better to find a solution now.

Thirdly, I would argue that, rather than avoiding placing the UK above or being insulting to other countries, the current format of just "Elizabeth II" and "Edward VIII" is placing the UK (or all the Commonwealth realms, if you prefer) above other countries. Other country's kings and queens need clarifiers on their articles to say where they're from, but the UK's apparently don't require any. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you're rather missing the point here. The problem is that these later monarchs are kings or queens of more than the United Kingdom. This is not the case with (say) George III of the United Kingdom, where the article name is uncontroversial. --Pete (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

George III was also king of each of the American and Caribbean colonies, and other territories which were not part of the UK. For an explanation, see the House of Lords decision on the divisibility of the Crown.[17] What has changed is that the style and titles was expanded to include the "other Realms and Territories." TFD (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As noted, the George III article is not controversial in its naming in the way that this one (obviously) is. Saying the situation is the same does not make it so. --Pete (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It is only controversial because you object to it - there is nothing "obvious." TFD (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I refer to the positions of the various editors here in this discussion. Sorry, I thought that was evident. --Pete (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Those are great points, Egsan Bacon. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

(1) As resolved at the previous requested moves, one criterion at WP:AT does not trump policies of neutrality and COMMONNAME nor is one criterion more important than the other four.

(2) They are the primary usage, but they are not under discussion here anyway.

(3) This discussion only applies to the three pages listed. Other articles should be discussed at their own talk pages and the guidelines as a whole should be discussed there. DrKay (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no benefit in moving from a title that you find insulting (which I find hard to believe, but anyway) to one that Pete and Miesianiacal apparently find insulting. It is not an improvement to move from one supposedly bias title to another. DrKay (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support all per Egsan Bacon. FactStraight (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all. The nominator argues for the moves to maintain consistency and reduce ambiguity. On the first point, the monarchs of the late British Empire represent a special case, and warrant an exception to the usual naming conventions. Comparisons to other monarchs are invalid. Although there have been various personal unions throughout history, there are no historical parallels to the Commonwealth realms (and the dominions which preceded them), where one monarch is separately ruler of multiple countries equal in status (per the Balfour Declaration of 1926). The current queen is separately the monarch of sixteen independent countries, and it would be extremely POV to highlight only one of them (where an alternative to doing so clearly exists – the Charles III case will be more difficult). On the second point, each of the articles requested to be moved is undeniably at its WP:COMMONNAME. "Queen Victoria", "Edward VIII", and "Elizabeth II" are unambiguous for anyone with the tiniest bit of historical knowledge. Their various realms are objectively far more important than that of their namesakes. The body of work on the rulers of the British Empire is far, far greater than that of relatively insignificant queens consort or Caucasian kinglets. IgnorantArmies 04:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The Queen is separately monarch of every territory of which she is queen and always has been.[18] When English sailors arrived in Barbados in 1605 they carved on a cross "James, King of England, and of this Island."[19] In addition, other British monarchs were heads of state of other European countries - Scotland, Holland and Hanover, for example. Of the 15 other "Commonwealth realms", her first title in two of them (Canada and Grenada) is Queen of the UK, and in 13 of them their head of state is whoever happens to be head of state of the UK. (See the Perth Agreement.) Furthermore, none of them are actually kingdoms, they are "viceroyalties", states where an overseas monarch who is called king or queen because they are kings or queens of a kingdom and is represented by a governor. Odd that this would be considered a "pro-UK" view. The majority of support for the monarchy in the Commonwealth realms comes from English-speaking Protestants of British ancestry (English Canada, Australia, NZ) - the monarchy has been abolished in all the other large members of the Commonwealth (India, Pakistan, South Africa, Nigeria). TFD (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Minor nitpick; 'TFD', none of the Stadtholders of the Dutch Republic were ever de jure Head of State of it; the States General, as a collective entity was. The Oath of Allegiance taken by the members of the Dutch Army, right up to 1795 (and up to 1813 in exile) was always to the States General and not the Stadtholder. The Stadtholder was only ever Head of the Army, Navy, and of various Provinces (up to 1747 anyway, after which it was always of all of them) of the Netherlands. Stadtholder was not, in law anyway, a position analogous to Lord Protector in the British Commonwealth, or Doge in the Republics of Venice and Genoa, who unquestionably were the Heads of State of the Republics they governed. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support all I appreciate that following the "Disambiguation" guideline there is no need to have a longer title than "Edward VIII" because either there is only one article called "Edward VIII" or it is overwhelmingly what readers expect to find when they type in that name. However it is standard to have both Christian and surnames for articles about people, even if it is clear from their surname whom we mean. For example, we have an article titled "Albert Einstein", even though "Disambiguation" could justify calling the article "Einstein", which indeed is a re-direct page. In the case of UK monarchs, "of the United Kingdom" is the equivalent of a surname. Of course the British monarch is also sovereign in places outside the UK, which was acknowledged by the expansion of title to include the "other Realms and Territories", "of the United Kingdom" most commonly used and also is the only kingdom of which the British monarch is sovereign. Also, should keep existing article names as re-directs until and unless there is reason to turn them into disambiguation pages. TFD (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support all per Egsan Bacon . Darx9url (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• So, let me get this straight: you support on the basis that removing the country identifier is bias against other countries? Then explain how that squares with the opposers' arguments that it is bias against other countries to add it? DrKay (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The accusation of bias is coming from two different perspectives: those who want a territorial affiliation attached to Commonwealth realm monarchs look at the matter through a "global" lens, alleging that omitting territories for British monarchs while they are predominantly included for non-British monarchs suggests that Britain's kings are being given a preference in English Wikipedia by the use of given names as stand-alone article titles, compared to other kings who (in English) share those names but are pre-emptively disambiguated by inclusion of the realm with which they are most strongly identified (e.g. George VI vs George VI of Georgia and George VI of Imereti). Those who want no territorial affiliation attached to Commonwealth realm monarchs look at the matter through a "Commonwealth" lens, alleging that including one territory -- the UK -- for Commonwealth heads improperly accords the British monarchy prominence relative to the other Commonwealth realms ruled by the same sovereigns. FactStraight (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

So, your argument is: it is better to be bias against the rest of the Commonwealth than bias against other countries whose monarchs share the same name? There are no others called Edward VIII or Elizabeth II. The Windsor Georges are not proposed for moving, but they are clearly the primary usage. DrKay (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The perception of the monarch as a British institution is probably prevalent even in the former colonies that retain her as sovereign. "It is no good monarchists pretending that the Queen is an Australian institution.... Our Constitution decrees that our Queen shall be Queen Victoria and her successors 'in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom'." (Malcolm Turnbull, 1991.)[20] TFD (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The prevalent perception among many is that she is the Queen of England. That does not mean she should be called "Elizabeth II of England". DrKay (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

We're not going to convince each other with our arguments. The end result will always be circular discussion. Best we just accept each others positions. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I retain an open mind. I would change it if the arguments were strong enough. The point is: they are not. DrKay (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I was replying to your comment that it shows bias against the other realms to refer to her as Queen of the UK, which objection of course has no basis in policy whatsoever. But since you think this is a slight to Australians, I assure you it is not. Many if not most of them see the monarchy as a British institution and most Australians voted for a republic. I imagine most Australians who support the monarchy do so because they see it as a British institution. TFD (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not think that. Read my comments more carefully please. DrKay (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

We do not write or rewrite Wikipedia to slight or refrain from slighting nations or groups. We stick with well-sourced facts. The fact of the matter is that Elizabeth II is queen of sixteen independent nations, only one of which is the UK. In the matter of her monarchy, each of those sixteen is equal. It is like seeking to rename the Ice Cream article as Vanilla Ice Cream - even though Vanilla is the most popular and widespread flavour, there are other flavours, and such an action would give the impression that there are no other flavours that matter. The supporters of Chocolate Ice Cream might feel slighted, but that isn't the reason why such a move would be inappropriate. It would be misleading. This is an encyclopaedia, and we try not to mislead our readers. --Pete (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Fact of the matter is, most sources have Elizabeth II being described as the British monarch. That's simply the way it is. Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to 'right the wrongs'. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Fact of the matter is, vanilla is the most popular flavor of ice cream[21]. That's simply the way it is. DrKay (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Considering the 16 Commonwealth realms, the UK is the only such realm to have no governor general, as it doesn't require one. As for Australia, it's my understanding that they're currently in dispute over who their Head of state is - Monarch or Governor General. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be logically disconnected from my comment. DrKay (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll let other continue trying to convince each other. As I previously said, circular argument. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for Elizabeth II and Edward VII. Inappropriate due to historical, political, and policy reasons. trackratte (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose all. And it's all been said. These are the primary topics, Victoria in particular, and the question then becomes where do we draw the line? Elizabeth II is clearly in. George V? Perhaps a better scoped proposal might have a chance, but I'm skeptical even of that. Ain't bust, so can't fix. Andrewa (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• SupportEdward VIII → Edward VIII of the United Kingdom. Too ambiguous, too unknown to ongoing widening audiences. All monarchs from generations past should be titled unambiguously, preferably specifying their highest rank and country. Kings as "King X of Y", and "consort" where mere consort (were never seriously regent). Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) needs an overhaul, to introduce consistency and recognizability for readers not already familiar with the current peculiar name scheme. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Elizabeth II → Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom until well after her death. Not persuaded that the improvement is worth the fiddling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Queen Victoria → Victoria of the United Kingdom. This is a very special case demanding more care before making a new decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the closer we get to true artificial intelligence, the closer we also get to artificial stupidity. That discussion was a duplicate of the discussion above, and was closed as such. Andrewa (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Full name of monarch

We do not write or rewrite Wikipedia to slight or refrain from slighting nations or groups. We stick with well-sourced facts. The fact of the matter is that Elizabeth II is queen of sixteen independent nations, only one of which is the UK. In the matter of her monarchy, each of those sixteen is equal. It is like seeking to rename the Ice Cream article as Vanilla Ice Cream - even though Vanilla is the most popular and widespread flavour, there are other flavours, and such an action would give the impression that there are no other flavours that matter. The supporters of Chocolate Ice Cream might feel slighted, but that isn't the reason why such a move would be inappropriate. It would be misleading. This is an encyclopaedia, and we try not to mislead our readers. --Pete (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Fact of the matter is, most sources have Elizabeth II being described as the British monarch. That's simply the way it is. Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to 'right the wrongs'. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Fact of the matter is, vanilla is the most popular flavor of ice cream[22]. That's simply the way it is. DrKay (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

We call the article "ice cream" because that is the most common name for it. Similarly, we call the article "Bill Clinton", not "William Jefferson Clinton", because that is the name by which he is most commonly known. Even in this article, no one has suggested that we include all the king's names as part of the title, just the one by which he is most commonly remembered. TFD (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(I've started a new section, because it has no relevance to the previous discussion.) I agree that we should leave out Edward VIII's other names, as per the Clinton example. --Pete (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have copied over the discussion to which I was replying, because my reply was to a discussion you began which is clear from what you wrote. TFD (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Edward VIII is the common name. 109.152.141.37 (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

These are arguments - and good arguments - for having the title of the article be Edward VIII. Guess what! the title of the article is Edward VIII. I really don't see what the problem is. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Edward VIII of the United Kingdom is what it should be, per WP:WEIGHT. -- GoodDay (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As I stated above, we normally include surnames, we don't call articles Clinton or Einstein. Articles about the sovereign normally begin by saying they are King or Queen of the UK. Incidentally since he was the second King Edward of Australia, why isn't he called Edward II? James VI of Scotland who became king of England was known there and in his other realms beyond the sea as James I. Because the Australian consitution defines the Queen as including "Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom." (Preamble, s. 2) TFD (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

His surname was Windsor. 109.152.141.37 (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It was not with the possible of exception of between his abdication and when he became Duke of Windsor. See for example the birth certificate of Prince George of Cambridge.[23] For surname it says Duke of Cambridge. Presumably Edward VII's father would have written Duke of York and had he been king he would have written King of the United Kingdom. TFD (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

TFD, you're branching way beyond the ambit of this page now. We're not here to debate whether a person's name should have been something else. I still don't see what your issue is anyway. You want the page to be called Edward VIII, and it already is called Edward VIII, so just exactly what is it you're proposing to change? If you're suggesting his full list of names should be cut from the body of the article, I would oppose such a move. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit sick of this "Edward II of Australia" nonsense. There's a convention for this and it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Jack of Oz, I am saying it should be called "Edward VIII of the United Kingdom", in the same sense that articles about other people typically have more than just their Christian name. The IP claimed that Edward's surname was Windsor, and I commented that it was not. You are free to disagree with me, but please do not misrepresent what I say, which necessitates my reply. Pete, your link says nothing about why Australia keeps the UK numbering system. Presumably Great Britain kept the numbering system of England and Wales because, despite the union, it was the continuator state of England, not a new state, just as England and Wales had been the continuator of England. TFD (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

TFD, I don't mean to be rude, and of course you may do what you wish, but for next time you might consider sticking to one thing at a time. I'm sure you mean well, but I find these diversions confusing. --Pete (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You wrote, " It is like seeking to rename the Ice Cream article as Vanilla Ice Cream - even though Vanilla is the most popular and widespread flavour, there are other flavours, and such an action would give the impression that there are no other flavours that matter. The supporters of Chocolate Ice Cream might feel slighted, but that isn't the reason why such a move would be inappropriate." When I explained your analogy was deficient, you moved my comments to make it appear I had introduced the silly analogy, and accuse me of creating diversions. If you do not want to talk about silly analogies, stop introducing them. TFD (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry. We were talking about whether the article title should be Edward VIII or Edward VIII of the United Kingdom. When you started talking about middle names, as in William Jefferson Clinton, I figured this was something entirely different, and moved it to keep the previous discussion clear of something entirely different. How confusing! --Pete (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

TDF, nowhere did you make it clear you were continuing a previous discussion (one to which I was not a party and have not read). I was treating this thread as independent, and replying to what you said, at face value. Until someone added in parts of the earlier discussion at the head of this thread, it had begun with your statement: "We call the article "ice cream" because that is the most common name for it. ... Even in this article, no one has suggested that we include all the king's names as part of the title, just the one by which he is most commonly remembered." I honestly believed you were arguing for removing his given names, Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David. Can I be blamed for failing in my attempt to make some sense out of what must be in the top 5 most confusing threads I've ever been involved in, in over 10 years at Wikipedia? There was certainly no attempt at misrepresentation on my part. I was dealing with a far from ideal communication from another party. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The above RM has closed. Which (I assume) makes this discussion moot. GoodDay (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I made it clear I was continuing a previous discussion by posting my comment after the previous discussion in the section above.[24] Pete then removed my reply[25] and put it in a new discussion thread, which he for some reason called "Full name of monarch."[26] I was not arguing for removing Edward's given names. TFD (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand that now. This has been a master class in ... something, but I'm not sure what. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I wish I knew why this was brought up at all. I might just ignore such irrelevancies in future, given the confusion caused. Sorry, all! --Pete (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverts

These edit summaries aren't helpful. Proper explanations for the reverts are wanting. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly. Refer to Talk:Edward VIII abdication crisis#Independent states, Talk:Edward VIII abdication crisis#When Abdication took legal effect / Irish position, and Talk:Edward VIII abdication crisis#Introduction. DrKay (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you, but, the first discussion linked to isn't relevant, the second and third touch on the matter, but, don't take into account the sources I've provided at Talk:Edward VIII abdication crisis. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You replaced "Empire" with "Commonwealth", the first discussion explains why I changed it back. The first source you've provided is used in both articles already, the second is used in the other article already, as is the third, which is also used by me in the second discussion I linked to, and the fourth is the article itself. These matters have already been covered in the articles and discussed on the talk pages at length. DrKay (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Putting aside the Commonwealth/Empire issue for the time being, the infobox either, depending on how one looks at it, states his reign in all his realms ended on one day, when it did not, or is missing the dates his reign ended in South Africa and the Irish Free State. In prior discussions on this matter, there was much opinion, but little sourcing. I now have ten sources, in addition to the four provided at Talk:Edward VIII abdication crisis#"Thousands of sources", that state Edward's reign ended (and George VI's began) on different days in different countries. Your last comment seems to indicate you accept at least the four sources already used, but, your objection to my changes to the infobox suggest you only accept the parts of them you agree with. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Info-boxes are not a good place for extensive pedantic detail. I would use the date for the United Kingdomm which is used by reliable sources. Incidentally if legally he remained king in Ireland until Ireland accepted the abdication, he would have remained king in the UK too, because the Statute of Westminster "require[s] the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom." However it is debatable whether that sentence, which is part of the introductory text only has legal rather than merely moral weight.

The description of his office btw is wrong. It says he was "was King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Empire...." In fact his title was "of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King." His was king everywhere in the Empire and there is no reason that "British Dominions" refers exclusively to states other that had dominion status.

TFD (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TFD on the dates. It is sufficient to use the de facto dates that are used in all the biographies and regnal lists. The article should not digress into esoteric trivial points that are not covered in biographies of Edward. If other biographies of Edward do not discuss slight discrepancies in de jure dates, then it is unreasonable to include them here. It would be giving undue prominence to a minor legal fiction that attracts the curiousity of a few constitutional lawyers but which is ignored by biographers as irrelevant. DrKay (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You're both inflating the matter in order to dismiss it as "too much". There are a number of reliable sources saying his reign ended on different dates; the infobox doesn't reflect that. It should; encyclopaedias should not mislead. It's a matter of adding two more dates to the infobox; we can work out the most concise way of doing that. James VI and I shows the different lengths of reign in different countries. What makes this article different? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't misleading. For all practical purposes and in actuality his reign ended on the 11th. DrKay (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, we cannot conclude that the abdication did not come into force in Ireland at the same time as in the UK because the Dáil did not pass an abdication act on the same day.. There has been significant legal opinion since 1937 on the role of the Crown in the various realms and territories, such as the judgments of the Court of Appeal (1982) and House of Lords (2005), as well as recent opinions expressed concerning the Perth agreement. We would need a recent legal opinion. Even if we had one, the fact is that substantially all of the kingships held by the King ended at the same time, making the Irish situation trivial. TFD (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of reliable sources that disagree with both of your opinions.

• [27] "The Irish Free State passed an Act declaring that the abdication took effect on December 12th."
• [28] "...[T]he Crown itself ended up being different on different days. So, South Africa assented to the British legislation, but, didn't request and consent it as part of its own law. It enacted its own law to make the change to the succession to the throne in South Africa, and it applied it from the date on which the abdication actually occurred, which was the 10th of December. Australia and New Zealand and Canada, requested and consented to the application of the British law as part of their law and that all happened on the following day, on the 11th of December. And Irish Free State, as I said, refused to assent, refused to request and consent, did enact its own legislation and that happened on the following day, the 12th of December. So, in those three different days, you had different kings in different parts of the Empire."
• [29] "Immediately upon the passing of this Act, the instrument of abdication executed by His Majesty King Edward the Eighth on the 10th day of December, 1936,... shall have effect according to the tenor thereof and His said Majesty shall... cease to be king, and the king for those purposes shall henceforth be the person who, if His said Majesty had died on the 10th day of December, 1936, unmarried, would for the time being be his successor under the law of Saorstát Eireann."
• [30] "December 12: The Dail Eireann accepts the abdication of Edward VIII..."
• [31] "The Irish parliament passed its legislation on December 12, and the abdication took effect there on that date. Hence during the period December 10 to 12, 1936, there were different monarchs in different parts of the dominions, with different laws of succession applying."
• [32] "[December 12] At Dublin, the Dail Eireann of the Free State approved the bill which ratifies the abdication of Edward and the accession of George VI."
• [33] "As a result of this legislation, an anomaly arose, December 12, 1936, in that Edward VIII continued to be ie King of the Irish Free State, hereas in all other parts of the Commonwealth he had already been succeeded by his brother."
• [34] "The Divisibility of the Crown -- This issue has been carried far by the effect of the abdication of Edward VIII. As has been seen (q), the Union of South Africa held it effective on December 10, the Irish Free State on Decemebr 12, while for the rest of the Empire the date was December 11, 1936. In a sense, therefore, the divisibility is a fait accompli..."
• [35] "The South African government took the view that the trhone was vacated by Edward VIII immediately he signed the Instrument of Abdicaion on December 10, and therefore George VI was King in South Africa before the passing of the United Kingdom Abdication Act on December 11."
• [36][37] "The Executvie Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936, recognised the change of throne but only with effect from December 12, so that Edward VIII reigned one more day in the Free State as he reigned one less in the Union."
• [38] "It appears therefore that the accession of King George VI to the throne of his various Kingdoms took place on three different days."
• [39] "[B]ut in 1936, when, because of differential legislation in the various Dominions consequent upon the abdication of King Edward VIII, “the accession of King George VI to the throne of his various Kingdoms took place on three different days."

Even the article on the abdication crisis recognises the diffent day on which the Irish Free State recognised the abdication:

• [40] "The King's abdication was recognised a day later [12 December] in the External Relations Act of the Irish Free State..."

What are we to do about all that? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing, as explained above. These sources were never in dispute, as was made obvious repeatedly. It is their weight that is in dispute not their content. DrKay (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a lot of sources, so I will reply to your first one. It says the Dail recognized the abdication as having taken place Dec. 12, it does not say that was the date of the abdication. Note too you are using a 1990 article that examines among other things the diviisiblity of the Crown. But there has been substantial developments in the topic, both the 2005 Lords decision and the Perth agreement. Since the king had named Ireland in the abdication act, you need to show that was invalid. And really this is such a trivial point it is best avoided. TFD (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Their weight against what? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice in Anne Twomey's article that she says there was a question whether the kingship would end in Australia by virtue of the King's abdication as King of the UK or whether it required Australia's consent, which differs from how you portrayed it. Also, her article was published in 2009 and does not take into account legal opinion in the Perth agreement. TFD (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Their weight against every biography ever written about Edward VIII, as explained already at timestamp 09:12, 29 October 2014 above. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Aides during Abdication crisis

Early biographies always mention how much he needed the support of his close friends Hardinge and Major 'Fruity' Metcalfe during the crisis. Can't see why they've been airbrushed from more recent coverage. Valetude (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Any sources for the above? Greenshed (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Zech's report

While I added Zech's report to the article[41] [42] [43] [44], I think quoting the entire report is overkill. It gives it an importance that is not matched by the biographical sources, which only mention it in passing if at all. The amount of material in the article on each point should reflect the amount of coverage that is given to each point in reliable biographies. The report, with the addition of the lengthy footnote, is now given far greater coverage in the article than in any of the secondary sources. Biographies of Edward do not quote the entire report, and so neither should the wikipedia article, which should mirror the practice employed by reputable biographies not quote extensively from primary material. DrKay (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Duke of Windsor is notable in History mainly on two accounts: The first is his affair and subsequent marriage to an American divorcée, a scandal at that time, which subsequently forced him to abdicate the British throne; the second is his and Mrs Simpson's Nazi sympathies and pro-Nazi activities. The extent of the Duke of Windsor's activities during the War, and most particularly, his acts of what can only be denoted as high treason are not reflected at all fairly in the article. This, for a start, makes the entry's star rating quite suspect, on account of WP:WEIGHT if nothing else. The biographical sources DrKay invokes are presumably those already used in the article itself: One is the Duke's autobiography; two others are authorised biographies; and none of the rest is more recently published than 2003. We've had, since then, the opening to the public of many historical documents, which illuminate the extent of the Duke of Windsor's treasonous behavior and, what's more, his explicit acts of treason. The German Foreign Policy Documents are important in this respect and at least one relevant extract (such as No. 621) deserves extensive mention. This would be one small step towards bringing in some balance to an otherwise anodyne article as far as the "legacy" bequeathed by this former King of Britain goes. -The Gnome (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ziegler's biography is not favorable to Edward. Indeed, Williams's is the most sympathetic treatment and she's writing after the release of all the documents and opening of the archives. Wikipedia should not publish original research. The article should mirror the coverage in secondary and tertiary sources, and in this case high-quality reliable sources that are consistent with WP:FACR criterion 1c. DrKay (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Misperception. There are no "sympathies" here, nor OR for that matter. The extract is a copy from the German Archives, an impeccable source. The coverage of the Duke's pro-Nazi activities based on the sources already used in the article does not adequately bring forth the revelations contained in the German Archives. What I'm saying is that undue weight is currently given to the rest of the sources' content - it's there! This is not about maintaining featured-article status, so no need to quote criteria on star ratings. This is about elementary presentation of what's evidently notable (and notably absent in the Wikipedia entry) about the Duke of Windsor. -The Gnome (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Zech's report was first published in 1954. It has been open to historians for over 60 years. Bloch, Bradford and Ziegler, all publishing in the 1980s and 1990s, quote from it. You are interpreting it in a way that is not done in the sources. Although Bradford's opinion is that it was a symptom of a loose tongue that exasperated the Allies, she does not at any point think it treasonous. Both Bloch and Ziegler agree that the document cannot be taken as evidence of Edward's sympathies because the information in Zech's report is completely wrong. The Allied plan was not to hold the French-Belgian border as Zech claims, but to rush forward and occupy Flanders to deprive the Germans use of the Flemish ports. They both argue that Zech's report demonstrates that either his informant was mis-informed by the Allies or his informant was deliberately feeding him with false information. They both suggest that it's even possible the Duke deliberately spread the false plans as part of an Allied ruse because the Duke had been informed of the real plans, and so knew that the plan was to occupy Belgium. DrKay (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

There is not problem whatsoever quoting the opinion of a biographer about whether or not the behavior of the subject of the biography she wrote constitutes treason - we let the Wikipedia users decide for themselves. As to the information in ambassador Zech's report, there can be no argument about it being "wrong" in any sense of the word: Zech relates what he knows. Either Zech lied, in which case we do have a "wrong" report (but there has been no claim that it was a report of lies), or Zech related what he took to be the truth at the time, in which case there is, of course, no "lying". The reality might very well be that false information was passed on by the competent British authorities to the Duke of Windsor, who was a participant to War Council meetings on account of his military rank and assignment. Yet, the Duke of Windsoe evidently was passing on information to the Germans that he believed was accurate. There is no shred of evidence that the Duke was passing on false information deliberately to the Nazis, an act that, moreover, goes against the rest of all his comportment before and after his act of treason. To claim, even implicitly, the contrary would be blatantly an unsubstantiated, personal point of view.

The article, excluding headers, citations, lists, sources, etc, stands at some six thousand words. A mere 10 percent of the text relates to the Duke of Windsor's pro-Nazi sympathies and activities. I call Undue Weighting. -The Gnome (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is consistent with the views that are presented in scholarly discourse and presents them with due weight and cites them to reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this is not true. At least it is not true according to how I see things. Yours is also a view of how the article stands. Therefore, this is not resolved. To claim, as you did, without producing any further arguments, that your viewpoint is correct is arbitrary and, seeing as you are a Wikipedia administrator, quote arrogant. There is a serious disagreement here and if things stand as they are, we'd better take it to an RfC. -The Gnome (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

DrKay, you are now engaging in arbitrary and, from where I stand, quite arrogant edit warring, a behavior whose nature is amplified by the fact that you are a Wikipedia Administrator! You have now deleted, with the excuse that the sources do not reflect that fact, the information about the Duke of Windsor leaking the information about Allied plans through the German embassy in The Hague when the text in the document you are trying to suppress is demonstrating precisely that! I'm taking this to an RfC. Kindly refrain from any further arbitrary and unilateral actions.

P.S. The argument that the current version has precedence is utterly nonsensical, and , in your capacity as Admin, you should've been aware of that before you made it. The text of an article with a star rating does not get any kind of "permanent" status. -The Gnome (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say that. This is made clear in the secondary sources and once again you are interpreting the report in a way that is not found in secondary sources. Zech does not explicitly say he spoke to the Duke himself. The biographers all agree that Zech is reporting words second-hand, i.e. someone told him what the Duke said and Zech is reporting the words of his unknown informant who claimed to have heard the Duke's words. DrKay (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC about cable text and expanded info on Duke's wartime activities

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is to oppose the inclusion. The majority opinion is that it is a primary source that lacks sufficient discussion in secondary sources. AlbinoFerret 15:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

---

There arose a dispute about the proper extent of the Duke of Windsor's wartime activities in regards the German Nazi regime. An editor feels that the pro-Nazi sympathies and activities, including one act that in his personal view is an act of treason, is not reflected with the appropriate due weight in the article, and believes that the insertion of an extract of a German embassy cable should be added, as a footnote. Another editor feels that quoting the entire text of the cable is overkill, and that overall the article is consistent with the views that are presented in scholarly discourse and presents them with due weight and cites them to reliable sources.
The question is put forth to Wikipedia editors whether to Support the addition of the contested material in a footnote or Oppose it. For illustrative purposes, the extract from the cable is quoted herebelow in full:

124/122669 Minister Zech to State Secretary Weizsäcker SECRET, The Hague, February 19, 1940. Dear Weizsäcker: The Duke of W., about whom I wrote to you in my letter of the 27th of last month, has said that the Allied War Council devoted an exhaustive discussion at its last meeting to the situation that would arise if Germany invaded Belgium. Reference was made throughout to a German invasion plan said to have been found in an airplane that made a forced landing in Belgium. On the military side, it was held that the best plan would be to make the main resistance effort in the line behind the Belgian-French border, even at the risk that Belgium should be occupied by us. The political authorities are said to have at first opposed this plane: after the humiliation suffered in Poland, it would be impossible to surrender Belgium and the Netherlands also to the Germans. In the end, however, the political authorities became more yielding. Heil Hitler! Zech

14:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

FRS, I support only if theres a WP:RS that supports this. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support: the cable text is short enough to be reasonably quoted in full in a footnote.
  However, after the words "has said", should be added. Regardless of other evidence of the Duke's sympathies towards the Nazis, the text of this cable as given in English (presumably the original is in German) is not evidence that he leaked the information to the German Embassy; it could mean that he told someone (affiliation unknown) and the conversation was overheard. Stanning (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Adding the full text of the cable places undue emphasis on one document that is not quoted so extensively in any secondary or tertiary source. The interpretation of the cable as proof of the Duke's treason is not shared by any reliable source and is essentially original research. Sarah Bradford's opinion is that it was a symptom of a loose tongue that exasperated the Allies, but she does not at any point think it treasonous (p. 464 of George VI). Both Michael Bloch (in Operation Willi, pp. 41-42) and Philip Ziegler (in King Edward VIII, pp. 414-415) agree that the document cannot be taken as evidence of Edward's leaking information because the information in Zech's report is completely wrong. The Allied plan was not to hold the French-Belgian border as Zech claims, but to rush forward and occupy Flanders to deprive the Germans use of the Flemish ports. They both argue that Zech's report demonstrates that either his informant was mis-informed by the Allies or his informant was deliberately feeding him with false information. They both suggest that it's even possible the Duke deliberately spread the false plans as part of an Allied ruse because the Duke had been informed of the real plans, and so knew that the plan was to occupy Belgium. DrKay (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Although there would be a case for additionally adding something similar to the text above (by DrKay). It would be wrong to withhold it; rather, it is better to address the concerns that might arise from its inclusion. Quote is not too long and using quote address POV issues (ie - here is the evidence, it is not a POV). Having as a footnote and balancing with scholarly opinion (above) address weight. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support The argument against inclusion rests mainly on the unsupported claim that the Duke of Windsor was passing "false information." However, there exists no evidence whatsoever, and certainly no testimony, that the Duke was on purpose passing on false information. Even if the information in his possession was false, the only reasonable assumption, which is in line with the rest of the Duke's comportment before during and after the war, is that he passed on what he believed to be genuine information about Allied plans. The insertion of the small extract presents no weighting issues: Currently, less than ten percent of the text is about the Duke's pro-Nazi sympathies and activities, when he is mostly known in history for abdicating the throne, and his pro-Nazi stance. If authors of sources used in the article believe otherwise, their opinion can be added as well. Suppressing both sides effectively absolves the Duke before the public has a chance to be informed. -The Gnome (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. If a primary source is open to more than one interpretation, any interpretation by us would constitute OR. We need a secondary source. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. At best, this is Edward's alleged opinion about what the Brits might do about German plans to invade Belgium. It has nothing to say about him passing information to Germany, false or otherwise, intentional or otherwise. Absent evidence he directly, purposefully, passed this on, it scarcely deserves mention, let alone a full quotation. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Αctually, the Duke, in his capacity as Major General attached to the British Military Mission in France was attending War Council meetings. It is preposterous to claim that he was passing mere "opinions" when the relevant, concrete information was available to him. Moreover, it is frankly astonishing to claim that the passing of information to the enemy, in wartime, by a British military officer and heir to the British throne, does not deserve mention in the article! -The Gnome (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

But you're just shooting yourself in the foot with these claims. If he was attending War Council meetings then he knew the Allied plan was to invade Belgium. So, why would he have said the exact opposite? DrKay (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ιt's precisely this sort of speculation that we must strive to avoid in Wikipedia and the best way is to quote the sources and refrain from making evaluations ourselves. The report by the German ambassador to Berlin, on its own, reveals that (a) the Duke contacted the Germans; and (b) he passed on to them information about military plans. We are obliged to include this information and quote serious, recognized historians' take on this. We are not meant to speculate about whether the information was genuine or false, or if he knew about it being false. BTW, my foot is fine. -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You are speculating and making an evaluation yourself. The primary source does not reveal either (a) or (b), as shown by both the primary and secondary sources. It is not me speculating that the information was genuine or false, it is the secondary sources that say it is false. And the primary sources do not say what you claim they do. DrKay (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I have not "speculated" on anything. I'm simply suggesting that a small text extract from a primary source is quoted, with, of course, scholars' opinions and assessments on it, wherever possible. The effort to suppress this has no merit whatsoever, hence the invocation of imaginary contraventions ("you are speculating", etc). -The Gnome (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I do think it deserves mention. He may very well have played a bad role in this. I also think that we can't conclude that just on the basis of this primary source. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per DrKay. Don't think any of us are Duke of Windsor scholars enough to interpret this *primary* source properly, and even if so, we'd have to publish our interpretation in a reliable source, and only after that could it be quoted. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Once again: The RfC is not about interpreting anything. The RfC is about whether or not we should add, as footnote, an extract of a cable text. Adding the opinion and assessment of learned scholars, from reliable, secondary sources is, of course, most fitting. The RfC is about nothing more than that. -The Gnome (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You're talking about adding at least two paragraphs discussing a single document that most biographies of this length, such as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edition, revised in September 2015, ignore completely. That compares to two paragraphs in the article on an entire decade of his life and the entire reign of Edward VII. It compares to hundreds of letters between him and Wallis and others that have been published in volumes that are not quoted anywhere in the article. It compares to archive buildings that contain boxes upon boxes full of documents relating to his life. And yet, you think it appropriate weight to single out just one of these thousands of documents, written by someone he never met and did not know, quote it in full and then discuss why it is in fact wrong at length. It is clearly undue. The single sentence on it now is more than enough already, and should perhaps even be removed. DrKay (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I don't see why we should act to exclude this info; this is not a BLP. Surely this cable is not the discovery of a Wikipedian and thus there are sources discussing it, ja? —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That comment proves that you have not read the discussion above. DrKay (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I did read it and you yourself wrote that it is mentioned. I agree with The Gnome - while maybe some want Edward's biography to be all hearts and flowers and abdication, his Nazi sympathies are indeed notable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not following. This cable is already in the article, and the full text of the cable is already linked in a footnote. Why quote the whole thing here when it is already summarized here and only one click away in full? DrKay (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Why are we even talking about using a primary source? Wikipedia articles need to be based on secondary sources, and there should be lots of works which relate to Edward VIII to support this article. I'd also note that primary sources always need to be assessed in context, and that's totally lacking here (for instance, was the German intelligence source on which this cable was based actually reliable, and did the German embassy in The Hague have a reputation for competence and reliable use of intelligence material - the Nazi secret and foreign services weren't above making stuff up to impress their superiors). Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

When this letter was first published in 1954, Lord Hore-Belisha, who was War Secretary in early 1940 and Jewish, said something along those lines: the document "merely showed a member of the German intelligence network was trying to impress his superiors by claiming impressive contacts" (quoted in "Letters Reveal Duke of Windsor Nazi Spy Target", Spokane Daily Chronicle, 9 November 1954). DrKay (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose We cannot interpret primary sources ourselves, and should not present them unless they are explained in secondary sources. TFD (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment For the umpteenth time: Reference to the cable ("leaked") already exists in the article; the article does link to pertinent, reliable, secondary sources; and those sources already present third-party, notable authors' opinions on it! This RfC, despite the persistent efforts to confuse the issue, is strictly about whether or not to quote the cable's short text itself and nothing more. -The Gnome (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Support Summoned by bot. Close question. The language is so ambiguous that my feeling is that it should be interpreted by a reliable secondary source. If so, include as a footnote. If not, omit. Coretheapple (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Using such a long extract of a primary source, especially for something controversial like this, would constitute original research and seems like it would be giving undue weight to this document. If this source is important, then it should be covered by numerous secondary sources at length and that would justify its inclusion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose as presented. This is a clear case of a WP:PRIMARY source that, without further context, is ambiguous at best and misleading at worst (depending on the actual facts surrounding the disclosure in question). If, however, the article included significant discussion and analysis of the cable by secondary sources, then such a footnote would be warranted and I would support it.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 00:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One of the shortest reigns

The article states: "With a reign of 326 days, Edward was one of the shortest-reigning monarchs in British history". Which makes me wonder what reign was shorter. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Lady Jane Grey. And of course we do not have exact dates or even names for some of the pre-Norman conquest monarchs. TFD (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not too sure that Lady Jane Grey was ever Queen of England however, as she was never acknowledged by Parliament or by a law of Parliament. About the pre-Norman conquest monarchs, the ones that were deemed Kings of the English are pretty well known, as are their reigns. I wonder about the monarchs of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms however. But (please don't take my comments too seriously) if it can't be established that Edward VIII was the shortest reigning monarch in British history, how can it be established that Elizabeth II is the longest reigning monarch in British history? And what exactly constitutes British history in this context..... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

In this situation, I believe British history means including before 1707. Thus including the English monarchs, Scottish monarchs & Irish monarchs, aswell as the British monarchs :). If I'm correct on this? there's Edward V of England's reign. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You might very well be right. And yes, Edward V's reign was shorter! Which I hadn't realised. He and Edward VIII have also in common that they were never crowned. Thanks! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

one good souces

Have you seen the BBC-Documentary >Abdication: A Very British Coup>? It will say all! - Ok, almost all ^_^ --93.184.30.196 (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Italian princess

Wasn't he groomed to an Italian princess? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII: The article talk pages are not really meant for general inquiries. You might try your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Regards Tiderolls 18:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Photos

I've replaced the infobox photo with another similar one - both in uniform at around the same time, but while the old one is an official portrait, it feels a bit strange - very bright whites, and the eyes are almost washed out. The new one also feels a little more generally human. Commenting in case of objections... Andrew Gray (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• 
  old image
• 
  new image

Adolescent mumps -cause of behaviour changes?

Edward VIII is known to have suffered from mumps as an adolescent, various sources show he didn't form an adult relationship with women & he didn't produce children. I intend to add a wp:rs referencing mumps as the reader may wish to know that the disease was a credible cause of his problems.
JRPG (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Friendly greetings DrKay. I note you removed a sentence from my edit on mumps -which I realise was in the wrong chronological place. The 2nd sentence was there to show it was a medical & not a character or parenting issue. Have you any historical problem if I re-add it in Romances? Regards JRPG (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What you'd written was original research by synthesis. The source does not say that he sought maternal affection because he was sterile. It says he sought mothering from his female friends because he didn't get it from his mother. The mumps is mentioned in connection with his lack of children (even though his wife being over 40 would seem to be reason enough). DrKay (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I'm quite familiar with wp:synth but had read this source -which provides the facts but is too commercial -and thereafter simply got it confused with the source supplied. Thanks for correcting it. JRPG (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward VIII. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331022540/http://www.crwflags.com:80/fotw/flags/gb-rooth.html to http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb-rooth.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)