Talk:Edward VIII/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Legacy missing from "Death and Legacy" section.

I see no discussion in the article as to how the world came to view him, given the history of his relationships with the Germans. He seems to have been well-accepted by high society, even U.S. Presidents. Did they forgive him, or did they buy his explanations that there was little to it in the first place? Surely there must be more to say about his legacy.

ChicagoLarry (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Do not delete content that is not favourable to the Duke (NPOV)

You have again deleted content that is not favourable to the Duke's public image, User:DrKay. And yet, it is fully cited with reliable sources.

fyi, thestar.com is The Toronto Star, a highly-respected Canadian national, daily newspaper, not the tabloid Star. Toronto Star : The Toronto Star is a Canadian broadsheet daily newspaper. It is Canada's highest-circulation newspaper on overall weekly circulation; ...... https://www.thestar.com/ Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily

If there is a typo (several historians'), why not fix it, as experienced editors do every day on numerous articles? You have deleted content that I have added to this article on several occasions now. In this last Revert, you deleted every word that I had added.

Is it the alleged over-repetitive issue and the typo that trouble you, or inclusion of content such as this?

  Several historians' research has led them to conclude that the refusal to allow Edward to marry was part of a pretext for removing a king https://books.google.ca/books?id=3H3iDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT133&dq=king+edward+viii++coup+to+remove+king&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcto2jsJzYAhUC_WMKHVBpCJ4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=king%20edward%20viii%20%20coup%20to%20remove%20king&f=false</ref> with inconvenient sympathies toward the unemployed or Nazi Germany" as contended by the authors of The Monarchy and the British Nation, 1780 to the Present.https://books.google.ca/books?id=WNI_cx0J5qIC&pg=PA225&dq=king+edward+viii++abdication++establishment+to+remove+king&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiixODqrpzYAhUN1GMKHT1gAJ4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false, p=225  

A Wikipedia article should include useful information about the subject, not just content that describes favourable aspects. WP:NPOV.

I will correct any typos and add the content again, since we are getting no feedback at all from other editors who have worked on this article. And I will request WP Feedback. In my experience, content that is disputed is not deleted before the Feedback service is requested. The question will be, "Do you support deletion of this content? e.g. This reason for the political establishment's refusal to allow the marriage to Wallis Simpson?" Peter K Burian (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This was at least the third time you have reverted some of my edits, about the Windsor Files, for example. What technical problem is there that continues to motivate you to do so? The sources are highly reliable. Yes, the content does not put the Duke in a positive light, but it's factual and part of a Neutral Point of View, and the citations lead to reliable sources. (Some of the recently-deleted content was already in the article before I began adding content.)

  Many historians have suggested that Hitler was prepared to reinstate the Duke of Windsor as king in the hope of establishing a fascist Britain. Ziegler, p. 392 Documents recovered from the Germans in 1945 at Schloss Marburg, and later called the Windsor File http://www.independent.co.uk/news/duke-who-just-could-not-be-beastly-to-the-nazis-1312860.html or the Marburg file,https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/19/the-princes-at-war-deborah-cadbury-17-carnations-andrew-morton-review-duke-duchess-windsor included telegrams confirming plans, principally by Walter Schellenberg, https://books.google.ca/books?id=voMcCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA60&dq=operation+willi+duke+of+windsor+reinstate+him+as+king&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ_L2wkZnYAhWqslQKHf-_AAQQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=operation%20willi%20duke%20of%20windsor%20reinstate%20him%20as%20king&f=false, p. 60 to persuade the Duke to leave Portugal and return to Spain, kidnapping him if necessary. The plan, code named Operation Willi, was never concluded. Bloch, pp. 86, 102; Ziegler, pp. 430–432

   A telegram from Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop found among German documents indicated that the Duke of Windsor would be offered the throne of England (as a puppet king)https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/books/2015/03/05/andrew-morton-on-the-duke-and-duchess-of-windsor-and-the-nazis.htmlTORONTO STAR; of course, that assumed that the German operation would succeed and he would reach Spain as planned.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/830446/Winston-Churchill-WW2-tried-block-files-Duke-of-Windsor-Nazi-sympathies  (Another report indicates that if the Duke would agree to work openly with the Third Reich, he would be given financial assistance and would hopefully come to be a "compliant" king. Reportedly 50 million Swiss francs were set aside for this purpose.) https://books.google.ca/books?id=Nc2DBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA157&dq=operation+willi+Schellenberg+biography+Duke+of+Windsor&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjamuOGnpzYAhUM-mMKHckpDp8Q6AEINTAC#v=onepage&q=operation%20willi%20Schellenberg%20biography%20Duke%20of%20Windsor&f=false 
   Another telegram indicates that the plan to reinstate the Duke as king had been discussed with the Duke and Duchess: "Both seem to be completely bound up in formalistic ways of thought since they replied that according to British constitution this was not possible after abdication ... When [an] agent then remarked the course of war may produce changes even in the British constitution the Duchess in particular became very thoughtful." https://'www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/20/winston-churchill-nazi-telegrams-uk-royals-edward-cabinet-papers https://books.google.ca/books?id=Nc2DBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA157&dq=operation+willi+Schellenberg+biography+Duke+of+Windsor'&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjamuOGnpzYAhUM-mMKHckpDp8Q6AEINTAC#v=onepage&q=operation%20willi%20Schellenberg%20biography%20Duke%20of%20Windsor&f=false, p=157

  The Windsor File, containing material indicating that the Duke of Windsor's acts and pro-Nazi sentiments were "too horrible to contemplate", was not published until 1957,https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/830446/Winston-Churchill-WW2-tried-block-files-Duke-of-Windsor-Nazi-sympathies by the Americans, partly because of Churchill's ongoing lobbying against publication.https://books.google.ca/books?

id=EuU4PhMmt9kC&pg=PA343&dq=windsor+file+not+be+published+churchill&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJ-7immJnYAhXJrlQKHROTD_4Q6AEIOzAD#v=onepage&q=windsor%20file%20not%20be%20published%20churchill&f=false, p. 343 Andrew Norton, after researching the Windsor File and the resultant furore extensively for his 2015 book, 17 Carnations: The Royals, the Nazis, and the Biggest Cover-Up in History, concluded that Buckingham Palace had also been involved in the attempt to suppress the release of information about the Duke's disloyalty.TORONTO STAR https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/books/2015/03/08/17-carnations-the-royals-the-nazis-and-the-biggest-cover-up-in-history-by-andrew-morton-review.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/11482895/17-Carnations-the-Windsors-the-Nazis-and-the-Cover-Up-by-Andrew-Morton.html After the papers were published, the Duke of Windsor called them "complete fabrications". https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/20/winston-churchill-nazi-telegrams-uk-royals-edward-cabinet-papers Peter K Burian (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

If you want to talk about balance, where is Edward's denial of the accusations? Where is his statement to the press from the 1950s that he was never approached by the Nazis? Where is the majority mainstream view that the Marburg file is nothing more than the fantastical ravings of delusional Nazis? Instead, we have a minority fringe view taking up a relatively large proportion of the article, without any contrary opinions. Look at the sources given at the end of the article: all written after the files were released but all either dismiss them, skip over them very slightly, or ignore them. None give them credence and none deal with them in the depth to which the new insertion does. No serious historian would ever give fascist sources the same reverence as you do, because the Nazis, like the Soviets, made things up and committed great evil. DrKay (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

This has now become an Edit War, DrKay, since you have now deleted content that I added at least three times.

Surely, the solution was to add content that balanced the Nazi aspect.

 Where is his statement to the press from the 1950s that he was never approached by the Nazis? Where is the majority mainstream view that the Marburg file is nothing more than the fantastical ravings of delusional Nazis?

As I have said, the sources that I quoted are not Russians nor crazies but mainstream newspapers in England and Canada, books by a royal biographer, history books, etc. As I see it, all of the content deleted shed the Duke in an unfavourable light. But for a Neutral POV, should an article not include both pro and con aspects? Peter K Burian (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

They all quote from the Marburg files, without cross-checking them against non-tainted sources. Per WP:WEIGHT, material in the article should be covered with a weight appropriate to their coverage in reliable, scholarly sources. As I said, the Marburg files are covered only slightly or not at all by Edward's biographers. The material should consequently be removed, not expanded. It is inappropriate to give disproportionate weight to minor topics. DrKay (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The significant involvement with the Nazis by the former King of England is not a minor topic. I will be moving this debate to the next level after Christmas. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

No-one is trying to remove his involvement with the Nazis, and as I pointed out in one of the talk sections above this one, I was the editor who put it in. DrKay (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand what tainted sources are, DrKay. Do check the sources that I had cited.

British Intelligence had the Margurg/Windsor Files and determined they were legitimate, as did the Americans. The U.S. would not have published the files if they suspected the Russians of creating fake content. I did a ton of research and did not find a single source that suggested that the files were fake; of course the Duke did, but then Nixon also claimed that he had been falsely set up. And Trump claims Fake News every time something negative is published against him.

If you have reliable sources that indicate that the Marburg files were faked, great; let's discuss. If my sources are wrong, I will admit that and agree that Hitler was not planning to put Edward on the throne of England again.

So, again, I say, "let's continue the discourse". Peter K Burian (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say the files were fake. DrKay (talk) 07:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Role of Archbishop Cosmo Gordon Lang in Forcing Abdication

The documentary at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRJge_3edIc provides irrefutable documentation of the role played by Archbishop Cosmo Gordon Lang in orchestrating the coup to topple King Edward VIII. Lang mobilized the "Old Gang" and eventually forced the hand of Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin. Italus (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Do not remove entire paragraphs because of a single citation

Today, User:DrKay deleted an entire paragraph of content simply because two of the citations were to a book by Martin Allen, Hidden Agenda: How the Duke of Windsor Betrayed the Allies https://books.google.ca/books/about/Hidden_Agenda.html?id=qwk581p8yuIC&redir_esc=y

(Because Martin Allen is a fake, according to an article I found after doing the original edit: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/may/05/nationalarchives.secondworldwar)

If Allen is not acceptable as a source, no problem; delete those citations and any sentence that is based on that book. But do not delete the entire paragraph, which is supported by other, reliable, acceptable, sources.

This is the content, without the citations leading to the Martin Allen book, or any allegations made by Martin Allen after my edit:

  Many historians have suggested that Hitler was prepared to reinstate the Duke of Windsor as king in the hope of establishing a fascist Britain.[105] Documents recovered from the Germans in 1945 at Schloss Marburg, and later called the Windsor File[106] included telegrams confirming plans, principally by Walter Schellenberg,[107] to persuade the Duke to leave Portugal and return to Spain, kidnapping him if necessary. The plan, code named Operation Willi, was never attempted.[108] Lord Caldecote wrote a warning to Winston Churchill: "[the Duke] is well-known to be pro-Nazi and he may become a centre of intrigue."[109] Churchill threatened the Duke with a court-martial if he did not return to British soil.[110]

  A telegram from Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop found among German documents stated: "Germany is determined to compel England to make peace by the use of all methods and would be prepared in such an event to pave the way to the granting of any wish expressed by the Duke, in particular with respect to the ascension of the English throne by the Duke and Duchess." The Windsor File includes a telegram indicating that the plan to reinstate the Duke as king after Germany won the war had been discussed with the Duke and Duchess "Both seem to be completely bound up in formalistic ways of thought since they replied that according to British constitution this was not possible after abdication ... When [an] agent then remarked the course of war may produce changes even in the British constitution the Duchess in particular became very thoughtful."[111] The Windsor File, containing material indicating that the Duke of Windsor's acts and pro-Nazi sentiments were "too horrible to contemplate", was not published until 1957,[112] by the Americans, partly because of Churchill's ongoing lobbying against publication.[113]

Peter K Burian (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet again, someone tried to delete all of the above content. WP:NPOV indicates that we do include content that is both favourable and unfavourable to the subject, if it is well cited. Repeated deletion of material that does not reflect positive light on the Duke of Windsor is contrary to WP:NPOV.

I have inserted it again, and there is no citation to any Allen book.

If it continues, I guess we will need feedback from unbiased editors who have not been involved with this article. See Wikipedia:Feedback request service Peter K Burian (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the rationale that was used to delete content that does not shed a favourable light on the Duke: (extensive quotation from primary sources was discussed befpre on talk and rejected)

Sorry, but that is not a reason to delete entire paragraphs. If you wish, I can summarise the quote but the content is valid and deserves to remain in this article unless Feedback provides a strong indication that it should be deleted.

And this quote is not taken from a primary source but from an article about the Windsor Files in the Guardian:

  "Both seem to be completely bound up in formalistic ways of thought since they replied that according to British constitution this was not possible after abdication ... When [an] agent then remarked the course of war may produce changes even in the British constitution the Duchess in particular became very thoughtful."https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/20/winston-churchill-nazi-telegrams-uk-royals-edward-cabinet-papers Peter K Burian (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I found the topic re: including long sections of primary material, an entire cable. RfC about cable text and expanded info on Duke's wartime activities Feedback editors were mixed in their opinions.

But I am not trying to include long stretch of quoted text. Just one sentence and later another sentence. And there is no need for interpretation since the meaning of the two sentences is clear. I would love an independent view on this from editors who were involved in the previous discussion such as User:The Gnome and User:Cinderella157 and User:Wikimandia, for example.

"Both seem to be completely bound up in formalistic ways of thought since they replied that according to British constitution this was not possible after abdication ... When [an] agent then remarked the course of war may produce changes even in the British constitution the Duchess in particular became very thoughtful." T

Your insertions include obvious errors like "historians's", inconsistent citation formats, bare urls, etc. It is over-repetitive and includes material that is better suited for the daughter articles as it is rarely, or hardly, covered in the scholarly biographies and so does not merit full inclusion in this summary article. You are also using newspaper sources, including The Star, which is clearly not a high-quality scholarly source, and is inappropriate for a featured article. The insertion of an advert for Morton's book is also inappropriate. DrKay (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward VII which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Edward and relations with Nazi Germany; Remilitarization of the Rhineland

I quote from The Third Reich: A Chronicle by Richard Overy, Quercus, 2010, ISBN 978 1 84916 235 7, where Overy is quoting from Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer Weidenfeld, 1970 (presumably in translation):

The special train in which we rode ...[on 7 March 1936, the day of the Remilitarization of the Rhineland ] ... was charged ... with the tense atmosphere that emanated from the Fuehrer's section. At one station a message was handed into the car. Hitler sighed with relief: "At last! The King of England will not intervene. He is keeping his promise. That means it can all go well."

This would seem to suggest some prior contact between Edward VIII and the Germans, possibly as Prince of Wales, in order for him to give a "promise"; plus contact on 7 March itself. I suggest that this is worthy of a mention in the article on Edward and in the one on the remilitarization. I do not have access to Speer's book. I note that Joachim von Ribbentrop was not appointed ambassador to the UK until August 1936, and his predecessor, Leopold von Hoesch did not approve of the remilitarization (or of Hitler). How was the contact made? The fact that Edward would, in practice, have had little influence on Parliament or the UK Government is a separate issue.

Can anyone elucidate? Exbrum (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ribbentrop had been a Plenipotentiary before that, with many visits to England. Valetude (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, perhaps there is no record of a contact while Prince of Wales, but the implication is that Edward, as king, made contact between 20 January and 7 March 1936 apparently saying the UK would not intervene. Surely this at least begs questions as to his authority for such a communication. The incident would seem to deserve a mention in the article? Exbrum (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This is all 'suggestion' and 'implication'. We need an explicit citation that says he contacted the Nazis and promised not to intervene. Hitler is hardly a reliable source. Everything he ever said is totally discredited, and Speer is only a source for what Hitler said not for what actually happened. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Point taken. I understand that Speer's book Inside the Third Reich is not a reliable source, anyway. Exbrum (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Visit to Germany 1913

It might be worth reporting this fairly successful visit in his capacity of Prince of Wales. Valetude (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Duke and Duchess of Windsor, Cascais.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Nazist ?!?

In time of peace, I can't see any problems in visiting the German head of state. And I guess that visiting-role was cast for him after the abdication. How should he have greeted Hitler in 1937 ? Didn't Chamberlain visit Hitler too ? Etc. I guess this something of a baby born in the infamous British tabloids. And then the Nazi-story was blown up again by some hard line Royalist historian. Personally I think Edward VIII was a great man, who chose love ahead of being King. I don't believe he knew much about the NSDAP or Hitler, and I don't believe he hated Jews - or thought it was a jolly good idea to start a new war 20 years after the madness in the trenches. It could be noted that he made a Nazi-greeting at a visit in Germany. But that's about it. And - "A full greeting" , what's meant by that ? Had it been better to make a two third or a half such greeting, which by the way wasn't a Nazi invention even. The Romans used this greeting too, 2000 years earlier but said "Ave !" instead of "Heil Hitler". What expectations could Britain have on a man born, raised and protected to become a King ? And who, when his time came, wasn't allowed to marry the one he loved ? Did he really wish to meet Hitler ? And wasn't that a work that his brother ought to have done instead ? Representing his country, I mean ? Boeing720 (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• What have you read? Read more. This is at the top of a google search for: was edward VIII a nazi sympathizer. The debate is well established. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you find any Nazi-allegation before the abdication ? The debate may be established, but how about the actual truth ? Boeing720 (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That source points out more or less the entire Royal Family as Nazists. Quote: "Intelligence reports and German, Spanish and Russian documents show members of the British royal family were indeed far closer to Nazi Germany than has previously been recognised." ("Members" in plural). I think there may have been some kind of sympathy with Germany, but that's very different from being a Nazi sympathizer. Also the Versailles Treaty was a quite different peace when compared to the Woodrow Wilson Doctrine. The idea of giving Germany all the blame for that war (that began with the Serbian nationalists assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Arch-Duke) wasn't quite fair. To believe, or by time realise that, doesn't make one a Nazi. But for Edward VIII , I would very much like to see any Nazi-allegations put forward before the abdication or before September 1939 at least. Boeing720 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

He, and others, had “sympathies”. Did they actually do anything? I think, actually, no. The allegation is of sympathies. It leads to speculative debate. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between having some sympathies for Germany after WWI and having sympathies for the Nazists. By 1937 perhaps not crystal clear. My Grand-mother (mother's mother) got married in January 1932, and my grandparents made a Honey-journey to Berlin. (Which is located a train night ferry away from Malmö). They later made more trips to Germany during the 1930's. My Grandmother said they had seen marching men a few times, but also that she didn't know anything what was going on. The world wasn't enlightened enough about the Nazists. That "full" Hitler greeting could easily just have been something similar to "taking the customs where you are". And yes, you're correct allegations on sympathies leads to speculative debates - and parts of articles. Boeing720 (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Historicity. Of course you are right, difference between having some sympathies for Germany after WWI and having sympathies for the Nazists. But in 1935, playboy princes reverted to traditional behaviours, their mostly German heritage, and it wasn’t the style to distinguish between government and nation. I think the common references to their pre-war “Nazi sympathies”, of the Royal family excluding George V, don't distinguish between “Nazi” and “German”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The pro-Nazi British Union of Fascists (1932-1940) did manage to attract a number of British nobles. Such as Patrick Boyle, 8th Earl of Glasgow, Harold Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere (owner of the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror), Josslyn Hay, 22nd Earl of Erroll (more famous for his unsolved murder than his political activities), David Freeman-Mitford, 2nd Baron Redesdale, Edward Russell, 2nd Baron Russell of Liverpool, Edward Russell, 26th Baron de Clifford, and Hastings Russell, 12th Duke of Bedford (the noted ornithologist). I would not be surprised if some Royals shared its ideas. But following the start of the war, most of them either joined the war effort or wisely kept quiet over such ideas. Dimadick (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not overwhelmingly certain that British Union of Fascists resembled the NSDAP in Germany. Why didn't they use "National Socialism" instead of "Fascism". Did they blame more or less every bad thing on the Jews (for instance)? I must than SmokeyJoe for his explanation, thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Queen's visit

On 18 May 1972, Queen Elizabeth II visited the Windsors...

That was ten days before his death, which they obviously knew was imminent. Apparently the Queen had sent Prince Charles on a reconnaisance visit in advance, which he detested. Some report of that might be of interest. Valetude (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Bisexuality

In the book Full Service, written by Lionel Friedberg from 150 hours of interviews with the famous Hollywood escort and pimp Scotty Bowers, published in 2012, in the 8-pages chapter A Royal Affair (p. 131-138), Bowers recalls being introduced to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor by Cecil Beaton, during one of their frequent visits to Hollywood in the "late forties or early fifties". Beaton told him that the duke "was a classic example of a bisexual man" (similarly to his younger brother Prince George, Duke of Kent who is also said to have had an affair with Beaton). Bowers continues: "I could hardly believe it." According to Beaton, "the whole myth of the great royal romance was a fabrication, a giant cover-up... to conceal the truth about Edward's sexual preferences. A king could not possibly get away with living the kind of lifestyle as that favored by Edward. It would have stifled him. Apparently Wallis Simpson shared similar bisexual urges. Because of that she was the ideal candidate to become Edward's wife. Although she was portrayed as the great love of his life and the person behind his reason for abdicating from the British throne she was in actual fact the perfect partner to share his double life with him. He liked boys. She liked girls. Occasionally they even had sex with each other, but, essentially, he was gay and she was a dyke. What better way to save face and ensure that they would have the freedom to live their lives in peace and out of the public spotlight than to marry one another?" Bowers then continues: Edward gently pulled me aside and said, "you know, Scotty, a lot of people have told me about you, long before Wally and I came to California", among them Beaton, British millionaire Albert Brown who hosted the couple in his Los Angeles mansion, the actor Peter Bull and film director Brian Desmond Hurst. "It was obvious that his relationship with those four men transcended mere platonic friendship. This became patently clear less than twenty minutes later when he and I slipped into the guesthouse at the bottom end of the garden, stripped off, and began making out." Bowers continues: "In all the years when they visited California I arranged tricks for them...", mostly in a garden bungalow of the Beverly Hills Hotel. "While they were there it was easy for me to bring over a bunch of new young people for them. We would have a mixture of half a dozen males and females engage in a display of gay and straight sex in the bungalow and then Eddy, Wally, and I would each pair off with the one we fancied most. Eddy liked a three-way with a girl, too, now and again, and occasionally he wanted a woman only, and there were indeed occasions when he got involved in a three-way with Wally and another woman. But his preference was definitely for the boys." "I often tricked Eddy myself. We became good friends and were very attached to one another." - Surely this is "salacious gossip" (Sunday Telegraph), yet Gore Vidal, who also knew the Windsors at the time, confirmed at the release of the book: "Scotty doesn't lie". Moreover, the story highlights some hardly known aspects about the "love of a century", a marriage which indeed altered the course of history. I believe this most important background of the marriage should at least be shortly mentioned in the article. Equord (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

It's made-up garbage. DrKay (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps. But more likely it isn't. Tim Teeman, US correspondent for The Times, wrote in a book published in 2013 (Tim Teeman: In Bed with Gore Vidal. Hustlers, Hollywood and the Private World of an American Master, Magnus Books, New York 2013, p. 72): "Some have questioned the veracity of Bowers' stories. But the biographer William J. Mann, who spoke to Bowers when researching his 2006 book Kate: The Woman Who Was Hepburn, said "I found him forthright and honest and not interested in personal fame or gain... Several people I respect vouched for Scotty's truthfulness and liability as a source", including Dominick Dunne, John Schlesinger and Gore Vidal. Matt Tyrnauer produced the film Scotty and the Secret History of Hollywood (2017). (See: "Cannes: Two Hot Hollywood-Themed Docs to Get Sneak Screenings (Exclusive)". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved November 18, 2017.) The reviewer Todd McCarthy commented in The Hollywood Reporter: "At a certain point, anyone who reads Bowers’ book or sees this film has to decide whether to believe him or not. At this stage, there is no reason not to; Scotty does not seem remotely like a braggart or someone desperate for a sliver of late-in-life fame." (Todd McCarthy, 'Scotty and the Secret History of Hollywood': Review, The Hollywood Reporter, September 9, 2017, -- Equord (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Why would he say 'Edward' and 'Eddy'? Only someone who didn't know the Duke would call him that. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The answer to this is in the book (p. 134-135): "The very first person to grab my hand and shake it warmly was the duke himself. I wasn't sure what to call him. He must have sensed that because he smiled and said, 'Please call me Edward'. 'Hi, Eddy', I said. I've always had a habit of shortening people's names to catchy nicknames. Why should Edward be different, ex-king or not? Fortunately, he didn't seem the least bit offended by my informality and then introduced me to his wife, who he referred to as Wally. So that's what I called her, too'". Keep in mind that styling habits may differ between the UK and California. And wouldn't it have been a bit odd to ask someone like Scotty Bowers to call him Royal Highness or Sir, especially with regard to what happened "twenty minutes later"? - Equord (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

His name was David. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

David was the last of his seven given names (which were Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David). Only members of his family and his wife would call him David. All other friends and contacts it was Edward. You've been influenced too much by the media and fictionalised productions such as 'The Crown'.Ds1994 (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I've only been influenced by reading history books. I don't watch The Crown or any similar programmes. It's Scotty's claim that is fictional, not mine. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

demonstrably affectionate

Article sez:

Edward's father, though a harsh disciplinarian, was demonstrably affectionate, and his mother displayed a frolicsome side with her children that belied her austere public image.

I'm wondering if this should be "demonstratively affectionate"; that is, he showed his affection in a way that could be perceived? "Demonstrably" means that it is possible to prove, now, that he was affectionate, which seems an odd thing to say. There's a citation to "Ziegler, pp. 30–31", which doesn't help much without the book. --Trovatore (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

FAR

Sadly this 2008 promotion (never reviewed in the last 12 years) just does not meet FA criteria, what with uncited paragraphs and citations to unreliable sources, such as Albert Speer's memoir. I am adding it to the list of FAs to be reviewed. buidhe 18:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with quoting from Speer, as long as it is attributed to him in the text. DrKay (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Change of phrasing in lead

I changed the phrasing of the very first sentence to be, in my view, more intuitive: from "until his abdication that December" to "until his abdication in December of the same year". I then noticed that this is a Featured Article and that I should have probably proposed it here first. If you oppose the change, feel free to change it back. Lennart97 (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

He did not personally assent to the Abdication Act

We say: The next day [11 December 1936], the last act of his reign was the royal assent to His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936.

This reads as if Edward personally signed Royal Assent to his own Abdication Act. That seems not to be the case. I quote from Michael Bloch, The Reign and Abdication of Edward VIII (1990), p. 198:

While the King was lunching with Churchill, the Abdication Bill passed its third reading in the House of Commons and was hurried through all its stages in the House of Lords in a matter of minutes. As it was to take effect immediately, the King's consent had to be given on his behalf in the Upper House by three Lords Commissioners. It was a traditional ceremony, which did not fail to move the few who were present to witness it. The Commissioners doffed their cocked hats; all the King's titles were solemnly read out; there was a reference to it being the first year of his reign; and the clerk proclaimed le roy le veult with tragic emphasis. Thus, at eight minutes to two on the afternoon of Friday the eleventh of December 1936, ended the reign of Edward the Eighth.

This detail needs to make its way into the article. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Whilst that’s true, royal assent by the monarch in person hasn’t been given since 1854 (Queen Victoria) but it’s still always referenced as though it’s a personal act (“the Queen’s given assent to...”). Royal Assent by Commission is the norm. See the then applicable Royal Assent by Commission Act 1541. It remains an act of the monarch even if executed via the monarch’s representatives. So I don’t think it’s misleading the way it’s written but no harm in changing it to include the detail in Bloch’s book - provided it’s made clear that this was the usual procedure. In fact, it should be an addition rather than a change since the royal assent was, by definition, the “last act” of his reign as it immediately ended it. The current wording is literally correct. DeCausa (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

On further thought, it’s probably too much detail for this article and is better suited to Abdication of Edward VIII.DeCausa (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all the above. One other positive is the precise moment Edward's reign ended and George VI's commenced, which I haven't read anywhere else. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

One more thing. The Royal Assent by Commission link you provided suggests that Royal Assent is given before the assembled members of both houses, normally well over 1,000 people. Yet Bloch refers to "the few who were present to witness it". Why the difference? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it’s given before the assembled members who happen to be present. Thinking of the empty benches you see of televised parliamentary sessions most of the time i.e. when it’s not a big occasion like Prime Minister's Questions...that’s not necessarily a lot of people. DeCausa (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The abdication of a monarch - how much bigger than that could a piece of legislation be? Or is it that the Royal Assent part of the procedure is completely taken for granted and not considered worth waiting around for? Surely the houses would have been more than usually full for the actual debates (if any) and votes? But then most of them left for the bar or wherever. It's like going to the movies to see a grand epic blockbuster, and then not waiting for the closing credits. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it is taken for granted. The vote and announcement of the result is the big event. The assent doesn’t happen at the same time - it’s a whole separate process subsequently - usually days afterwards, and it’s a foregone conclusion. The monarch doesn’t have a choice in the modern era. According to our article on it, the last time the assent was withheld was 1708! I suspect MPs dont consider it of much importance as a ceremony. More like the lights coming up and the litter being collected than the credits... However, Bloch implies that the assent did occur (unusually) immediately after the vote because it was all rushed through so quickly. Of course, the abdication was a huge emotional trauma for the establishment at the time. It’s possible that it was just that no one wanted to hang around for the final death blow. DeCausa (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, your explanations are very clear. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Please double-check something

The coat of arms listed for Edward VIII as Prince of Wales is undoubtedly correct for the time after World War One, when the Saxony shield (German) would have been removed. Other sources say his father King George V erased the Saxony inescutcheon (shield), from all of Prince Albert's descendants' arms that had it, in 1917. My hunch would be that this is when the Saxony shield was removed from the Prince of Wales's Coat of Arms. So wouldn't it be the case that as Prince of Wales Edward bore, from 1911 to 1917, the same Coat of Arms as his father had borne as Prince Of Wales until the removal of the Saxony shields from Coats of Arms, and bore the coat of arms depicted as Prince of Wales (which are the same as the current Prince of Wales's Coat of Arms) only AFTER 1917?2603:7000:9906:A91C:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Dominions and the abdication

"As required by the Statute of Westminster, all the Dominions had already consented to the abdication.[1]"

I've some checking to do but I believe this is incorrect. Ireland enacted its own legislation for the abdication the day after Westminster. The Statute of Westminster gavethe option for dominions to either consent to imperial legislation or enact their own - which Éamon de Valera chose.

Andrew Heard obviously has never heard of Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.145.26 (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This article should be included in the article, explains how the Free State was technically an independent monarchy after the rest of the Dominions had approved the Abdication, and how De Valera accordingly abolished all Constitutional references to the Crown. Culloty82 (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

References

State opening of Parliament in 1936?

Did Edward VIII ever open Parliament during his short reign? (It would have been a memorable occasion without a queen accompanying.) I have noticed on a visit to the Palace of Westminster (a few yrs ago now) that in the Royal Gallery a portrait painting of him was conspicuously absent (no vacant space to indicate a painting temporarily removed for work on it et) from the sequential display of portraits of successive sovereigns and their consorts from George I to Elizabeth II and wondered then if it was a case he never got to open Parliament as sovereign. It would be a pertinent point to mention if there is a sourced statement to use.Cloptonson (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a photograph of him opening parliament in the article. DrKay (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I did belatedly see it and tried to withdraw the entire question but I will let the talk point stand.Cloptonson (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

"British King who abdicated" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect British King who abdicated. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#British King who abdicated until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 23:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Was Edward VIII a prince after his abdication?

The Wallis Simpson article has him listed as "Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor" as spouse, while his titles listed on this article after 8 March 1937 only has "His Royal Highness The Duke of Windsor", restating that as "Edward, Duke of Windsor". Since they were married in June does that mean the Wallis Simpson article is wrong on that regard then? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

He was a prince and a duke, like Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh; Prince William, Duke of Cambridge; Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex; and Prince Andrew, Duke of York. Though they are called formally 'His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh' and so on, they can also be called by their names, such as 'Prince Philip'. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

So it's not necessarily wrong then to call him "Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor"? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not necessarily wrong to call him "Edward, Duke of Windsor", if that's what we want to call him there. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Shirley Temple

It seems, according to this source, that as The Crown has suggested, "Throughout their letters the duke and duchess used code names including Cookie for the Queen Mother, Shirley Temple for Queen Elizabeth II, and Cry Baby for Winston Churchill." Furthermore, "After the duke learned his mother had left him only three small boxes and a pair of candlesticks, he wrote to the duchess: “What a smug stinking lot my relations are and you’ve never seen such a seedy worn out bunch of old hags most of them have become.”" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

So? Sbishop (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

So obviously, we'd never include such trivial tittle-tattle. And of course we couldn't use the original source of the extracts of letters, The Daily Mail, even if supported by LA Times, as it's banned. But I'm surprised there is no mention at all of Bloch's 1988 book The Secret File of the Duke of Windsor. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Content forking, two articles should not duplicate material. Added in 2005, still present and sourced to Bloch. DrKay (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

So those letters are relevant to the life of Wallis Simpson, but not to the life of the person who wrote them? Edward was the one who dreamt up these little nicknames, and the one who described his family as "a seedy worn out bunch of old hags"? I mean, the book's title is The Secret File of the Duke of Windsor. That's a bit of a clue? I always assumed Wikipedia:Content forking was for substantial content. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

p.s. and so I've looked online at the 2012 edition of the book here (which has no page numbers) and it seems very unfair to suggest that it was only Simpson who used these names in just her letters. They were obviously nicknames that they had both invented between themselves. But this is just a tiny illustratory snippet. The fact that the book was published surely deserves a mention in this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Considering that Michael Bloch is already a principal source here, I think a single sentence summarising his book would be perfectly justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The traitor king?

I see there is a book out entitled "The Traitor King" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwpqw0sOyXY). One might suggest having a specific section on the Nazi connection and emphasizing the abdication-nazi connection for historical context. --Umshini (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The various accusations are covered in the lead with a substantial amount in the body if the article. What is it you want to add? DeCausa (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Lownie is a notable author, so his book may be a useful áddition somewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Titles and Styles (start date to end date) section missing

Should there be a consistent format for the Titles and Styles section, in line with the entries for Victoria and Elizabeth II? Showing start and end dates of titles for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.189.125 (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Governor of the Bahamas

Should his info box include his posting as Governor of the Bahamas? Any other figure’s info box obviously would and while it seems odd to include this on a former King’s, it was odd that he was given this position, and it seems more odd to make an exception for him and not include this role. Grateful for any thoughts. FJDEACKB (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Possibly. There was nothing odd about him being given the job - it was clearly to get him out of Europe. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It was there, a year ago. Peter Ormond 💬 22:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Re-add it, as his predecessors & successors have it in their boxes. GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It was added briefly a year ago, and removed within a couple of weeks.[1] I agreed with the removal because infoboxes should be simple and succinct. This one is already very long. Inclusion of his predecessor and successor in the office is particularly irrelevant: neither man had any influence on Edward's life at all and are not mentioned anywhere in the article text, so why they should be in the lead (of which the infobox is part) is beyond me. The succession box is more than sufficient coverage. DrKay (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Add it to the succession boxes, but don't add into the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Page Edward VIII errors

This page has been attacked/deliberately edited incorrectly. Edward VIII never identified as a woman, was not a queen & was not married to Marge Simpson. Please fix this problem. 82.44.196.148 (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• King Edward VIII 1936 Portrait.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Titles

Why on earth was the titles history removed in this article? I find that particularly interesting. LorenzoUSA (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It was unsourced and dubious, as clearly explained multiple times[2][3][4]. It contradicted the sources and the article text. It was trivial, over-repetitive, beset by excessive detail, and under regular attack by a succession of IPs inserting original research[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. This is merely a selection of the repairs that have had to be done over the last year. The disruption stretches back over years. The article is better off without the section, which was totally unnecessary, wholly uninformative and a target for disruptive insertion of invented styles. DrKay (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I also object to DrKay's repeated deletion of the section, which is specifically what I came to the article looking for. The various ways the subject was publicly referred to throughout his life is hardly trivial information, and it is helpful to present it in a concise and collected way in the article (even if that does entail a small amount of repetition). If sourcing and accuracy are issues, they can be addressed by improving the section. Attracting vandalism is a fact of life on Wikipedia and not a reason to delete good content.--Trystan (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It isn't good content. I said explicitly it was unsourced and dubious. In fact, that's the first thing I said above and something I've said multiple times, as I again I said above. DrKay (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll work on pulling together the citations for a sourced and accurate version of the section. On initial research, the version previously in the article seems generally accurate except that "Cornwall and Wales" should be "Cornwall and York", and 11 December 1936 – 8 March 1937 should indicate his styles and titles were unclear and refer to the Duke of Windsor section of the article.--Trystan (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it should be put back. The relevant content is already in the article. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

All that OR-breeding fluff is barely sufferable in articles about living people. At the very least articles about historical people should be spared. Surtsicna (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Providing information on the various ways the subject was publicly known throughout his life is standard biographical information, and it is not currently well-covered in the article. That he was born "Prince Edward of York" is in the infobox, but, based on the current state of the article, shouldn't be, as it is not in the body and is not sourced. The article doesn't offer any assistance to a reader looking to confirm that a reference to "Prince Edward of Cornwall and York" or to "Prince Edward of Wales" may, depending on the time period, be referring to this subject.--Trystan (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The titles history should be included once it is properly sourced. We have similar lists for George V, George VI, Elizabeth II, and Charles III, as well as certain other British royals. Readers may expect to find that information for Edward VIII as well. ---Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead image

Which image should be used in the infobox?

• 
  Option A
• 
  Option B
• 
  Option C
• 
  Option D
• 
  Option E
• 
  Option F

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Option A - High resolution, looks towards the text. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Whoever started this edit war should have borne in mind two fundamental policies: WP:ONUS (whereby the onus lies with those seeking to insert new material to gain consensus for it) and WP:FAOWN, which dictates that substantial changes to a WP:FA will be discussed on the talk before making the change (as a consensus is deemed already to have been reached during its promotion). Also: per MOS:IM, images of people should look inwards" and towards the text rather than away from it; as such, any image that does not follow the manual of style also fails the featured article criteria 2 ("It follows the style guidelines"). SN54129 12:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with you, the user in question should have gained consensus for it, especially on an article of FA status, and especially especially because it sought to change the outcome of a discussion on an unrelated talkpage. Somehow the onus has fallen to me to gain consensus for reverting their change, which is why I opened this discussion. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  The A image was not the image used when the article was nominated for FA nor when it was featured on the Main Page, nor was it decided in a discussion. It was only the latest in a series of bold image changes. Surtsicna (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  When it was promoted to FA, it had an image from 1919. When its status as a featured article was kept in 2020, it used a photo from 1922. Neither used a photo of him just before, during, or after his reign. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Of these, Option A - B,C,D are far too low quality, in E he's too young. But I think there are other options. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

He is older in E than he is in A. Surtsicna (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Just, apparently. But he doesn't look it, maybe because of the lo-res image. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Option B, because it is closest to what our readers expect to see. Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, the lead image should be "what our readers will expect to see", and that is likely to be Edward as he looked like when he became king and abdicated, i.e. in the 1930s around the age of 40, than as he looked like in the 1910s at the age of 25. Option D would be the next best by that criterium, as he is still better known as the duke of Windsor than as a 25-year-old prince of Wales, but the background noise is somewhat distracting. Option A has resolution on its side. Surtsicna (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• D but none are very good. "what our readers will expect to see". What evidence is there that that means in the 1930s. What this reader would expect is later life - as Duke of Windsor. To me personally that's the most recognisable - probably because it's that stage of his life that would have generated the most photos. DeCausa (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  The abdication crisis is what Edward is most commonly associated with, but in any case, I agree that he is more recognizable as duke of Windsor than as a 25-year-old. Surtsicna (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• B - seems to be the closet to when he was king. Three of the others (A, C, E) appear to be when he was prince of Wales & one (D) appears to be when he was later duke of Windsor. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Option B - The image is better as it is what we expect to see when we think of Edward VIII. The photo was also taken closer to when he became king. DDMS123 (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Option A - It's the highest resolution image out of the five, plus its the most recognizable image for me. But that might be just because I am not from the UK, I think people outside of the UK know only about him as a king rather than a duke due the abdication crisis. Ukraineball91 (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC
• Option A - Has the highest quality out of the rest, but to be honest none of them are really that good. Ollieisanerd (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option F which I have now added. The top image should show him as King which, Wallis or no, is his major claim to fame. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC) PS: I will be uploading a cropped, more close-up version to Commons this evening. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)  Done --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks like this has gone stagnant. Soon I will insert F at the top, instead of the somewhat ninny-like photo there now, unless anyone vehemently objects. In any case ninny-pic needs to go. Arguments for it are too opinionated to be taken seriously. What we expect to see? Who? Surely anyone who expects Edward to look like a lovesick nincompoop. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I still prefer A a lot more than F since it has a far better resolution and quality. However at least it shows him during his reign, so I prefer it to the previous photo (and I know that A isn't of his reign either, but at least its of much better resolution). Ukraineball91 (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Nobody in all the years I've been here has ever convinced me that image resolution and quality are more important than image relevance and characterization. So I hope you'll pardon me, that that's all I think counts. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I find F to be the weakest of the proposals and its copyright status is not sufficiently clear. It is very unlikely that the identity of the author cannot be ascertained beyond their, in England quite unusual, last name. If they were active until 1947 and lived at least 7 more years in retirement, the photograph would not be free to use. Surtsicna (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The photographer was probably Herbert Vandyk (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Vandyk) even though he is said in the article on his father to have died a few years earlier than the picture caption says. Sbishop (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

For a full week, nobody objected to F. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Option F looks good to me, no objections, it's the best of the five so let's go with that. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent arbitrary development (several inconsiderate changes with no use of this page) is Wikipedia work at its worst. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

An IP # 87.115.251.171 is arguing on h talk page that an edit summary is equal to using a talk page. What's worse, whoever is behind the IP left this discussion stagnant for over a week then showed up in edit out of the blue to change the image to B. 5 editors (now including me) like A, 3 like B. I think we should have the image that most of us want & will change back to A shortly. In B, Edward looks like a lovesick ninny. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Can someone do some research about his being a trader? Apparently information has come out about this and I don't know if it's really accurate or not. 2600:1010:A130:BE11:FD4E:3CB3:DCCD:9C1C (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Was he a traitor?

There is apparently some new information that he was some sort of traitor. Can someone research this and update the page as to whether or not he was one?Zachygirl (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about "traitor", but the article already mentions that Edward was seen as a fascist and pro-German:

• • "The former Austrian ambassador, Count Albert von Mensdorff-Pouilly-Dietrichstein, who was also a second cousin once removed and friend of George V, believed that Edward favoured German fascism as a bulwark against communism, and even that he initially favoured an alliance with Germany. According to the Duke of Windsor, the experience of "the unending scenes of horror" during the First World War led him to support appeasement. Hitler considered Edward to be friendly towards Germany and thought that Anglo-German relations could have been improved through Edward if it were not for the abdication. Albert Speer quoted Hitler directly: "I am certain through him permanent friendly relations could have been achieved. If he had stayed, everything would have been different. His abdication was a severe loss for us." "
  • "Many historians have suggested that Adolf Hitler was prepared to reinstate Edward as king in the hope of establishing a fascist puppet government in Britain after Operation Sea Lion. It is widely believed that the Duke and Duchess sympathised with fascism before and during the Second World War, and were moved to the Bahamas to minimise their opportunities to act on those feelings. In 1940 he said: "In the past 10 years Germany has totally reorganised the order of its society ... Countries which were unwilling to accept such a reorganisation of society and its concomitant sacrifices should direct their policies accordingly." During the occupation of France, the Duke asked the German Wehrmacht forces to place guards at his Paris and Riviera homes; they did so. In December 1940, Edward gave Fulton Oursler of Liberty magazine an interview at Government House in Nassau. Oursler conveyed its content to President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a private meeting at the White House on 23 December 1940. The interview was published on 22 March 1941 and in it Edward was reported to have said that "Hitler was the right and logical leader of the German people" and that the time was coming for President Roosevelt to mediate a peace settlement. Edward protested that he had been misquoted and misinterpreted."
  • "The Allies became sufficiently disturbed by German plots revolving around Edward that President Roosevelt ordered covert surveillance of the Duke and Duchess when they visited Palm Beach, Florida, in April 1941. Duke Carl Alexander of Württemberg (then a monk in an American monastery) had told the Federal Bureau of Investigation that Wallis had slept with the German ambassador in London, Joachim von Ribbentrop, in 1936; had remained in constant contact with him; and had continued to leak secrets."
  • "Author Charles Higham claimed that Anthony Blunt, an MI5 agent and Soviet spy, acting on orders from the British royal family, made a successful secret trip to Schloss Friedrichshof in Allied-occupied Germany towards the end of the war to retrieve sensitive letters between the Duke of Windsor and Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis.... In the late 1950s, documents recovered by U.S. troops in Marburg, Germany, in May 1945, since titled the Marburg Files, were published following more than a decade of suppression, enhancing theories of Edward's sympathies for Nazi ideologies." Dimadick (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Did Professor Andrew Lownie write Traitor King: The Scandalous Exile of the Duke & Duchess of Windsor?

Both the Duke and Duchess passed along information to high members of the Government in Nazi Germany during the invasion of France. It was understood the true reason as to why Edward abdicated would not be known until after the end of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, then the historical records could be revealed about the Constitutional Crisis in England in 1936 and the close relationships between Nazi Germany and the Windsors. But:

"A culture of secrecy is obstructing British historians If our history is to be written accurately, we need to have all records made available – not just those a government department sees fit."

"Palace and Government stand accused of colluding to hide secret files on the royal family. Authors and historians say they have been denied access to hidden files or they have been "mysteriously removed" after making requests under the Freedom of Information Act." ... the situation is "farcical." It's important all researchers now stand up against this censoring of history. --93.211.220.220 (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You know, best of luck with that. But why are you telling us? --Trovatore (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

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 18:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

Which image should be used in the infobox?

• 
  Option A
• 
  Option B
• 
  Option C

This was last discussed a few months ago, resulting in a rough consensus for option A. Most comments were made before option F (now option B) was proposed. After it was proposed, it seemed to gain some traction, so I felt it should be discussed a little more between the two. I won't add a formal {{RfC}} tag to this (unless no one comments here without it), but if someone else feels it should be done I wouldn't complain. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

A is fine - B pretty unexiting, and very lo-res. Don't let's start another time-wasting Rfc for heaven's sake. It's been less than 4 months! Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

C. He's facing forward in this one, unlike the others. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

A is fine. B and C are both grainy and low resolution. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

B and C would have been fine had their quality been better. But, I'm afraid we have to go with A. Keivan.f^Talk 17:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I support Option A. The other images are just too low quality in my opinion. Option B looks like a drawing or painting of some sorts and Option C looks very grainy and somewhat damaged. While A isn't from his time as King like B, he mostly looked the same at the time of his reign regardless, so I think that doesn't really matter given the options we have. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC of interest

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 20:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

edit war zealot

discuss3MRB1 (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It would be much easier if you could make your points in complete sentences. You've simply not added anything to the article but a redundant, poor-quality source as far as I can tell. Sorry. Remsense诉 09:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense *https://web.archive.org/web/20200723104341/https://www.americanheritage.com/secret-treason

• discuss 3MRB1 (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a poor-quality source that doesn't add anything to the article, whose claims are already covered by a better-quality source. Remsense诉 10:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The source clarifies the date of the interview as 19 December? But the article doesn't mention that anyway, so it's probably unnecessary detail? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 amhist is a forbes mag , the article of very many pages is by son about father and E8 3MRB1 (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I read it. Which aspect of the article is this being offered to support? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 the interview and article 3MRB1 (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

We do not add ever more sources because we think they are interesting, they are meant to support specific claims made in the article. The relevant claims made in the article are already adequately cited. Remsense诉 10:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense point&click versus get books from somewhere 3MRB1 (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The ease of access of a source is generally not a factor in whether it's considered reliable; the quality of a source usually trumps perceived ease of access. Remsense诉 10:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It's still unclear for which details in this article you are proposing to use the American Heritage piece as a source. It might be a useful source at Fulton Oursler, as it is written by his son. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)