Talk:Duke of Windsor

Inheritable?

Would the title have passed onto any children he might have had with Wallis? --Jfruh 05:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to see the letters patent to be sure, but most British peerages pass male-preference primogeniture, so it likely could have passed to any sons he and Wallis had. Mackensen (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not completely sure, but the letters patent specifically denied the style Royal Highness to the Duchess and her descendants, so it seems unlikely that the dukedom would've passed to these non-royal children. But then of course I don't know. (Although the legality of denying the HRH to either can be questioned, as wives always take their husbands' titles and his children would still be grandchildren of George V, making them HRH. The letters patent were seemingly even worded to suggest that George VI had to make his brother a Royal Highness, while in fact Edward should never have lost the style as a son of George V.) TysK 02:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There was suggestion at the time that by Edward abdicating the throne, he forfeited all right to hold a royal title. Indeed, there was even suggestion that Edward should be introduced to the people at his abdication broadcast as Mr Edward Windsor. No one really knew what to do, because a voluntary abdication had never occurred, so the Letters patent were worded in a way that appeared generous to Edward; many people thought he had let the country down.

Legally, of course, the style HRH would normally pass to any male-line grandchild of the sovereign (in this case, George V), as laid out by George V's Letters patent of 1917. However, by Letters patent, these rules could be overturned. For example, when George V's father, Edward VII, had granted his daughter's daughters the title Princess and the style Highness, which defied the rule that those titles should not pass to a granddaughter in the female line. Presumably, if Letters patent could create the rules, they could also break the rules.

Text of Letters Patent, 1937:

George the Sixth By the Grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King Defender of the Faith To all to whom these Presents shall come Greeting Whereas Her late Majesty Queen Victoria by Her Letters Patent dated the thirtieth day of January in the twenty-fourth [sic] year of Her Reign did declare Her Royal Pleasure that certain members of the Royal Family being in lineal succession to the Crown namely the children of the Sovereigns of these Realms and the children of the sons of any Sovereign should have the style title or attribute of Royal Highness And Whereas His late Majesty King George the Fifth by Letters Patent dated the thirtieth day of November in the eigth year of His Reign did extend and amend the said Letters Patent by declaring that as well as those hereinbefore mentioned the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales should have the style title or attribute of Royal Highness And Whereas Our Brother Edward by his Instrument of Abdication executed on the tenth day of December One thousand nine hundred and thirty six declared his irrevocable determination to renounce the Throne for himself and for his descendants and by His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 effect was given to the said Instrument and by reason of the said Instrument and the said Act his issue if any and the descendants of that issue will not be in the lineal succession to the Crown Now Know Ye that We of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion Do hereby declare Our Royal Will and Pleasure that Our Brother Edward having been born in the lineal succession to the Crown shall notwithstanding his said Declaration and the said Act be entitled to hold and enjoy for himself only the style title or attribute of Royal Highness so however that his wife and descendants if any shall not hold the said style title or attribute Our Will and Pleasure further is that Our Earl Marshal of England or his Deputy for the time being do cause these Our Letters Patent or the enrolment thereof to be recorded in Our College of Arms to the end that Our Officers of Arms and all others may take due notice thereof In Witness whereof we have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent Witness Ourself at Westminster the twenty-seventh day of May in the first year of Our Reign

By Warrant under the King's Sign Manual Schuster

(Original letters patent, National Archives, HO 125/17.) Whitehall, May 28, 1937.The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date the 27th day of May, 1937, to declare that the Duke of Windsor shall, notwithstanding his Instrument of Abdication executed on the loth day of December, 1936, and His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act, 1936, whereby effect was given to the said Instrument, be entitled to hold and enjoy for himself only the title style or attribute of Royal Highness so however that his wife and descendants if any shall not hold the said title style or attribute.

1st Duke of Windsor

Have removed the 1st from the succession box as bearers of the style HRH and Prince/Princess do not use numbers. Although Edward abdicated the throne, he was born with the style HRH The Prince Edward, and before his so the numbering is not necessary.

He wasn't born with that style- he was born His Highness Prince Edward of York as the son of the Duke of York and great grandson of Queen Victoria. Astrotrain 14:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Considerations leading to the creation

I added to this section, as it was stated that the title Duke of Sussex was vacant; technically the exact title was, but as I pointed out an earldom of Sussex was extant as a subsidiary title of the Duke of Connaught. Since I had never heard that either Connaught or Cambridge were under consideration, and they could not well have been since both titles were then in use, and since no source was given for that assertion, I could well have removed that speculation as both absurd and unsourced. I didn't, but pointed out that the Sussex title was not in fact available, though it might just have been used since the Duke of Connaught's heir being a Royal prince did not require it, and added Kendal, Ross and Clarence as other and more unambiguously vacant titles that were not apparently considered, as the article (unsourced) already stated had seemed to be the case with Sussex.

This all seemed uncontentious to me, but someone felt otherwise and has reverted the article to its earlier state of less-informed unsourced speculation, rather strangely giving "unsourced" as the reason. In the hope that this person will not do so again, see Earl of Sussex and note the 1874 (last to date) creation, Duke of Kendal and note that the title has had royal connotations and was then currently vacant, and Duke of Ross ditto, also Duke of Clarence. For the non-use of the title by the then heir of the Duke of Connaught, see the link to Prince Arthur of Connaught in the restored text.

If someone wants to clean all the speculation out of the section, I wouldn't object for my part, though felt it would be going too far to do that myself. But if there's going to be speculation, it might as well be reasonably well-informed and not talk about Sussex for example as if there were no extant title at the time. 86.178.43.76 (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that section is that the entire section except the last sentence is unsourced and only references other wikipedia articles. Therefore, I thought your edit was unverifiable. The article has great potential but need plenty of contempory and modern sources. It currently has precisly one. Your edit was very interesting and, if sourced, would be a great addition to the article. LizzieHarrison 18:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you and sorry for the snappy tone. I'd be quite happy as I said for all the unsourced material to be removed, including mine, all it really gives is speculation. I'm in no doubt that what Wikipedia says about the various titles is correct, being reasonably familiar with the field and having published hardcopy sources to hand, but am not quite sure what else I could link to that would be acceptable as a source. And in any case speculation it would remain. 86.178.43.76 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can use those hard-copy sources with the cite book template, then everyone would be happy. I cannot do this as I only have Wikipedia to hand on this topic. After this, if it is unsourced, it can be removed. LizzieHarrison 12:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

According to who?

It says in the article about the choice of the title, that, "...this was an entirely reasonable, if indeed not the only possible, conclusion." This is the opinion of the author and ought not to be included in the article. There are many other opinions. Surely the article should just stick to the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Extinct?

What exactly does this mean? That because there was nobody to which the title can be passed, and no rule established according to which somebody could later inherit the title, the dukedom just ceased to exist? And the latter factor distinguishes it from being "vacant" as became the case with Edward VIII's other titles?

Does this mean that, if William and Kate decide to take this route, it will be the creation of a brand new Dukedom of Windsor, not connected to the one we had? — Smjg (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if I am too late to answer any of this query, but here goes: King George VI created the title H.R.H. the Duke of Windsor especially for his brother after his brother had abdicated. This was because a former monarch had to have a title--and as should be understood, the wife of a titled royal also receives the title. Hence Wallis became the Duchess of Windsor, but the H.R.H. was withheld from her because of who she was. There was never a dukedom of that name, one reason why the king picked it! However, what you are all missing is the fact that King George wanted to make certain--and he did--that this title would begin and end with the Duke of Windsor. Many created titles are like that and cannot have any other successor. Queen Victoria made Benjamin Disraeli the first and ONLY Earl of Beaconsfield (thus making him Lord Beaconsfield) to reward him for all his work. The trick was he could have never passed on that title. Also, you make no sense when you ask whether 'Prince William and Princess Kate decide to take this route'!~©Djathinkimacowboy 11:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If Disraeli had any children they would have inherited his Earldom (and also his wife's Viscountcy). However Disraeli was a widower in his 70s when he received the title so that was very unlikely. The title could have been given a special remainder, probably to Disraeli's younger brothers (one was still alive at the time) and any nephews - Balfour's Earldom was preserved this way despite the first holder being a bachelor.

The Duke of Windsor title had the standard remainder to the heirs male of the first Duke. If Edward and Wallis had any children, or if Edward had married again and had children, they would have inherited the title. Dukedoms can and do pass out of the HRH part of royal families - e.g. when the current Dukes of Gloucester and Kent die the new Dukes will not be HRHs, similarly if the Dukes of Albany and/or Cumberland & Teviotdale are ever restored they will be to distant relatives.

The target of the letters patent wasn't the Dukedom but the Royal styles. They were surgically cutting out Wallis and any children from being royal. Timrollpickering 15:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duke of Windsor. 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) 14:33, 17 December 2016 (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)

Hoax?

There is no proof of Arthur, Prince of the British Commonwealth ever existing. The part which proclaims that he is the new Duke of Windsor has no sources and I could not find any mention of him anywhere on the internet. I believe a user has added this in to the page as a WP:HOAX because there are no sources about this or proof that this person even exists anywhere. WikiSmartLife (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

That bit was a complete hoax. There has only been one duke of Windsor, the former king Edward VIII. It was a bit funny that the vandal claimed that his source was "royal.co.uk". The website of the British monarchy is "royal.uk" 80.62.29.143 (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Homosexual?

Wasn't he gay? Scotty Bowers says he was.R.M. Schultz (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I think there are problems with Scotty Bowers' story. This was previously discussed at Talk:Edward VIII/Archive 2#Bisexuality. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Further references Please help - have I entered this correctly?Morton1945 (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

If the numbers at the end are an ISBN, I suggest you use Template:ISBN. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)