Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Today we are taking
a stack of source material that, and I really
don't say this lightly, just completely dismantles
one of the most persistent myths of the 20th
century. We are looking at the life of King Edward
VIII. It's a subject that almost everyone thinks
they know, you know? Yeah. If you stop someone
on the street and you ask them about Edward VIII,
they'll say, oh, the king who gave up his throne
for love. Exactly. The romance of the century.
It's the ultimate romantic gesture. That's the
story we've all been told. It is. We have been
sold this almost Hollywood version of the story
for nearly 100 years. You have the handsome king,
the forbidden love, the tearful farewell speech.
But when you actually sit down with the biographies,
the government archives and especially the intelligence
files that have been declassified over the decades,
the story just shifts dramatically. It really
does. It stops being a romance and it starts
looking a lot more like a tragedy. Or maybe even
a thriller. I would argue it borders on a horror
story in places, especially when you get to the
political implications. Oh, absolutely. Because
when you strip away that whole romantic veneer,
you're left with a man who was, frankly, deeply
damaged psychologically, politically reckless,
and who flirted very, very dangerously with the
darkest forces of his era. We're going to unpack
all of that. We really need to talk about the
childhood trauma that seems to have completely
rewired his brain. We have to cover the constitutional
crisis that nearly broke the British Empire.
And yes, the Nazi connection. And that connection
is far more substantial than just a few awkward
photos, which is what some people think. It is.
So I think the central question we need to answer
in this deep dive is really about the nature
of that abdication. Was it a tragedy for the
nation losing their beloved king? Or was it,
in hindsight, a kind of providential escape?
Because as we go through the evidence, I think
you're going to see that if Edward had remained
on the throne, the history of World War II, and
honestly, World War II today might have looked
completely unrecognizable. Okay, so to understand
the king who left, we have to understand the
boy who was made. And the source material on
his childhood is, well, it's frankly harrowing.
It's a tough read. We're back in the late Victorian
era, 1894. He's born David, that was his family
name, the great -grandson of Queen Victoria.
And the parenting style of that era, I mean...
Distant doesn't quite cover it, does it? Not
even close. It was, for all intents and purposes,
institutionalized neglect. You have to remember
the context. His father, the future George V,
was a naval officer. He ran his family like he
ran a battleship. Right. He was a very harsh
disciplinarian who believed that fear was a necessary
part of respect. And his mother, Queen Mary,
while she had this private sense of humor, you
see these anecdotes about her laughing at pranks
like tadpoles on toes. You're right. In public,
she was completely austere. like a statue. She
just wasn't the type to offer any physical affection.
And into this really cold, formal environment
comes the nanny. I was reading the account of
his first few years, and this story about the
pinching nanny isn't just some quirky anecdote.
It reads like the origin story for a major psychological
complex. It is absolutely pivotal. This nanny,
who was the primary caregiver for the future
king of England, she had this sadistic streak.
The sources tell us that before she would bring
the young prince, David, into the drawing room
to see his parents, which was his only scheduled
time with them. His only time. His only time
she would pinch him or twist his arm. So the
child is already in physical pain before he even
sees his parents. Precisely. So, of course, he
would enter the room screaming and crying. And
his parents, being these stiff Victorians who
valued decorum above all else, were just annoyed
by this badly behaved child. So they just dismiss
him. They'd say, take him away. He goes back
to the nanny. He goes straight back to the abuser.
And just think about the kind of conditioning
that establishes in a developing brain. The figures
of authority. his parents, are associated with
rejection and annoyance. And the figure of abuse,
the nanny, is the only one who actually keeps
him. It creates this horrible cycle where pain
and affection become completely confused. The
psychologists who are cited in the biographies,
they point to this as the root of his later need
for, well, for domination by women, right? He
wasn't looking for an equal partner. No, he was
conditioned to seek out women who would control
him. He developed a personality that was, on
the one hand, and rebellious against tradition,
but on the other hand, desperate for a strong,
controlling female figure to organize his life.
He wanted a governess, not a wife. Yeah. And
that need for submission, it becomes the defining
thread of his entire romantic life. Before we
get to the women, though, we have to talk about
his development, or I guess his lack of development.
He goes through the standard royal education,
Osborne, Dartmouth, then on to Oxford. But reading
the reports from his tutors, there's this recurring
theme. It wasn't just that he wasn't book smart.
He seemed almost incapable of deep thought. He
was intellectually incurious. That's probably
the most polite way to put it. At Oxford, he
attended Magdalen College. But he left after
eight terms without any degree, no qualifications
whatsoever. The president of the college even
noted that he would never be bookish. But it's
more than just not liking books, isn't it? As
a prince, and certainly as a future king, Your
entire job involves reading state papers. Constantly.
It involves understanding the nuances of the
Constitution, of foreign policy. The sources
all suggest he just never developed the discipline
to sit in a chair and focus on a complex problem
for more than a few minutes at a time. He had
this frantic energy. He was brilliant at the
surface level stuff, the handshakes, the smiles,
the small talk. He could charm anyone. But no
depth. Absolutely no, Devin. That becomes incredibly
dangerous when you are the head of state. He
relied on his intuition and his charm rather
than on actual knowledge. Speaking of charm,
we can't ignore the World War I era. This is
really where the myth of the People's Prince
is born. He wanted to fight, didn't he? He did,
and you have to give him credit for that. His
desire to serve was absolutely genuine. When
war broke out in 1914, he was desperate to go
to the front with the grenadier guards. But Lord
Kitchener... The Secretary of State for War had
to be the adult in the room. That's right. He
famously told the prince, I don't care if you
get killed, but I cannot have the heir to the
throne captured. Right. It would be the ultimate
hostage situation. Yeah. A propaganda disaster
for Britain. Exactly. So he was banned from the
frontline charges, but he spent the war visiting
the troops, often getting very, very close to
the danger zones. He saw the squalor of the trenches
firsthand. And he won the military cross for
it. He did. And the soldiers, they loved him
for it. He wasn't sitting in a palace somewhere.
He was out there in the mud with them. This created
a bond. him and the veterans that lasted for
decades. And that popularity just exploded in
the 1920s. I think it's hard for us to grasp
now because we have so many celebrities, but
in the 1920s, he was the global superstar. Oh,
there was no one bigger. He was the most photographed
person in the world. He was young, handsome,
unmarried, the most eligible bachelor on the
entire planet. He did 16 major tours of the empire
between 1919 and 1935. He was the face of Britain.
I read that note about American fashion, that
American men were more interested in the cut
of his suits than in their own president. If
the Prince of Wales wore a Windsor knot or a
certain type of sweater. The garment industry
would sell out overnight. He was the first modern
celebrity royal. He understood the camera. He
understood branding. But there was a real dissonance,
wasn't there, between the brand and the man?
Well, the brand was modern, empathetic man of
the people. The private man held views that were.
Well, shockingly reactionary, even for his time.
They were. And this brings us to the letters,
specifically the letter from his tour of Australia
in 1920. It's so jarring because it just completely
contradicts that friend of the common man image.
What does it say? It's a difficult read. He wrote
privately about the indigenous Australians he
encountered. He referred to them as the lowest
known form of human beings. And, quote, the nearest
thing to monkeys. That is just repulsive. It
is. And it reveals this deep -seated racial prejudice.
He believed firmly in the hierarchy of empire
and in white superiority. So while he was out
there shaking hands and smiling for the cameras,
privately he held this real disdain for many
of the people he was destined to rule. So his
populism was more about vanity then, about being
loved by the crowds. I think so. It was about
adulation, not about actual respect for the people.
So we have a prince. who is vain intellectually
lazy privately bigoted but publicly adored and
as he enters his 30s this rebel prince lifestyle
starts to cause some real headaches for the establishment
he's partying in paris he's running with a fast
set and he's pursuing married women this is the
other psychological pattern that emerges he had
long affairs with frida dudley ward and then
lady furnace both of them married the theory
is that married women were safe Right. Because
they couldn't demand marriage. Exactly. They
were safe, but they also represented a conquest.
He was taking something that belonged to another
man. It was part of the rebellion. But there
was one moment where this recklessness almost
caused a massive scandal years before Wallace.
The Marguerite Albert affair. This sounds like
something out of a noir film. It really does.
Marguerite Albert was a very well -known Parisian
courtesan. Edward had a passionate affair with
her during the war and, like a fool, wrote her
some incredibly indiscreet letters. What was
in them? Letters that criticized the war effort,
letters that criticized his own father, the king.
Just dynamite. So you flash forward a few years
and Marguerite sheets her husband, an Egyptian
millionaire, dead at the Savoy Hotel in London.
She murders him. in london kills him and she
goes on trial for murder at the old bailey the
royal household is in a complete panic because
she still has these letters if she releases them
or if they're entered into evidence the prince's
reputation is absolutely ruined and there is
a lot of evidence to suggest a deal was struck
the palace worked behind the scenes pulling strings
to ensure her acquittal in exchange for the return
of those letters that is a staggering abuse of
power just to cover up a prince's indiscretion
You would think a close call like that, a murder
trial involving an ex -lover, would scare him
straight. It didn't. He didn't learn a thing.
I think he just felt invincible. His father,
George V, watched all this behavior with just
growing horror. And there's that famous quote
from George V, which turned out to be a prophecy.
It's chilling. He said, after I am dead, the
boy will ruin himself in 12 months. 12 months.
And he was off by what? Less than a month? Hauntingly
accurate. George V knew his son's character flaws
better than anyone. He even told a courtier that
he prayed to God that Edward would never marry
and have children so that the throne would pass
to his second son, Albert Bertie, and his granddaughter,
Lilibet. Imagine a father praying for his own
line to end with his eldest son because he trusts
him so little. That is just, it's devastating.
And that brings us to the catalyst for the ruin,
Wallace Simpson. Enter Mrs. Simpson. She meets
Edward in 1931. She's introduced by his then
-mistress, Lady Furness. At this point, she's
an American, married to her second husband, Ernest
Simpson, and she has one divorce already behind
her. So she is technically a double divorcee
in waiting. Correct. And in the very rigid social
hierarchy of 1930s Britain, she was completely
unacceptable. But for Edward, she was a revelation.
Why? What was so different about her? She wasn't
impressed by his title. She didn't fawn over
him like every other woman did. She was irreverent.
She teased him. She treated him, you know, not
like a prince. And the power dynamic just flipped
immediately. I was looking at the special branch
reports, because of course the police were watching
the prince's new girlfriend. There's this specific
report from a visit to an antique shop. Yes.
The officer noted that Wallace seemed to have
the prints completely under her thumb. She would
snap her fingers, tell him what to buy, tell
him to stop fidgeting. And he loved it. He adored
it. Witnesses described him gazing at her with
this dog -like devotion. She became the mother
figure, the nanny figure that he'd been craving
his entire life. Exactly. She organized his life.
She provided the discipline he couldn't provide
for himself. But to his family, she was a complete
disaster. They met her once, right? They met
her once at a party. But after that, as the relationship
became more serious and more obvious, George
V and Queen Mary refused to receive her. She
was banned from the court. So the tension is
building. And then, in January 1936, the old
king, George V, Guys, Edward becomes King Edward
VIII, and the 326 -day reign begins. And he starts
breaking rules literally on day one. Day one.
The accession proclamation, the official announcement
of the new king, is read at St. James's Palace.
Now, tradition dictates that the new monarch
does not attend. They're supposed to be in seclusion,
mourning their predecessor. But Edward is there.
Oh, he's there. He's watching from a window at
St. James's Palace, and he is not alone. He is
standing there right next to Wallis Simpson.
The cameras catch it. They do. It was a massive
statement. He was effectively saying to the world,
I am the king, this is the woman I am with, and
I don't care about your traditions. It really
sets the tone for a reign that was just defined
by vanity and a complete disregard for protocol.
I have to ask you about the coins. This detail,
it feels so petty, but it says so much about
his mindset. It is the ultimate example of his
vanity. There's a tradition in British numismatics
coin design that goes back to the 17th century.
Each monarch faces the opposite direction of
their predecessor. George V faced left. So legally
and traditionally, Edward VIII should face right.
But he refused. He refused. He absolutely insisted
on facing left. And the reason? He preferred
his profile from the left side. He thought it
showed the parting in his hair better. You're
killing me. He broke a 300 -year -old tradition
for his hair part. He did, and the royal mint
actually had to scramble to create these designs.
The irony is, because he abdicated before the
coinage could be mass -produced, very few were
ever actually issued. So what happened with his
brother, George VI? Did he face right? No, and
this is the really fascinating part. George VI
decided to face left as well. So he broke the
tradition too. No, he faced left to maintain
the tradition. He acted as if Edward had faced
right, as if he was following him in the proper
sequence. He effectively erased Edward's reign
from the numismatic history. That is a subtle
but absolutely brutal edit of history. It is.
But while he's worrying about his profile on
a coin, the actual work of being king is just
falling apart. We touched on the red boxes earlier.
Can you explain why this was such a security
nightmare? The red boxes are the lifeblood of
the British government. They contain the cabinet
minutes, the foreign office telegrams, intelligence
reports, the most sensitive secrets of the entire
empire. The king is supposed to read them, sign
them, and return them securely. He was leaving
them lying around. At his country home, Fort
Belvedere, ministers would visit and find top
secret documents scattered on tables, some with
cocktail glass rings on them. Oh, no. And Fort
Belvedere was a party house. Wallace was always
there. Her friends were there, some of whom had
very questionable connections to foreign powers.
So the government is thinking, we have a king
who is careless with our secrets. And he's hanging
out with people we absolutely do not trust. It
got so bad that the prime minister and the cabinet
secretary actually started withholding documents
from him. They stopped showing the king the most
sensitive material. Just think about that. The
government did not trust the head of state with
the state's own secrets. The constitutional relationship
was breaking down before the abdication crisis
even formally began. And on top of that, he was
dabbling in politics, wasn't he? The tour of
the Welsh mining villages. This is a very famous
moment. November 1936. He visits South Wales,
which had been devastated by the Great Depression.
Unemployment was sky high. He sees the poverty
and he says, quote, something must be done. Which
on the surface sounds like a good thing. A compassionate
king. And to the public, it was. They cheered
him for it. But to the government, it was an
absolute nightmare. Because in the British Constitution,
the king cannot make policy. He reigns, but he
doesn't rule. He acts on the advice of his ministers.
By saying, something must be done, he was publicly
criticizing the elected government's handling
of the economy. It looked like he was trying
to lead a populist movement against his own prime
minister. He was acting like a politician, not
a constitutional monarch. And that brings us
to the climax, the abdication crisis. November
and December 1936. Edward decides he is going
to marry Wallis Simpson. Her second divorce is
finalized. He tells the prime minister, Stanley
Baldwin. And Baldwin says no. But we need to
break down why he said no, because it wasn't
just we don't like her. There were three massive,
immovable barriers. Religion, the people, and
the dominions. That's right. Let's take religion
first. As king, Edward was the supreme governor
of the Church of England. In 1936, the church
strictly forbade the remarriage of divorced persons
if a former spouse was still living. And Wallace
had two living ex -husbands. two so edward could
not promise to uphold the church's laws while
simultaneously breaking them in his own personal
life it was a complete logical impossibility
okay so that's the religious barrier then there's
the people Baldwin and the cabinet were convinced
that the British public, specifically the conservative
middle class, would never accept Wallace as their
queen. She was seen as an adventurer, an American,
a woman with a past. They believed the monarchy's
prestige would just collapse. But the third barrier,
the dominions, that's the one that I think is
the most interesting and maybe the least understood.
This all goes back to the Statute of Westminster,
right? This is the technical legal detail that
really sealed his fate. In 1931, the Statute
of Westminster was passed. And what it did was
it gave the Dominions Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, South Africa, complete legislative independence.
The British Parliament could no longer make laws
for them. So what did that mean for the marriage,
practically speaking? it meant that for wallace
to become queen every single dominion parliament
had to agree to the marriage if the uk said yes
but say canada said no Then Edward would be king
of the UK, but not king of Canada. And the monarchy
would fracture. And the empire would begin to
unravel. And the dominion leaders were not on
board at all. Not even slightly. The prime minister
of Australia, Joseph Lyons, was personally appalled.
The prime minister of Canada, Mackenzie King,
was a devout Presbyterian who found the whole
idea morally repugnant. And the Prime Minister
of New Zealand, Michael Joseph Savage. Well,
the story goes that when he was first consulted,
he had never even heard of Wallace Simpson. He
was just catching up on the gossip in real time.
He was completely baffled. But once he understood
the situation, he was a hard no. And when Edward
was told about the opposition in the Dominions,
his reaction was so telling. What did he say?
He just dismissed Australia completely. He told
Baldwin that there were not many people in Australia
and so their opinion didn't really matter. The
arrogance is just breathtaking. He was their
king and yet he treated them as if they were.
completely irrelevant it just shows how little
he understood the job he thought the crown was
about him his popularity his desires he didn't
get that he was the keystone in a massive global
legal architecture so he tries to negotiate he
proposes a morganatic marriage what does that
actually mean A morganatic marriage is where
the king marries someone, but the wife does not
take the title of queen. She might become the
Duchess of Cornwall or something similar, and
any children they have do not inherit the throne.
It sounds like a reasonable compromise on the
face of it. Winston Churchill actually supported
this idea, didn't he? Churchill did. He was a
romantic at heart and a friend of the king, and
he wanted to keep him on the throne. But the
cabinet and all of the dominions, they rejected
it flat out. Why? They argued that the king's
wife is the queen, by definition. You can't have
a half queen. It would permanently downgrade
the status of the monarchy. So Baldwin delivers
the ultimatum, the three options. Option one,
give up Wallace and remain king. Option two,
marry her against the government's advice. Which
would trigger what, exactly? The government would
resign immediately. A general election would
have to be called. The king would be dragging
the monarchy into a partisan political fight
against his own ministers. The neutrality of
the crown would be destroyed forever. It would
be a constitutional crisis of the highest order.
And option three. Abdicate. And for him, there
was no choice. He couldn't give her up. His psychological
dependence on her was too absolute. He told Baldwin,
I am prepared to go. So on December 10th, 1936,
at Fort Belvedere, the deed is done. His three
brothers, Bertie, the future king, Harry, and
George, are all there as witnesses. It must have
been a somber, devastating atmosphere. Edward
signed the instrument of abdication. In that
single moment, he ceased to be the most powerful
monarch on earth. He became a private citizen.
And then, the broadcast. December 11th, the speech
that launched a thousand tea towels. I have found
it impossible to carry the heavy burden of responsibility
and to discharge my duties as king as I would
wish to do without the help and support of the
woman I love. It's brilliant rhetoric, you have
to admit. Oh, it is. It's a masterpiece of spin.
It framed a complete dereliction of duty as a
noble sacrifice for love. It spun the narrative
instantly. The public wept. They saw it as this
great tragedy. But the people inside the room,
the government, the family, they just felt relief.
The problem was gone. But the problem wasn't
gone. And this is where we enter the second half
of the story, the half that turns this from a
royal drama into a geopolitical thriller. Edward
leaves England. He's made the Duke of Windsor.
He marries Wallace in France in June 1937. And
this is where the bitterness really sets in.
Deeply. His brother, the new King George VI,
forbade any member of the royal family from attending
the wedding. That hurt Edward. But the real blow,
the one that festered, was the title. The letters
patent. Exactly. The king issued a legal decree,
a letters patent, stating that while Edward would
be styled his royal highness. Wallace would not.
She was to be just the Duchess of Windsor. She
was explicitly denied the HRH style. And this
drove Edward absolutely crazy for the rest of
his life. He was obsessed with it. He viewed
it as a deliberate public humiliation of his
wife. He refused to go anywhere where she wasn't
treated with full royal protocol. And this grievance,
this intense anger at his family and at the British
government, it made him vulnerable. And there
was one government in particular that was more
than happy to give Wallace the royal treatment
she was denied at home. Nazi Germany. Right.
In October 1937, just months after the wedding,
the Windsors decided to tour Nazi Germany. The
British government advised against this, didn't
they? They begged him not to go. Strongly. They
dugged him. But he went anyway. He claimed it
was to study housing conditions for the working
class, which was just a flimsy pretext. It was
a massive propaganda coup for Hitler. The visuals
from this trip are just chilling. They are. You
see the Duke and Duchess being driven around
in open -top Mercedes convertibles by SS officers.
You see crowds of people cheering them. And the
Nazis were smart. They curated the trip perfectly.
They bowed to Wallace. They called her Your Royal
Highness. They gave Edward the respect he felt
he was being denied at home. And the salute.
We have to talk about the salute. Yes. There
are photographs and newsreel footage of Edward
giving a full Nazi salute. Not a casual wave.
A stiff -armed formal salute. Some apologists
still try to say, oh, he was just being polite,
you know, following local custom. That just doesn't
wash. He was a trained diplomat and a former
king of England. He knew exactly what that symbol
meant. It was an endorsement. And the tour culminated
in a personal meeting with Hitler at the Berkhof,
his mountain retreat. They had tea with Hitler.
They did. And by all accounts, they got along
famously. Hitler later told his aides that Wallace
would have made a good queen. Of course he thought
that. Right. Hitler saw Edward as a potential
ally. He believed that if Edward had stayed on
the throne, Britain would have been friendly
to Germany. He actually called the abdication
a severe loss for us. But this goes beyond just
a pre -war flirtation. War breaks out in 1939.
Edward is brought back to the UK. He's made a
major general attached to the British military
mission in France. But he's not acting like a
British general. No, he's acting like a defeatist.
In 1939, from Verdun, he recorded a broadcast
calling for peace. It was essentially an appeasement
speech. The BBC actually refused to air it, but
it was broadcast internationally. He was undermining
the war effort from the very start. And then
come the treason allegations, the defense of
Belgium. This is perhaps the most damning piece
of evidence. The German ambassador in The Hague,
a man named Count von Zuckerberg's Rota, reported
back to Berlin that the Duke of Windsor had leaked
details about the Allied war plans, specifically
that the defensive lines in Belgium were weak.
If that is true, that is direct treason. He gave
information to the enemy that could, and almost
certainly did, help them conquer France in 1940.
Edward always denied it, of course. But the Germans
certainly believed he was on their side. They
felt they had a friend in the high command. Then
comes the collapse. May 1940. France falls to
the Nazis. The Windsors flee south. They end
up in neutral Spain and then Portugal. And this
is where the Nazis launch Operation Willie. Operation
Willie. It sounds like something out of a spy
novel. But it's all there in the archives. It
is. This was a plan authorized by Jochen von
Ribbentrop, the German foreign minister. The
goal was to kidnap the Duke of Windsor. Kidnap
him. Or at least convince him to stay. The Nazis
wanted to keep the Windsors in a neutral country,
like Spain, rather than letting them escape to
British territory like the Bahamas. The plan
was to use Edward as a political weapon. How
so? Hitler envisioned a scenario where Germany
successfully invades Britain operation, sea line
overthrown, rose the government and reinstates
Edward VIII as a puppet king. A fascist Britain
with Edward on the throne. Exactly. A king who
would do whatever Berlin wanted. And the terrifying
part is that Edward was actively communicating
with German agents during this time in Portugal.
He was expressing his frustration with the British
government. He was telling people that the war
was a mistake, that Britain couldn't possibly
win. There's a telegram where he essentially
suggests that. If Germany just bombed Britain
a bit more effectively, it might bring peace
faster. It's grotesque. He was prioritizing his
own ego and his strange desire for peace or perhaps
his desire to get back into power over the very
survival of his own country. And Churchill was
watching all of this from London. He was reading
the intercepts. And Churchill, who had been Edward's
great defender during the abdication, finally
lost his patience. Completely. Churchill realized
the Duke was an active liability and a security
risk. He sent a telegram effectively threatening
Edward with a court -martial if he did not immediately
board a ship for the Bahamas. Get on the boat
or we will arrest you. That was the clear, unspoken
message. So Edward and Wallace were basically
bundled onto a ship and sent off to the Bahamas
where Churchill appointed him governor. Which
might sound like a nice Caribbean holiday, but
for Edward, it was exile. He hated it. He called
it a third -class British colony. He felt it
was beneath him. And his performance as governor
was mixed at best. His racism resurfaced there
too, didn't it? Violently. He despised the local
Bahamian population. He had a running feud with
Etienne Dupouch, the editor of the Nassau Tribune,
who was a man of mixed race. When riots broke
out in 1942 over low wages, Edward refused to
see it as an economic issue. He blamed communists
and Jews for stirring up trouble. He was incapable
of understanding the legitimate grievances of
the people he was supposed to be governing. And
even in the Bahamas, the Americans were watching
him. Right. President Roosevelt didn't trust
him either. The FBI was ordered to surveil the
Duke and Duchess whenever they visited Florida.
There were genuine fears that Wallace in particular
was passing information to her old contacts in
Europe, like Ribbentrop. It's just staggering
when you think about it. The former King of England
being tailed by the FBI as a suspected Nazi sympathizer.
It just shows how completely he had burned every
single bridge. The war ends. The Nazis are defeated.
And the Marburg files, the captured German documents
that detailed all of this Nazi communication,
they're discovered. And the British government
panics. They realize that if these files were
published, the reputation of the monarchy and
of a member of the royal family would be destroyed.
So they suppress them. For years, they tried
to bury the evidence of Edward's collusion. So
Edward and Wallace just drift into their post
-war life. They move back to France. They become
the faces of what was called Café Society. What
was their life actually like in those final decades?
It seems so empty. There's a great quote from
the writer Gore Vidal who met them socially.
He described the vacuity of the Duke's conversation.
They had no purpose. They spent their days planning
dinner parties, buying clothes, and doting on
their collection of pug dogs. The pugs? They
treated the dogs like their children. They had
needlepoint pillows with silly slogans. It was
just a life of incredibly shallow luxury. And
he was constantly asking for money. Always. He
was a very wealthy man. He had saved a fortune
from the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall when
he was Prince of Wales. And he sold Balmoral
and Sandringham to his brother for a massive
sum. Yet he constantly pleaded poverty to the
French government to get tax breaks. And he pestered
his brother and later his niece, Queen Elizabeth
II, for an increased allowance from the crown.
It's such a sad image. the man who was once the
emperor of India, reduced to haggling over money
and just drifting through parties in Paris. It
was a long, slow decline into irrelevance. He
was a very heavy smoker his whole life. In the
late 1960s, his health began to fail. He developed
throat cancer. There is one final moment of,
I'm not sure if you'd call it reconciliation,
but maybe closure, 1972. Queen Elizabeth II visits
him in Paris. He was on his deathbed. It was
just 10 days before he died. The queen came to
their house in Paris, and Edward insisted on
getting out of bed, putting on a suit to receive
her properly. He wanted to bow to his sovereign.
The respect for the crown was still there then,
buried under all that bitterness. It was, but
the tragedy continued. Wallace was there, but
by this point she was reportedly very confused,
perhaps suffering from the onset of dementia.
She appeared for the official photo, but Edward
was too weak to be in it. He died shortly after
that visit. And his body was brought back to
Windsor for burial? He was buried at Frogmore,
which is the royal burial ground. Wallace lived
for another 14 years, largely as a recluse, losing
her mind before she was eventually buried next
to him. So we circle all the way back to the
mission of this deep dive. Tragedy or escape?
When you lay it all out like this, the childhood
damage, the intellectual laziness, this susceptibility
to domination, the vanity, and finally the willingness
to collaborate with the Nazis, I think the verdict
is pretty clear. It feels like an escape. The
abdication was the greatest stroke of luck the
British monarchy ever had. If Edward had been
king in 1940, Britain might very well have sued
for peace with Hitler. The symbol of resistance,
the king and queen who stayed in London during
the Blitz, that would never have existed. He
would have a king who admired Hitler. Instead,
they got George VI. the stammering, shy, dutiful
brother who hated the job but did it anyway because
it was his duty. And his wife, Elizabeth, the
future queen mother. And they completely reinvented
the monarchy. They shifted it away from being
about celebrity and glamour and made it about
duty, family, and service. They saved the institution
by being, well... boring and reliable. And here's
the what if, the provocative thought to leave
you with. Let's hear it. Think about the butterfly
effect of this. If Wallis Simpson hadn't divorced
her first husband, or if she hadn't walked into
that party where she met Edward, he likely remains
king. He appoints pro -appeasement ministers.
He perhaps refuses to declare war in 1939. The
Nazis conquer Europe. The Holocaust continues
unchecked. The Soviet Union perhaps expands further
west. It's a terrifying thought. The entire moral
and geopolitical map of the 20th century hinged
on the fact that one unstable man fell in love
with a woman the establishment wouldn't let him
marry. Our world exists because of that romance.
A romance that was less of a fairy tale and more
of a lucky break for democracy. Absolutely. That
is a wrap for this deep dive on Edward VIII.
It's a heavy one, but a really important one.
We hope you never look at a coin or a royal wedding
the same way again. indeed thanks for listening
we'll catch you on the next deep dive