I, for one, am glad Edward VIII abdicated. War with Nazi Germany loomed and Wallis would have, no doubt, pushed the King to appease Hitler. He did the country a service by leaving. King George VI and Queen Elizabeth were just who Britain needed to help inspire the country during WWII. It might have gone all so wrong had Edward remained king.
@@5877user I'm not sure how a prince nowadays "should" behave. In Harry's case, it seems like quite an empty, controlled life he would be expected to lead had he remained within the confines of the Royal Family. He seems a man of devotion to his family, to his Invictus Games, and various other projects.
😂🙈... Was glaubst Du, wer all diese Kriege mit wem inszeniert hat ??? Lerne erst mal WAHRHEIT und die WAHRE Geschichte Deines geliebten sogenannten 'Adels' kennen - DANN schreibst Du nie wieder so einen Müll ❗
As an American, this video confirms for me what a Load of Bull Sh!t the British Monarchy is !!! What surprises me is not Royals like Edward VIII or Prince Harry abandoning Royal Life but that there are educated people who would waste their whole life on such a Public Charade. And how PATHETIC are the British People to believe in this Royal Rubbish and actually support it with their Tax Dollars in the 21st Century !!!
And this a close 2nd? "it was for no other reason than that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cosmo, had an unrequited, homo-eroticized love for Edward that precipitated the clash"
If Edward the eighth had stayed on the thrown until 72 add his niece Elizabeth the second I’ve been Crown as a middle-age woman prince Philip would’ve had a chance to had a full career as a British naval officer probably reaching the rank of admiral my think Elizabeth and Phillip would’ve been much happier living a quiet life socializing with other officers and their wives and then taking on the new in London. This would’ve been able to spend a lot more time with her sons Charles and Andrew. Both might have led quite different wives if that was the case. Just wondering?
I have a guilty pleasure of always wanting to learn more about Edward VIII and his adventures, friends, and enemies. I wasn't aware of the Machiavellian archbishop's schemes..
Edward was such a wonderful person at heart, but his adulterous relation worked against him, since the Ch of Eng, cd not marry him with a 2x divorcee. Tho the Archbishop & PM Baldwin were opposed , there was likely a STRONG God factor. Not sure Edward VIII & Chamberlain cd have handled Hitler. He may have been deceived by Hitler though Churchill
@@lordnelson2412 u think Edward was truly a wonderful person? Being that he threw duty and his country out the window for a woman who was married WHEN HE MET HER and was clearly palling around w the Nazi Fuhrer, I’m not sure that’s true. Personally, I don’t think marrying Wallis was the main issue. I think the fact David was messing around with her WHILE she was still married was the biggest issue. It’s one thing to be twice divorced. It quite another thing to be an adulterer, IMHO.
King Edward VIII did himself in, and since he sought neither friendship nor support from Lang, Baldwin or anyone else, he got none. I believe Baldwin at first tried to convince the King to stay and not marry Wallis, but when he wouldn't listen, the PM decided it would be best for Edward to go. Lang was from another era, and he saw Edward as a morally bad king, and would do nothing to help him, and was also ultimately glad to see the back of him. So be it. Ultimately, Edward was the victim of his own actions and personality defects. The right thing happened all around.
Interesting to believe a man complicit in the murder of his own father might be 'seen' as "morally bad". I guess, ultimately, celebrity only will excuse so much.
@@nomdeguerre7265 Do you believe every word you hear on TH-cam? It certainly seems so. In the long ago times of his fathers death, what happened was even more accepted than it is now. Normally assisting a person who is suffering to shorten their suffering is not murder, as long as it's only by a few hours and they are given the choice, of course. If they can't, then family must decide. I know the Dr didn't give them a chance. He had screwed up motives, and he went way too far without enough discussion, but Edward can't be blamed for that. So why are you blaming him? And why are Americans always so quick to throw hatred at everyone? It's about time they started opening their eyes, because they are pretty darned offensive themselves.
Throughout his adult life, David made it crystal clear by his views and behavior that he didn’t want at all to be king. He all but ignored his duties as Prince of Wales, preferring café society and what became a rather sinister cohort in Germany.
I think he also sought acceptance and respect for Wallis from Hitler. It seems as though Edward's relationship with Wallis was sado-masochistic. She never really wanted a long term relationship with him but got stuck with him. He was like an emotionally dependent baby. Not nurtured or loved in childhood. She despised him.
@@snowbear1877 Interesting it's almost as though you are describing Harry emotionally dependent baby that hasn't been nurtured or loved. Hard to say, It had to be tough growing up with out a mother and in his circumstance. That being said many have grown up without a mother...and mothers that have died in terrible circumstances and have weathered the storm.
The monarch of the United Kingdom is also the head of the Church of England. The Prince of Wales had many mistresses before Wallis Simpson, all of whom were married ladies. When he expressed his interest in marrying the divorcee, which would have been against the Church of England, that would have disqualified him from being the head of the Church. Since the throne and Church were combined that disqualified him from the throne. His downfall was not a result of some conspiracy or a church leader with too much power, it was his own doing. By the way he and Wallis loved spending time with their wealthy friends and appeared to have no special love for the poor so he did not abdicate because of his love for the poor.
An unfortunately lopsided documentary. 1) Lang was a Victorian, not a modern man. 2) He was at times in favor of liberal social positions, including more taxation of the wealthy and abolition of the death penalty. 3) He tried to promote what we today call ecumenism. 4) He condemned anti-Semitism and got 60 rabbis visas into Britain. He was genuinely distressed at the Edward/Wallis situation, and a large portion of the government and society agreed with him. In hindsight modern people may criticize his snobbish attitudes and decisions, and he should not have gloated over the abdication. However, the Archbishop did not "betray" the King -- he chose the Nation over one King who was replaceable. Had he not done so, Britain would have been saddled with a King who thought his nation should submit to the Nazi plans for Europe.
The unfortunate fellow who became the Duke of Windsor was as close to a traitor to Britain as has ever sat the throne. He was in every way unsuited to monarchy, not the least by his fawning sexual slavery to that Simpson woman, who absolutely despised him. The UK was much better off with George VI, though one can't say that about the current monarch or her current successor.
Edward VIII was one of many Kings to be involved in scandals. Your last sentence was the real motivation--Edward was a Nazi sympathizer. The rest could have been overlooked.
So easy to blame Wallis for everything, when the truth is that Edward's problems were of his own making. No one, including Wallis, made Edward do anything he didn't want to do. And all this talk of the so-called "sexual slavery" that Wallis supposedly used to control Edward - please! Wallis couldn't have done anything that a long line of women wouldn't have been willing and able to do for a king. Accept the fact that the weakness existed in Edward himself - no one else was to blame for his decisions. He was weak, powerful, stubborn and narcisistic all at the same time.
You know he would never have gone on radio and given his sanctimonious speech after the abdication without someone high up in the Palace approving it. I read in at least one bio of a Royal that they thought Lang's speech was well expressed. He just took the fall out alone.
But it's Celebrity Worship, one of the favorite pastimes of the modern age. It is like 'Wokeism'. It can deny any fact, ignore any reality, claim any fallacy, if needed to believe what it wants to believe.
Hey there! I came across your comment and I just had to reach out and say hi. Your perspective really caught my attention and I would love to get to know you better. Would you be interested in chatting sometime? Looking forward to hearing back from you! 😊
Also, they knew far more about Wallis than anyone else realized. She was not rapturously in love with Edward as was his belief. She was still quite sexually active with others of very problematic connections. She was sleeping with the German Ambassador to Britain, a U.S. businessman living in London with a history linked to her 1st husband, etc.
Unbelievable that they spoke about how the archbishop "loathed Edward's love of democracy", when it's likely that Edward would have submitted to Hitler, gladly
Upper-class useful idiots always imagine that when the communists or the fascists or other extremists take over, their own lives won't change at all. They will be heroes of the revolution who brought about utopia for the grateful and adoring masses. They don't realize they will be the first to go when the barbarians march in. I watched Michael Moore trying to stir up the 99% to seize the wealth of the 1% by force if the 1% didn't willingly and immediately divide and give away their wealth to the trashy welfare rats ganged up around him at an Occupy Wall Street demonstration. Somebody filming it was loudly asking how much Moore was worth and saying how much money his films made and kept saying, 'Divide your wealth. You start first. How much are you giving away?' and telling the crowd to take their share of Moore's wealth here and now. Clearly Moore could hear him. Moore ignored him and made a quick end of his appearance to show solidarity with the useless layabouts who clearly had no jobs to go to on a weekday morning.
It’s well documented that Edward was a Nazi sympathizer and would have gotten Britain in a lot of trouble had he stayed in the throne. I think the government used whoever and whatever they could to get him out of there. I think Edward was oblivious of this part of his life that was so threatening to his country and kept on about Wallis. Wallis was the easiest way to do it, I think. The funny thing is - while there’s nothing been said, it is TOTALLY my personal opinion - that Edward thought in the back of his mind that his government would step back and let him stay king and marry Wallis if he held out long enough ... lucky Britain, that wasn’t the case and his arrogance in the situation forced him to continue. Wallis was probably kicking herself all the way to her grave for her decision. Maybe that’s why her jewelry collection was so opulent. Edward had to bribe her to stay? Either way, George was on the money when he said he didn’t trust his on eldest and hoped Albert and Elizabeth would save the day.
As were half the upper class. Mind you: I do love Britain entering a war and committing the lives of their young men to fight a war where they hadn’t been threatened for a nation that was also not democratic. Made as much sense as killing a million of their youth in WW1 by declaring war on Germany because she has sided with Austria over a small place called Serbia. Again when they themselves hasn’t been threatened.
4 ปีที่แล้ว +23
Thank God this man abdicated. It was divine providence! George VI saved England!
God decides which head the crown will rest. Inconceivable to think the now Princess Beatrice of York becoming Queen, however this happened in 1952. Edward rejected God so God ejected Edward.
All this talk of Edward's caring about the 'Poor', wanting a more equal society, cared about democracy ... what a load of tosh. Look how he lived in exile ... did he do anything for the poor, the underprivileged? Not a thing. He lived in splendour and made the servants call his wife HRH, which she was not. He did absolutely nothing to help society.
Ad look at you children, doing your very best to help the poor. After all: judging people from ignorance is totally motivated by wanting to help people, right? It's not as if you're entertaining yourselves with your own ignorant whinging and judging - it's all about helping the poor.
There was an occasion when Edward visited a poverty stricken village, and said "Something must be done." Then he went home and did nothing. Apparently that was typical.
Why would the fact that Wallis Simpson was twice divorced have any significance to the Church of England? It was created for and by Henry VIII to divorce as many times as he wanted to.
The old Archbishop may have disliked Edward, but it was Edward who caused his own downfall. If he hadn't lost his head over that Gold-digging Simpson, he would have been alright. As it is, Edward and Simpson deserved each other; they were both losers.
Because he loved someone? Because he could've saved 100 million lives lost worldwide because of WW2? Ironic you prefer millions dead instead of talking. Of course it's not you dying for abstract ideas of nationalism we humans create in our minds.
They weren't losers. In fact, they both were clear winners. Edward abdicated because he loved Wallis and he didn't want to have problems with the clergy and the parliament. He understood very well that he had fallen out of favour and he was spot on when he saw his chance to quit. It was very fortunate that he was able to come to an agreement with his brother, concerning Balmoral and his yearly income. I suppose there were more parties involved in this agreement, not just him and his brother. Obviously, it was the interest of the leading clerical circles to see him out of the line of accession, so no wonder such a huge compensation was offered for his abdication. If he had insisted, who knows what might have happened to him. Afterwards, Edward and Wallis were able to follow their hedonistic lifestyle free of obligations or the duties of a king. Edward was happy to be beside his beloved wife, and Wallis was happy, because Edward adored her, introduced her into his wealthy lifestyle and kept buying her the most expensive presents imaginable. So, concerning personal happiness, they were both winners. It's one of the rare instances when an unnecessary actor in a political game didn't end up beheaded, shot or poisoned by the backing powers of the game.
@@sandraleiva1633; "prefer millions dead instead of talking"? What in the HE*L are you talking about????? Edward stopping WWII from happening? You are some kind of a NUT!!!!
@@attilakovacs5803; what did they win? Edward was weak, and Simpson was the ultimate Gold-digging social clamber. It is also apparent they were both admirers of Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Germany. That alone should tell you what a couple of "LOSERS" they were.
Bertie was a stuttering idiot who dis absolutely nothing. He was controlled by his mother and wife. Don't give him credit for doing absolutely nothing but producing an heir even if she was a girl. He was likely a homosexual since his wife only had two children. He could've kept going to produce a male heir. But they didn't.
David; nice but dim. None of them were dealing with a full deck, seemingly this has remained unchanged right up until more modern times. King Charles III seems comfortable with what could be described in others as flaky behavior and the destruction of delicate dispositions.
Well, I think that he wasn't Pro-Nazi initially, he just liked the Germans because so many of his Relatives were German. But once he had Abdicated the Nazis saw an opportunity and tried to make full advantage of the situation.
It strikes me that this and the Nazi ouster theory are completely compatible. Cosmo Lang wanted Edward gone out of prudery and pride, and more politically astute government officials wanted him gone because of his Nazi sympathies. The latter used Cosmo Lang to achieve their ends, to obscure their own involvement.
After years of study, I feel that this observation sums it up in a nutshell. (Even while Governor of the Bahamas he maintained a couple of very curious connections).
@@rberks5 the whole problem was that everybody from the prior two generations ( in his family) smoked like a stove. Long before even WWI - let alone the beginning of WWII.
The archbishop didn't want him to be King? *Edward* didn't want to be King. He said many times that royalty was outdated and that he did not want to be shackled with that mess. He likely loved Wallace, but she was a great excuse not to take the crown. Add that to his affinity for Germany and it was best he wasn't King.
The video leaves out that Edward was willing to negotiate with Hitler, to surrender England to the butchers. Those who worked against him were right, even if it wasn't apparent at the time
They probably tried to hide their real reason. Edward the Nazi was a total disgrace. A romantic solution was great propaganda. It was also why he was so totally rejected after his abdication. Wallace Simpson was just a scandal that made a convenient excuse.
A very simplistic take on a very complicated bit of history. This was just one aspect of the situation and from the papers of just one individual. I expect there could be several more documentaries like this, based on the papers or diaries of others involved.
I do appreciate you posting this very much. I love the old footage. This story is just really messed up, besides the divorce issue. They’re adding a fanciful plot to the serious real life plot that he and Wallis were Hitler’s buddies and that is why they had to get them as far away as possible. They were plotting to overthrow The Crown and get him back in. Wallis even believed Hitler when tole he would let her be Queen. So I’m quite delighted and feel no pity for him being kicked off & them sent off to the Bahamas.
Edward only cared about one thing: Himself. When the going got tough he ran. He had a spine of jello. Wallis wore the pants and was the puppet master. Edward was her dummy. Her words came out of his mouth.
Elizabeth only cared about herself. She didn't make her husband king consort, she managed her children's marriages and all ended in failure and her last son a homosexual was forced to marry a woman at an advanced age. All monarchs are selfish as are all royals.
@@What_I_Think_Happened I know that I am intelligent and fair. Harry has done nothing wrong, He has the right to move his family to America and avoid the vicious English bigots and haters. And you are a bigot and a hater. Fie on you.
I had always heard that Albert and Elizabeth did not want the crown and that Albert cried upon Edwards abdication. This documentary says that they were not just upset with Mrs. Simpson, but wanted Edward out as king.
The hero’s burden, while often true and I think it WAS a great burden for someone who cared so much about doing what was RIGHT-- The hero’s burden is often a story arc presented. Biblical polygamy-because the wife suggested it or modern polygamy and cults-because a God told them to-they cried and didn’t want to… George washington not wanting to be King and rejecting royalty but choosing to be long suffering and lead for a time. Christ’s suffering for the world’s sins and sacrifice of life… The Hero’s Burden
that's not simping, it's called following your heart, also he hated being King, and everybody was out to get him from day 1. Easy decision if you ask me. Plus Wallis didn't love him, why did she get divorced for him, stick with him for life, nurse him into death, and not break up with him even tough he gave up the throne?
Edward's lack of a reputation for seriousness deprived him of support at the critical hour. The fact that he was proposing to marry a twice-divorced woman can be seen as another expression of that lack of serious concern for the welfare of the throne or the country. And nothing in his subsequent history suggests otherwise.
0730Ender Because if Edward had kept power it is doubtful that he would have kept cool with Germany. He was a lover of modern people who were freer to enjoy jazz music, to be progressive, and were infatuated with the new dress styles that were popular. The brown shirted anti-flapper NAZIs were only supported because of the very truth presented here.... He hadn't wanted to abdicate. He was forced to do it.
I ABSOLUTELY agree with you !! Edward VIII was a nazi loving bastard. He SALUTED Hitler, and I am also an American. When I was a young girl, my grandmother saw edward saluting Heir hitler & did everything but kiss his nazi loving a$$. All my grandmother's family were murdered by the nazis.
There was more to this than just the attitude of Cosmo Lang. The political establishment was disappointed with Edward VIII during his last few years as Prince of Wales and, after his accession to the throne, frightened them even more. What is clear is that Edward VIII never understood his role as a constitutional monarch and never understood the limits of royal authority as such, while demanding his perquisites. It was Edward's pursuing the morganatic job, as the establishment referred to it, that actually revealed his total lack of understanding of the so-called constitution. Lang had little to do with it. Actually, had Edward been a little more patient, he could have married Wallis in Scotland where, as head of the Church of Scotland, marriage was held as a social contract, not a sacrament. That's why Princess Anne married her second husband there. That possibility never dawned on the incredibly ignorant or stupid Edward VIII.
Your comment is based on the dubious assumption that a human being, any human being should devote his life to the expectations of others, even in terms of so called Royal Duties. As an American, what you seem to expect from a British Monarch seems mentally ill to me. Life is too short to spend it in Misery, even if you are King of England. The most Mentally Healthy members of British Royalty that I can name are Edward VIII and Prince Harry. They made the Mentally Healthy decision to live a Real Life, and not a Public Charade wrapped in "propriety and decorum".
@@JosephKulik2016 When one has lived within an enormous cocoon of rank and privilege, one might live up to the corresponding expectations or foreswear it all. Edward VIII was ill-prepared for his position as a constitutional monarch, was unwilling to learn during his brief tenure as King-Emperor and having abdicated, still expected royal treatment for the rest of his life. He never chose to live a "real life," and neither has Prince Harry.
@@lillibitjohnson7293 Prince Harry of Wales is nothing like King Edward VIII. That is true enough. But the Duke of Sussex and his wife are very similar to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.
Edward was an extremely weak and shallow man, used his "love" for Wallis as an excuse. He simply wasn't up to the job and he knew it! Wallis didnt want him as a husband, she was perfectly happy to be the mistress of the King.
During the first world war, his actions would’ve gotten any other soldier executed, but because his brother had died, and he was heir to the throne. They didn’t they thought well maybe he’ll grow out of it maybe his duties seriously you could see even then he didn’t the fact is that this is always been the problem With the royal family, there’s even questions as to whether Victoria his grandmother was legitimate and there’s reason to believe she wasn’t. But I suppose the greatest reason then let’s face it the whole Wallis Simpson thing was just a cherry on top he wasn’t just pro Nazi. He would have done the same thing, he did in World War I, and it is known that he gave over information to the enemy. Some people say well he had a mistress mistress was well may be a spy yeah, go tell that on the mountain.
Seems like Lang helped with the inevitable. There was no way he could have stayed on the throne. His brother did a wonderful job and Queen Elizabeth II is such an inspiration to us in America.
Exactly. Edward was a snob, which is odd, considering that the king of England doesn't actually have to put other people down a peg to prove they are higher class. (Though Andrew apparently was just as scornful of the lower orders who served him.) He looked down on everybody and had nasty nicknames for people he considered inferior or socially ambitious, then accuses the archbishop of being too much enamored of connections with the rich and important. Oh, then he gives up the throne for a social- climbing woman from a dubious background. The man didn't need allies, he needed a mirror and a conscience and a good dose of realism.
with that said, however, he obviously had no business being the king...the monarchy was much better off without him. he kind of did them a huge favor by getting out of the way.
What a loser. Edward VIII looks like a pouting kid during his abdication speech. Thank goodness for the British that George VI turned out to be a caring, courageous and rather skilled leader, despite his unexpected rule.
@@thunderbird1921. For our generation of Americans as we joined World War II as Britain's allies, the pictures of the King and his family staying in London during the Blitz and the Battle of Britain were as important as pictures of Hitler as the enemy. Pictures of young Princess Elizabeth as an ambulance mechanic and driver were echoed here by young women as we became nurses, joined the military, or became "Rosie the Riveter". King George VI's early death brought to the throne a young woman who in a life of devotion and duty has become one of the great monarchs of history. The Crown paid for the lavish life style of Edward and Wallis for the rest of their lives,a process presumably planned for the equally superfluous Prince Harry.
That was going to happen regardless as the Empire collapsed. For that not to happen you would have to start the colonies on a path to full citizenship and Dominion status prior to World War I. By that time is was a matter for His or Her Majesties' government not the King or Queen. The British government was too concerned with other matters at that time (Boer War, Women's Suffrage and a whole host of other matters). I'm not saying these other matters aren't important however they became the priorities when if you wanted to preserve the Empire you would have needed to plan 20 to 40 years ahead.
You obviously don't understand what part the English Crown plays in the attempt by the New World Order to subjugate the whole world under a bankster-led Communist Elite. Why do you think the English people voted to get out of the EU. That was a part of the NWO plan. Do some research and you won't be so quick to eulogize the very people who have created you and all Brits as slaves.
Needless to say the United Kingdom was extremely lucky to be able to ditch Edward, no matter who he happened to be sleeping with, before the start of WWII. In that way the country should have thanked Mrs. Simpson for being an effective excuse to overthrow K8.
Whatever the clergy may have thought of Mrs. Simpson, the Dominions thought very poorly of her. What's more, Edward's indiscretions were secondary to his anti-Semitism and pro-German tendencies. Churchill sent him off to the Caribbean as a colonial governor, so that he could do no harm, and worked with FDR to make sure that Edward's interviews (by then, the Duke of Windsor's) interviews were never reproduced in full in the British or American papers. His political views were antediluvian.
But as time went on, Edward VIII was found to be inadequate in so many ways from abandoning his military responsivities to openly supporting Hitler to encouraging the German bombing of England.
He was genetically bred to be imperial (imperious), so if you know history you know that sort of thing is normal. Look at Rome, he could have been really great stopping the whole slaughter and the current state of grossness. And look marriage of royals now is very rare proper by those standards, wasn't the first English king Henry also like Edward? Yet he single handedly change history. No, the Christian church now dead was still being the dragon head and like the massacre of the Templars preaching one thing doing an other. He was honest they treacherous
At least Churchill had the good sense to ship the Duke of Windsor off to the Bahama's so that he couldn't cause any serious trouble. Apparently he wasn't very good at keeping secrets especially from the German's. I think we definitely had the best choice of King in George VI.
Proving once and for all that this affair..if you'll forgive the expression...was more about politics than religious conviction. In addition, letters from Edward to his friends made public after his desth, made clear that he didn't relish being king. All for the best.
Whether there was a plot or not, one question remains for me. Why did Edward VIII not lay aside his princely entitlements (which I realise would be highly controversial to say the least) and become a politician if he truly wanted a "fairer life" for commoners in GB and try to effect his hopes for the kingdom taking that route? (Yes, once a prince, always a prince, but in the end he did what he wanted to do anyway: marry that "dreadful common American woman" and he dropped the British like a hot potato. That leads me to believe that he had no intention of changing Britain for the good of the citizens. I've said it before: he was a nazi and Wallis was a very strange influence on him.) King George V was right: his son "was going to ruin everything"'.
My understanding was that George VI by making him Duke of Windsor made it constitutionally impossible for Edward to ever run for political office. Mind you, as an American I don't really understand the British monarchy.
As a neutral observer, who has no grievance against nor any strong reason for the endorsement of a particular monarch or monarchy itself, I feel that Edward VIII. made the case, that could have been made for him otherwise, unrectifiable, when he engaged in what at least appeared to be the endorsement of Hitler and his Naziregime. After that Edward VIII. as a political figure couldn't be salvaged.
King Edward VIII never looked happy. I think he regretted giving up the crown and being bitterly exiled from his family for the rest of his life. I think they (he & Wallis) tried to portray happiness to the press and family, however, they failed miserably.
To me, they seemed to be happy in their own, hedonistic way. Never had children or any other family members than themselves though. They were infatuated with each other's adoration of wealth, I think.
Good for Cosmo! (and Wallis Warfield Simpson was one of America's biggest contributions to the British war effort, unbeknownst to her). Edward was a classic narcissist, as well, and never gave a damn for the poor. His letter to his mother upon the death of his younger brother was a masterpiece of callous indifference.
It was a brilliant PR-move at the time. They framed it as the personal tragedy of a man who couldn't live without the woman he loved. in fact he was simply a Nazi-sympathizer. His abdication was a blessing in many ways. Most importantly: It enabled the most decent, honorable and heroic man in the large Windsor family to become the most beloved King in the history of Great Britain. May God forever bless George VI.
Imagine if Charles had done an Edward before he married Diana. Who would be king now? Andrew? Whatever you think of Charles, he has more than paid his dues and deserves his chance to be king. He may have had Edward's romantic problem, but he doesn't have Edward's lack of character or sense of duty. He definitely got a sense of duty from his mother.
He didnt really want to be king. He wanted to live a carefree life free of responsibility. He picked up women and cast them away when it suited him. They were always married too. Maybe he didnt know it himself Wallis was his escape plan.
I am I sick of lies told about My father K I nd Edward VIII WHO loved his country and never ABDICATED a DOUBLE?/imposter was used to ABDICATED and same as with Wallis Simpson! my dad WED American Claudia Ruth O'Keeffe 22 937 and I was born 39 kidnapped by US Pres Roosevelt and Joe Kennedy who Roosevelt has app to Enland for purpose of taking down my dad. Joseph Kennedy And son JFK helped kidnap me and bring me to USA ag2 2 yrs in '42 one there was all out effort by USA Gov to remove my dad because my dad would not take orders from USA illuminate "one world Gov my hope is my father's name is cleared and Elizabeth & her dad illegal George 5 are known for war crimes and lies they allowed to be told about My dad and Eliz is illegal I am At Victoria 1\ second my phone seems suddenly have problems
*Please turn on the automatic closed captions!* This is useful for many people, _besides the hearing impaired_---if children are playing in the backgroud; outside noise coming through an open window; listening late at night when others are asleep, and other reasons. *_PLEASE TURN ON AUTOMATIC CLOSED CAPTIONS._*
@@mefford67 It's obviously jealousy and hatred. Harry and Meghan are very happy living in the U.S. with their children. And sad tired old skinny English frumps are very jealous of her youth and beauty.
The wolf in sheep’s clothing are the ones who cry most. The archbishop traveled twice with US banker H.P.Morgan on his yacht to Palestine in 1931. Was Lang freemason?
This documentary is very misleading. It suggests that the Arch Bishop was solely responsible for Edward adbicating. It's common knowledge that there were many reasons and many people that that were part of shaping what happened.
People today are too simplistic and too lacking in subtlety to deal with reality. They need designated good guys and bad guys so they know whom to hate and whom to cheer.
Tracee J With the main person responsible being Edward himself. He never wanted the WORK involved being King. He only wanted the STATUS the position offered. Him being concerned for the poor is such a joke when he really wanted to engage in endless parties with Mrs Simpson at his side flittering from castle to castle, country to country, being rich, and having people bow to him and especially to his American divorcee wife. Mrs Simpson was a shrewd woman. I have no doubt if Edward had been successful in his attempt to marry her making her Queen of England with him remaining as King, he would have been a puppet with Mrs Simpson pulling the Royal strings. Mrs Simpson was smart enough that she wouldn't have shown to the people that she was the power behind the thrown, but together this pair would have pushed hard against going to war with Germany which Edward on numerous occasions made clear he was vehemently opposed to. Edward would have emotionally reminded his citizens of the horrors of war and the broken men he had visited in camps and hospitals during WWI; they would have attempted to fire up the masses in favor of Hitler pointing out the jobs and economy he had created in Germany and how much better the citizens of England would be under Hitler's government along with Hitler's assurance that he, Edward, would remain as their King. Hitler who was quite taken with Mrs Simpson stated that she would have been an excellent Queen but never mentioned how great Edward would have been as King. Before Hitler became a drug addict, he was as shrewd as Mrs Simpson. The thought of any this but especially Mrs Simpson as Queen with Edward as a weak, simpering King bowing to all her decisions, nauseates me. All the men behind the scenes who already knew of this pairs' Nazi sympathies who made sure this scenario never happened should be honored not vilified.
Although Cosmo Lang did not precipitate the abdication, he was one of the principal protagonists in ensuring that no accommodation would be made with regard to Edward marrying Mrs. Simpson and retaining the throne. Lang was largely responsible for Baldwin rejecting Churchill's suggestion that the King enter into a morganatic marriage, with his consort as Duchess of Cornwall rather than Queen. An arrangement to which the governments of the Dominions (who by constitutional convention would have to give consent) were also vigourously opposed. I think what people in our modern and decidedly more liberal times overlook and underestimate is the social stigma which divorce carried, and the oppobrium in which divorcees (particularly women) were generally held. These attitudes were not just those of the clergy and establishment, but of the general public too; and they persisted well into the 1970s in the UK.
Edward (David) VIII was in fact obsessed with 'that woman' - not unlike Charles of today - and that sort of trait is very unsuitable for a head of state.
How about Harry and Megan, then? He could always have had a bit of side squeeze - princes and actresses are a bit of a cliche after all - he just shouldn’t have married her.
@@jandrews6254 Harry fell in love with Meghan. Learn to spell her name correctly. But he didn't cheat on her. Charlie Boy cheated on Diana with strumpet CowMilla. And that's the was that I spell that cow's name.
Pretty 'rich' to accuse a plausible regicide of "treason". Perhaps in addition to urging Dawson to murder his father Edward should also have asked him "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" as well.....
I think you need to look up treason. And maybe a few phrases like 'palace employee' because gossiping about the royal family has been done before without anyone being shot or decapitated.
Edward's dalliances with the leaders of Nazi Germany isn't even mentioned once in this documentary. Why? Some might argue this pertinent fact would excuse Lang's actions.
Within 100 years we have Meaghan Markles. I guess the monarchy has come a long way.She a commoner and divorced as well. About time. Poor Princess Margaret was denied the love of her life as well. So SAD
Wallis Simpson, in seducing, distracting Edward, and ultimately creating the abdication, surely saved the UK from one of the worst kings they would ever have had. In a weird way, she deserves credit for that......
I agree his brother was a much better king with his wife, I cant see Edwards rule in a time of war,he was much too weak and self centered. Fighting for his wife to be queen!
Margaret Larriva "Much too weak" George VI was a figurehead during the war. Winston Churchill ran the country and even as a figurehead George VI still died because being king was far to much, is that a strong king?
Yes, it is a MUCH stronger king than a dissolute alcoholic. Kings in England were only figureheads, anyway. But they get top-secret information daily, and if Edward had been king and passing that info to Hitler, Britain would have been lost despite Churchill.
Well since he was complicit in the murder of his father I'd say he got off rather lightly.... And he never gave a fig about 'the people', at all. Edward only ever cared about one thing: Edward.
My opinion of Edward abdicating was besides Mrs Simpson who he truly loved, is that he wanted the good life more than serving his country, by letting his people down.
'The good life' does not consist in doing absolutely nothing worthwhile to leave even one small piece of the world better off than it was without you. I think they must have lived the most boring, empty, cold, sterile, useless, sad, wasted lives - and they probably knew it. And when being king of England means not enjoying anything of 'the good life', I'll make the sacrifice and swap places with any member of the royal family. (But then, I'm having a richly rewarding life teaching and serving the needs of migrants, so, nah. They can keep the wealth and comfort and security and luxury and privilege and access to every good *thing* the world has to offer.)
It had been kept from the British subjects Edward's fascination and close friendship with Hitler. Wallis, had an affair with a married SS officer. It was revealed in documented evidence just how close his ties were. Edward planned military attacks with Hitler. The Crown sent Edward and Wallis to the Bahamas to keep him out of the way. Spending time with socialites who were wealthy and slept around, doesn't sound to me like a man or King of the People. I think there is a great omission of history and bias here. Wallis, it was surmised that she had so many lovers, she contracted VD, therefore, was never able to bear children.
Edward was not fit to be King for many reasons, not the least of which was his odious flirtation with the Nazis. It matters not how he left the throne - it matters only that he did. Perhaps the Archbishop did the UK a great service.
...Edward wasn't forced out...he made his own choice...we all make choices and have to live with them...Lang's speech was spiteful, smug and a low blow to a man already out and gone. Simpson had no understanding herself of things. Apparently she recieved a lot of hate mail, some of the most vIcious from Canada, She replied that they (Canadians) were just like us (Americans) so why the hate...in the end a good king came along to reign during the horrible time to come ....and his daughter, Elizabeth,has been an awesome queen
He is trying to say how Edward was so.caring about social issues and care for the poor. Actually Edward just did the minimum amount of royal duties and showing off for the press. He talked about abdication as early as 1918. on his many royal tours he seduced every woman he could. Albert Duke of York on the other hand was called the industrial Prince due to his inspections of factories he made without announcement before hand so he could get real conditions. He also started the camps mixing the young rich with the poor youth. King George v. himself was deeply concerned about the poor and unemployed and he actually gave his personal money to help them. Edward as King fired a bunch of staff and make general statements that gave empty hope. Edward also could not be defender of the faith well being in breach with the Church of England and like it or not that was the policy and Edward knew the rules before he started with messing around with married women. I think that Edward himself had wanted off the throne every bit as much as anyone else did. The other married women he tried to get to divorce their husbands and marry him had the sense to know it could not work. Wallis Simpson was stupid enough to believe Edward and then when her husband made it clear he would not take her back she was trapped.
@@carmennadel7636 what is incorrect with that statement? His first mistress was a French woman who initiated him into the wonders of sex. It is documented by more than one source that whole he was representing the crown on tours of both the Empire and the US that he spent most of his time dancing with the pretty women ignoring the officials he was supposed to be speaking with. While in Africa on a tour while Alan Laccailles was his private secretary George V became seriously Ill and he was asked to return home at once. Edward replied that he did not believe it and that Baldwin was just doing an election dodge. Edward then got back to the seduction of the mayor's wife informing his private secretary next morning he had been successful. Just one example of his womanizing.
Honestly I think Edward and the archbishop were people who knew of each other but never actually took time to know one another. But I guess if you’re king then that doesn’t even matter. Edward maybe thought K George V and the archbishop were more like what we call really good friends in today’s terms instead of just talking about the church and other serious monarchy duties. Edward knew that the archbishop had known most of the bad things he has done or were doing at that time he came to the throne so he prob thought automatically this will never work with this guy around. Idk that’s just what I got from the first part
25:20 she' s saying that by inviting the Archbishop to Balmoral, that Albert was "throwing down the gauntlet as if Albert was on the offensive now"..... suggesting that Albert himself was trying to push Edward aside, in Edward's mind at least. All other accounts have always held that Albert never wanted the crown. So this is surprising and contradictory.
Did you know the Queen of Welfare is also the Queen of the UK. Did you know that it’s against the law for a member of the Royal family to marry a Catholic. To this day a lot Englishmen hate Catholics, meanwhile the founder of the Church of England, king Henry VIII falsified charges against two of his wives and had them beheaded, he is a murderer, and creates a religion, forces everyone to baptized and than he says that he is a God’s spokesman and declares himself in charge of his religion. How can anyone be a member of the Church of England I don’t know....
And a bloody good job too as it turned out. The last thing we would have needed in 1939 was a feckless, lazy, playboy 'celebrity prince'. We don't need our monarchs to be celebrities but rather dutiful, principled and hard working - rather like George VI.
"Archbishop Lang loathed his [Edward's] .... affected American accent..." Huh? What American accent? I've listened to pretty much all the existing clips of Edward VIII, and there's NO American accent there. He sounds just as posh as you'd expect.
I am an American, and I can assure you, he did not speak like an American. Some say he spoke German with a Viennese accent. I will leave that to the Austrians to judge.
You probably be speaking German for few years after the Nazi Germans invaded whole UK, then probably the Americans intervene in WWII and liberate UK alongside Canada and the rest of surviving Allied powers(except the Soviets), since the US have the occupational power over UK they will abolish monarchy and republic will be established. This would be possible, with a big if, if the US doesn't have pacifist or neutralistic thought about the war, like they did in 1939 and 1940, instead the US goes on full interventionist mode when the Germans successfully landed on Britain.
Yeah, there was another plot going on with Wallis, Hitler & Edward to overthrow The Crown so there’s that too. This is not addressed at all here. There was a valid reason to get him out of there.
As an American, I believe that George VI was the king that was needed during WWII. However, that speech the Archbishop made after the Abdication was just plain slimy.
All else aside that Archbishop was a self serving ass, (as many are) and wanted to keep his status quo in place. Had Edward been crowned said Archbishop would have lost the ear of the King. There have been many documentaries and many reasons, most to do with Wallis Simpson as the cause for the abdication. However, Edward VIII was a progressive thinker who was able to see a changed future for Britain, (no Hitler involved.) The problem he ran up against was his own family for one as the Royal Family does not deal well with change. Plus the Church and Government. Only the common people loved him and that was not enough in his day.
God decides which head the crown will rest. Inconceivable to think the now Princess Beatrice of York becoming Queen, however this happened in 1952. Edward rejected God so God ejected Edward.
Hard to imagine Churchill leading the government of a willing cuckold who's only wish was to party and please his NAZI sympathizing Mistress without work or responsibility. Yeah, that's putting it rather mildly I think.
@@PInk77W1 He has no political power and publicly no political opinions. It would have been the difference between seeing the royal family visiting their subjects who were bombed in the Blitz and knowing your monarch had been publicly chummy with Hitler for years before Britain got in the war. If Edward had been king with his record of hobnobbing with and sympathizing with Nazis, do you really think the British people's morale would have been boosted by a playboy Nazi sympathizer visiting their bombed-out homes? If he would even have had the wits to realize Hitler was a bad lot when the Blitz started, that is, and made such a gesture instead of running off to some resort in a neutral country. The monarch symbolizes and embodies all that the people take pride in of the British spirit. If he or she is weak, a quisling, self-absorbed and publicly self-indulgent, the people's morale takes a huge blow. That's probably the big burden of being one of the royal family: you symbolize a glorious ideal, and if you fall from it, the people are unforgiving. They will put up with laddishness for awhile (Harry), but not caddishness (Charles toward Diana, in public opinion). And they will not forgive abandoning the nation to follow the dictates of your prick, same as the children of any father who cheats on their mother and leaves her for another woman. It's a *relationship* and a trust that the royal family have with their people. Ever since the media really started showing them warts and all, they ceased being symbols and more and more they publicly expose their personal weaknesses and faults. And that's why you see an increased call for abolishing the monarchy. Edward, publicly running away from his duty with an American. Diana's revelations about Charles and their divorce. Andrew's nastiness to pretty much everybody, his divorce and disgrace. Harry abandoning his birthright for an American actress... If Charles can keep his mother's dignity and decorum, some of her spirit, and if William and Kate continue the beautiful job they are doing and the example they show of a loving family, dutiful and kind toward their subjects, they can turn the ship around for another generation. But more scandal, more self-indulgence, more arrogant displays of privilege with no regard for duty and the cherished (and changing) image of the ideal Britons that the royals are expected to show...and it will be curtains. They represent something, the ideal of who the British can be at their finest, and like it or not, their survival depends on living up to that and preserving those standards in public. Edward could not do it. He would have had no credibility with the people in the war, and the British people were so beleaguered, suffering, sacrificing and hungry, that a self-pitying, self-indulgent monarch would have been as devastating as George and Elizabeth were inspiring.
I, for one, am glad Edward VIII abdicated. War with Nazi Germany loomed and Wallis would have, no doubt, pushed the King to appease Hitler. He did the country a service by leaving. King George VI and Queen Elizabeth were just who Britain needed to help inspire the country during WWII. It might have gone all so wrong had Edward remained king.
And today, 2022, Harry and Megan, (even though he’s a prince, he’s not acting like one,) 😊
@@5877user I'm not sure how a prince nowadays "should" behave. In Harry's case, it seems like quite an empty, controlled life he would be expected to lead had he remained within the confines of the Royal Family. He seems a man of devotion to his family, to his Invictus Games, and various other projects.
England would likely have been overtaken by Germany had he remained king.
😂🙈... Was glaubst Du, wer all diese Kriege mit wem inszeniert hat ??? Lerne erst mal WAHRHEIT und die WAHRE Geschichte Deines geliebten sogenannten 'Adels' kennen - DANN schreibst Du nie wieder so einen Müll ❗
As an American, this video confirms for me what a Load of Bull Sh!t the British Monarchy is !!! What surprises me is not Royals like Edward VIII or Prince Harry abandoning Royal Life but that there are educated people who would waste their whole life on such a Public Charade. And how PATHETIC are the British People to believe in this Royal Rubbish and actually support it with their Tax Dollars in the 21st Century !!!
Let’s all agree that “there’s nothing so wonderful as an articulate and gossipy clergy man” is the best sentence ever.
And this a close 2nd? "it was for no other reason than that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cosmo, had an unrequited, homo-eroticized love for Edward that precipitated the clash"
@Fredrik Larsson qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
Reddy
If Edward the eighth had stayed on the thrown until 72 add his niece Elizabeth the second I’ve been Crown as a middle-age woman prince Philip would’ve had a chance to had a full career as a British naval officer probably reaching the rank of admiral my think Elizabeth and Phillip would’ve been much happier living a quiet life socializing with other officers and their wives and then taking on the new in London. This would’ve been able to spend a lot more time with her sons Charles and Andrew. Both might have led quite different wives if that was the case. Just wondering?
No, it's not
I have a guilty pleasure of always wanting to learn more about Edward VIII and his adventures, friends, and enemies. I wasn't aware of the Machiavellian archbishop's schemes..
Even the PM Stanley Baldwin had a cruel hand in preventing Edward VIII from continuing as a King.
After watching this I came to realize that who ever casted "The Kings Speech" did a wonderful job. George V & Edward VIII were dead on.
Edward was such a wonderful person at heart, but his adulterous relation worked against him, since the Ch of Eng, cd not marry him with a 2x divorcee. Tho the Archbishop & PM Baldwin were opposed , there was likely a STRONG God factor. Not sure Edward VIII & Chamberlain cd have handled Hitler. He may have been deceived by Hitler though Churchill
@@lordnelson2412 u think Edward was truly a wonderful person?
Being that he threw duty and his country out the window for a woman who was married WHEN HE MET HER and was clearly palling around w the Nazi Fuhrer, I’m not sure that’s true.
Personally, I don’t think marrying Wallis was the main issue. I think the fact David was messing around with her WHILE she was still married was the biggest issue. It’s one thing to be twice divorced. It quite another thing to be an adulterer, IMHO.
@@lordnelson2412 He wasn't a wonderful person at heart at all.
@@zzzbbbooo The late Queen Elizabeth II spoke of Edward VIII as "my silly uncle".
And i think she was right.
@@zzzbbbooo He had probably inherited the George IV genes.
King Edward VIII did himself in, and since he sought neither friendship nor support from Lang, Baldwin or anyone else, he got none. I believe Baldwin at first tried to convince the King to stay and not marry Wallis, but when he wouldn't listen, the PM decided it would be best for Edward to go. Lang was from another era, and he saw Edward as a morally bad king, and would do nothing to help him, and was also ultimately glad to see the back of him. So be it. Ultimately, Edward was the victim of his own actions and personality defects. The right thing happened all around.
Interesting to believe a man complicit in the murder of his own father might be 'seen' as "morally bad". I guess, ultimately, celebrity only will excuse so much.
Pm uh
@@nomdeguerre7265 Do you believe every word you hear on TH-cam? It certainly seems so. In the long ago times of his fathers death, what happened was even more accepted than it is now. Normally assisting a person who is suffering to shorten their suffering is not murder, as long as it's only by a few hours and they are given the choice, of course. If they can't, then family must decide. I know the Dr didn't give them a chance. He had screwed up motives, and he went way too far without enough discussion, but Edward can't be blamed for that. So why are you blaming him? And why are Americans always so quick to throw hatred at everyone? It's about time they started opening their eyes, because they are pretty darned offensive themselves.
@@cattymajiv I don't believe I'm 'blaming' anyone for anything.
watching this documentary is better than watching any Reality TV show.
I'm 27 minutes in, and the suspense, the drama...i'm loving it
Suspense is lost if you've already know whodunit. If this is the first time one has heard of the tale.
Throughout his adult life, David made it crystal clear by his views and behavior that he didn’t want at all to be king. He all but ignored his duties as Prince of Wales, preferring café society and what became a rather sinister cohort in Germany.
Yes he actually habitually did a few good things but over all I think it was a blessing that he was passed over! Thank God!
I thought he was a fascist.
England would never have been bombed had She remained friends with Germany.
I think he also sought acceptance and respect for Wallis from Hitler. It seems as though Edward's relationship with Wallis was sado-masochistic. She never really wanted a long term relationship with him but got stuck with him. He was like an emotionally dependent baby. Not nurtured or loved in childhood. She despised him.
@@snowbear1877 Interesting it's almost as though you are describing Harry emotionally dependent baby that hasn't been nurtured or loved. Hard to say, It had to be tough growing up with out a mother and in his circumstance. That being said many have grown up without a mother...and mothers that have died in terrible circumstances and have weathered the storm.
The monarch of the United Kingdom is also the head of the Church of England. The Prince of Wales had many mistresses before Wallis Simpson, all of whom were married ladies. When he expressed his interest in marrying the divorcee, which would have been against the Church of England, that would have disqualified him from being the head of the Church. Since the throne and Church were combined that disqualified him from the throne. His downfall was not a result of some conspiracy or a church leader with too much power, it was his own doing. By the way he and Wallis loved spending time with their wealthy friends and appeared to have no special love for the poor so he did not abdicate because of his love for the poor.
I don't know why people are always choosing sides in history. Just tell the history.
An unfortunately lopsided documentary. 1) Lang was a Victorian, not a modern man. 2) He was at times in favor of liberal social positions, including more taxation of the wealthy and abolition of the death penalty. 3) He tried to promote what we today call ecumenism. 4) He condemned anti-Semitism and got 60 rabbis visas into Britain. He was genuinely distressed at the Edward/Wallis situation, and a large portion of the government and society agreed with him. In hindsight modern people may criticize his snobbish attitudes and decisions, and he should not have gloated over the abdication. However, the Archbishop did not "betray" the King -- he chose the Nation over one King who was replaceable. Had he not done so, Britain would have been saddled with a King who thought his nation should submit to the Nazi plans for Europe.
The unfortunate fellow who became the Duke of Windsor was as close to a traitor to Britain as has ever sat the throne.
He was in every way unsuited to monarchy, not the least by his fawning sexual slavery to that Simpson woman, who absolutely despised him.
The UK was much better off with George VI, though one can't say that about the current monarch or her current successor.
Edward VIII was one of many Kings to be involved in scandals. Your last sentence was the real motivation--Edward was a Nazi sympathizer. The rest could have been overlooked.
So easy to blame Wallis for everything, when the truth is that Edward's problems were of his own making. No one, including Wallis, made Edward do anything he didn't want to do. And all this talk of the so-called "sexual slavery" that Wallis supposedly used to control Edward - please! Wallis couldn't have done anything that a long line of women wouldn't have been willing and able to do for a king. Accept the fact that the weakness existed in Edward himself - no one else was to blame for his decisions. He was weak, powerful, stubborn and narcisistic all at the same time.
You know he would never have gone on radio and given his sanctimonious speech after the abdication without someone high up in the Palace approving it. I read in at least one bio of a Royal that they thought Lang's speech was well expressed. He just took the fall out alone.
But it's Celebrity Worship, one of the favorite pastimes of the modern age. It is like 'Wokeism'. It can deny any fact, ignore any reality, claim any fallacy, if needed to believe what it wants to believe.
Edward VIII never really wanted to be king. He was a lightweight playboy with a lack of responsibility.
Hey there! I came across your comment and I just had to reach out and say hi. Your perspective really caught my attention and I would love to get to know you better. Would you be interested in chatting sometime? Looking forward to hearing back from you! 😊
Also, they knew far more about Wallis than anyone else realized. She was not rapturously in love with Edward as was his belief. She was still quite sexually active with others of very problematic connections. She was sleeping with the German Ambassador to Britain, a U.S. businessman living in London with a history linked to her 1st husband, etc.
which
miss
Simpson? here was no
who
has
Surname
Simpson? .....no idea
Wallis was Jewish which makes "Truth stranger than Fiction!" She and Edward lived on welfare just like the rest of them to this day!
Unbelievable that they spoke about how the archbishop "loathed Edward's love of democracy", when it's likely that Edward would have submitted to Hitler, gladly
Upper-class useful idiots always imagine that when the communists or the fascists or other extremists take over, their own lives won't change at all. They will be heroes of the revolution who brought about utopia for the grateful and adoring masses. They don't realize they will be the first to go when the barbarians march in. I watched Michael Moore trying to stir up the 99% to seize the wealth of the 1% by force if the 1% didn't willingly and immediately divide and give away their wealth to the trashy welfare rats ganged up around him at an Occupy Wall Street demonstration. Somebody filming it was loudly asking how much Moore was worth and saying how much money his films made and kept saying, 'Divide your wealth. You start first. How much are you giving away?' and telling the crowd to take their share of Moore's wealth here and now. Clearly Moore could hear him. Moore ignored him and made a quick end of his appearance to show solidarity with the useless layabouts who clearly had no jobs to go to on a weekday morning.
Is it..? I guess it is a lot of speculation...
It’s well documented that Edward was a Nazi sympathizer and would have gotten Britain in a lot of trouble had he stayed in the throne. I think the government used whoever and whatever they could to get him out of there. I think Edward was oblivious of this part of his life that was so threatening to his country and kept on about Wallis.
Wallis was the easiest way to do it, I think. The funny thing is - while there’s nothing been said, it is TOTALLY my personal opinion - that Edward thought in the back of his mind that his government would step back and let him stay king and marry Wallis if he held out long enough ... lucky Britain, that wasn’t the case and his arrogance in the situation forced him to continue.
Wallis was probably kicking herself all the way to her grave for her decision. Maybe that’s why her jewelry collection was so opulent. Edward had to bribe her to stay?
Either way, George was on the money when he said he didn’t trust his on eldest and hoped Albert and Elizabeth would save the day.
Also Edward was very stupid, it’s legendary that he was not smart at all
Fast forward today. Look up traitor king
And it's also docmented that his lady love was banging the German diplomat Von Ribbentrop
Yes and his father made no secret of it. 😂
As were half the upper class. Mind you: I do love Britain entering a war and committing the lives of their young men to fight a war where they hadn’t been threatened for a nation that was also not democratic. Made as much sense as killing a million of their youth in WW1 by declaring war on Germany because she has sided with Austria over a small place called Serbia. Again when they themselves hasn’t been threatened.
Thank God this man abdicated. It was divine providence! George VI saved England!
God decides which head the crown will rest. Inconceivable to think the now Princess Beatrice of York becoming Queen, however this happened in 1952. Edward rejected God so God ejected Edward.
All this talk of Edward's caring about the 'Poor', wanting a more equal society, cared about democracy ... what a load of tosh. Look how he lived in exile ... did he do anything for the poor, the underprivileged? Not a thing. He lived in splendour and made the servants call his wife HRH, which she was not. He did absolutely nothing to help society.
+Alice Hudson Yes. You hit the nail on the head.
I completely agree. He did nothing for society but whinge at how he was treated.
Look at the brainless twit, judging from his own time, and his own place in the world. Yeah that's how you judge people.
Ad look at you children, doing your very best to help the poor. After all: judging people from ignorance is totally motivated by wanting to help people, right? It's not as if you're entertaining yourselves with your own ignorant whinging and judging - it's all about helping the poor.
I just love that you think you know it all.
There was an occasion when Edward visited a poverty stricken village, and said "Something must be done." Then he went home and did nothing. Apparently that was typical.
Precisely. Edward gave not a fig for 'the poor', or anyone else at all for that matter.
John Lennon • we need to help the poor.
Dies with $250,000,000
ll
Not just that, he naffed off and had a cruise with Simpson at someone else's expense.
if only one of his many married lovers would have made the weakling actually do something.
Why would the fact that Wallis Simpson was twice divorced have any significance to the Church of England? It was created for and by Henry VIII to divorce as many times as he wanted to.
Some are more equal than others.
Henry never divorced any wives. The marriages were annulled ie never happened.
They're prejudiced against women, especially outsiders.
@@musanyathi2298 semantics
Hypocrisy my friend, British hypocrisy.
The old Archbishop may have disliked Edward, but it was Edward who caused his own downfall. If he hadn't lost his head over that Gold-digging Simpson, he would have been alright. As it is, Edward and Simpson deserved each other; they were both losers.
Because he loved someone? Because he could've saved 100 million lives lost worldwide because of WW2? Ironic you prefer millions dead instead of talking. Of course it's not you dying for abstract ideas of nationalism we humans create in our minds.
They weren't losers. In fact, they both were clear winners. Edward abdicated because he loved Wallis and he didn't want to have problems with the clergy and the parliament. He understood very well that he had fallen out of favour and he was spot on when he saw his chance to quit. It was very fortunate that he was able to come to an agreement with his brother, concerning Balmoral and his yearly income. I suppose there were more parties involved in this agreement, not just him and his brother. Obviously, it was the interest of the leading clerical circles to see him out of the line of accession, so no wonder such a huge compensation was offered for his abdication. If he had insisted, who knows what might have happened to him. Afterwards, Edward and Wallis were able to follow their hedonistic lifestyle free of obligations or the duties of a king. Edward was happy to be beside his beloved wife, and Wallis was happy, because Edward adored her, introduced her into his wealthy lifestyle and kept buying her the most expensive presents imaginable. So, concerning personal happiness, they were both winners.
It's one of the rare instances when an unnecessary actor in a political game didn't end up beheaded, shot or poisoned by the backing powers of the game.
@@sandraleiva1633; "prefer millions dead instead of talking"? What in the HE*L are you talking about????? Edward stopping WWII from happening? You are some kind of a NUT!!!!
@@attilakovacs5803; what did they win? Edward was weak, and Simpson was the ultimate Gold-digging social clamber. It is also apparent they were both admirers of Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Germany. That alone should tell you what a couple of "LOSERS" they were.
David was lucky he had Bertie as brother, otherwise, he would have been condemned as the traitor he was.
Honey, I've got a capital idea. On the way home, let's stop off and see Hitler!
Bertie was a stuttering idiot who dis absolutely nothing. He was controlled by his mother and wife. Don't give him credit for doing absolutely nothing but producing an heir even if she was a girl. He was likely a homosexual since his wife only had two children. He could've kept going to produce a male heir. But they didn't.
David; nice but dim. None of them were dealing with a full deck, seemingly this has remained unchanged right up until more modern times. King Charles III seems comfortable with what could be described in others as flaky behavior and the destruction of delicate dispositions.
Well, I think that he wasn't Pro-Nazi initially, he just liked the Germans because so many of his Relatives were German. But once he had Abdicated the Nazis saw an opportunity and tried to make full advantage of the situation.
@@bendewet1057. Thank you! 20/20 hindsight is something we all recognize.
It strikes me that this and the Nazi ouster theory are completely compatible. Cosmo Lang wanted Edward gone out of prudery and pride, and more politically astute government officials wanted him gone because of his Nazi sympathies. The latter used Cosmo Lang to achieve their ends, to obscure their own involvement.
After years of study, I feel that this observation sums it up in a nutshell. (Even while Governor of the Bahamas he maintained a couple of very curious connections).
Perhaps the world *was* better off with George VI though. It drove him to an early grave, but he ended up being a much better king.
Those cigarettes drove him to an early grave.
@@reneedaughter He smoked more because of stress due to being king, supposedly.
@@rberks5 the whole problem was that everybody from the prior two generations ( in his family) smoked like a stove. Long before even WWI - let alone the beginning of WWII.
Cancer to an early grave?
He did absolutely nothing but have two heirs. A stuttering homosexual who was managed by his mother and wife.
The archbishop didn't want him to be King? *Edward* didn't want to be King. He said many times that royalty was outdated and that he did not want to be shackled with that mess. He likely loved Wallace, but she was a great excuse not to take the crown. Add that to his affinity for Germany and it was best he wasn't King.
Hello how're you doing?
The video leaves out that Edward was willing to negotiate with Hitler, to surrender England to the butchers.
Those who worked against him were right, even if it wasn't apparent at the time
They probably tried to hide their real reason. Edward the Nazi was a total disgrace. A romantic solution was great propaganda. It was also why he was so totally rejected after his abdication. Wallace Simpson was just a scandal that made a convenient excuse.
DANZIG WHAT is your problem? If you hate the J£ws as you quaintly put it, why aren’t you in Iraq or Iran?
The queen is german
@@GodKing804 :. The Queen has German, French, English and Scottish ancestry.
Who are "the butchers"?
A very simplistic take on a very complicated bit of history. This was just one aspect of the situation and from the papers of just one individual. I expect there could be several more documentaries like this, based on the papers or diaries of others involved.
Thats history, there are always new and other viewpoints to consider, fir me this was a good basis though.
I do appreciate you posting this very much. I love the old footage.
This story is just really messed up, besides the divorce issue.
They’re adding a fanciful plot to the serious real life plot that he and Wallis were Hitler’s buddies and that is why they had to get them as far away as possible.
They were plotting to overthrow The Crown and get him back in. Wallis even believed Hitler when tole he would let her be Queen.
So I’m quite delighted and feel no pity for him being kicked off & them sent off to the Bahamas.
Exceptional, revealing and illuminating. Congratulations and thank you wholeheartedly for uploading it.
Edward only cared about one thing: Himself. When the going got tough he ran. He had a spine of jello.
Wallis wore the pants and was the puppet master. Edward was her dummy. Her words came out of his mouth.
Elizabeth only cared about herself. She didn't make her husband king consort, she managed her children's marriages and all ended in failure and her last son a homosexual was forced to marry a woman at an advanced age. All monarchs are selfish as are all royals.
Exactly like cry-baby former prince Hawwy and his horrid 'wife'.
@@What_I_Think_Happened You are a hater.
@@SymphonyBrahms I hate liars, schemers, and selfish people who want to live off 'charity'. You should too, if you are intelligent or fair.
@@What_I_Think_Happened I know that I am intelligent and fair. Harry has done nothing wrong, He has the right to move his family to America and avoid the vicious English bigots and haters. And you are a bigot and a hater. Fie on you.
I had always heard that Albert and Elizabeth did not want the crown and that Albert cried upon Edwards abdication. This documentary says that they were not just upset with Mrs. Simpson, but wanted Edward out as king.
Do you believe everything of which you come across in the media, dimwit?
The hero’s burden, while often true and I think it WAS a great burden for someone who cared so much about doing what was RIGHT--
The hero’s burden is often a story arc presented.
Biblical polygamy-because the wife suggested it or modern polygamy and cults-because a God told them to-they cried and didn’t want to…
George washington not wanting to be King and rejecting royalty but choosing to be long suffering and lead for a time.
Christ’s suffering for the world’s sins and sacrifice of life…
The Hero’s Burden
Edward was the biggest simp in all of history. He gave up his crown for a woman who didn't love him and treated him like crap.
Major blackpill in modern history
that's not simping, it's called following your heart, also he hated being King, and everybody was out to get him from day 1. Easy decision if you ask me. Plus Wallis didn't love him, why did she get divorced for him, stick with him for life, nurse him into death, and not break up with him even tough he gave up the throne?
Edward's lack of a reputation for seriousness deprived him of support at the critical hour. The fact that he was proposing to marry a twice-divorced woman can be seen as another expression of that lack of serious concern for the welfare of the throne or the country. And nothing in his subsequent history suggests otherwise.
Agreed!
@AurumDream Yes
The males of the monarchy could do anything.
@Gary Allen yeah right!!
@Gary Allen yeah right!!
Considering Edward's sympathies regarding Germany the British dodged a bullet on that one.
Right! I wonder why that's not even mentioned in this documentary.
0730Ender
Because if Edward had kept power it is doubtful that he would have kept cool with Germany. He was a lover of modern people who were freer to enjoy jazz music, to be progressive, and were infatuated with the new dress styles that were popular. The brown shirted anti-flapper NAZIs were only supported because of the very truth presented here.... He hadn't wanted to abdicate. He was forced to do it.
Yes, I have read that in several places.
amcalabrese1 not this time they are screwd Royal.
+0730Ender Thanks for pointing that out. I won't finish watching this in that case.
As an American I am grateful that George VI became king.
@@taylor.rafferty Edward might have tilted Britain towards the Nazis.
Oy Vey!
Absolutely! 👏👏👏
@@alainarchambault2331 Something that would have happen in Philip K Dick's Man In The High Castle world...
I ABSOLUTELY agree with you !! Edward VIII was a nazi loving bastard. He SALUTED Hitler, and I am also an American. When I was a young girl, my grandmother saw edward saluting Heir hitler & did everything but kiss his nazi loving a$$. All my grandmother's family were murdered by the nazis.
Thank God they pushed that fool out. Edward was so full of himself. Unfit to be King.
He didn't just abdicate the throne. He is so over the royal demands and restrictions. He saw his chance, and clung to it like his lifeline.
There was more to this than just the attitude of Cosmo Lang. The political establishment was disappointed with Edward VIII during his last few years as Prince of Wales and, after his accession to the throne, frightened them even more. What is clear is that Edward VIII never understood his role as a constitutional monarch and never understood the limits of royal authority as such, while demanding his perquisites. It was Edward's pursuing the morganatic job, as the establishment referred to it, that actually revealed his total lack of understanding of the so-called constitution. Lang had little to do with it. Actually, had Edward been a little more patient, he could have married Wallis in Scotland where, as head of the Church of Scotland, marriage was held as a social contract, not a sacrament. That's why Princess Anne married her second husband there. That possibility never dawned on the incredibly ignorant or stupid Edward VIII.
Your comment is based on the dubious assumption that a human being, any human being should devote his life to the expectations of others, even in terms of so called Royal Duties. As an American, what you seem to expect from a British Monarch seems mentally ill to me. Life is too short to spend it in Misery, even if you are King of England. The most Mentally Healthy members of British Royalty that I can name are Edward VIII and Prince Harry. They made the Mentally Healthy decision to live a Real Life, and not a Public Charade wrapped in "propriety and decorum".
@@JosephKulik2016 When one has lived within an enormous cocoon of rank and privilege, one might live up to the corresponding expectations or foreswear it all. Edward VIII was ill-prepared for his position as a constitutional monarch, was unwilling to learn during his brief tenure as King-Emperor and having abdicated, still expected royal treatment for the rest of his life. He never chose to live a "real life," and neither has Prince Harry.
@@andreasrau2161 Harry is nothing like Edward, silly comparison
@@lillibitjohnson7293 Prince Harry of Wales is nothing like King Edward VIII. That is true enough. But the Duke of Sussex and his wife are very similar to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.
@@andreasrau2161 rubbish, stop reading the murdoch propaganda
Edward was an extremely weak and shallow man, used his "love" for Wallis as an excuse. He simply wasn't up to the job and he knew it! Wallis didnt want him as a husband, she was perfectly happy to be the mistress of the King.
th-cam.com/video/tHgtUNVlFJc/w-d-xo.html
“The Plot to Topple a Nazi” is a more accurate title
He wasn a nazi
He was a nazi sympathizer
@@hazelwalker6570 not the same as nazi
During the first world war, his actions would’ve gotten any other soldier executed, but because his brother had died, and he was heir to the throne. They didn’t they thought well maybe he’ll grow out of it maybe his duties seriously you could see even then he didn’t the fact is that this is always been the problem With the royal family, there’s even questions as to whether Victoria his grandmother was legitimate and there’s reason to believe she wasn’t. But I suppose the greatest reason then let’s face it the whole Wallis Simpson thing was just a cherry on top he wasn’t just pro Nazi. He would have done the same thing, he did in World War I, and it is known that he gave over information to the enemy. Some people say well he had a mistress mistress was well may be a spy yeah, go tell that on the mountain.
4
Seems like Lang helped with the inevitable. There was no way he could have stayed on the throne. His brother did a wonderful job and Queen Elizabeth II is such an inspiration to us in America.
The irony in that a prince describing a bishop to be more interested in worldly powers than the human soul.
Exactly. Edward was a snob, which is odd, considering that the king of England doesn't actually have to put other people down a peg to prove they are higher class. (Though Andrew apparently was just as scornful of the lower orders who served him.) He looked down on everybody and had nasty nicknames for people he considered inferior or socially ambitious, then accuses the archbishop of being too much enamored of connections with the rich and important. Oh, then he gives up the throne for a social- climbing woman from a dubious background. The man didn't need allies, he needed a mirror and a conscience and a good dose of realism.
with that said, however, he obviously had no business being the king...the monarchy was much better off without him. he kind of did them a huge favor by getting out of the way.
Absolutely...
What a loser. Edward VIII looks like a pouting kid during his abdication speech. Thank goodness for the British that George VI turned out to be a caring, courageous and rather skilled leader, despite his unexpected rule.
@@thunderbird1921. For our generation of Americans as we joined World War II as Britain's allies, the pictures of the King and his family staying in London during the Blitz and the Battle of Britain were as important as pictures of Hitler as the enemy.
Pictures of young Princess Elizabeth as an ambulance mechanic and driver were echoed here by young women as we became nurses, joined the military, or became "Rosie the Riveter".
King George VI's early death brought to the throne a young woman who in a life of devotion and duty has become one of the great monarchs of history.
The Crown paid for the lavish life style of Edward and Wallis for the rest of their lives,a process presumably planned for the equally superfluous Prince Harry.
What a bunch of dumb brainwashed people in this comment section.
@@annbush1826 Shut up about Prince Harry. He is a good person.
Not sure about this, but at the end of the day we got a wonderful king and now a glorious queen
Not to mention the hordes of Indians and immigrants flooding the United Kingdom.
That was going to happen regardless as the Empire collapsed. For that not to happen you would have to start the colonies on a path to full citizenship and Dominion status prior to World War I. By that time is was a matter for His or Her Majesties' government not the King or Queen. The British government was too concerned with other matters at that time (Boer War, Women's Suffrage and a whole host of other matters). I'm not saying these other matters aren't important however they became the priorities when if you wanted to preserve the Empire you would have needed to plan 20 to 40 years ahead.
You obviously don't understand what part the English Crown plays in the attempt by the New World Order to subjugate the whole world under a bankster-led Communist Elite. Why do you think the English people voted to get out of the EU. That was a part of the NWO plan. Do some research and you won't be so quick to eulogize the very people who have created you and all Brits as slaves.
@@Reichsritter Edward was a Nazi sympathizer. So yeah, we dodge a bullet. Imagine if England joined the Nazis
N C nope, he was a socialist sympathizer, quite different. Hittler changed his focus from one kind of government to another as his psychopathy grew.
Needless to say the United Kingdom was extremely lucky to be able to ditch Edward, no matter who he happened to be sleeping with, before the start of WWII. In that way the country should have thanked Mrs. Simpson for being an effective excuse to overthrow K8.
Whatever the clergy may have thought of Mrs. Simpson, the Dominions thought very poorly of her. What's more, Edward's indiscretions were secondary to his anti-Semitism and pro-German tendencies. Churchill sent him off to the Caribbean as a colonial governor, so that he could do no harm, and worked with FDR to make sure that Edward's interviews (by then, the Duke of Windsor's) interviews were never reproduced in full in the British or American papers. His political views were antediluvian.
While in the Bahamas, it is my understanding that he was in close communication with Axel Wenner Gren.
But as time went on, Edward VIII was found to be inadequate in so many ways from abandoning his military responsivities to openly supporting Hitler to encouraging the German bombing of England.
He was genetically bred to be imperial (imperious), so if you know history you know that sort of thing is normal. Look at Rome, he could have been really great stopping the whole slaughter and the current state of grossness.
And look marriage of royals now is very rare proper by those standards, wasn't the first English king Henry also like Edward? Yet he single handedly change history.
No, the Christian church now dead was still being the dragon head and like the massacre of the Templars preaching one thing doing an other.
He was honest they treacherous
@@elasticharmony Henry VII is now regarded as something of a sociopath. He changed history in the same way Hitler changed History.
While in Portugal some of his connections were very curious indeed 🧐 …
@@lecaprice2572 They were Nazi sympathizers.
For a holy man, the Arch Bishop's actions were more like the devil! What a sinner with evil on his mind.
He should be thanked for keeping a Nazi sympathizer and his Nazi sympathizer wife off the throne.
@@SymphonyBrahms Do you mean ex-royal crybaby Hawwy and his succubus? I agree they should not be in the line of succession.
At least Churchill had the good sense to ship the Duke of Windsor off to the Bahama's so that he couldn't cause any serious trouble. Apparently he wasn't very good at keeping secrets especially from the German's. I think we definitely had the best choice of King in George VI.
He told secrets all over the map to his Nazi friends.
What a great queen we achieved from this history
Proving once and for all that this affair..if you'll forgive the expression...was more about politics than religious conviction. In addition, letters from Edward to his friends made public after his desth, made clear that he didn't relish being king. All for the best.
Whether there was a plot or not, one question remains for me. Why did Edward VIII not lay aside his princely entitlements (which I realise would be highly controversial to say the least) and become a politician if he truly wanted a "fairer life" for commoners in GB and try to effect his hopes for the kingdom taking that route? (Yes, once a prince, always a prince, but in the end he did what he wanted to do anyway: marry that "dreadful common American woman" and he dropped the British like a hot potato. That leads me to believe that he had no intention of changing Britain for the good of the citizens. I've said it before: he was a nazi and Wallis was a very strange influence on him.) King George V was right: his son "was going to ruin everything"'.
Southamericangirl42 That's a thought
Southamericangirl42 ....because he was an egotistical, selfish git.
He wasn't allowed back into the UK
Well said!
My understanding was that George VI by making him Duke of Windsor made it constitutionally impossible for Edward to ever run for political office. Mind you, as an American I don't really understand the British monarchy.
This documentary is convincingly presented and should be viewed by everyone interested in interwar British history. Thanks for posting.
There are other sides to the story. They will come out eventually.
As a neutral observer, who has no grievance against nor any strong reason for the endorsement of a particular monarch or monarchy itself, I feel that Edward VIII. made the case, that could have been made for him otherwise, unrectifiable, when he engaged in what at least appeared to be the endorsement of Hitler and his Naziregime. After that Edward VIII. as a political figure couldn't be salvaged.
Agreed
The king isn't a political figure.
King Edward VIII never looked happy. I think he regretted giving up the crown and being bitterly exiled from his family for the rest of his life. I think they (he & Wallis) tried to portray happiness to the press and family, however, they failed miserably.
To me, they seemed to be happy in their own, hedonistic way. Never had children or any other family members than themselves though. They were infatuated with each other's adoration of wealth, I think.
Hopefully they’re both burning in hell.
Who could be happy married to that horrid female. Not that he was much better
By the way they cheated their servants, which is as low as you can get.
Agreed. And your comment brings to mind the current situation of one Henry Charles Albert David and Rachel Meghan Markle Wales.
@@l7846 oh please
Good for Cosmo! (and Wallis Warfield Simpson was one of America's biggest contributions to the British war effort, unbeknownst to her). Edward was a classic narcissist, as well, and never gave a damn for the poor. His letter to his mother upon the death of his younger brother was a masterpiece of callous indifference.
And in whom his great nephew nowadays takes after… a cuckold.
Hello 👋 how're you doing?
@@franklinstephen3268en
It was a brilliant PR-move at the time. They framed it as the personal tragedy of a man who couldn't live without the woman he loved. in fact he was simply a Nazi-sympathizer. His abdication was a blessing in many ways. Most importantly: It enabled the most decent, honorable and heroic man in the large Windsor family to become the most beloved King in the history of Great Britain. May God forever bless George VI.
Edward did nothing different than Charles did now. My my how times have changed.
Imagine if Charles had done an Edward before he married Diana. Who would be king now? Andrew? Whatever you think of Charles, he has more than paid his dues and deserves his chance to be king. He may have had Edward's romantic problem, but he doesn't have Edward's lack of character or sense of duty. He definitely got a sense of duty from his mother.
Cheater Charlie and Strumpet Cowmilla. William and Kate will be a great improvement over them.
He didnt really want to be king. He wanted to live a carefree life free of responsibility. He picked up women and cast them away when it suited him. They were always married too. Maybe he didnt know it himself Wallis was his escape plan.
I am I sick of lies told about My father K I nd Edward VIII WHO loved his country and never ABDICATED a DOUBLE?/imposter was used to ABDICATED and same as with Wallis Simpson! my dad WED American Claudia Ruth O'Keeffe 22 937 and I was born 39 kidnapped by US Pres Roosevelt and Joe Kennedy who Roosevelt has app to Enland for purpose of taking down my dad. Joseph Kennedy And son JFK helped kidnap me and bring me to USA ag2 2 yrs in '42 one there was all out effort by USA Gov to remove my dad because my dad would not take orders from USA illuminate "one world Gov my hope is my father's name is cleared and Elizabeth & her dad illegal George 5 are known for war crimes and lies they allowed to be told about My dad and Eliz is illegal I am At Victoria 1\ second my phone seems suddenly have problems
the above is totally lie Edward VIII the most devoted man never ABDICATED doubles used never WED Wallis simpson
@@peggychilders8425 And what space alien gave you this information?
@@peggychilders8425Wallis Intersex. Was E gay? He had his father murdered by Dawson.
you don't know what your speaking of. *it's sickening to hear the lies continue and that's exactly what they are
Never been a fan of E8 but I believe his opinion of the Arch Bishop is more accurate than the other way round.
Lesson 1 , there is no absolute good or bad, wrong or right....beware of people who tell you that...Trump, Adolf, Bush Jr....
Lang did the right thing. Turn from evil and do good. Edward the eighth was a man who followed after his eyes and urges.
*Please turn on the automatic closed captions!*
This is useful for many people, _besides the hearing impaired_---if children are playing in the backgroud; outside noise coming through an open window; listening late at night when others are asleep, and other reasons.
*_PLEASE TURN ON AUTOMATIC CLOSED CAPTIONS._*
Seeing Wallis's face on the window, it was like watching a horror movie for an instant.....
See awful you ppl are.
@Lina’s Tarot-Oracle❤️ The bitterness and jealous response of English women towards Meghan has been impressive and disappointing.
@@mefford67, Perhaps, but it seems well founded. That Yacht Girl is definitely Devious, and Cheap.
@@bendewet1057 Meghan is a good person. And you are a hateful, jealous, old flim flam.
@@mefford67 It's obviously jealousy and hatred. Harry and Meghan are very happy living in the U.S. with their children. And sad tired old skinny English frumps are very jealous of her youth and beauty.
This documentary shows clearly that the condemnations of hereditary monarchy and the involvement of religion in government are well-founded.
As bad as the archbishop is portrayed here, appalling is the fact that Edward is not portrayed as the wolf in sheep's clothing that he seemed to be.
The wolf in sheep’s clothing are the ones who cry most. The archbishop traveled twice with US banker H.P.Morgan on his yacht to Palestine in 1931. Was Lang freemason?
I don't know why but have always been fascinated by our British cousins and their relationship with the royal family. Thank you for this!!
This documentary is very misleading. It suggests that the Arch Bishop was solely responsible for Edward adbicating. It's common knowledge that there were many reasons and many people that that were part of shaping what happened.
People today are too simplistic and too lacking in subtlety to deal with reality. They need designated good guys and bad guys so they know whom to hate and whom to cheer.
Tracee J With the main person responsible being Edward himself. He never wanted the WORK involved being King. He only wanted the STATUS the position offered. Him being concerned for the poor is such a joke when he really wanted to engage in endless parties with Mrs Simpson at his side flittering from castle to castle, country to country, being rich, and having people bow to him and especially to his American divorcee wife. Mrs Simpson was a shrewd woman. I have no doubt if Edward had been successful in his attempt to marry her making her Queen of England with him remaining as King, he would have been a puppet with Mrs Simpson pulling the Royal strings.
Mrs Simpson was smart enough that she wouldn't have shown to the people that she was the power behind the thrown, but together this pair would have pushed hard against going to war with Germany which Edward on numerous occasions made clear he was vehemently opposed to. Edward would have emotionally reminded his citizens of the horrors of war and the broken men he had visited in camps and hospitals during WWI; they would have attempted to fire up the masses in favor of Hitler pointing out the jobs and economy he had created in Germany and how much better the citizens of England would be under Hitler's government along with Hitler's assurance that he, Edward, would remain as their King. Hitler who was quite taken with Mrs Simpson stated that she would have been an excellent Queen but never mentioned how great Edward would have been as King. Before Hitler became a drug addict, he was as shrewd as Mrs Simpson.
The thought of any this but especially Mrs Simpson as Queen with Edward as a weak, simpering King bowing to all her decisions, nauseates me. All the men behind the scenes who already knew of this pairs' Nazi sympathies who made sure this scenario never happened should be honored not vilified.
Although Cosmo Lang did not precipitate the abdication, he was one of the principal protagonists in ensuring that no accommodation would be made with regard to Edward marrying Mrs. Simpson and retaining the throne.
Lang was largely responsible for Baldwin rejecting Churchill's suggestion that the King enter into a morganatic marriage, with his consort as Duchess of Cornwall rather than Queen. An arrangement to which the governments of the Dominions (who by constitutional convention would have to give consent) were also vigourously opposed.
I think what people in our modern and decidedly more liberal times overlook and underestimate is the social stigma which divorce carried, and the oppobrium in which divorcees (particularly women) were generally held. These attitudes were not just those of the clergy and establishment, but of the general public too; and they persisted well into the 1970s in the UK.
Robin Blankenship, very good insight. I will try to remember tt as proverb
Yes many people involved but the arch bishop was the choir master.
Edward (David) VIII was in fact obsessed with 'that woman' - not unlike Charles of today - and that sort of trait is very unsuitable for a head of state.
How about Harry and Megan, then?
He could always have had a bit of side squeeze - princes and actresses are a bit of a cliche after all - he just shouldn’t have married her.
@@jandrews6254 Harry fell in love with Meghan. Learn to spell her name correctly. But he didn't cheat on her. Charlie Boy cheated on Diana with strumpet CowMilla. And that's the was that I spell that cow's name.
Even Edward's personal Secretary was backstabbing him by taking information to the Arch Bishop. What treason!
Pretty 'rich' to accuse a plausible regicide of "treason". Perhaps in addition to urging Dawson to murder his father Edward should also have asked him "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" as well.....
I think you need to look up treason. And maybe a few phrases like 'palace employee' because gossiping about the royal family has been done before without anyone being shot or decapitated.
Thank goodness for it. Edward was a Nazi lover and so was his wife Cruella.
No. Treason was what Edward did when he leaked secrets to the Nazis.
Hmm. A priest interested in worldly possessions. Why there needs to be separation of Church and State.
Your profile has no content.
That wht I thought too.
Sorry but he is Anglican so there for he is a minister. Sorry just had to point that out
Absolutely agree -but I think that the two were one and the same.
R PM and why should it? So you can stalk him?
Edward's dalliances with the leaders of Nazi Germany isn't even mentioned once in this documentary. Why? Some might argue this pertinent fact would excuse Lang's actions.
These one sided documentaries are pure junk.
Because we live in the era of "beat Christianity with any stick".
@@FigaroHey No because you have that and other predetermined thoughts . Your " truths" were never proven.
@@billolsen4360 ..because they don't support your side? 😂 Now that's open minded 😂
Within 100 years we have Meaghan Markles. I guess the monarchy has come a long way.She a commoner and divorced as well. About time. Poor Princess Margaret was denied the love of her life as well. So SAD
Ok, what about the cast aside by the royal family as well bit? 😂
And King Charles is married to a divorced woman. CowMilla's first husband is still alive.
Wallis Simpson, in seducing, distracting Edward, and ultimately creating the abdication, surely saved the UK from one of the worst kings they would ever have had. In a weird way, she deserves credit for that......
So, an Epstein similar honey trap is selecting worthy people...😂
And Lang?
In retrospect it's a good thing Wallis Simpson came along because Edward VIII would have made a very bad king.
THE red shops with Moira Shearer
Yes, that is the consensus.
I agree his brother was a much better king with his wife, I cant see Edwards rule in a time of war,he was much too weak and self centered. Fighting for his wife to be queen!
Margaret Larriva "Much too weak" George VI was a figurehead during the war. Winston Churchill ran the country and even as a figurehead George VI still died because being king was far to much, is that a strong king?
Yes, it is a MUCH stronger king than a dissolute alcoholic. Kings in England were only figureheads, anyway. But they get top-secret information daily, and if Edward had been king and passing that info to Hitler, Britain would have been lost despite Churchill.
There was no need of a plot. Edward shot himself in the foot!
where? how? He would have been an amazing King.
@@MichaelMeighu You are right! He cared about the people. He did good things for England
Well since he was complicit in the murder of his father I'd say he got off rather lightly.... And he never gave a fig about 'the people', at all. Edward only ever cared about one thing: Edward.
My opinion of Edward abdicating was besides Mrs Simpson who he truly loved, is that he wanted the good life more than serving his country, by letting his people down.
'The good life' does not consist in doing absolutely nothing worthwhile to leave even one small piece of the world better off than it was without you. I think they must have lived the most boring, empty, cold, sterile, useless, sad, wasted lives - and they probably knew it. And when being king of England means not enjoying anything of 'the good life', I'll make the sacrifice and swap places with any member of the royal family. (But then, I'm having a richly rewarding life teaching and serving the needs of migrants, so, nah. They can keep the wealth and comfort and security and luxury and privilege and access to every good *thing* the world has to offer.)
They kind of forgot to mention that Edward was a Naxi sympathizer and essentialky a traitor. Perhaps an oversight.
Edward should have said " will someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?" Lol
Very very good.
No one would have because everyone knew he was right.
It had been kept from the British subjects Edward's fascination and close friendship with Hitler. Wallis, had an affair with a married SS officer. It was revealed in documented evidence just how close his ties were. Edward planned military attacks with Hitler. The Crown sent Edward and Wallis to the Bahamas to keep him out of the way.
Spending time with socialites who were wealthy and slept around, doesn't sound to me like a man or King of the People. I think there is a great omission of history and bias here.
Wallis, it was surmised that she had so many lovers, she contracted VD, therefore, was never able to bear children.
This suggests that Albert and Elizabeth wanted to become King and Queen, which is not what we've been told for many many years.
They didn't want to be king and queen. They wanted a private life with their children. Edward's selfishness destroyed that life.
It was Mrs Simpson Abert and Elizabeth wanted out. They feared she would unintentionally force them onto the throne. They were right.
Edward was not fit to be King for many reasons, not the least of which was his odious flirtation with the Nazis. It matters not how he left the throne - it matters only that he did. Perhaps the Archbishop did the UK a great service.
...Edward wasn't forced out...he made his own choice...we all make choices and have to live with them...Lang's speech was spiteful, smug and a low blow to a man already out and gone. Simpson had no understanding herself of things. Apparently she recieved a lot of hate mail, some of the most vIcious from Canada, She replied that they (Canadians) were just like us (Americans) so why the hate...in the end a good king came along to reign during the horrible time to come ....and his daughter, Elizabeth,has been an awesome queen
That Cosmo guy was a real malevolent bastard!
He was a mischievous little Fag...
The 'young' King was 42 years old, hardly a child.
Relative, compared to Charles he is...
@@herzkine Nonsense. Middle-aged by any measure. Just because he was mentally a child (like the ex-royal Pig Harry) doesn't make him 'young'.
It wasn't a plot. He was breaking the rules and he removed himself.
Let's be frank... the only legit kings and queens are those found in a deck of playing cards.
Well... You're half right. Clearly you haven't been to San Francisco.
Queen Elizabeth would have become Queen in 1972 anyways. Edward the 8th never had children. She would have been next in line to the throne.
He is trying to say how Edward was so.caring about social issues and care for the poor. Actually Edward just did the minimum amount of royal duties and showing off for the press. He talked about abdication as early as 1918. on his many royal tours he seduced every woman he could. Albert Duke of York on the other hand was called the industrial Prince due to his inspections of factories he made without announcement before hand so he could get real conditions. He also started the camps mixing the young rich with the poor youth. King George v. himself was deeply concerned about the poor and unemployed and he actually gave his personal money to help them. Edward as King fired a bunch of staff and make general statements that gave empty hope. Edward also could not be defender of the faith well being in breach with the Church of England and like it or not that was the policy and Edward knew the rules before he started with messing around with married women. I think that Edward himself had wanted off the throne every bit as much as anyone else did. The other married women he tried to get to divorce their husbands and marry him had the sense to know it could not work. Wallis Simpson was stupid enough to believe Edward and then when her husband made it clear he would not take her back she was trapped.
Rae M. Womanizer pleaseee...🙄🙄🙄🙄
@@carmennadel7636 what is incorrect with that statement? His first mistress was a French woman who initiated him into the wonders of sex. It is documented by more than one source that whole he was representing the crown on tours of both the Empire and the US that he spent most of his time dancing with the pretty women ignoring the officials he was supposed to be speaking with. While in Africa on a tour while Alan Laccailles was his private secretary George V became seriously Ill and he was asked to return home at once. Edward replied that he did not believe it and that Baldwin was just doing an election dodge. Edward then got back to the seduction of the mayor's wife informing his private secretary next morning he had been successful. Just one example of his womanizing.
@Christoffer Feser yeah no kidding.
Rae M. It seems that Mrs. Simpson’s ex was the smart one of the bunch. Or does that show my decades old dislike for WS too much?
He seemed to have been a good family man, with his daughters and wife, not a dispute like David. I think England won
Honestly I think Edward and the archbishop were people who knew of each other but never actually took time to know one another. But I guess if you’re king then that doesn’t even matter. Edward maybe thought K George V and the archbishop were more like what we call really good friends in today’s terms instead of just talking about the church and other serious monarchy duties. Edward knew that the archbishop had known most of the bad things he has done or were doing at that time he came to the throne so he prob thought automatically this will never work with this guy around. Idk that’s just what I got from the first part
25:20 she' s saying that by inviting the Archbishop to Balmoral, that Albert was "throwing down the gauntlet as if Albert was on the offensive now"..... suggesting that Albert himself was trying to push Edward aside, in Edward's mind at least. All other accounts have always held that Albert never wanted the crown. So this is surprising and contradictory.
But allegedly the queen mother wanted it. So not so contradictory
@@theelusive1322 She seemed to be a real nasty piece of work.
Makes queen mother a total hypocrite as she blamed edward for her husband's death for the rest of her life
@@theelusive1322 There is no proof that she wanted it.
Did you know the Queen of Welfare is also the Queen of the UK. Did you know that it’s against the law for a member of the Royal family to marry a Catholic. To this day a lot Englishmen hate Catholics, meanwhile the founder of the Church of England, king Henry VIII falsified charges against two of his wives and had them beheaded, he is a murderer, and creates a religion, forces everyone to baptized and than he says that he is a God’s spokesman and declares himself in charge of his religion. How can anyone be a member of the Church of England I don’t know....
They are falling like a rock.
Catholics outlawed from 1535-1835
Now more Catholics go to mass than
C of E
The Archbishop did the right thing.
Nonsense!!
Lang was a Devious and Sick Man, who tried to write his version of History, his Speech afterwards proved it.
And a bloody good job too as it turned out. The last thing we would have needed in 1939 was a feckless, lazy, playboy 'celebrity prince'. We don't need our monarchs to be celebrities but rather dutiful, principled and hard working - rather like George VI.
What a fucking joke, you stupid ass moron.
Hear hear.
"Archbishop Lang loathed his [Edward's] .... affected American accent..." Huh? What American accent? I've listened to pretty much all the existing clips of Edward VIII, and there's NO American accent there. He sounds just as posh as you'd expect.
It is possible they should have said "turn of phrase, or expression s"
Gtimmy, I was baffled by that statement, as well. I'm an American and I hear not a shred of my "accent" from the King.
An American would not hear an American accent until it became pronounced.
I am an American, and I can assure you, he did not speak like an American. Some say he spoke German with a Viennese accent. I will leave that to the Austrians to judge.
Certainly not as good as Hugh Laurie.
Funny how they have now systematically destroyed Edwards name. The comments show this..
Neutral real thinkers support neither that nor your "side". Edward was first and foremost human, no hero, no comic book villain
If Edward VIII had stayed, we would all be speaking German now
AMEN!
Nah. You'd all be speaking American.
You probably be speaking German for few years after the Nazi Germans invaded whole UK, then probably the Americans intervene in WWII and liberate UK alongside Canada and the rest of surviving Allied powers(except the Soviets), since the US have the occupational power over UK they will abolish monarchy and republic will be established.
This would be possible, with a big if, if the US doesn't have pacifist or neutralistic thought about the war, like they did in 1939 and 1940, instead the US goes on full interventionist mode when the Germans successfully landed on Britain.
Yeah, there was another plot going on with Wallis, Hitler & Edward to overthrow The Crown so there’s that too.
This is not addressed at all here. There was a valid reason to get him out of there.
I wonder how many here watch (or re-watch) this after the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II?
As an American, I believe that George VI was the king that was needed during WWII. However, that speech the Archbishop made after the Abdication was just plain slimy.
In the original footage of the coronation ceremony it looked as if a David Bowie awaits annointment.
The bishop was a Christian and a devout one. Edward was an avowed hedonist and pawn for more powerful men. Big risk for Britain.
All else aside that Archbishop was a self serving ass, (as many are) and wanted to keep his status quo in place. Had Edward been crowned said Archbishop would have lost the ear of the King. There have been many documentaries and many reasons, most to do with Wallis Simpson as the cause for the abdication. However, Edward VIII was a progressive thinker who was able to see a changed future for Britain, (no Hitler involved.) The problem he ran up against was his own family for one as the Royal Family does not deal well with change. Plus the Church and Government. Only the common people loved him and that was not enough in his day.
David Lee Fool. Edward would have carried England,out of the dark ages, two generations early. He would been a great King .
Forget about Edward. You have got to be kidding about the archbishop. He was a shame to the country and especially the church he represented.
God decides which head the crown will rest. Inconceivable to think the now Princess Beatrice of York becoming Queen, however this happened in 1952. Edward rejected God so God ejected Edward.
Edward wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Imagine Great Britain having Edward as king during WW II.... 🙄😖
Hard to imagine Churchill leading the government of a willing cuckold who's only wish was to party and please his NAZI sympathizing Mistress without work or responsibility. Yeah, that's putting it rather mildly I think.
I’m an American
Forgive me, but I thought the king has no power?
@@PInk77W1 He has no political power and publicly no political opinions. It would have been the difference between seeing the royal family visiting their subjects who were bombed in the Blitz and knowing your monarch had been publicly chummy with Hitler for years before Britain got in the war. If Edward had been king with his record of hobnobbing with and sympathizing with Nazis, do you really think the British people's morale would have been boosted by a playboy Nazi sympathizer visiting their bombed-out homes? If he would even have had the wits to realize Hitler was a bad lot when the Blitz started, that is, and made such a gesture instead of running off to some resort in a neutral country. The monarch symbolizes and embodies all that the people take pride in of the British spirit. If he or she is weak, a quisling, self-absorbed and publicly self-indulgent, the people's morale takes a huge blow. That's probably the big burden of being one of the royal family: you symbolize a glorious ideal, and if you fall from it, the people are unforgiving. They will put up with laddishness for awhile (Harry), but not caddishness (Charles toward Diana, in public opinion). And they will not forgive abandoning the nation to follow the dictates of your prick, same as the children of any father who cheats on their mother and leaves her for another woman. It's a *relationship* and a trust that the royal family have with their people. Ever since the media really started showing them warts and all, they ceased being symbols and more and more they publicly expose their personal weaknesses and faults. And that's why you see an increased call for abolishing the monarchy. Edward, publicly running away from his duty with an American. Diana's revelations about Charles and their divorce. Andrew's nastiness to pretty much everybody, his divorce and disgrace. Harry abandoning his birthright for an American actress... If Charles can keep his mother's dignity and decorum, some of her spirit, and if William and Kate continue the beautiful job they are doing and the example they show of a loving family, dutiful and kind toward their subjects, they can turn the ship around for another generation. But more scandal, more self-indulgence, more arrogant displays of privilege with no regard for duty and the cherished (and changing) image of the ideal Britons that the royals are expected to show...and it will be curtains. They represent something, the ideal of who the British can be at their finest, and like it or not, their survival depends on living up to that and preserving those standards in public. Edward could not do it. He would have had no credibility with the people in the war, and the British people were so beleaguered, suffering, sacrificing and hungry, that a self-pitying, self-indulgent monarch would have been as devastating as George and Elizabeth were inspiring.
@@PInk77W1 King of England has the power to declare war and make peace. Edward would've made peace with the Nazis
@@watisoninata5150 so why didn’t he
Edward toppled himself, there was no plot.
Did you even watch the video
+Carolyn Argabright True.
I agree, there was no plot.
Both happened. The public was fine with Edward marrying Mrs. Simpson. There was a plot and Edward didn't help himself either.
Seems the whole thing wbiut Christianity and English royalty is just a front, given all tne satanic posing and hand signs from both William and Harry.