I made the mistake of defending Wallis on a certain Ladyblog
Oh, dear. What have I gotten myself into? I don’t think Wallis was a saint or some kind of wonderful amazing person we should all emulate but it really does bother me when I see people spreading lies about her. Particularly because it’s usually someone who knows nothing about her and hasn’t read a single book about her life.
It’s the Nazi thing, as usual. That’s the one subject I’m less confident defending her about. I feel like there’s no solid evidence she was pro-Nazi, but at the same time there’s no solid evidence she wasn’t. Wallis and David’s actions from a logical standpoint don’t really match up with how someone who was pro-Nazi would have acted. But that’s not proof or a point I can argue.
But a lot of the mythology about it can be disproved and argued. Like her and David’s supposed treason or the supposed affair with von Ribbentrop. So I’ll see if I can stick to that. Once you take that mythology away the accusation kind of falls apart.
Here’s the topic in question; you can see the general opinion of Wallis in the comments is very negative. I still have a star, and always approve intelligent comments, so don’t let not being approved stop you.
Okay, so I found the Wallis Simpson Letters thing online.
I was right. It is exactly like the Queen Mother in Love. Actually, it’s even more fundamentally dishonest and distortive. To give some idea, repeatedly when talking about how David wasn’t the man Wallis loved and how unhappy she was it pans to a picture of Wallis looking really miserable to illustrate its point. The problem? The photo in question is the famous one taken of her looking out the window of Buckingham Palace right after David died. It’s like, really? You’re trying to illustrate a point about how she didn’t love him by showing how miserable she was after he died? Obviously, the context of the photo is not explained. It’s made even more amusing considering in pretty much all the photos they show of Wallis and David together she’s smiling and laughing. Then again, maybe the person they hired to pick the photos for this thing was fed up with their bullshit and decided to troll them. I really hope that’s the case.
Just like in The Queen Mother in Love they keep using words like “extraordinary” and “revelations”. Everything interesting was in the Daily Fail article. More than that, they keep repeating the same quotes over and over again which proves they don’t have all that many. Considering there are fifteen letters, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was stuff that wasn’t read on purpose. Furthermore, a lot of the “revelations” like her uncertainty about the divorce and her continued communication with Ernest (though she’s vague about the time period because it affects the legality of her divorce), is revealed in her memoirs. So while the letters may have been “secret” a lot of the stuff revealed in them was not only not a secret but about as unsecret as anything having to do with Wallis could be.
Furthermore it keeps claiming “in her time of trouble Wallis turned to Ernest” when she was also writing to David (in more revealing and affectionate terms) and her Aunt Bessie at the same time. Then Anne Sebba makes the claim Wallis actually mocked David behind his back and actively disliked being with him. This is entirely based on her referring to him as Peter Pan in one of the letters. But not only is that nickname mentioned in Wallis’s memoirs, she uses it in one of her letters to David as well. So she was mocking him and obviously disliked him because she used a nickname behind his back that he knew about and seemingly didn’t have a problem with. Now, the letters do very much indicate Wallis felt bad about how things went with Ernest and that the ensuing scandal made her fearful and miserable. In fact, pretty much every revelation (except the fact that she missed Ernest after they broke up, which literally every person who’d ever broken up from a long-term relationship knows is normal) was mentioned in her memoirs. Also, they act like the fact that she was using the made up word “eanum” with Ernest as a sign she was mocking David. It’s been known she had used it with Ernest for a while (I have an article from 2004 on letters Ernest wrote to Wallis that mentions this); it wasn’t something special between Wallis and David it was something from Wallis’s childhood that she shared with both Ernest and David. The letter from Ernest from the 2004 article indicates Ernest was in on it before she even met David. I wouldn’t be surprised if she’d shared it with past boyfriends as well. Also they made David out to be some creepo abuser for absolutely no reason. They didn’t claim he actually beat Wallis like The Queen Mother in Love said about Bertie and Elizabeth but the implication was very much the same.
It even tries to paint Wallis as tragic and pretends to be sympathetic by pointing out how tragic she was because she had to marry David who was obviously so awful. Fun fact: Wallis told her friend Aline that David was the most wonderful man she ever knew and that she had more fun chatting with him than at any party. Also, considering the whole thing painted Wallis as a lying golddiger I’m sure that if Wallis was alive she would have some choice words for Anne Sebba about this “sympathetic” portrayal. Then again Wallis is so hated I suppose any book that doesn’t paint her as a Nazi could be considered sympathetic.
Also, why do all these things interview the exact same people? Except Anne Sebba all of these people have been in every royal documentary for the last twenty years.
tl;dr: Anne Sebba is a lying bitch who didn’t read Wallis’s memoirs.
Yet, this archive shows for the first time in 75 years how, far from being seen as the most romantic love story of the last century, the story of Wallis and Edward is really a tale of gothic darkness with a Faustian pact at its core. And, as with all such pacts, the Devil eventually claimed his reward.
Camilla’s less attractive sister Anne Sebba (google her if you don’t believe me) being a melodramatic bitch in an excerpt from her new novel Royal Twilight.
Okay, I won’t allow myself to be baited anymore.
Did you know there are people who actually believe not looking the other way while your husband fucks his ex-girlfriend and thus failing at your “royal duty” is a worse sin than being the guy who cheats on his wife with his ex-girlfriend?
David in native american costume. He looks dashing!
I swear to God a few months back I found some hipster t-shirt company out of Brooklyn who was printing this picture on shirts with the face blacked out and calling it a “Native American” design. So you have a hipster who loves to misuse Native American culture wearing a t-shirt with a picture of a proto-hipster misusing Native American culture. It’s like hipsterception or something.
Hitler described her, (The Queen Mum) as the most “dangerous woman in Europe” during WWII (idk. this was random.. i was looking for will and harry pictures and it popped up a picture of the queen mum, and it said hitler called her the most dangerous woman in europe, so i decided to post it. idk. lol)
That ain’t the Queen Mum, FYI.
Why do internet trolls get book deals?
I don’t know if any of you follow the Daily Fail, but my God they’ve struck a new low.
Okay, so the story starts with Wallis Simpson not being “all woman” whatever that means. I’ll note that it’s transphobic to suggest someone who identifies and presents herself as a woman isn’t one just because of genetics. Anyway, the story continues with a long rant on how David had autism (I have no idea where that came from) and Wallis secretly hated him. Honestly, there’s very little that hasn’t been said against David and Wallis. I hate it and I’m offended on their behalf; it’s unusual someone comes up with a story on them so ridiculous I’ve never heard it before.
But then we move on to Elizabeth. Apparently, she was in love with David. All those years she was married to Bertie she was bitter about David rejecting her. And that’s the real reason she hated Wallis. It’s amusing because the article goes into so much detail about how awful and completely unbalanced David was and claiming (with nothing to back it up) that Wallis didn’t like being around him and wanted him out of her life but was forced to marry him against her will. Okay, if we buy that (I’m hoping no one is that dumb, but let’s be hypothetical) how is it that his sister-in-law, who was married to a perfectly decent guy, would carry a torch for him for that many years? Seriously? Elizabeth knew him well enough to know what kind of issues he had or didn’t have.
I’ve heard these kinds of rumors before, and I generally figured it was something Wallis came up with, though I do buy Elizabeth having had a crush on David before she was with Bertie. That doesn’t mean anything, though. David was a popular prince; lots of girls had crushes on him. But this whole messy love triangle situation this author (who has been legitimately published as hard as that is to believe) is one of the most ridiculous theories I’ve ever heard.
Then if you throw in the article from a few years ago about how Bertie was abusing Elizabeth, the Daily Fail has already prepared the plot outline for the next great Lifetime movie.