The People's King: The True Story of the Abdication [Hardcover]

Susan Williams (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: January 3, 2004

The People's King follows the six intense weeks leading up to the abdication of Edward VIII, considered by many to be among the most compelling love stories of the last century. Just six months before their wedding, the only people who had heard of Wallis Simpson were those people who belonged to the tiny social circle surrounding the royal family. Press coverage and newsreels were strictly censored. Through contemporary letters and diaries, many never before published, Susan Williams demonstrates the huge popularity of the King and the events that led to his downfall.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Today we are likely to see the 1936 abdication of King Edward VIII of Britain as a straightforward case of a king defying the rules of monarchy and accepting the inevitable consequences. Williams, a University of London historian, recreates the key weeks of crisis and effectively argues that the democratically minded king was deliberately ousted by a court and government unwilling to accept a new style of kingship. The king's ill-timed desire to marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson was both a symptom of their problem with him and a convenient excuse. An impressive selection of quotations from private letters and journals shows the British people eager to communicate with their king and influence his decisions in regard to the throne. A large number of them clearly were sympathetic to his marrying and still remaining king. It was the higher ranks of society who accepted Simpson as the king's mistress, but not as his wife. Williams makes a strong case that Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin bullied the king into giving up the throne, cynically isolating him, misrepresenting public and official opinion and refusing to allow him to address the country personally until the crisis was over. Quotes dominate the book, lending immediacy but also creating a repetitive structure as each chapter trots out a new round of contemporary opinion. Royal watchers will perhaps be startled by details of the relationship between the royal family and the state. Many will see instructive parallels between Edward's experience and recent concerns about a constitutional crisis over the possible remarriage of the current Prince of Wales. Illus. not seen by PW.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Review

"Royal watchers will perhaps be startled by details of the relationship between the royal family and the state."--Publishers Weekly

"Back in January this year the Public Record Office released hundreds of files relating to the Abdication Crisis of 1936, and the historical advisor to this important event was the University of London historian Susan Williams. Having been there, I can attest to her diligence and scholarship on that occasion, and this book is based on the work she has done on that vast labyrinth of documentation....Just as after Diana's death huge numbers of people wrote to express their sympathy and support, so Edward VIII was deluged during the Abdication Crisis, and Susan Williams has trawled her way through thousands of the letters to extrapolate common themes. She suggests that ordinary people in Britain and the Empire were quite ready for Wallis Simpson to be Queen. Huge numbers of people, she argues, simply wanted the King to be happy." - Andrew Roberts in The Telegraph

"The tale of the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936 has been told many times, but Susan Williams brings to bear two new sources of information that cast the familiar saga in a new light...What she undeniably succeeds in doing is illustrating better than most previous accounts of this crisis just how the public-Edward's subjects - felt about the pressure he was put under to abdicate. To achieve this she has been to record offices and consulted private diaries, as well as reading that pile of letters at Windsor." - Country Life

"This book is an exercise in rehabilitation. As such it is overdue. The Duke of Windsor has been spectacularly traduced in recent years...without even the courtesy of a question mark. Williams reminds one of Edward's extraordinary charm, his ability to talk with people of every kind, his wit, his genuine concern for the underprivileged." - Philip Ziegler in The Telegraph

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 336 pages
• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan; First Edition edition (January 3, 2004)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1403963630
• ISBN-13: 978-1403963635
• Product Dimensions: 9.6 x 6.4 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,887,415 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

21 of 27 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars People's King Would Have Ultimately Disappointed People, February 23, 2006

By 

Pajamazon (Illinois) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: The People's King: The True Story of the Abdication (Hardcover)

Someone witty once said that Britain should have statues honoring Wallis Simpson all over England. It's true; she saved them from the catastrophe that would have been King Edward VIII. Instead of reigning ineptly over the people of Britain, he instead jaunted from villa to hotel to chateau all over Europe and beyond, swilled cocktails, and draped his beloved in jewels. When Edward VIII abdicated to marry his twice-divorced American Wallis, it was the best thing to happen to England since Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha trotted over from Germany to marry the besotted Queen Victoria.

This book presents the view that the people loved King Edward and did not want to see him abandon the throne and would have accepted a morganatic marriage with Wallis as wife but not queen. He, however, wanted her to have "the whole bag of tricks." That he was popular with the people certainly is true. But David (as he was known in the family) was a self-absorbed man with little sense of personal duty, no grasp of the responsibility of royalty, and strong feelings against his mother, Queen Mary (whom he described in his memoirs as a "bitch with ice water running in her veins.") He was the golden boy of the family as Prince of Wales in the 20s - handsome, dashing, modern. Indeed, he had an almost American classless sensibility. He liked cocktails and weekend partying and married women. He was a source of considerable irritation to his father, George V, who said about him despairingly, "After I'm dead, that boy will ruin himself in twelve months," which wasn't far from the truth.

The author also posits that he would have made a wonderful king if the bad government hadn't bullied him into abdicating. He had progressive social ideas that would have been beneficial to the country. He wanted to help the poor and marginalized of the country. That might have been true on the surface, but nothing about the Duke of Windsor's life post-abdication bears this out. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor did not spend much time attempting to improve the lives of the poor or downtrodden anywhere, and he served most begrudgingly as Governor of Bermuda during World War II while his brother and wife were being bombed on in Buckingham Palace. He simply gave lip service to the idea of social programs while he was Prince of Wales, but that is the extent of it.

English history bulges with the stories of younger brothers who take up the mantle of kingship when the older brother has died: Henry VIII was a younger brother, as was George V (indeed, George's brother Eddy, Duke of Clarence, was another spoiled, dissipated libertine who spared the country when he conveniently died in his 20s). In this story, the older brother bolted with his lover instead and left the younger brother, the hapless Bertie, holding the bag. Bertie, who became George VI, was saddled with a speech impediment, stutter, and similar mother issues. However, he had a better-formed character, and was blessed not only with a strong sense of determination and duty but also a loving and supportive wife, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. He married a strong woman reminiscent of mother but much kinder, whereas David found a bullying mother figure in Wallis and reveled in it the rest of his life. King George VI and Queen Elizabeth were the exact people for the country heading into the Second World War and beyond. They might have been dull and nonfascinating, but they had two lively daughters and a settled family life. They were not photographed shaking the hand of Hitler, frolicking on holiday at the beach, or leaving drink-rings on the state papers. They were dutiful, perfect royals. George V once remarked that he hoped "nothing would come between Bertie and Lilibet (current Elizabeth II) and the throne." He got his wish.

The only legitimate gripe the Duke and Duchess had was the withholding of the title "Her Royal Highness" to Wallis after she married David. As the wife of a royal duke, she was without a doubt entitled to it. The Duke bitched about this to his dying day, mattering more to him than his virtual exile from England. It mattered less to Wallis, who I think never wanted to be the wife of a periphatic, roaming monarch. There was far more cachet in being the mistress of a king than the wife of an exile, and I would wager she was horrified that David made his grand romantic gesture and gave it all up for her. Personally, I think it was a selfish escape from the responsibilities of kingship for David. I think he wanted his cake and to eat it, too. He thought he would be able to come back and live in grand style in England as Duke of Windsor with his beloved. However, the family were outraged at his dereliction of duty, and there was simply no way the government would allow back into the country someone so volatile as to communicate personally to Adolph Hitler (albeit it was a plea for peace), member of the royal family or not.

Simply put, the author feels Edward VIII was unfairly pushed out of his role and unable to fulfill what was undoubtedly a shining destiny. I think perhaps he meant well, but the truth is far different, as I feel history bears out brilliantly. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor turned into sad figures with no sense of social responsibility whatsoever. Wallis, the woman who saved England, should indeed be honored with statues throughout the country.

6 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A man of the people, July 12, 2007

By 

H. Price - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The People's King: The True Story of the Abdication (Hardcover)

Edward VIII was a flawed man like any leader, but he was far more of a man of the people than any British monarch before or since. The people did indeed adore him, especially war veterans. Edward didn't sail around doing nothing on a ship like his brother, he was a soldier and was in the trenches for a time and visited the front whenever he could. This book is full of examples of his kindness, his manners and generosity to people, as well as his concern for the poor. The previous reveiewer is incorrect saying that his post-abdication years showed no concern for the poor. He did much for the poor and less fortunate while governor of the Bahamas (not Burmuda).

I admit I do not understand his fascination with Wallis Simpson, who was keeping a lover on the side while having an affair with Edward. This was discovered by the Metropolitan Police's Special Branch while they had her under surveillence. I've heard all sorts of theories as to why he was so infatuated with her, including Simpson's supposed use of "black magic" to cast a spell on him. Whatever the reason, I can't see it. She was a gold digger and twice divorced and totally unworthy of this man.

Edward incurred his parents wrath because he was not playing the monarch game like they thought it should be played. He cared about the common people, the poor, veterans. His father didn't, and neither did his brother. Their allegience was to the rich, the ruling class. Edward had seen war first hand and wanted to avoid it, Baldwin and warmongers like Churchill could not manipulate him as they did the weak and vacillating George VI. Edward would have done all he could have to avoid a war with Germany, a war the Germans didn't want. He was shut out by his brother and family after the abidication and after the war (his brother forbid any member of the royal family from attending his wedding!), so to say that Edward was just some playboy that didn't care about anything but himself is absurd.

The best thing that could have happened to Britain is if Edward had realized his real popularity with the people, stood his ground, and forced that pompous tool of the rich, Baldwin, to fish or cut bait. Resign the government or shut up and mind his own business. The world is a worse place because he didn't. To me Edward was a good man, and in politics good men don't fare well.