Was Wallis Simpson A Good Actress?

[RealityChuck]

@Tamerlane

Were you perhaps conflating her with Marion Davies?

Davies was a successful actress, and, if anything, her time with Hearst damaged her career.

They never married, so she never got any of his estate (palimony didn’t exist as a concept), but she could have lived quite well on what she made as a leading lady. It’s quite clear her relationship with Hearst was not based on his money.

[bump]

@HeyHomie

You can count on two hands the number of movies I’ve seen that were made before I was born (1970)

Just want to say that you’re missing out- there are a LOT of excellent movies made prior to 1970- probably more than after, actually.

[mbh]

@Two_Many_Cats

I heard she knew about sexual techniques that drove men to extasy. Edward VIII had premature ejaculation problems that she supposedly cured.

Or so said the gossip at the time.

@dropzone

She acted like a woman and convinced the world.

(cheap shot with apologies to my various trans friends.)

Well, that was an entertaining bit of speculation, though with very little hard evidence to support it.

An alternative line of gossip held that she was sterile because of a botched abortion in her youth.

@commasense

I’ve recently read a couple of biographies of Wallis and Edward, and they were both thoroughly unpleasant and nasty people. However, I think the world owes a huge debt of gratitude to Wallis, because if not for her, Edward – a Nazi sympathizer who was not very bright or temperamentally suited to leadership – would probably have ascended to the throne. As monarch, he wouldn’t have had authority to conduct diplomacy, and he might have been reined in by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office, but his naivete and his affinity for the Germans might have led to a very different outcome for World War II.

The world is quite fortunate that George, a very reluctant king, was much better suited to the role of wartime monarch when greatness was thrust upon him.

Have you read A King’s Story, Edward’s “autobiography”? The man was one of the shallowest human beings who ever walked the earth. Even his ghost-writer could not conceal it.

[Little_Nemo]

@terentii

In other words, she was a rank whore and a parasite.

Not at all. Most people don’t have inherited wealth. And a lot of women have lived off the earnings of their husbands. That was considered the normal situation up until quite recently. Those women weren’t whores and parasites.

@terentii

I’ve long contemplated writing a novel in which the British Establishment conspires to have her whacked before Edward VIII decides to abdicate, thereby changing the course of history…

I think you’ve got the tail wagging the dog. Many have speculated (and I personally tend to agree) that the British establishment wanted to remove Edward VIII from the monarchy for purely political reasons. They used his marriage as a convenient excuse that avoided any possible political crisis.

[DrCube]

@RealityChuck

Davies was a successful actress, and, if anything, her time with Hearst damaged her career.

They never married, so she never got any of his estate (palimony didn’t exist as a concept), but she could have lived quite well on what she made as a leading lady. It’s quite clear her relationship with Hearst was not based on his money.

Wikipedia says he left her 200,000 shares in Hearst Corporation, giving her control of the company.

[terentii]

@Little_Nemo

Not at all. Most people don’t have inherited wealth. And a lot of women have lived off the earnings of their husbands. That was considered the normal situation up until quite recently. Those women weren’t whores and parasites.

The only work she ever did was lying on her back.

I think you’ve got the tail wagging the dog. Many have speculated (and I personally tend to agree) that the British establishment wanted to remove Edward VIII from the monarchy for purely political reasons. They used his marriage as a convenient excuse that avoided any possible political crisis.

Edward may not have been the sharpest tool in the box, but to let an American concubine create a constitutional crisis? I’d’ve wanted her whacked on general principle. (Of course, I’d’ve made it look like an accident.)

[Little_Nemo]

@terentii

The only work she ever did was lying on her back.

She had sex with her husband. Again, how does that make her any worse than any of the other millions of women who had sex with their husbands?

@terentii

Edward may not have been the sharpest tool in the box, but to let an American concubine create a constitutional crisis? I’d’ve wanted her whacked on general principle. (Of course, I’d’ve made it look like an accident.)

How do you figure Edward let her create a constitutional crisis? If the marriage created a crisis, it was at least as much his fault as hers. Probably more so; Edward was in a much stronger position to refuse the marriage than she was and he was the one at risk, not her. I’d say he brought her into a crisis rather than she bringing him into one.

And that’s assuming that the marriage was the real crisis, which I don’t believe is true. As I said above, I believe the real crisis was that Edward was seeking more power than Parliament (and the other Commonwealth governments) wanted him to have and he was seeking a different foreign policy than what Parliament wanted. Confronting him on these political issues would have created a major political crisis.

To avoid this political crisis, the British establishment forced Edward to abdicate over a non-political issue; his marriage. This got the result they wanted while allowing everyone to pretend there was no political issues involved.

If Edward had been a normal monarch and had accepted the usual limits of his role, I’m sure a compromise would have been reached. He probably would have been allowed to have a morganatic marriage and remain King.

If, on the other hand, Edward had not married Simpson, I believe he still would have been forced to abdicate due to the real political issues which would have still existed.