The Unofficial British Royal Family Pages

Monday 15 November 2004

In Defense of the Duchess, Round One

Or - Why Compared to Wallis, Camilla Has It Easy

I may not be a fan, but I will readily concede that Camilla’s lot is not an easy one. Like most partners of royalty, she is considered fair game by everyone who has an opinion and is constantly placed under the microscope by the media machine and public opinion. But, unlike most partners of royalty who frequently have the advantage of entering the relationship with a clean slate, the nature of Camilla’s long relationship with Charles and her role as the third person in the “love triangle” that was the Wales’ marriage have made her the object of scorn and dislike almost since the moment she publicly entered the picture. To add insult to injury, she’s never been the most aesthetically pleasing person, especially in a direct comparison to Diana, who (as we all undoubtedly remember) called her nemesis “the Rottweiler.”  

In short, as a controversial public figure, Camilla not only has little chance of ever being judged by the standards of a private figure, but will probably never find that anything said about her is taken with a grain of salt. Every tidbit of information – whether founded in fact or fiction – will be considered, evaluated, perpetuated… all to the point of creating a figure that is a caricature of the actual person. Her simple virtues extolled, her shortcomings exaggerated. The testimonials of her dearest friends snickered at, the rantings of her personal enemies rapaciously consumed. Not a fate most of us would choose for ourselves. 

But if Camilla requires any comfort, she need only look to the Duchess of Windsor. At first glance, it’s quite easy to draw superficial or critical parallels between the two women. Superficially, both women are (or in Wallis’ case, were) mistresses of a Prince of Wales, divorced women perceived as home wreckers, and widely viewed as unattractive. More critically, both women exceeded the limits of a “socially acceptable” mistress and provoked fear that “such a woman” could be so dangerously close to the Crown or, for that matter, possibly even covet the position of Queen Consort for herself. Fortunately for Camilla, most views of her rarely stray from these relatively mild accusations.  

The Duchess of Windsor was not so lucky. In a time when the propriety of a woman could be put into question simply by an unchaperoned encounter with a man who was not her husband or immediate male relative, Wallis Simpson was seen as the worst of all kind of women, an “adventuress.” Not only that, she was a divorced American adventuress who had designs on the popular and charming Prince of Wales. Naturally, it was Wallis, not Edward VIII, who took the fall when he abdicated in 1936. And things only got worse for her after that.  

What surprises me is that even today, despite all the information we have access to, the Duchess of Windsor is still vilified as the ugly American divorc�e whose designs to be Queen Consort led to the downfall of a once-promising British prince. As if that weren’t enough, she’s accused of having been a dominatrix, a hermaphrodite and a Nazi sympathizer. Did I mention that Camilla has it easy? And while Camilla has had the benefit of excellent spin doctors and a camp of loyal supporters, Wallis had little support in her corner of the ring. In fact, she had quite the opposite, as everyone needed a scapegoat for the abdication and no one wanted that scapegoat to be a member of the royal family.  

To be sure, plenty of mud has been slung over the years regarding the Duke of Windsor, although, amazingly, it has done little to reverse the negative perception of the Duchess. Almost everything that was said of her beginning in 1936 still comprises the bulk of general knowledge about her. Except among a small group of her supporters, she is still the unworthy woman who seduced King Edward VIII away from his duty, while he is the man who gave it all up for love. An anonymous letter sent to a friend of Wallis in 1937 very effectively sums it up: “Edward VIII is regarded as the victim of a bold, domineering adventuress, a woman without heart, scruples or principles, whose scandalous efforts to gain the title of ‘Queen of England’ jeopardised the very existence of the British monarchy.” Personally, it has always been my belief that this type of theory is too simple and one-sided to believe and, accordingly, the subject has always been one of my favorites where royalty is concerned.  

This is not to say that I believe that the Duchess of Windsor was blameless or without fault, just as I do not believe that of any royal, never mind any other human being. I have always been just as frustrated with the attempts to paint her as an innocent as with the attempts to vilify her. Perhaps this is why I’ve spent so much time studying both her and the Duke – I want to understand them not as they’ve been caricaturized, but as they really were underneath all the hype. In this, it’s critical to think independently of what history has told us about people for political purposes, while still taking into consideration the conventions and values of the time in which they lived.  

When evaluated from this perspective, it’s easier to see Wallis less as an adventuress and more as a dichotomy. She was a woman ahead of her time, but trapped by the conventions of her time. In one sense, she craved independence, but required a man to live the life she was raised to live – or at least expected to live. She had tremendous confidence in herself, but was prone to moments of incredible frustration and anger that seemed to stem from the inability to lead a truly independent life. She was both forward- and free-thinking, willing to try and learn new things, which naturally led her into situations that were deemed unsuitable by her peers. Perhaps most damaging of all her characteristics, she was direct and transparent in her behavior and her interactions with other people. While many of her society counterparts were doing or thinking the same things (or worse) as Wallis, they did it quietly and cunningly, while Wallis was blatant and unrepentant. In the end, the people who exploited Wallis’ shortcomings most were very effectively obscuring their own behaviors. In a sense, the very characteristics that many people found so attractive and refreshing in Wallis ultimately brought her the greatest trouble and pain.  

As for the other accusations, certain ones are more easily addressed than others, although none are exactly straightforward. For instance, I find the point of her appearance much more involved a discussion than the fact that she had two living husbands when King Edward VIII abdicated the throne for “the woman I love.” While the circumstances behind her obtaining her first divorce were, in my opinion, fully justified, I have no difficulty understanding that this was one of the best reasons why Wallis was not considered an appropriate candidate for the role of Queen Consort. On the other hand, I’m inclined to think that the reason why she wasn’t considered attractive is far more convoluted. As for the rumors that she was a hermaphrodite, a dominatrix and a Nazi sympathizer, as well as the overall impression that she was responsible for the abdication, those require a great deal more time and consideration, which they will get in the next part(s) of this series.

Until next week, 

- Tori Van Orden Mart�nez