Jonathan Thomas (00:00)
Welcome back to the Anglotopia podcast this week. We have a very special guest with us author Jane Tippett who has recently published a book on the abdication crisis and King Edward the eighth called Once a King This is the book for those watching on YouTube and we'll talk more about the book as the interview progresses. Welcome Jane

Jane Tippett (00:20)
Thank you so much for having me. It's really nice to be here.

Jonathan Thomas (00:23)
Thank you for coming on. For listeners who may not know anything about the abdication crisis, I thought I would give a quick overview of what it is, and then we'll dive right into the questions that I have about Jane's book and everything. So the abdication crisis took place in the late 1930s, and if you've seen the movie, The King's Speech, that's part of the movie where Edward VIII fell in love with an American woman, Wallis Simpson, who was a twice -divorced...

American woman and this caused a huge crisis in the monarchy and Ended up with with ever the abdicating the throne in favor of his brother who became George the sixth and that is Queen Elizabeth the second father and that's how she ended up becoming the Queen and When when Princess Elizabeth was born she was never gonna be Queen but when this happened this made her the future monarch and so

This led to a big rift in the royal family. It was a big scandal. It was one of the first press scandals of the 20th century that the press ate up about the royal family. And it also has kind of ramifications that have kind of gone through the media and the royalty to this day. And so I hope that kind of encapsulates it. Am I, have I gotten anything wrong there, Jane?

Jane Tippett (01:43)
I think you've done a pretty good job of the summary. The only thing I would add is that, in a sense, Queen Elizabeth II as Princess Elizabeth, from her birth there, I think, was this, if not anticipation, perhaps speculation that she might one day inherit the throne. Edward VIII has already, there was the sense that he was a bit of a confirmed bachelor. I think that rumor mill was already very much at play.

it's a little bit of a historical misnomer to say that it was such an unexpected path for her. And ultimately, what I like to always mention to people is the fact that most likely she always was going to become queen, whether or not the abdication had happened. Edward VIII had had mumps when he was at school around the age of 13. And he most likely could not have had children. So I think you always.

England always would have had the Queen, just whether it was in 1952 or 1972, I think that's kind of the question there.

Jonathan Thomas (02:50)
See, that's really interesting. See, I'm already learning

Jane Tippett (02:53)
Sorry, longer explanation needed maybe.

Jonathan Thomas (02:55)
No, it's perfect. So my first question is, and I hope it's not too cheeky, it's, so why Edward VIII? There are so many books, documentaries, and films about Wallace and Edward. What made you want to pursue this story from a new perspective?

Jane Tippett (03:11)
Well, I was drawn to him as a historical figure because I think in so many respects his royal career is vastly underrated and underappreciated. His biographical afterlife is entirely swept up in narratives around the abdication and of course later on in the late 1930s and early 1940s and his interactions with Nazi Germany. And what that has done is precluded anyone from seriously looking at the way

in which he is a serving Prince of Wales, which he was for over 20 years, revitalized and in a sense revolutionized the role of being a Prince of Wales into something that now is very much what we accept as the modern status quo. You know, he is so much the creator of the modern office as we understand it today. And so I was drawn to him because I felt there was new work to be done.

And as I've spoken about before, this was not the book I was thinking I was going to write. I had something very different in mind, and along the way of researching that book is when I stumbled across the papers of his ghostwriter, Charles Murphy, which created the U -turn and ultimately the book, Once a King.

Jonathan Thomas (04:31)
Yeah, so that leads me into my next question. Who was Charles Murphy and what was his role in shaping our current picture of Edward VIII

Jane Tippett (04:39)
So Charles Murphy was a long time correspondent for Time Inc. He worked across multiple publications, Fortune, Life and Time. He began there in 1935. In 1946, he was introduced to the Duke of Windsor by a mutual acquaintance. Edward was on his way back from the Bahamas. He'd been governor of general there for four years, sorry, five years. And he was headed back to Europe, but stopped over in New York.

read an article that Murphy wrote about Winston Churchill for Life magazine and thought, aha, that could be something, I could do something like that. I could have a, you know, he saw the potential, I think, for an American magazine telling his story in a new way. He met Murphy in 46, not much came of it. At the time, Edward really wanted to have an official job from the British government, and so nothing really happened.

a year later the two men met again when it was clear that Edward would not be getting a job from the British government. And he expressed a renewed interest in Life magazine facilitating the writing of his memoirs. And what that meant was that Life was going to assign Charles Murphy as his kind of editorial assistant, co -writer, with the aim that a series of articles would be published in the magazine eventually.

what began was really a relationship that spanned Edward's death, but to the point produced seven articles for Life magazine between 47 and 1950. And then ultimately created a King's story, which was published, the book, which was published in 1951. And whenever I would describe Murphy's relationship with Edward, it's really important to characterize it not as a ghostwriter,

which is, I mean, I slip up and I still refer to him as a ghostwriter. A ghostwriter implies that he drafted the text. That was very much not Murphy's role. Murphy's role was to...

as he put it, organize Edward's ideas. He pushed Edward into understanding how to start reminiscing and also how to write the narrative of his life. And the book, both the unpublished one that's in Once a King and the published one, which appeared, these are very much Edward's words. Murphy was a curator, a crafter of the narrative. He made it all work together, but they are Edward's.

words, it was just Murphy induced him to produce.

Jonathan Thomas (07:20)
That's so super interesting. So that, you know, we, you know, the, the Queen famously lived by the motto that you never explain, you never get interviews and anything. So it's, it's such a fascinating idea that we have this incredible resource about somebody that they wrote themselves. So you get the, you know, you get, you get his views from him and this idea that, that Charles Murphy was so skilled at pulling that information out of him and getting him to,

to speak and it's just, it's super interesting. I can only imagine how fun it was to go through the archives and discover all the things you discovered.

Jane Tippett (07:57)
I mean, one of the sort of, I think, amusing elements of it is Murphy's own struggles in this process. And what I think makes this book so fascinating is, of course, we don't just have Edward's words, but we have Murphy as the sort of narrator, not only of the project, the writing of Edward's memoir, but of Edward himself. He was a assiduous letter writer, diarist, and he needs constantly

Jonathan Thomas (07:59)
Pfft!

Jane Tippett (08:26)
observing and reflecting on the process and the content of what is being produced by Edward. And at the start of their work in the summer of 1947, you know, he's absolutely, I think, panicked a bit because he just says, you know, he doesn't know how to reminisce. He doesn't know how to, he doesn't think reflectively about his life. He hasn't been taught that. That's not been part of his upbringing. And one of the things he writes to the chairman,

of Life magazine, Daniel Longwell, and he says, you know, the first task here is for him to learn the habits of work. And I think that's, you know, that's one of those sort of, again, these nuggets of kind of gold, because we glimpse a bit of Edward, the person, you know, apart from the actual drafts that he eventually creates. And of course, you alluded to it in your question, this idea of never complaining, never explaining that, you know, Queen Elizabeth

that the second was sort of famous for. The pull of this tradition is felt by Edward throughout this project. He is constantly doubting whether or not he should be doing it. He's hesitant, he's reticent about opening up. And one of the challenges both of Murphy and sort of from afar from Dan Longwell is to sort of constantly be encouraging him and sort of assuring him that what he's doing is

not sensational, it's not inappropriate, he's in fact creating this historical record, which he very much wanted to do. He simply just felt, I think, the pull of tradition, which is that you don't do things like this.

Jonathan Thomas (10:09)
Right. I was picking up on what you said about relevancy. He's a figure that had never existed before in British history. Somebody who willingly gave up the throne, who is essentially the senior royal and the royal family. And what kind of role are you supposed to have? What purpose do you have when there's somebody else reigning, doing the job you were born and meant to do?

What do you do with the rest of your life? And I think it's really interesting that you've explored that and that the process of making this memoir gave him some kind of purpose.

Jane Tippett (10:44)
Absolutely. And I think that's one of the reasons that it went on so long. And he was working on it from the summer of 1947 until early spring of 1951. And that's inclusive of the articles and then the published book. So it really was this sort of long endeavor. And that, of course, frustrates Murphy continually, who's used to quick turns and quick timelines. But for us,

Edward, it gave him a renewed sense of purpose and I think enthusiasm about his life. And it also gave him the constant companionship of Murphy, who he very much liked and who became a kind of intimate in their circle. One of the things that I think is so fascinating about this book and what it brings out is this character in Edward and Wallace's life who no one has thought about, no one has spoken about, but who in fact,

occupied this extremely unique position in their circle, which was that he was a social acquaintance, he was an intimate in their kind of social world, but at the same time had the remit to discuss their past in a way that I can't imagine anyone who was around them would ever have been able to do. So it just, he really is such a unique figure, and I think one of the many sort of surprising elements of the book is that,

Murphy himself has just been completely overlooked in the story of the Windsors, yet he's a really central figure in the post -war period.

Jonathan Thomas (12:23)
Yeah, I know. I mean, I never heard of him until I heard your lecture at the Royal Oak a few months ago. So it's fascinating to learn about this guy. And I think I think it's interesting you said it took so long for them to write their the book together. One wonders how long it would have taken if they had email or Zoom calls.

Jane Tippett (12:41)
Well, I mean, I, you know, when speaking about this book at the beginning, particularly for what to us to a British journalist, I said, you know, this is the equivalent of Prince Harry's zoom calls with his ghostwriter, J .R. Mory. This was what it was. You know, they instead of doing it over Zoom, they spent long, long hours together in which I think at times very little was produced. But during but at the point, but it also forged the

relationship between Edward and Murphy that saw the project through to a completion. Because I think with a less sort of steadfast hand, a less kind of disciplined hand, which was Murphy's, the thing could have faltered and been lost and we wouldn't have this exciting material that we do have.

Jonathan Thomas (13:30)
Super interesting stuff. Moving on to a topic that I was really fascinated to hear you talk about in your lecture a few months ago, there's been a lot of controversy about Edward of late and his relationship with Nazi Germany, that he was some kind of Nazi sympathizer. And you did a great job of like disabusing the audience of that notion. So please do that to the Angotopia listeners.

Jane Tippett (13:54)
Well, I think it is such a complicated to speak, it is a complicated period in his life to speak about. And I think it can be easily generalized and a misconstrued view created of his engagement with Nazi Germany, his political alignment. What I hope the book brings out is first of all, the fact that he was,

He was first and foremost an appeaser. He was a product of the First World War, though he had not served actively in it. He was in France for the majority of its duration and saw firsthand the human consequences of the conflict. And it forged in him a lasting distaste for warfare. He basically believed that there could be no political dispute that was worthy of the kind of slaughter that he had.

seen in France during the war. And he brings to the politics in the 1930s that assessment. And so he is an appeaser. It's something that he shared with his brother, George VI, who also favored a compromise with Germany. He notably, of course, appeared on the balcony with Neville Chamberlain after the Munich agreement, signaling his alignment with that seemingly.

without success. And then of course this...

is complicated even more so by the fact that Edward visits Germany in October 1937. This is a two -week trip that is designed to launch him in a career as being a roving international ambassador, focusing in on the areas that he had developed as Prince of Wales, which were primarily social housing initiatives and labor conditions. And he has an invitation from Germany, something that was backed by a group of very influential and powerful

men amongst them Thomas Watson, the founder of IBM, who had himself been to Germany in July of 1937, and really encourage Edward to believe that he has a role in the world stage. And the best place to start out is, of course, the dynamic and revitalized Germany.

And he meets with Hitler in 19th in during this visit. It's a very brief two hour meeting that was only arranged 24 hours prior. The only other person present when Hitler, when Edward and Hitler spoke was his translator, who confirmed, you know, no political conversation that happened. And yet, of course, the images of Edward on the steps of Hitler's home at Berchtesgaden have become iconic and seem to are

for the fact that Edward was there on some kind of political mission. The facts simply don't bear that out. And I think it's been probably the sort of great misinformation of his life that has viewed that visit as an expression of his political beliefs. It was not that, and it's never been placed in the context of the other similar type individuals who were visiting Germany.

going to speak to Hitler, one of whom, of course, was Lloyd George, who saw Hitler in September of 1936, was in Germany on a very similar type mission and rounded it off with that meeting. So I think we've lost a lot of perspective in what Edward was doing in Germany. And it's been sort of, you know, it's easily encapsulated in something that's quite simplistic, but ultimately,

not representative of facts.

Jonathan Thomas (17:45)
So, mentioning the war, what did he do in the war? Did he get on side with the British cause? Did he kind of fall into the role that would be expected of him as a member of the royal family? And what did they have him do to be useful?

Jane Tippett (18:00)
Well, first of all, at the outbreak of the war, there was, as in most of Edward's life, a big question mark about what to do with him. He comes back to London at the outbreak of war basically to speak with his brother in the government about what he should do. And initially, the idea is that he should return to England and carry out a post, perhaps in Wales. That comes to nothing basically out of a fear of George VI believing.

You know, know, was going to be inappropriate and impossible to have him roaming roaming around Britain during this time He goes back to France and eventually serves at the British military missions in Vincennes and he stays there until the fall of Paris At which point he and the Duchess relocate to their home in the south of France and kept on Antibes -Croy Which is instantly where much of this memoir was written when they returned there after the war they eventually are

forced to flee the Antibes and they arrive in Lisbon, ostensibly again to return to England. In what is a really wonderful exchange with Murphy, Wallace describes...

the what she calls the cable ease row that developed between Edward and Winston Churchill during this point, which is around what is going to happen to them next. The view that Edward and Wallace took was that if they go back to England, they were going to basically be, as she called it, shoved in the bottom drawer. And that's not what he wants. He starts demanding he wants to know what his job will be there. What will his wife's position be there? What will his home be?

And in the process of this, Churchill eventually offers him the governorship of the Bahamas, something he calls, says to Murphy, is, quote, a third class governorship. The Bahamas was such an unimportant place that as Prince of Wales, he hadn't even visited it, even though he'd been to practically everywhere else in the British Empire. So it certainly was, and sort of, he would have viewed it as an insulting post. He accepts it nevertheless. Unfortunately, between about July 4th and August

August 3rd, a month of waiting around in Lisbon occurs, which they're basically waiting for passage to the Bahamas. And so he has a lot of time to kick his heel. I'd say at this point, he was in a highly disgruntled state, having seen the fall of France, accepted this post that they were not happy about. And he is alleged at that point to his host, who he was staying with, a man named Ricardo.

Spirito Santo to have allegedly expressed his pessimism about the future of the war and Britain's likely success. Of course, these comments are in light of the fall of France and the heat seen firsthand. There's a general pessimism in Britain, of course. They've witnessed Dunkirk. What is going to happen? What is the likelihood of a British success against seemingly

an undefeatable Germany.

These conversations took place over a period of several weeks. Now, we know of them because they were reported by Espíritu Santos, his host, incidentally a man who was selected for him by the British ambassador in Lisbon to host him. They're reported from Santos and eventually make their way via telegraph to Joachim Van Ribbentrop.

None of them expressed a political sympathy for Germany, but they do, if we can believe them, they express the fact that he did not think the war was going well and he believed an eventual peace between Germany and Britain would have to be negotiated. And he offers himself as someone who could participate in this.

So these documents form what I think really now is the kind of alongside the images of his meeting with Hitler in October 1937. These documents form the basis for the view that as some historians, if we can call them that, dub him the traitor king. But in fact, again, as in the visit to Germany, if you unpack the facts, if you unpick the information, look at it more closely, the picture is very

is very complex. I mean, number one, you have to believe in the validity of the documents themselves, which are not primary material from Edward, but again, third -hand reporting of conversations he is meant to have had. But then even if you accept that as truth, what is there are in fact political beliefs about the state of the war, which were pessimistic.

perhaps diplomatically should not have been shared, but were not unique to the period in which they originate from, which was the summer of 1940.

Jonathan Thomas (23:09)
So they go to the Bahamas. What are they doing there? Are they sipping mojitos or are they continuing to try to insert themselves into the war?

Jane Tippett (23:17)
They, by I think, I think from a sort of objective assessment, they had a successful, he had a successful, they had a successful tenure in the Bahamas. She worked throughout with the Red Cross. He did as much as was possible to work on initiatives to bolster the economy in the limited priorities he had, but he certainly invested himself in the role and for all intents and purposes,

Intensive Purposes was a success in it, but it was a limiting role. The location was difficult. You know, the heat. I mean, the Duchess continually writes to her family about, you know, the oppressive heat. They didn't enjoy being there. I think they enjoyed the purpose it gave them, but it was something that they had to simply fulfill.

Jonathan Thomas (24:07)
the royal family might have preferred he stay there after the war.

Jane Tippett (24:10)
I think they were, I think, very conflicted about the fact that he should even have that role, even though they knew they had to do something with him. The idea that he, and more importantly, that the Duchess of Windsor should be in this formal diplomatic post was controversial. There was intricate correspondence around ensuring that no one curtsied to her, that she was not accorded any kind of status as a royal duchess.

And I think, again, in the conversation around Edward, there's a lot of discussion around his own fixation on titles, styles of his wife, a non -precedent. But it was an equal measure demonstrated on the other side. They were just as consumed by these concerns.

Jonathan Thomas (25:01)
really interesting. Changing track a little bit, you mentioned in your lecture and in the book that the Netflix TV show The Crown dealt horribly with Edward's story. I know many Angotopia followers and me included are fans of the show, so what kind of things did it get wrong?

Jane Tippett (25:17)
Well, I think, you know, I am not actually a... I don't think I'm a fan, but I'm not a critic of the crown.

Peter Morgan has his views about monarchy and he has taken those views into the narrative he's created and crafted it accordingly. I think Edward's portrayal forms part of that mission. It is historically skewed.

represented in the crown are sort of all of these, what I call basically fables around Edward's political beliefs, around his supposed intervention in Nazi Germany, and even goes so far as to intimate the regicide, the potential of regicide, which again originates from these documents. At one point, Edward is alleged to have said the continued bombing of London would necessitate Britain to sue for

And this is the sort of seed that then forms into this idea that Edward was advocating Germany to bomb London, to kill his brother, an act of regicide, of course, then perhaps place him on the throne. So it's a big leap. Nevertheless, I think the crown is, I think it's obviously problematic because...

I think too many of the viewers who watch it take it as completely factual representation, which it's not. I don't mind the crown if you watch it with the caveat that this is...

fictionalized, these events are fictionalized in order to push a point across, which is the director, which is the director Peter Morgan's. But I think, you know, it does do a historical disservice, again, if you're a viewer who accepts it as fact.

Jonathan Thomas (27:10)
Yeah, it's not a documentary.

Jane Tippett (27:13)
But it's a drama and I think it functions very effectively as a drama and I think Morgan is insightful in what he says about monarchy, how it's continuity, how it forms around individuals, how celebrity functions in it. So I think he has a lot of salient points to make. I think it's just, it's not meant to be taken as a documentary, as he's saying.

Jonathan Thomas (27:38)
Well, and oftentimes these shows are an excellent springboard because you can go, I really want to know more about that. And then you have to buy books like yours.

Jane Tippett (27:45)
that, you know, that's how I grew up on a steady diet of, you know, BBC productions, Elizabeth R., The Six Wives of Henry VIII. And those certainly propelled me to want to read more about it. I mean, I'll go back to even Edward and Mrs. Simpson, which was a fabulous drama series from the late 80s with Edward Fox. And that certainly ignited an interest in Edward VIII. So I think these things have a place, but we just need to approach them cautiously.

Jonathan Thomas (28:15)
So that actually is my next question. Is that your favorite dramatic retelling of the Edward and Wallace story or do you have another one?

Jane Tippett (28:21)
Alright.

I think it is. I think Edward Fox does a brilliant job with Edward as a person in terms of, you know, I think he catches his mannerisms, his speech. I think he, it's a empathetic portrayal, which I hope is what my book is rather than sympathetic. I think it probably is my favorite. I think unfortunately, we've just, you know, as the decades go on, I think we...

sort of have descended more and more into soap opera and exaggerations about Edward. Particularly, you mentioned the King's Speech. I mean, these are sort of fanciful iterations of what Edward would have been like. I think at one point we see Balmoral as a sort of jazz -age cocktail party, you know, when he's there with Wallace Simpson in 1936. And in fact, what that visit was, it was a very traditional visit to Balmoral, which he

he was wearing a kilt and they participated in all the sort of usual, bow moral pastimes. But it's been, you know, jazzed up to a certain point, which is, I think, unfortunate because it leads people to inaccurate conclusions about who Edward was, but also about what his relationship with Wallach, which he viewed with a great seriousness and I think great earnestness.

Jonathan Thomas (29:50)
So going back to this memoir, the one that was published, how did the late queen and royal family feel about this? Was it an irritation to them? How did they feel like it? Like they felt about the servants and the nanny who wrote a memoir. How did they digest it?

Jane Tippett (30:06)
I think with great deal, I think they anticipated it with a lot of anxiety. So, you know, this again, to like go back to sort of the nuts and bolts of how this memoir was published. The first series of articles appeared in 1947 and in Life Magazine and those dealt with Edward's boyhood and youth up to the first world war. There's a hiatus between the second set,

which appear in May 1950, and those cover the period of the abdication, which is, of course, the story that life really wanted to tell. The first series were the bait. The book is published in 1951 as a kind of compilation of that material. So interestingly enough, I think it was actually the 47 articles that sort of caused the most kind of fear, anxiety, and chatter in the royal family, because, of course, that was the first breaker of pre -

precedent. He was the first king to put his memoirs, to publish his memoirs, and more so doing it in this kind of very sort of what the British felt commercially setting of an American picture magazine. You know, there's so much chatter and speculation about what these memoirs will bring forth.

And it's not to say that the second set didn't cause concern. In fact, much of a chapter of the book is really devoted to the ways in which via Edward's advisors in England, there's communication with Buckingham Palace about how to temper anything that he would say. And I think you see the sort of corrosive collaboration, in a sense, between even the people that Edward felt were on his side.

in England and the establishment.

So, and I think by the time the book actually appears, I think the sort of anticipation is over. And I think there's really kind of a collective calm that he, in a sense, avoids any personal vendettas, unlike a recent royal memoir from a recently exiled prince. This was not about personal score setting. It was not to address the sort of all the bitterness, family,

estrangements that had arisen of which there were just as many. It was really meant to be something I think far more serious and far more, with far more longevity as a record of Edward's royal life.

Jonathan Thomas (32:45)
So in writing your book, you were given surprising amount of access to the Royal Archives for things that had not been previously publicly available. So how did you make that happen? What was it? Did you ask, just ask nicely?

Jane Tippett (32:57)
Well, I did ask nicely, which is what I think any future researcher should do if they want to go to the Royal Archives. This question has come up repeatedly around this book is how did I get access? How could I possibly have sort of persuaded them to let me see things that hadn't been cataloged and been out there before? Well, firstly, this material I think had been seen by Philip C.

Edwards official biographer.

The difference between Ziegler and myself is that Ziegler did not bother to go through the voluminous amount of very disorganized material that it was. So when I applied for permission to research, I asked to see material that related to Edward's career as a writer. Now, this is one of, I think, the pitfalls about the Royal Archives, and that's led to what I think is a little bit of a kind of conspiracy -like aura.

researching there. They do not have an online catalog. You do not ever see a full listing of what they possess. Rather, you tell the archivist what you'd like to see or what area of interest you want to see and they produce material.

So I think this leads to the idea, well, they've given me this, but what might they be holding back? Because of course, it remains an archive, a quasi -personal archive. It is the collection of the monarch King Charles III. And so when I made this request to see Edward's writings, they brought out a cart full of these very large red boxes. And inside were the uncataloged, and when I said uncataloged,

And I say uncataloged, I mean the pages had not been individually itemized and listed. And so it was a huge, huge piles of Edwards handwritten first drafts which were on yellow legal paper written in pencil. To look at these drafts initially is to feel a sort of sinking sense of like impossibility around them because they are, the writing is,

voluminous. He writes on the sides. He writes at the top. Most of them are crossed out. There's a big X on each of them, which I showed, I think, a slide in the Royal Oak Foundry talk. And what that X meant was that Edward had written them himself and then they'd been passed to the secretary and she typed them out. So the big X was like done now. So they are unwieldy and there's just a lot of material. So I think Philip Sigler probably had seen

these. I think he decided to not take the time with them. So in a sense, you know, this material was out there for researchers if you wanted to ask the right questions. And I think part of the reason that the right question hadn't been asked till now is because no one had appreciated Edward's authorship.

no one had appreciated the fact that he was a writer. And I knew that in some ways because of, primarily because of the material I'd found in the Murphy papers. Because I'd seen the genesis of how the memoir was being written, because I understood that Murphy was encouraging Edward to write and not merely writing himself, I knew that there was something more than simply looking at the court, Edward's correspondence.

in the Royal Archives to see what he said about his memoirs. I knew there was something else. And so I think that's really why the material hadn't been uncovered and used before. I don't think there was anything special about my asking for it. And I think one of the things we need to get away from are these sort of conspiracy -esque.

Jonathan Thomas (36:53)
Hmph.

Jane Tippett (36:54)
like questions around Edward, you know, what is missing? What's not there? We're not being given access. You know, I think it's a far more straightforward situation than is currently sort of represented.

Jonathan Thomas (37:09)
That's really interesting because I think it's really easy for viewers and consumers of royal stuff to think of Edward as an empty vessel that we put, you know, we fill him with the things that we've learned about him after the fact and this idea that he had that he was a writer and had an internal life and that he really did think a lot about his own legacy and his own role. It's fascinating.

Jane Tippett (37:31)
I think, you know, I see this material as having a transformative effect on his biographical afterlife, even though I think, you know, it's a slow seed to grow. You see in Edward a far more complex, dynamic individual than we've appreciated up to this point. And that's in part because, as you say, we've overwritten onto him all of our own views and our own ideas.

and generalizations. And one of the things that I was really adamant about when I wrote this book is to let Edward speak for himself. I sort of faced throughout this kind of conundrum of how much editorializing should there be, should I be doing in this, you know, around his writing. Because just so for viewers who haven't seen the book yet, the book intersperses my own commentary with Edward's first drafts and drafts by

Murphy correspondence. And I felt throughout that I wanted to give the reader context and the ability and contextualization. But I did not want to lead the reader to any specific point. I wanted the reader to take this information, Edward's information, Edward's voice, and make up their own minds about him as a historical figure, about him as a royal figure, and lead them and let them make their own conclusions.

about whether or not we should be rethinking his legacy.

Jonathan Thomas (39:05)
my next question. I have a special interest in Winston Churchill and I know he played a role in the abdication crisis. So could you tell us more about that role and how did it affect his reputation at the time? And did you come across anything interesting in your research that may be surprising?

Jane Tippett (39:23)
Thanks for watching!

Well, he plays a role not only in the abdication, but he plays a role in the memoir or in this memoir writing or a sort of non -role. Churchill was one of the few political figures of the period that supported Edward and one of the only ones who supported him publicly. He didn't advocate for Edward's right to marry Wallis Simpson, but he advocated for, as he called it, time and patience.

for Edward to come to his own decision without the pressures he saw it of Baldwin's government pressing down in on him. He flirts momentarily with the idea that Edward might have called forth a kind of popular support, the popular support of the country. He says to Edward, I believe it's December 4th of 1936, he's had dinner with him at Edward's home.

home in Fort Belvedere. And he says, as he departs, he says, must give time for the battalions to mass. Battalions meaning for public support to kind of rise and sort of press in on how Baldwin is viewing this crisis. Now, this particular line Edward inserted into a draft of the Life Articles, and Churchill venomously opposed it being included.

Churchill was one of the first people that Edward consulted or wanted to consult on the writing of his memoirs. Throughout the process, he looked to people in his past who'd played a role in his life to comment on his life, both with him and in consult with Murphy.

Churchill, as Max Beaverbrook, the press baron, said, quote, wanted to remain above the narrative. He did not want to help Edward write his memoir, because by 1948, 49, when they're working on the abdication chapters, Churchill had a very different view of his role in 1936. 36 is at the height still of his wilderness years. He is a political outsider, a Tory sort of upstart.

he took a controversial and unpopular position.

In 1949, still thinking of returning to power, it was not a position he wanted to have called to mind. And so he resists any involvement in the writing of the book. At one point, having drafted the chapters of the abdication, Edward brings them to Max Beaverbrook, who actually Churchill is staying with at the time in the south of France, at Beaverbrook's home in the south of France. And Beaverbrook has to go back to Edward and say, look, he's not going to read these.

He's not going to give you any opinion about them. He's adamant about not being involved. And I think that must, you know...

One of, I think, the sort of wonderful elements of this book and the story is that you get a glimpse of the human experience. And I think this is one of those moments. I mean, I think the humiliation for Edward, this former Prince of Wales, former King Emperor, and now he is being told by this, of course, eminent ex -prime minister that he doesn't want to have anything to do with him in this project. I mean, in terms of how life had changed, it must have been jarring.

So, know, Churchill is a, he's got an interesting part in this story. I think not always, perhaps not always to his credit, at least I think in how he handles Edward in 1949, but nonetheless fascinating.

Jonathan Thomas (43:04)
that it's interesting that his strategy of let's wait and see and let's see what happens and just be patient. That worked really well for Prince Charles and Camilla in the early 2000s in the 90s when they wanted to legitimize their relationship.

Jane Tippett (43:16)
I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

Absolutely. And I think that really, though, was predicated on Churchill's belief that Edward would lose interest in Wallace Simpson. He thought that if it could be delayed and pushed out, that the thing would simply evaporate. I mean, that was really the hope and time and patience. But I think fundamentally as well, he did have a sympathy with Edward. He had known Edward since boyhood. They had become, they moved in the same social circles. So I think there was a real sympathy.

sympathy and affection for Edward, I think there was also the element in Churchill's view that the government could not simply start intervening and deposing or getting rid of monarchs when things didn't sit well. I think he did feel that the abdication could set an unfortunate precedent and intervention because of course, as he rightly says at the time, the abdication was itself predicated on

on a hypothesis. At the point of the abdication, there could never have been a marriage with Wallis Simpson. She wasn't free to marry. It was really predicated on a hypothesis that Edward would marry her. And so I think Churchill felt that it brought up a lot of uncomfortable precedents for the future. So.

Jonathan Thomas (44:40)
Yeah.

In all your research for this book, what was the most interesting or surprising thread that you pulled while going through all these research documents?

Jane Tippett (44:49)
Well, I think we've already alluded to it, but I think one of the most surprising threads is the fact that Edward was himself a writer, that Edward had the ability, the capability, and the insight to be able to write about his life, to write about it reflectively, insightfully, and with a capacity for, at times, self -criticism, which I think is not something you would expect of him. If the reader is coming in looking for that,

one salacious revelation. It's really not here. I think the importance of the material is really collective in the sense that it brings together every major event of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's life through their own voices. Anything the Windsors did that we now think about, talk about, still continue to sort of...

discuss the lack of her title, his interest in Germany, of course, the abdication, their romance. All of this is addressed by Edward and Wallace themselves. And I think that is so remarkable. And it's through their words and through the way in which they speak about the events, but also each other, that we gain an entirely new perspective on

not only these events, but who they were as individuals. I think their humanity, I think their individuality. I mean, Edwards in particular, because of course the bulk of the material is from him. It comes forth, I think, in a way that is just so entirely fresh and different and really, of course, runs counter to all the prevailing narratives that are circulating about him, of course, and we already talked about it in The Crown. So I think it's such a

exciting material that is gives us what we really dream of as historians and as readers an entirely new lens on these consequential moments of history.

Jonathan Thomas (47:00)
Alright, so one final question and if you're able to talk about it, what are you working on next?

Jane Tippett (47:07)
So I am working on a new book, a very daunting prospect. I can't go into too much detail. It's not about the Duke of Windsor, but does continue my interest in and sort of analysis of the way British monarchy has evolved over the 20th century and how it's changed at the behest of certain members. So still within the work,

world of British royalty, but something very different that I'm excited about and but you know as all new projects approaching with cautious optimism.

Jonathan Thomas (47:46)
Fantastic. I can't wait to read it and I greatly enjoyed your book which I'm showing up for the people who are watching us on YouTube if you would like to win a copy of this book there will be a link in the show notes and it's signed by Jane she signed it for me when we met in Chicago so when this goes out and you sign up you can have a chance to win this copy of the book so well thank you so much Jane for taking the time to speak to us today

It's a fascinating discussion and I definitely would love to have you back on again when your next book comes out.

Jane Tippett (48:18)
Thank you. Well, I'm appreciative of any opportunity I can to speak about this book and talk about it. So I'm extremely appreciative of you taking the time and having me here.

Jonathan Thomas (48:29)
No problem at all. Thank you so much and thank you for listening to the Anglotopia Podcast. We're going to end it there.