Talk:Edward VIII

I added the Duke's term as Governor of the Bahamas in his infobox as an embed at the bottom like with other royalty who have also served in political office (e.g. Savang Vatthana of Laos). Is there a specific reason this edit was reverted or is it just for simplification? KyleSClauson (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Previously discussed at Talk:Edward VIII/Archive 2#Governor of the Bahamas. Since then, I have made the additional point in edit summaries that the dates are unsourced and contradict those in the article. DrKay (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand Wikipedia has a policy, especially recently, of simplifying info boxes, but this seems needlessly reductive. If that is the case here, then why is the premiership of the aforementioned King of Laos allowed to remain posted?

As for the dates, that may be the case, but I pulled those directly from the article on "List of colonial governors of the Bahamas." KyleSClauson (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:CIRCULAR. DrKay (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

"Previous discussion" of Edward's four years as Governor of the Bahamas was a decree, not a discussion. The citation number one text above reads as follows:

"It was added briefly a year ago, and removed within a couple of weeks. I agreed with the removal because infoboxes should be simple and succinct. This one is already very long. Inclusion of his predecessor and successor in the office is particularly irrelevant: neither man had any influence on Edward's life at all and are not mentioned anywhere in the article text, so why they should be in the lead (of which the infobox is part) is beyond me. The succession box is more than sufficient coverage. DrKay (talk) 11:57 pm, 14 August 2022, Sunday (3 years, 7 months, 2 days ago) (UTC−7)

Add it to the succession boxes, but don't add into the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 8:16 pm, 15 August 2022, Monday (3 years, 7 months, 1 day ago) (UTC−7)"

Omitting the four year tenure as governor of the Bahamas does not result in a more simple and succinct infobox. It need only occupy a single line. Many infoboxes are double or triple the length of this one. His tenure as governor is well-documented. I have decided to include it as a separate sub-section in the article, with some expansion. I shall ensure that the dates in the infobox are consistent with the article content, and that both the start and end dates are WP:RS sourced.--FeralOink (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I have updated the infobox picture to one from the mid 1930s, shortly before Edward became King. The prior picture was from 1919, when Edward was only in his mid 20s. That seems an unusual choice, considering he would not come to the Throne for almost another two decades. Wiki commons did not have much to offer from his (brief) tenure as King, except for painted portraits. If someone can locate one from that timeframe, it would probably be a better choice. ~2026-60671-9 (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Because of the two prior discussions archived at Talk:Edward VIII/Archive 2, this requires more talk before implementation. DrKay (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Then I will strongly reassert that the photo should be updated to one either from [about] the time of his reign (which are quite few in number, the one I inserted was from 1934), as is the pattern on all other British Monarchs with photographs; or from his tenure as the Duke of Windsor, the position he held the longest and became most associated with. Use of the current image is akin to using a pre-WWII photograph for Queen Elizabeth II, or a college yearbook photo for Barack Obama. Having read the archived discussions, I do not find either the argument on resolution (the alternative photo is not so bad as to be unrecognizable) or direction of gaze persuasive enough to continue using the image of a 25 year old for one who held the throne at 40 and is most remembered for the role he held for 40 years after that. ~2026-60671-9 (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to put some viable options forward so that we can debate on it. Keivan.f^Talk 17:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Of the images available from the commons, the following seems most appropriate - it is a photograph, it is from around the time of his reign, and it is sufficiently clear to see the subject matter

• 

However, if the resolution is thought to be too low (and AI cleanup not being allowed), we could also use the original that photo was taken from:

• 

~2026-60671-9 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

As it has been more than a week without any response or objection, I am updating the main page to show the closely cropped picture of the Duke, above. ~2026-60671-9 (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure a week was long enough. We should probably vote on this, but I do see your points. @DrKay, @Keivan.f. I'm sure others might come. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The infobox label reads "Edward VIII, c. 1934". Shouldn't it say "Edward as Prince of Wales, c. 1934"? Masato.harada (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

It would be nice to get greater clarity on who took the picture and when. If it was taken by Vincenzo Laviosa then he died in 1935 and was based in New York between 1923 and his death. So, when were Wallis and Edward in New York? Not before the abdication I think. If it was taken by Angelo, which is more likely because a book he published in 1979 says he photographed the Windsors and the uncropped file has his name in the bottom righthand corner, then a later date is possible. Also, Laviosa admitted to touching up his pictures to make the sitters look younger. I think it unlikely that they were photographed in Italy because if they'd gone to Fascist Italy in the 1930s, you'd think we'd know more about it. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I have reverted the change. The 1919 image had rough consensus before, and is much superior to the proposed alternative, which is very grainy, lacks precise attribution, and also makes one of his eyes look odd. Edward was notable throughout his life, particularly during his many years as Prince of Wales, and the article balance reflects that - his brief tenure as monarch is only one part of the story. So there is no need IMHO to obsess over having an image from the exact period when he was monarch, if better-quality alternatives exist from other eras.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The quality of the 1919 image may be somewhat higher, but I dispute that a picture horribly out of date can be superior. Edward may have been notable throughout his life, but he is notable to history primarily as the King who abdicated and subsequently as Duke of Windsor. A picture where he is young enough to be the Duke of Windsor's son is not reflective of how he is most remembered. You could easily make the argument that both Edward VII and Charles III spent most of their lives more notable as PoW than as King, yet the precedent is to have pictures from the time of their reign. ~2026-60671-9 (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

But the atribution is weird, the photos might be a bit touched, and one of his eyes looks off. That's why this is used as teh better version. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford Checking the newspaper reports, Edward definitely visited Italy in August 1932 (briefly with his brother George, apparently en route to visit the fleet in Malta) and September 1934 (a holiday on Lake Como). Wallis Simpson was definitely present on the second trip (she wasn't mentioned at the time, but see photos). So we do have a definite date there. It's possible they also visited Italy briefly in the summer of 1936 (they holidayed on a cruise in the Adriatic and there was some speculation about a visit, but I think they probably did not land)

In terms of New York, I am fairly sure he did not visit at all during the 1930s, and the trip they made there in October 1941 was described as Edward's first visit since being Prince of Wales. They seem to have visited fairly regularly after that. So I think you are correct that it must have been by Angelo Laviosa, at some point from 1941 onwards. Judging by this photo or this one, both identified as from the 1941 trip, it likely had a fair bit of retouching - he looked a good bit more weatherbeaten in those. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

It is a pity that of the various options, the 1919 one that is probably too early is probably the best photo (high quality, well composed, etc). The cropped Laviosa image has a strange look to it and I agree I am not keen on it, and it would be good to avoid a joint picture in the infobox.

Looking at some other options - File:Prince-Edward-Duke-of-Windsor-King-Edward-VIII.jpg (1922) is the version that was present when this was last FA reviewed in 2020. File:Edward Prince of Wales during his visit to Canada in 1919.jpg (1919) is the one that was on the article when it became FA. Both are equally "early". Andrew Gray (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The article currently uses File:King_Edward_VIII_portrait.webp in a later section, and if we can find a better version of this, it might be practical - it seems to date from his time as King and is likely copyright-OK, as Herbert Vandyk died in 1943 (not 1947 as noted on the image description) Andrew Gray (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The section covering World War 2 needs to be edited and cleaned-up. It cites one questionable source and another widely discredited source.

First, this paragraph:

"The Allies became sufficiently disturbed by German plots revolving around Edward that President Roosevelt ordered covert surveillance of the Duke and Duchess when they visited Palm Beach, Florida, in April 1941. Duke Carl Alexander of Württemberg (then a monk in an American monastery) had told the Federal Bureau of Investigation that Wallis had slept with the German ambassador in London, Joachim von Ribbentrop, in 1936; had remained in constant contact with him; and had continued to leak secrets."

It is sourced only to a Guardian article published in 2004. The only part of that article that is adequately sourced is the content pertaining to the first sentence. The rest is so bizarre it made me lol. Some of it is factually inaccurate, e.g. that Edward VIII couldn't marry Wallis because she was disreputable! No, it was because the British monarch is the head of the Church of England, and at that time, the Church did not allow marriages to people who were divorced AND whose former spouses were still living.

Next, in the following paragraph:

"Author Charles Higham claimed that Anthony Blunt, an MI5 agent and Soviet spy, acting on orders from the British royal family, made a successful secret trip to Schloss Friedrichshof in Allied-occupied Germany towards the end of the war to retrieve sensitive letters between the Duke of Windsor and Hitler and other leading Nazis. What is certain is that George VI sent the Royal Librarian, Owen Morshead, accompanied by Blunt – then working part-time in the Royal Library as well as for British intelligence – to Friedrichshof in March 1945 to secure papers relating to Victoria, German Empress, the eldest child of Queen Victoria. Looters had stolen part of the castle's archive, including surviving letters between mother and daughter, as well as other valuables, some of which were recovered in Chicago after the war. The papers rescued by Morshead and Blunt, and those returned by the American authorities from Chicago, were deposited in the Royal Archives."

Charles Higham is known for being a fabulist. Per his Wikipedia BLP, regarding his biography of Wallis Simpson:

"In the book about Wallis Simpson (later the Duchess of Windsor), he claimed she had learned unusual sexual practices in the brothels of Peking and was the lover of Count Ciano and Ribbentrop. Journalist Paul Foot described Higham's biography of Wallis Simpson in the London Review of Books as "an important book. But there is a great deal wrong with it. He has provided his critics with plenty of hostages. Again and again, he quotes the most scurrilous and unlikely gossip, without proving it."

Also, there is much redundancy in the portions about Germany and Operation Willi in this article that needs to be consolidated.

Yes, it is well-known that the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were Nazi sympathizers and anti-Semites. The truth is sufficient, i.e. factual and well-recognized sources support this. All the fluff and multiple-acknowledged disproven rumors included in the article weaken reality.

I am going to edit accordingly, within this one subsection. FeralOink (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The article states that Lord Mountbatten brought the Duke and Duchess of Windsor back to England in 1939 on HMS Kelly. HMS Kelly states:

"On the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were brought from France, where they were living, back to Britain on board HMS Kelly."

This article recounts that as follows:

"On the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939, the Duke and Duchess were brought back to Britain by Louis Mountbatten on board HMS Kelly, and Edward, although he held the rank of field marshal, was made a major-general attached to the British Military Mission in France. In February 1940, the German ambassador in The Hague, Count Julius von Zech-Burkersroda, claimed that Edward had leaked the Allied war plans for the defence of Belgium, which the Duke later denied. When Germany invaded northern France in May 1940, the Windsors fled south, first to Biarritz, then in June to Francoist Spain. In July they moved to Portugal, where they lived initially in the home of Ricardo Espírito Santo, a Portuguese banker with both British and German contacts."

If the Duke and Duchess were brought back to England in September 1939, then why did they flee south to Biarritz (France) in May 1940?! Did they somehow sneak out of England after September 1939 and back to France? If so, why doesn't the article mention this? Where were they from October 1939 to May 1940?! FeralOink (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Um, no. The article (and even your own quote from it) explicitly states that he was sent back to France as part of the British Military Mission. That is why he was in France when Germany invaded. DrKay (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

First of all, Dr. Kay, your reversion of my edit was authoritarian and non-collaborative. (Your edit description was merely an imperious "fine as is" without discussion.) It also contradicts Wikipedia's own description of Operation Willi.

Secondly, do read the text of the article, which I have not altered at all regarding chronology. It says:

""On the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939, the Duke and Duchess were brought back to Britain by Louis Mountbatten on board HMS Kelly, and Edward, although he held the rank of field marshal, was made a major-general attached to the British Military Mission in France... When Germany invaded northern France in May 1940, the Windsors fled south, first to Biarritz, then in June to Francoist Spain. In July they moved to Portugal..."

The article states that Mountbatten brought them back to Britain in September 1939. That is not sourced. The Windsors had resided in Paris since the Duke's abdication. The prior sentences stated that Churchill demanded the Duke be on British territory during the war. There needs to be some segue to explain how both the Duke and Duchess ended up returning to France other than that the Duke "was made a major-general attached to the British Military Mission in France". What does attached to the British Military Mission in France mean exactly? You are stating that Ed and Wallis were brought back to England only to immediately be returned to France, which Germany occupied a few months later. If so, which is apparently true, (given my own reading of external sources though I am not entirely sure thus left that part unaltered) it is opaque in the article. There needs to be some explanation of how and why suspected traitor Edward (with good reason given his visit to Hitler in 1937 etc.) was then immediately made a major-general and assigned to defense of Britain and sent right back with Wallis to Paris.--FeralOink (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Don't attack me please. I'm keeping collaboration with you to an absolute minimum because of your rude uncivil attitude, which renders your complaints about others unreasonable and absurd. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, wikipedia cannot be used as a source. A featured article, as this is, is always going to be better informed than one with a massive cleanup banner at the top reading "This article needs additional citations for verification." DrKay (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)