The Abdication revisited - The People's King: The True Story of the Abdication - Book Review

Contemporary Review, March, 2004 by Edward Bradbury

The People's King: The True Story of the Abdication. Susan Williams. Allen Lane. [pounds sterling]16.99. xxiv 375 pages. ISBN 0-713-99573-4.

The title of this book indicates its approach. The term, 'people's', indicates what might be called a 'new labour' slant. The use of 'true' implies that other books have hidden vital aspects or distorted the 'truth'. Miss Williams sets out to argue a case and organises her material to achieve that aim. Were she a barrister this method would be acceptable. In an historian it is not.

To do her credit, she has obviously spent many days labouring away in various archives, from Windsor Castle to the P.R.O., the Bodleian, the British Library and so on. She has given us new information and she has shed light on the motives and behaviour of Cabinet ministers. Some of her evidence, for example, gives us a much more rounded view of Stanley Baldwin. Finally, by burrowing through the thousands of letters to Edward VIII she has shown that he did have more support amongst certain sections than many have supposed.

Having said this one still must ask: has she proved her case? Is it right for an historian to be so committed? The answer to the first question is 'no'. The answer to the second is for each reader to decide. A thousand letters, ten thousand letters, do not 'prove' that Edward VIII's supporters were as numerous as is implied. As to her commitment, it must be said that it amounts virtually to a bias in favour of Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson. To her, Edward VIII was a hero, a friend of the poor and oppressed, an innovator amidst stodgy fools and really quite clever. To support this she cites ... the memoirs of his wife! She does the same when complimenting Mrs Simpson. She never points out that both memoirs were ghost-written. She quotes only a few hostile comments about Edward VIII.

To complement the bias in favour of Edward VIII, Miss Williams has an equally strong one against George VI, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary, various 'courtiers' and, most of all, Archbishop Lang. When she asks why George VI refused to give the Duchess of Windsor the title, H.R.H., she does not mention that he and others feared her third marriage would fail and that she would wander the world embarrassing the Crown. Likewise, she does not mention that after the abdication the Duke lied to his brother as to his wealth so as to get more money. She does not mention the Windsors' flirting with Nazism or the Duke's gross incompetence when in Bermuda.

The author's use of 'loaded' phrases such as Blair's 'the forces of conservatism' undermine what belief one has left in her impartiality whilst her obsession with 'the establishment' almost becomes laughable. The 'establishment' were 'fearful of change'; during the general strike it was 'the ruling classes' who manned the buses whilst 'the classes of wealth saw the spectre of Communism stalking Europe'. All this sounds like a paper read out at an W.E.A. class to the approval of down-trodden workers. She frequently gets stuck when referring to titles (it is 'Max', Lord Beaverbrook, not Lord 'Max' Beaverbrook). She states that Nicholas II sought refuge in England whilst in the event the Tsar never wanted to leave Russia and she writes that the Windsors are buried in the Royal Mausoleum at Frogmore whereas they are buried outside. Finally she states that membership in the Church of England was 'dwindling' by the 1930s which is simply not the case.

In the name of a 'true' account Miss Williams gives a distorted picture. By quoting constantly from letters of support she implies that the majority, at least of the working classes and parts of the middle classes, supported the King. By harping on and on about the King's famous 'something must be done' statement she implies that he alone wanted to help the unemployed. This is a gross falsehood. If Edward VIII had really wanted to help he would have done his work as a constitutional monarch by supporting his government's attempts at help, by encouraging them to do more and by spending his own wealth. He did nothing. He was ill educated, unintelligent, lacking in common sense, careless of his duties, immoral, emotionally retarded and lazy. He was, however, good at 'p.r.' Miss Williams has contributed something to our understanding but she has not given us the definitive 'true' account or a full one.