Right. I suppose the government must have thought that to publicly acknowledge him as a traitor and an ally of Hitler would have been a devastating public relations coup for Hitler, and a gut punch to the morale of the British people. I have to wonder whether the British government considered feeding Edward false information if they felt he was leaking information to the Germans. Likely they were simply happy to have him out of the picture, and well monitored by Wallis Simpson. But I completely understand the way you feel about it. He caused the deaths of British soldiers, and probably did so on purpose. That is a hanging offense.

They were marooned in Portugal in 1940 and approaches were made to them by German Agents (this is from the Official German Archives) and their responses to these agents were considered highly dangerous and damaging to themselves. (It is the subject of telegrams between Ribbentrop and somebody called Storer and the Americans are currently in possession of them, the British are trying to get them back) It's no wonder they were sent to the Bahamas at the outbreak of the war and stayed there for the duration. I am not entirely sure but I think they met someone there who was also a German sympathiser and they used to party together all the time. Edward was considered astoundingly illiterate and had never heard of "Jane Eyre" he was also very adolescent in his attitudes - it has been suggested that he was psychologically stunted and his emotional age was that of a teenager. When he talked to his mother about what he should do about himself and Wallis regarding the throne and his mother tried to tell him where his duty lay he responded "But Mama nothing in the world is more important than her happiness and mine". (may have paraphrased a bit but the substance is correct. Says it all really.

Strange Bedfellows, I am grateful for your information on this. And I am eager for anything more you think of and care to share on the subject. I want to change subjects just now, as something else comes to mind, but that doesn't mean I am done with this, if you have more to share.

I am also watching a show called "Outlanders" presently. It is about the Fraser clan from Scotland and the travels and story of a couple who wind up coming to America in the 18th century. I find it particularly of interest because my mother's mother was a Fraser. And my oldest sister who studies genealogy has traced our own Frasers coming to America, landing in Wilmington and settling in North Carolina at about the same time as the couple in this series.
The show is being filmed in Scotland primarily. The mountainous regions there resemble those in North Carolina. The crew built period buildings, including a log cabin, and it really does appear authentic. In fact I believe the show is well known for the authenticity of all the costumes, tools, weapons, and so on. They brought some American Indians over to Scotland, and the Indians made certain to use authentic Indian clothing, campsites, etc.
Have you heard of this show? Have you watched any of it?

Update:
I have just found an article first published in Dec. 1991 entitled Secret Treason. It reports on an interview with the Duke of Windsor by a reporter named Fulton Oursler Jr. He had tried for some time to get an interview with the Duke of Windsor without success, then suddenly he was granted an interview. After the interview was over Oursler was shocked and worried for his very life because of what he had learned. He reported to Roosevelt what he had learned. He was told he could not publish the interview, and he never did. Even after his death the notes were held in secret until after the Duke and Duchess had passed away. His son felt that after over 50 years, the interview could finally be published. https://www.americanheritage.com/secret-treason

If you have not read this before I think you will be fascinated by it. It certainly seems to validate everything you have told me. Roosevelt spoke with this journalist who told him everything the Duke had said. Then Roosevelt shared things with him. For example, the Duke had been made liason between the British and French. He was privy to everything. Every so often he would take a leave and go to Paris for 3 or 4 days. Here is a quote:

“Now, I have nothing to prove what I am going to say, but I do know that there were nine shortwave wireless sets in Paris constantly sending information to the German troops, and no one has ever been able to decide how such accurate information could be sent over these wireless stations.

“After a while it was suggested to the Duke that he go down to Cannes where he could be with his wife and just stay there. He was never relieved of his commission. He just stayed there away from Paris.

“Then the Germans broke through Belgium and Holland but Edward stayed on in Cannes for a long time. Finally, he and his wife went to Madrid where they mingled with the wrong people.

“Meanwhile, the British were trying to make up their mind what to do with him. They couldn’t send him to the Fiji Islands because he wouldn’t go there. Finally they hit on the Bahamas. They wouldn’t go to Jamaica; too far away. But the Bahamas were close to the United States. Now and then they could go over to Miami and mingle with the night club crowds that they so enjoy. So the Bahamas were offered them as the greatest gift of the Empire."

Windsor even told Oursley that “it would be a tragic thing for the world if Hitler were overthrown.”

Very interesting, eh?

My Goodness !!! I have never seen this article and I doubt that it was ever published in Britain - it convinces me beyond any doubt that Edward Vlll was a traitor to his country. I don't know how he got away with it - probably because the British newspapers were gagged when it came to royalty and the British people had no idea of any of it. I don't understand the motives of Winston Churchill who was one of his greatest supporters - he thought that he should be allowed to marry her AND take the throne. Churchill must have known where Edward's sympathies lay, he must have known that Wallis was passing information to Ribbentrop via the boxes at Fort Belvedere. It is true what you surmised that Edward was being fed disinformation - I didn't consider that. There is so much damning evidence against this couple - they should have buried the both of them in France instead of in England. Regarding "Outlander" I have not watched this series - I have seen it advertised somewhere - possibly Netflix - is it any good? I too have Scottish ancestry - my mother's maiden name was Brodie - and her grandparents were Nixons - originally from Scotland but migrated down to the borders where they morphed into Geordies. If you recommend it I will start watching it - I am curtailed a bit with regard to what I watch because I need subtitles but Netflix is usually pretty good on that score. Thank you for that really interesting article. P.S. I have just finished series 5 of Bosch and I was looking for a longish series to take it's place - I am now watching Outlander - only up to Ep 3 of series 1 but I am likely to continue watching it. My only criticism is the monotonous voice and flat delivery of the heroine. I am picky though !!! It's actually on Amazon Prime and it does have subtitles - yay !!!

I have Churchill's 6 volume set on the second world war. I don't recall much about Edward in that. Perhaps Edward was smart enough to tell Churchill what he knew he wanted to hear. Certainly Edward was not the only person fooled by Hitler in the early years and maybe Winston thought he would come around once he learned more about the Nazis. According to that article Churchill was very angry after reading the article and what Edward had to say publicly. I suppose by that point he must have realized that Edward had been captivated by Hitler and the Nazi movement. There were Americans who liked Hitler as well. Old man Kennedy was one of them in the early years. Once the British realized that Edward was passing on information, it would only make sense that they would use him as an unwitting double agent if they could. But I suppose he would have been of only limited usefulness that way. At some point he would realize what was happening, or the Germans would. But it seems they did try that.

Outlander: The first four seasons are available on DVD presently. The series has been assured of seasons 5 and 6 as well. I think season 5 comes out this fall. I have recently binge watched the first four seasons and will probably look them over again. I won't say much about it so I don't tip you off on what is coming. The whole idea that one could go back in time and have to interact with people from a vastly different culture is fascinating to me. If it were really possible, I don't think a person could "pass" for someone of that time period so easily as she does. There would be so many traditions, simple ways of doing things which are second nature to someone of that time period, and the traveler would be as a babe in the woods, or like an imbecile concerning them. She would have to feign being dumb, and simply watch others and try to get up to speed on things. But still something would trip her up at some point. People were so superstitious. As soon as someone found a reason to dislike her, they could accuse her of performing black magic or of working for the devil. And then the trouble would start. I think I would pretend to be retarded, or perhaps dumb, and try to find menial work while I studied the customs and beliefs.

As fascinating as it would be to be able to travel back in time and see how things really were, and what really happened, it would also be somewhat scary.

I agree with what you say regarding she fit in all too easily. I noticed that just before she was transported she had on a belt and a wristwatch which she didn't have when she arrived ! I also found it very convenient that her husband and his friend and herself were all discussing that very time period just before it all went down - and as an intelligent woman she should have known to keep the independent 20th century female attitude in check in 1743 !! She also seemed to have an unlimited access to masses of dresses and no money to pay for them. I know I am too analytical - I should just sit back and enjoy the fun! I have to admit I would be terrified if that happened to me !! Can you imagine how hard and cruel life must have been back then - you live and work by the sun with no modern machinery or utilities. As usual the rich would probably have been ok with the peasants to do all their washing and cooking and cleaning etc but the poor - that must have been a dreadful life.

I also noticed how she lacks a filter on her liberated woman attitude. If she doesn't want to draw attention to herself, raise questions or alienate people, she ought to put a muzzle on it. I think that is just standard fare for television in modern times. Feminist attitudes will always be showcased. And more and more we see social justice issues inserted into just about every kind of show. Later in the series someone from the 1960s travels back in time 202 years. But they seem to reflect current cultural attitudes instead of 1960s culture. Do writers believe they must do this to appeal to young audiences? I don't. I think people are smarter than that. This show isn't a bad offender in this regard, not like some other shows. How long will it be until television shows begin denigrating white males, as happens on so many college campuses now in America? But Outlander only pushes certain issues, feminism, and anti slavery, which we can all support.

And yes, the primitive times would take some getting used to. Maybe that part would not be quite so bad for me. I enjoy making things myself, devising jigs to help do jobs easier, and so on. I enjoy using my hands, making things. And there would be plenty of that sort of work. But I know when I got there I would kick myself for never having studied emergency first aid techniques. I would think of tons of things I should have studied before making the trip. How does one make a block and tackle? I guess they knew that back then, but there would be so many basic, survival things I would want to know, things I could study now, and have not.
If I had a certain level of technical knowledge and expertise in engineering, metalurgy, and a few other fields, I could make myself valuable to the castle laird. And that would make life a lot easier. They would likely be willing to overlook a lot of weirdness on my part if I could make myself valuable.

(Plus, depending on the time period one went back to, if there were stock markets, or ways to place bets, you could do alright for yourself).

Back to the Duke of Windsor and that article, I just reread it. It strikes me that this was one of the best kept secrets of the 20th century. Well, I mean it was known that Wallis Simpson was rumored to have German sympathies, or was she a spy? There were rumors of course. But the fact that no records exist of the report to FDR, and that the British government has never come out with the story, that all shows how deeply this was buried.
You know that the families of the British soldiers of the British Expeditionary Force which went over to Europe to oppose the Nazis in the early part of the war would be enraged to learn that their sons and husbands and brothers had died, in part, because a member of the Royal family had betrayed them, had passed classified military information directly to German agents in Paris. I don't suppose that the time will ever seem right to reveal the truth of that story, not in my lifetime.

That article also gives more background on the reason Edward abdicated. Wallis Simpson was being made privy to the most classified documents of the Empire, and she was too friendly with Germans supporting Hitler. Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin became aware of this and apparently raised the issue with King Edward, who then threatened to abdicate. And Baldwin called his bluff saying 'Maybe it would be a good idea' or words to that effect. I heard that the issue was that Wallis Simpson was a divorcee, but that probably was only the cover story.

How childish it was to threaten to abdicate. Did he believe that the country could not get along without him? If so, he quickly found out how wrong he was on that score. Baldwin was probably only too happy to hear him threaten to step down as King, so he would not get daily deliveries of classified documents.

FDR certainly thought very lowly of Windsor according to that piece. I imagine those in the know in Britain had little use for him either, though no one could publicly give any hint about that. I wonder at what point the Duke realized how busted he was. Did anyone ever contact him privately and tell him "Listen, we know A, B, C etc. You must stop doing these things, and you must stay quiet about it all. You can keep your title, your liberty, your assets, and your reputation so long as you cease and desist." ?

The Duke was right about one thing. When he spoke of how bad things were for Great Britain because of the submarine blockade, he was absolutely correct. The US was churning out merchant ships faster than they were being sunk, but so many ships were being sunk, so much cargo was going to the bottom of the ocean, and so many merchant marines were dying at sea. Britain was close to being starved. The US was trying to build ships as fast as possible, ships of all types. But destroyers were desperately needed to sail with the convoys of merchant ships. There were several breakthroughs and lucky breaks which wound up finally winning the war of the Atlantic for the allies. The British advances in plane borne downward looking radar was a critical advancement. The capture of a submarine along with a working enigma machine along with its code book was another. as well as advancements in sub killing technology. Once the tide turned, Doenitz's wolf packs became turkey shoots for sub killing planes with their high tech gadgets. But for a while, it looked as though Hitler's U-boats could strangle Britain.

It's frightening to look back and realise what could have happened - I, for one, am eternally grateful for all America did to help us during the war. I have read somewhere - and I read so much I cannot remember where - that Britain was desperate for America to get into the war - so desperate that a submarine commander who picked up the Japanese planes headed towards Pearl Harbour and reported it - asking what his course of action should be - was told to ignore it. I don't know if this is true - but I have heard it somewhere - either in a book or a documentary - I am not making it up. I suppose desperate times provoke desperate measures but to me this was inexcusable. I am watching a program now about the training of SOE agents and they intersperse their training methods with snippets and real pictures about the war - I was born just after the war so I have no memory of it - but I didn't realise just how much of Europe was under German control - I don't know how they could actually have lost the war because they had conquered just about everybody. They say Hitler's biggest mistake was invading Russia and it was the Russian winter that beat them, 27 million Russians died during the war. When you count the 6 million Jews the 3 million Bohemian gypsies and the combined armed forces of the Allies who died - well - for me - forgiveness is not an option. Now we have Prince Charles making speeches in Germany saying what good friends we are and always have been - what else would you expect from an over privileged Saxe - Coburg - Gotha. He makes me sick to my stomach.

I have always been interested in WWII. My dad fought for 4 years in the army. He was in Bastogne during the battle of the bulge when it was surrounded and General McAlliffe gave his famous reply to the German commander when he demanded surrender: "NUTS". The soldiers were given this mimeographed notice after the surrender demand was rejected. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1042274850383&set=a.1043460520024&type=3&theater

WWII movies were still very popular as I was growing up. And I watch documentaries about the war when I find them. A British man made a very good documentary in 1974 called The World at War.
I have heard some speculation that Roosevelt himself was somehow involved in suppressing warning of the attack, but that charge seems far too outlandish to me. There was an early radar outpost manned by American sailers or soldiers which detected the planes as they were inbound. They reported it, but HQ assumed these were simply a flight of B-17s (if I recall correctly) returning from a training flight. That error prevented us from scrambling our planes and putting the ships on red alert, costing many lives. While it is true that FDR was being hampered politically from involving America more in the war effort (the public, and Congress, were divided on whether we should involve ourselves in yet another European war), I don't believe he would have allowed the attack to proceed as it did had he known. Even if he had welcomed an attack which would unify the country in joining the war, there would have been no reason for him to allow the attack to proceed unhampered, destroying so much of our Pacific fleet. The mere fact that we had been attacked would be sufficient to put us in a state of war. The same reasoning applies to the rumor you mentioned. Had a British pilot seen the attack planes on their inbound run, there would have been no advantage for Britain in failing to warn America. Indeed, the failure to warn us hampered our abilities to help Britain. We were suddenly faced with the need to rebuild our Pacific fleet. This hampered our efforts to build destroyers to help in the Atlantic, and our ability to help the British ships in Asia, or elsewhere. The attack by the Japanese would have been sufficient to bring us into the war whether we had been able to scramble planes or not. The "dastardly" sneak attack would have outraged the American public no matter how much or how little damage it caused.
I don't doubt that there are people who are so callous or desperate that they could do something like write off the lives of those sailors without compunction. But the benefits of not warning us were negligible, and the risk if it were ever discovered, enormous.

I am sure that the British wished us to enter the war; there is no doubt on that. Churchill noted in his book his mixture of emotions about the attack. He was in regular contact via undersea cable messages with FDR and expressed his sympathy and support after Pearl Harbor was bombed. But he was secretly happy because he felt that victory in the war was now assured, in the long run.

Still, I think the allies were very lucky to have come through to victory as quickly as we did. With the benefit of hindsight and the declassification of information now, it is clear that the war effort for the American military was hindered by our own bureaucrats. Those in charge of ordnance design and approval were very slow to listen to reports from the men who used and relied on these supplies. Our submarine torpedoes as well as our plane launched torpedoes were defective for the first years of the war. It is no accident that the Japanese carriers at the battle of Midway were all sunk by dive bombers and that not a single torpedo damaged a Japanese ship. Torpedoes hitting a ship at a 90 degree angle, the standard preferred angle, would rarely detonate. Also, there were problems with the depth gauge mechanisms, some of them passed 15 feet below the ships. They fixed one problem after another. Subs could rarely sink Jap vessels and had to run for cover after the failed torpedo alerted the enemy to their presence. By the end of the war the problems were fixed, and we wound up with the best torpedoes of any country, so I have read. But it sure took us long enough, and the ordnance department was stubborn in refusing to acknowledge the problems for a while. Then there was the issue of the early versions of the Sherman tanks. To some military theorists, the primary job of tanks was to rapidly advance and use mass fire against infantry. The tanks were very fast, and handled well. They were as easy as automobiles to drive according to some. But they were poorly armored. The Germans called them "Tommy cookers", or "Ronsons" after a popular cigarette lighter of the time. The advertising slogan for it was "One Strike and it Lights, Every Time".
Later versions were up armored, and soldiers had their own ways to improve the protection through field modifications.

Hitler, far from being the military genius people judged him as at the beginning of the war, was, in my own view, mentally ill and militarily incompetent. Hitler is responsible for the quick defeat of Germany in Russia. Had he listened to his generals, the Germans would have taken Moscow the first year, and would have reached the oil fields in the south as well. That would have made for a very different conflict there. But Hitler continually ignored and over rode his generals, snatching victory away from them. He became obsessed with Stalingrad. But even there he helped the Soviets. He pulled the troops away from Stalingrad right after they attacked, sending them south to help the southern army group push toward the oil fields, then before that mission could be accomplished, he sent them back to Stalingrad, which allowed the Soviet troops there to fortify defenses. If you ever get a chance to see a documentary about the Russian campaign, Operation Barbarossa, you will see how time after time Hitler impulsively interfered with his generals, and ignored their urgent advice. He insisted that the German army would roll over the Soviets before Christmas, so the army did not take winter clothing with them. Many froze to death. He sent his SS shock troops behind to commit genocide, wiping out entire villages after the army had passed through. He was obsessed with "room for growth", more room for the German people. When the Soviets turned the tables and advanced into Germany, they exacted brutal retaliation, raping women everywhere they went. His generals seemed afraid to object to his idiotic plans too strenuously. Hitler was a madman.

The battle of the bulge was another very stupid move. Even if he had reached Antwerp, it would only have meant a slight delay for the allies. He had no air-force left. By that time we had the best long range fighters in the war. We owned the skies. As soon as the weather cleared the remainder of the German tanks and armament was destroyed from above.

In the long run it never would have worked out for Hitler and the Germans. The war might have gone on for a few years longer, and more people would have died, but the little German nation could never conquer the world.
The British would have fought incessantly had the Germans invaded with troops. Your people had firearms back then. And you have a proud, fierce history of defending your island nation. No one had succeeded for a thousand years, and the Brits would have been brutal against the Germans. And as the Japanese knew, invading America would have been quixotic. They would have faced 100 million armed citizens, shooting at them from behind every rock, tree, building, you name it.

Hitler was able to succeed in the early years because the nations which had fought in WWI were tired of war. Nobody wanted to spend money on their militaries. Churchill was a lone voice crying out that Britain needed to maintain a strong military, needed to at least mothball its big artillery pieces, and needed to upgrade its planes. He wrote articles in periodicals when he was out of office. Unfortunately by the time people noticed what Hitler was doing and decided to listen to him, Hitler had begun the war in earnest. Only because one manufacturer had begun building fighters was Britain able to keep just enough aircraft coming to fight off the Germans. In America, our soldiers went through boot camp using wooden sticks instead of rifles because we didn't have enough of them. It was only because we had begun building British rifles under contract for your nation, and therefore had the tooling already in place, that we were able to produce rifles for our boys as quickly as we did. Our troops were more often armed with British rifles which fired our 30.06 round than with the Springfield 06 rifle, our approved military rifle of the time. We also issued the Garard semi-auto rifle, but we could not supply enough to arm all the troops. Hitler on the other hand had been secretly breaking the WWI treaty and arming the Germans with state of the art weaponry, and had a pretty good air force, the biggest in the world I think by the start of the war.

And naturally, since we now know that Windsor had sent him allied military information including the French defensive set up, he was able to bypass the allied strong points and overwhelm France. The Duke of Windsor was really a traitorous fool. It truly is amazing that the British never made him face justice, even if it were disguised as some kind of accidental death.

Well they are good at arranging accidental deaths. Another mysterious royal was Prince George, Duke of Kent - who was a very promiscuous bisexual who had affairs with Noel Coward, Anthony Blunt and Barbara Cartland amongst others. He was also a drug addict. Nevertheless the British people loved him. He was suspected of being a Nazi sympathizer and was killed in a mysterious plane crash in Scotland in 1942 during Edwards short reign. It was suspected that he was on his way to broker a separate peace for Britain and that an unidentified passenger was on the plane that could have been Rudolf Hess. The British were suspected of having a double for Hess imprisoned In Spandau prison for all of his life. There was also talk of a suitcase chained to George's wrist which contained a large amount of Swedish Kroner which was decidedly odd. Have you heard of this at all?

No I never heard anything about any of that. Wow. Another royal sympathetic to the Nazis. How is it these guys are made military men? He was a drug addict and had Nazi sympathies, yet I see pictures of him in military uniform. Of course I don't suppose it is possible to know about all of that ahead of time. But I would think they monitor the royals quite closely and could have discovered his drug habit.

But that story cannot be true. Hess was present at the Nuremburg trials after the war. He could not have died in 1942. The other passenger was someone else, perhaps a colleague or someone sympathetic to Hess and the Nazis.
When the authorities want to keep something secret, they often put out several phony stories, competing theories, with varying levels of credibility, and bits of truth. Like the JFK assassination, there are lots of stories, bits of truth in all of them. For over 50 years most people didn't have a clue what happened.

You never know, but from the things I read about him, Hess didn't seem to be all there. He was an early supporter of Hitler, but Hitler never gave him anything really important to do, and he wasn't someone Hitler went to for advice. He was just loyal to him because he had been in prison with Hitler and had been with him since the beginning.

Hess had been kept in British prisons since his plane came down in 1941 - he was returned to prison after the trials. He allegedly committed suicide in the eighties but his son says that he didn't hang himself and was in fact strangled. I can't see any motive for that after 40 odd years in captivity - he was a very old man by then and not destined to live much longer. The stories persist though of this person being a double. It is interesting to wonder who the mystery person was and where he/she went to after they survived the plane crash which was in mostly rural Scotland where strangers do not go unremarked. And why the Swedish kroner? Were they on their way to provide the money for the transport home of those soldiers/agents who managed to escape to Sweden? I was watching a film called "The 12th Man" which told of a Norwegian agent who managed to make his way to Sweden in miraculous circumstances, I think he was just one of many. As for why the royals are made military men - some have had active service - most have not - and I doubt whether any of them were ever in serious danger anyway. They all hold very high honorary titles from various services which entitle them to wear the full dress uniform of said services along with medals they have never earned. It's all about perception - there they stand in all their uniformed glory and all the crowd see are brave soldiers in uniform who have fought for their country and deserve their love and allegiance. Most of them are bedazzled by all this fakery. The British public are a fickle lot - they need re-programming all the time to maintain their loyalty - hence the constant visits at home and abroad and the speeches et al. I guess the royals saw that all those people that wept for Diana were waving their flags for Camilla eight years later when she and Charles were married - they quickly forgot how Camilla chose this innocent young woman to be her lover's wife and befriended her and groomed her until she accomplished her mission. I have nothing but contempt for all of them except the Queen - oddly I suppose - but she seems to be a very honourable and dutiful woman who has no scandal attached to her.

I read that Prince Harry arranged to secretly get sent on a real mission so he was potentially in harms way. He hated being protected all the time. Of course I am sure that those over him made certain he was protected. They probably just let him believe he was getting close to danger. It would be an absolute disaster if he were captured by the enemy. But I give him credit for wanting to go in harm's way just like his fellow soldiers. I think Diana's kids are decent young men. I like to think so anyway, and I have not seen anything to turn my mind away from that. I really know very little about the Royals other than the bits that come through the news, or what I learn from history. I do think the Queen seems to be very concerned with carrying herself with dignity, and I sense that she is likely the one in the family who makes certain that the younger generation of Royals learn the importance of duty, why the rituals are performed, what they mean, how to behave in order that you don't tarnish the family name, stuff like that. Of course Charles was a disappointment. But I bet she has been a big influence on his kids. The public is fickle, and they tend to forget things they should remember. Perhaps they supported Camilla out of a sense of duty? I don't know. Maybe they thought "well finally she is getting married and won't be slutting around with him anymore, so let's cheer for that".

The British public at large have no sense of duty !! They just like a social occasion where they probably get drunk and disorderly afterwards!! Camilla's cuckolded husband has been called "The man who lay down his wife for his country" - he knew all about it - it's the way our aristocracy live their lives. What is troubling is that Charles is head of the church in England - a divorced man married to a divorced woman - it is against everything the church stands for - but for royals anything is possible. I am not religious at all but I hate to see one law for us and another for them be they sacred or secular.

That is funny about the husband, 'the man who lay down his wife for his country'. I remember a long time ago reading that her husband was a military man, and obviously, there was nothing left in that marriage. He could have caused trouble for Charles I guess, but he probably wanted the marriage over. Why fight for a wife who doesn't want you? And I am sure the Royals asked him to avoid making a public issue of it. It must have been tough on Elizabeth when Charles did started that affair. His sham of a marriage to Diana didn't fix things either, it just put her through a lot of pain, and ultimately it killed her.