Behind Closed Doors [Hardcover]

The first part of this book is an account, as the author sees it, of power-struggles which went on in Paris for 10 years over the sad and slowly-dying Wallis, Duchess of Windsor, the widow of a man who had once been King of England. The tensions were between her lawyers, her secretaries, her doctors, servants, biographers, friends, and the Royal Family. The account is breathlessly whispered and confidential in tone, but gruesomely fascinating.

The author is extremely accusatory and judgmental about some of the characters in the circle around the sick Duchess, in particular the Duchess's frightening lawyer, Suzanne Blum. In the book "The Last of the Duchess", Lady Caroline Blackwood brilliantly portrayed Suzanne Blum as a stage villain ("I will keel you!!!"), but this was satire -and hilarious. Hugo Vickers takes his lead from Lady Caroline, but despite his gossipy style it seems he is deadly serious: for him, Blum really is a demonic witch, out to exploit the Duchess for everything she can get. And lots of other people get it in the neck from the avenging Mr.Vickers, Lord Mountbatten isn't spared, he too is almost demonised and Vickers hasn't a good word to say for him.

The reader is not entirely convinced by all this -even though the author brandishes a document he says was forged by Blum, to give herself power over the ailing Duchess's property. Blum was by this time getting on in years and possibly at an age when people can sometimes be forgiven eccentric tactics. Suzanne Blum was without doubt a very formidable character with an intimidating presence, ferociously autocratic, too high-handed, certainly odd and possibly a bit round the bend, but whether she was truly the scheming and heartless demonatrix described by Mr.Vickers is not -for this reader at least- finally established.

The second part of the book is a biographical sketch of the Duchess of Windsor, with one or two useful observations. There are a few references to neglected contemporary sources, including a significant letter (which recently appeared at auction) from Ernest Simpson to his wife Wallis. It was written in 1936 at the time of their divorce, and it is pretty evident from this affectionate letter that Simpson didn't believe his wife was emotionally committed to the King. (How this private letter got into the public domain is one of the contentious issues which arise in the first part of the book.)

It may have been true that a few people were content to see him go, but there was no 'establishment plot' to get rid of the idolised and charismatic King. This is the reality: to marry Mrs.Simpson, King Edward VIII abdicated the finest Throne in the world entirely of his own volition, and he wasn't pushed by Stanley Baldwin, or a cabal, or anyone else. Least of all was he pushed by Wallis Simpson, who found herself trapped by an unwelcome situation which she had in no sense deliberately engineered.

When the "happy and unheeding" Mrs.Simpson -her own words- woke up to the fact that the King was going to Abdicate in order to marry her, she was evidently horrified. (She had expected this relationship to cool off: she said in a letter to her aunt that it had been "an interesting experience", which had left her "comfortably off".) It seems she now foresaw that if the King lost everything to make her his wife, she would thus lose the powerful social position she had achieved -and get all the blame for an enormous constitutional shock. She tried to escape her predicament but it was too late, and everything she feared came about. Mrs.Simpson was suddenly notorious everywhere, she fled the country and was generally blamed for having 'stolen' the King.

In fact, the dynamic of this crisis was supplied solely by King Edward VIII. The Abdication was entirely the result of the King's crushing emotional needs -centred on Mrs.Simpson. The King was obsessed, and determined to make the lady his own, whatever it cost Britain or the Empire (or his brother). It is probably correct to deduce that Mrs.Simpson was not in love with a man who was, as Queen Mary put it, "unhinged" by his need for her. No one else in history has voluntarily renounced the Crown of England.

To the new Duchess of Windsor, cornered into marriage with a man she did not love, everywhere notorious, denied a title equal to her husband and disowned by his Family, her invidious future must have looked grim indeed. "I am taking you into a void", said the Duke of Windsor, accurately.

Queen Mary described her as "an adventuress", but like a valiant champion at the joust the author is eager to state that he considers Wallis, Duchess of Windsor to have been 'better-born' than either Princess Grace of Monaco or Mrs.Jacqueline Kennedy, and he flourishes the tables of descent of the Duchess from King Edward I and the Plantagenets. It is worth mentioning that almost everyone with English ancestry is more than likely descended, however indirectly, from one medieval king or another -it is a matter of the population statistics. And kind hearts are more than coronets!

Hugo Vickers, in his latest biography of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, has produced a solid telling of their lives and of those around them. Vickers begins at the end; the Duke's death in 1972 and the Duchess's death in 1986. And he introduces a relatively little known character into the saga of the Duke and Duchess - the French lawyer, Suzanne Blum. Maitre Blum is such an interesting character in her own right that I wish some one would write a biography devoted to her alone. Caroline Blackwood's book, "The Last of the Duchess", published in the mid-1990's, tells of trying to get into see the ailing Duchess in Paris in the 1970's and 1980's and being rebuffed by Maitre Blum, who had taken over the Duchess's business and medical affairs. Many quasi-legal things were being done by Blum in her attempts to either "protect the Duchess" or "take advantage of the Duchess"; the differences are still being debated 25 years after the Duchess's death.

Vickers is actually a participant in the later lives of the Duke and Duchess. A journalist from the early 1970's, he had been employed by DeBrett's Peerage to ascertain the current facts about the lives of the Windsors in their exile life in Paris. Though he never met either the Duke or Duchess, he did visit their home on DeBrett business, meeting with their staff in Paris. He also attended the Duke's funeral and burial in 1972 and maintained friendships with many of the principals in the Windsors' lives. He inserts himself into the story in a non-intrusive, well-mannered way.

As noted earlier in the review, Vickers' book is divided into three sections. The first part is really the last part of their lives and the last two parts are the first parts of their lives. Sounds confusing, but it really isn't. For those readers who have had their fill of royal biographies, I suppose you could read the first part only to get to the "meat" of the book. But Vickers does an excellent job in the retelling of their earlier lives and the effects of the Abdication on the Windsors, their families, and the world. He is sympathetic to the couple and I think believes that Wallis Simpson did not want the King/her lover to abdicate. Whether for selfish reasons, like "oh dear Lord, I'm going to have to put up with this boring man for the rest of my life" or genuine concerns with royal and legal issues, Wallis did try to discourage David from abdicating.

But was David - Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor - looking for a way out of a job that he never seemed to want in the first place and found tiring and boring? By Vickers' account, David seemed to enjoy the non-rigorous and comfortable life as the Prince of Wales, but was not taken by "kinging". So, was the Abdication just a way to get out of his job? I suppose we'll never know the truth. The Windsors certainly lived a life of drifting - being entertained by Society hosts and hostesses - and living a life of idleness in Paris, the south of France, and New York. Certainly David didn't think he would be forced into an idle life - he had assumed he and Wallis would be allowed to live in England after the Abdication, acting as a "younger brother" to the new king, George VI.

Hugo Vickers is a very good writer. His prose is never florid. A couple of things the editor might want to correct in the US version of the book. There is no "University of Columbia"; its "Columbia University". And there is no city of "Lake Front" north of Chicago; I assume Vickers was referring to the very real city of "Lake Forest". Those are minor errors and will be fixed, I suppose.

"Behind Closed Doors" is an excellent review of the lives of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, spotlighting a little known part of their lives - the actual decline and death of the Duchess, overseen by Maitre Suzanne Blum, "behind closed doors", at their Paris house.

I very rarely purchase a book that I cannot finish reading but two-thirds of the way through this one I just could not summon the energy to get to the end. The overwhelming feeling I had was one of discomfort - almost like being a voyeur watching a voyeur. He speaks with an intimacy of knowledge of the Duke and Duchess, especially Wallis Simpson, that he has no right to claim as he never met them. By his own admission the closest he got was looking over the wall of their residence on numerous occasions and visiting the Duchess' bedroom after her death! He claims that the Duchess was deprived of her liberty (based only on the tittle-tattle of other seemingly disaffected individuals) and exploited by a sinister, evil lawyer who allegedly cavalierly handed out her belongings to all and sundry; except him - he had to bid at auction for some memorabilia of the exiled couple and maybe therein lies his problems! If Maitre Blum was exploitative why were the donations made to the museums of Paris - this sounds like an act of altruism and is not consistent with the exploitation he claims? In fact this so-called biography of the final years of the Duchess was so pre-occupied with Maitre Blum and her alleged evil-doings that it almost felt that the book was mis-titled. The book lacked fluidity and most importantly evidence. Mr Vickers came across as bitter, jealous and not a little creepy. He did do me one favour though - by pointing me in the direction of other writers with other angles on the subjects, including Michael Bloch - a better writer and far more persuasive.