Fascinating.

However (I hate to say this) it's also worth noting that doing housework, indoors or outdoors, USED to be a very efficient way to burn calories - a century ago or so.

No more.

Fast foods and labor-saving devices helped make Americans fatter. The 1950s probably marked the beginning of the unspoken message to girls: "Learn to prepare delicious, gourmet meals for family and friends, but don't eat any of it yourself!" (Ruth Bell, author of the book for teens, Changing Bodies, Changing Lives, sarcastically wrote that in her book for parents, in the early 1980s.)

So it should be no surprise that Peg Bracken's I Hate to Cook Book was a bestseller as early as 1960.

(I also heard - I don't know if this is true - that it was the Duchess of Windsor, in the 1930s, who was the first to link skinniness with being rich.)

Yeah, Lenona[.], it was indeed Wallis Simpson who so famously declared, "You can never be too rich or too thin." (The precise first iteration of the formulation may have employed "One" instead of "You"; haven't time to confirm which it was just now.)

While she clearly loved him, the Baltimore-native Simpson also manipulated Edward VIII for her own social-climbing ambitions pretty much until the abdicated monarch's 1972 death.

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida

Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Fascinating.

>However (I hate to say this) it's also worth noting that doing
>housework, indoors or outdoors, USED to be a very efficient way to burn
>calories - a century ago or so.

>No more.

>Fast foods and labor-saving devices helped make Americans fatter.

Manufactured food may not be good for us but at least there can be
consistent quality control for food-borne illness if the factory pays
attention. Too many cooks never learned or don't follow food safety
rules.

Labor-saving devices helped certain Americans live longer because a
whole lot of work used to be incredibly dangerous.

>The 1950s probably marked the beginning of the unspoken message to girls:
>"Learn to prepare delicious, gourmet meals for family and friends, but
>don't eat any of it yourself!" (Ruth Bell, author of the book for teens,
>Changing Bodies, Changing Lives, sarcastically wrote that in her book
>for parents, in the early 1980s.)

>So it should be no surprise that Peg Bracken's I Hate to Cook Book was a
>bestseller as early as 1960.

>(I also heard - I don't know if this is true - that it was the Duchess
>of Windsor, in the 1930s, who was the first to link skinniness with
>being rich.)

I doubt that. The flapper of the 1920s was skinny, and she was often some
rich dude's daughter. In the 1930s, glamourous women tended to be much
much curvier and actually looked like they could bear children, if I go
by the movies. Hint to women: This is what triggers the biological urge
in men, the hourglass figure.

I'd also point out that fitness from sports competition (not talking
about extremes like female bodybuilding) and skinny are two rather
different figures in women.

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 1:16:24 PM UTC-4, radioactive wrote:
> While she clearly loved him, the Baltimore-native Simpson also manipulated Edward VIII for her own social-climbing ambitions pretty much until the abdicated monarch's 1972 death.

From what I heard, NEITHER of them - in the long run - was happy about Edward's not being reinstated.

I wonder why they didn't have children. Then again, neither seemed like the nurturing type, so maybe it was deliberate.

In article <b9b9958f-e1b8-4a12-8dd4-1c1ab1948486n@googlegroups.com>,
Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 1:16:24?PM UTC-4, radioactive wrote:
>
> > While she clearly loved him, the Baltimore-native Simpson also manipulated
> > Edward VIII for her own social-climbing ambitions pretty much until the
> > abdicated monarch's 1972 death.
>
> From what I heard, NEITHER of them - in the long run - was happy about
> Edward's not being reinstated.

There was that bit, years ago, where the two of them were said to be
entertaining the idea of being reinstalled by the Nazis if Britain were
occupied.

Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 1:16:24 PM UTC-4, radioactive wrote:

>>While she clearly loved him, the Baltimore-native Simpson also manipulated Edward VIII for her own social-climbing ambitions pretty much until the abdicated monarch's 1972 death.

>From what I heard, NEITHER of them - in the long run - was happy about
>Edward's not being reinstated.

Too damn bad. UK may be a constitutional monarchy but members of the
royal family close in line of succession -- the crown prince in
particular -- must obey the king, especially in matters of marriage. The
king cannot order anyone who isn't a close relation whom to marry, just
his own family.

She was divorced, maybe. I'm not sure if it was absolutely proven that
the divorce was legal. In any event, she couldn't marry him if he were
to become king. This was an issue going back centuries. There were no
circumstances in which she was going to become queen by marriage to the
crown prince.

She knew this. She didn't get to complain about it later. She was
completely deluded that she'd ever become queen.

>I wonder why they didn't have children. Then again, neither seemed like
>the nurturing type, so maybe it was deliberate.

Ok. In any event, they forced him to sign a piece of paper that took any
of his offspring out of the line of succession.

A Friend wrote:
>Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 1:16:24?PM UTC-4, radioactive wrote:

>>>While she clearly loved him, the Baltimore-native Simpson also manipulated
>>>Edward VIII for her own social-climbing ambitions pretty much until the
>>>abdicated monarch's 1972 death.

>>From what I heard, NEITHER of them - in the long run - was happy about
>>Edward's not being reinstated.

>There was that bit, years ago, where the two of them were said to be
>entertaining the idea of being reinstalled by the Nazis if Britain were
>occupied.

She was supposed to be a Nazi sympathizer or to have ties to the German
state. Was he a known Nazi sympathizer? I've never read that.

In article <udd7hf$33911$6@dont-email.me>, Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> A Friend wrote:
> >Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 1:16:24?PM UTC-4, radioactive wrote:
>
> >>>While she clearly loved him, the Baltimore-native Simpson also manipulated
> >>>Edward VIII for her own social-climbing ambitions pretty much until the
> >>>abdicated monarch's 1972 death.
>
> >>From what I heard, NEITHER of them - in the long run - was happy about
> >>Edward's not being reinstated.
>
> >There was that bit, years ago, where the two of them were said to be
> >entertaining the idea of being reinstalled by the Nazis if Britain were
> >occupied.
>
> She was supposed to be a Nazi sympathizer or to have ties to the German
> state. Was he a known Nazi sympathizer? I've never read that.

I haven't read that he was a sympathizer, but he was friendly to Nazis
and, in particular, their tacit promise to reinstall him as king when
they took over the UK.

A Friend wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>A Friend wrote:
>>>Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 1:16:24?PM UTC-4, radioactive wrote:

>>>>>While she clearly loved him, the Baltimore-native Simpson also manipulated
>>>>>Edward VIII for her own social-climbing ambitions pretty much until the
>>>>>abdicated monarch's 1972 death.

>>>>From what I heard, NEITHER of them - in the long run - was happy about
>>>>Edward's not being reinstated.

>>>There was that bit, years ago, where the two of them were said to be
>>>entertaining the idea of being reinstalled by the Nazis if Britain were
>>>occupied.

>>She was supposed to be a Nazi sympathizer or to have ties to the German
>>state. Was he a known Nazi sympathizer? I've never read that.

>I haven't read that he was a sympathizer, but he was friendly to Nazis
>and, in particular, their tacit promise to reinstall him as king when
>they took over the UK.

Perhaps abdicating was the best thing that could have happened for the
UK.

> From what I heard, NEITHER of them - in the long run - was happy about Edward's not being reinstated.
>
> I wonder why they didn't have children. Then again, neither seemed like the nurturing type, so maybe it was deliberate.

I did a quick search and this was the first result:

"Wallis had no children with any of her husbands. Many historians believe that a case of mumps in Edward's youth rendered the Duke of Windsor infertile, and this was the reason they never conceived."

(But various medical sites say that it's pretty rare for patients with mumps to become sterile, per se - though they MAY still have trouble reproducing successfully.)

At any rate, she was already about 35 when they met and 40 when they married, so that would also make pregnancy unlikely - and undesirable. (Pregnancy after 40, back then, could have been very dangerous.)

Also, here's what historian Richard Shenkman wrote in one of his books (his other books are more sophisticated):

"...he wasn't exactly the right king for the times. He liked Germany under Hitler a bit more than was desirable in an English king. Of course, England wasn't yet at war with Germany, so his behavior wasn't treasonous. But when he publicly approved of Hitler's decision to remilitarize the Rhineland he got a few good hard looks.

"...He also expressed a bit more admiration for Mussolini than was wise for a man in his position.

"...At one point, (Foreign Secretary Anthony) Eden confessed to friends that Edward would have to abdicate if he didn't quit interfering in foreign policy. Things had gotten that bad! And then, along came the Simpson crisis.

"Some have wondered why the cabinet didn't spring to Edward's defense when the scandal broke. Me, I don't wonder.

"...Among his favorite activities was giving inane interviews. Worth mentioning is the one he gave to Fulton Oursler in 1940, at the height of the Battle of Britain...(Edward said) that Hitler was a great man, that Germans should be delighted to have such a leader, and that Britain would be dumb to fight Hitler as Hitler was unbeatable.

"...As Edward explained it: (1) Roosevelt would call for peace. (2) Edward would promptly issue an announcement saying he, too, favored peace. And (3) there would be a revolution in England and peace would break out.

"Left unsaid was whether Edward expected to be reinstalled as king. I think, though, that was kind of the general idea.

"...(Later in life, he said his relatives) treated him rotten after he abdicated. Their story is that he deserved to be treated rotten.

"With relatives, of course, there are always bound to be problems. But I think it was a mistake for Edward to lie about his finances during the abdication crisis so he'd get more money."

More on that:

https://www.deseret.com/1991/11/28/18954044/interview-from-40-says-duke-sought-fdr-s-help-to-aid-hitler

https://www.americanheritage.com/secret-treason
(this, by Fulton Oursler Jr., is MUCH longer and very informative)

In the previous article, A Friend <A Friend> wrote:
> There was that bit, years ago, where the two of them were said to be
> entertaining the idea of being reinstalled by the Nazis if Britain
> were occupied.

There is a contingent of historians -- not cranks, real, credentialed
historians -- who believe that E8 did think that Hitler would
reinstall him on the throne if he successfully invaded the British
isles. It's not in serious question that he did a lot of things to do
the opposite of dispelling the notion.q
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / baldwin@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------