The AFU and Urban Legend Archive Celebrities wallis simpson gender Select a topic - - - - - - - - Home Searches AFU FAQ - - - - - - - - AFU Animals Books Celebrities Classic Collegiate Death Disney Drugs Food GIF Language Legal Medical Misc Movies Politics Products Religion Science Sex Songs TV - - - - - - - - Other sites

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
From: mike_holmans@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Mike Holmans")
Subject: Edward and Mrs Simpson
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 04:10:44 GMT

In UKoGBaNI on 22 May 1996, and in some editions of 21 May 1996, The Guardian published a book review. Its intention is critical - the mo**oes are followed by proper examination. Most of it follows:

[Begin quote]

*Mrs Simpson and the facts of life*

_The Duchess of Windsor_, by Michael Bloch, Weidenfeld & Nicolson 1996, GBP18.99 (no ISBN quoted)

Like "World War 2 Bomber Found on Moon" [1], the headline "Was Wallis Simpson a Man?" is almost certain to catch the reader's eye. This is how Michael Bloch's new biography of the Duchess of Windsor was publicised, and the accompanying newspaper extract made a desultory case that Wallis Simpson was born genetically male. This meant that she had the male chromosome, but had failed to respond to the release of testosterone, so had not developed male sexual organs.

Sufferers from this condition, which Bloch tells us is called Androgen insenstivity syndrome (AIS), cannot generally have sexual intercourse, and are certainly incapable of bearing children. The evidence for this seemed chiefly to be based on a remark which a late doctor, John Randell, made to Bloch, when he started his research into the Windsors. (This is Bloch's 6th book about them) Randell had never examined the duchess, but he knew a man who had, and assured Bloch "there's no doubt about it".

Curiously, although it was 2 years before Randell died, Bloch never asked him about the subject again, but believes that it would explain "something of which I have long been convinced: that while Edward gave up a throne to marry her, he never in fact enjoyed full marital relations with [the duchess] and she was probably incapable of them." In other words, something Bloch doesn't know to be true may explain something else he doesn't know to be true.

One might have expected the book itself to go into more detail, and make an attempt to substantiate the claim, but in fact, Bloch is more reticent between hard covers.

Althoug he refers to a possible element of "gender confusion" about the baby Wallis, he merely suggests that she was incapable of sexual intercourse, but "as to whether this might have been due to some physiological defect on her part, or to some traumatic past incident in her life which had induced the condition known as vaginismus, or to some other cause, one can but speculate." No AIS, no Dr Randell (although he appears in the epilogue) and less of a headline.

[...]

David Horspool
[End quote]

Well, at least this is a different celebrity to spread odd gender rumours about, and unlike JLC, she's dead, so the subject can't be personally hurt.

What I find interesting about this story (as well as Mr Horspool's excellent AFU-style attitude), is that I had heard, several years ago, that the ducal couple did not have sexual intercourse because Edward's erection was about 6-7cm (2.5-3 in), and he was thus unable to achieve penetration. I have no idea where I read that; the thought crosses my mind that if this is Bloch's 6th tome on the subject, it might have been in a review of an earlier one.

Mike "but about Marje Simpson there can be no doubt" Holmans