King of Fools

by John Parker

A shocking look at the king who abandoned the English throne for the woman he loved, this biography of the Duke of Windsor reveals a potentially dangerous man tied to Nazis and organized crime

Genres: History, Biography

312 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1988

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.

John Parker is a former Fleet Street editor who has written many investigative books.

Reviews

[Linda Robinson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Another book I found on the shelf in the cabin. Dad has been talking about 1936 lately and the memories of that year and had just watched a show about the Duke of Windsor. The author has no respect for his subjects (always fascinating to me in a biography), and spanks the Windsors soundly. The history is interesting, and reading another less whinging account of those years might be in my future. Wallis Warfield Simpson is vetted as a grasping, selfish Nazi collaborator who never loved the Duke, only the throne. Edward was a silly, pampered, not-too-bright man, who abdicated his throne when his country was at the precipice of war for a woman, for which his family never forgave him. It's British Royals acting, so what's unusual here? History doesn't make a situation more fascinating, but the book is just as whiny, gossipy and damned as its subjects. Who can identify the hair's breadth between pacifist and traitor? When is the desire for peace trumped by treason? There were backroom negotiations, conferences, ambitions, agendas all over Europe in the 30s; entire countries still trying to recover from world war and desperate to avoid another. There was a bumper sticker we saw on the way up north "Hang All Traitors," wrapped in a noose. It was shocking, but I'm willing to guess that the owner of that car thinks he is a patriot, just as sincerely as John Parker believes he is qualified to spot. This is a gossip magazine account. I'll find a WWII equivalent of Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August" for an historical accounting.

[Heather · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is an unauthorized report of events surrounding the abdication of King Edward VIII. It is tabloid-like fodder for this already-tragic story. In it, many rumours are laid bare, and it is one of the most scurrilous renderings of this time in Edward's, and Wallis' lives. It takes for granted that Wallis was working in a Shanghai bordello, that Edward had many homosexual encounters, and those are only what is revealed in the Prologue, and the first two chapters.
I was totally turned-off by this "National Enquirer" treatment of every character in this book.
I abandoned this book and would not recommend it to anyone.

[Lianne Morgan-Sands · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading this book, keeping in mind it was written in the 1980's by a journalist. It dealt a fair a bit with Edward in particular with his youth and relationships prior to meeting Wallis Simpson. Wallis is indeed part of this book (how could she not be?), however there is more background info on the Edward, his family, the British government and how it all came together in the eventual Abdication crisis and what followed. It was a good and informative read. It also led to seek out "Wallis In Love" by Andrew Morton, the more recent book written with more of a slant on her life and how she came to become the Duchess of Windsor and never the Queen.

[Rene · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite a devastating history of the Duke & Duchess of Windsor. No romance here.

[Margaret · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have no idea who John Parker is or what his bona fides are. Is he a qualified historian? A relative of one of the principles? Some of the "facts" he lists are generally discounted by historians, such as Wallis' time in Shanghai. Some are just wrong. The Windsors were certainly against war with Germany, but so were most people in the 30's. Edward was not really interested in being king. He wanted the glory and the trappings without the responsibility. Britain was better off without him. But I just couldn't take a lot of the book seriously. It seemed like assertion rather than well-researched fact.