CORONATION BOOK

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 304, 23 November 1937, Page 8

CORONATION BOOK

ACTION AGAINST PUBLISHERS. (United Press Association —By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) Received November 23, 12.40 p.m. LONDON, Nov. 22. Sir William Jowitt, K.C., representing the Duke of Windsor in his action against Heinemann’s,publishers, in relation to the book ‘‘Coronation Commentary,” continued that in the first place, the rumour repeated in the book, was in effect that the lady who was now plaintiff’s wife occupied before the marriage the position of his mistress. No suggestion could be more damaging or more insulting to the lady who was now the Duchess of Windsor. The suggestion was entirely untrue and could not be Supported by a shred of evidence, and defendants did not justify it. “Secondly, the chapter in question deals with a suggestion that the real cause of the abdication was not marriage, but that the Ministers wanted to get rid of him for other misdeeds.” Sir William added : “Had it been necessary for us to proceed w'ith this action we were in a position to call persons occupying highly responsible posts, who could have shown there was no sort of foundation for the suggestion that the proposed marriage was used ns a mere excuse to get rid of a Monarch who had shown himself to be unsuitable in other respects. “It was said that the Duke of Windsor had at times to take recourse to other sources of courage. It was utterly untrue to say that at any time lie was giving way to drink. The book went on to deal with suggestions of why his Ministers wanted to be rid of him—things left undone—duty neglected—papers held up—papers curiously neo-Kaiserishly annotated —muddling— fuddling—meddling—the day with Kemal Ataturk —the day in Athens. Gossip or not, there was no truth whatever in these suggestions.” Mr Valentino Holmes said he was instructed by Messrs William Heinemann, Ltd., to make a sincere and humble apology to the Duke of Windsor for the publication' of those parts of the book of which he had complained. They had published the book believing it was a valuable review of an important period of contemporary history, recording the reactions of ordinary people to the great events with which they were imperfectly acquainted, and recording, too, current rumours without which the reactions could not be understood. Mr Morris, K.C., for Geoffrey Dennis, the author, said that Mr Dennis wished most wholeheartedly to apologise, and to express sincere regret for the pain he had caused the Duke. Mr Dennis wished to emphasise that his intention in writing the book was not to give currency to false and libellous rumours, but as a humble admirer to discredit them. Further details are given on page 7.