Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The British Parliament had twice in its history de-throned a sitting king, those being Charles I via the English Civil War in 1649 and James II via the Glorious Revolution in 1688.
That latter event legally established the constitutional precident that the British Monarch can only hold the throne with Parliament's consent.
Had Edward VI chosen option 2 and married Wallace Simpson, would Parliament remove him from the throne and how soon would that have happened? I'm guessing that Edward VIII would have gotten the boot within a fortnight and his brother Bertie would be placed upon the throne - which what actually happened after Edward's abdication.
Would George VI been so generous to the future Duke of Windsor if Edward hadn't abdicated?
Well, it would have sparked a constitutional crisis. England has no written constitution codifying these things, just a collection of laws and traditions. The issue is that Parliament governs with the assent of the monarch. Even if Parliament passed an Act to remove the monarch and replace them with another or abolish the monarchy entirely, the sitting monarch would have to assent to the decision as their final act. If they don't assent to the decision, then the Act does not pass, is not official and we are back at square one.
If Edward VIII had refused to abdicate and married Simpson there really isn't much anyone could do to stop him. Parliaments only course would be to resign en masse to embarass the King and force him to hold a new election to reconstitute the government. Edward at the time was a popular King and even had the support of Winston Churchill. It is likely a "King's Party" would have been formed for the election and Edward would have chosen either Halifax or Churchill to be Prime Minister.
An extreme outside possibility may have been the attempt to use "Clause 61" of the Magna Carta and have 25 Barons meet to depose the King, but that would have been a real long shot. Basically, England would have been stalled in a consitutional crisis, but the end result would have been Edward simply forming a new government.
Despite some peoples belief, Parliament does not select the monarch, the succession is clearly laid out in the Act of Settlement and is automatically given to the senior male descendant of the Electress Sophia of Hannover. In fact, Edward's abdication required an Act of Parliament and similar Act's throughout the Commonwealth to allow it to happen. Parliament cannot depose the monarch without the monarchs consent and I seriously doubt the people of England would have been willing to fight a civil war over the issue.
Edit: Just wanted to add that using Charles I and II as examples are rather poor choices. Both Charles' were exceedingly unpopular Kings and even then it took military intervention to remove them. Charles I was killed following the English Civil War and though many paint the "Glorious Revolution" as bloodless, it was not. There were several battles in England, Wales and Scotland and Charles II's replacement William of Orange had landed in England at the head of an army to support his claims. As far the monarch being incapable of ruling without the consent of Parliament, that was directed that the monarch cannot unilaterally pass laws, all laws must be created in Parliament. It has nothing to do with Parliament agreeing with whom the monarch will be.
If Edward VIII had refused to abdicate and married Simpson there really isn't much anyone could do to stop him. Parliaments only course would be to resign en masse to embarass the King and force him to hold a new election to reconstitute the government.
Now that's an interesting avenue for speculation. Edward abdicated in 1936, and Neville Chamberlain--who made appeasement the centerpiece of his policy regarding Germany--became Prime Minister in 1937. Imagine a different government without Chamberlain at the helm!
Now that's an interesting avenue for speculation. Edward abdicated in 1936, and Neville Chamberlain--who made appeasement the centerpiece of his policy regarding Germany--became Prime Minister in 1937. Imagine a different government without Chamberlain at the helm!
The most likely choices for a PM under a government formed by Edward VIII would have been Lord Halifax or Churchill. Of the two Halifax was the senior candidate and the most likely choice.
If we laid out a spectrum of appeasement at all costs to taking a war stand the men would look like this:
Chamberlain----Halifax----Churchill
Chamberlain's position was that as long as Britain could keep the three major threats, Germany, Italy and Japan separate in their interests war would be unnecessary. For instance, by giving Germany what it wanted (Austria, Sudetenland, remilitarizing the Rhein; none of which were of real consequence to Britain) peace could be maintained and the other nations represented no threat without Germany. He felt that since the public was strongly opposed to war this was the best action.
Halifax took a far more pragmatic approach. He shared Chamberlain's view that appeasement was the best course of action initially but only in so much as it bought time for Britain and her Allies to re-arm. He believed and rightly so, that there would come a time when Germany would ask for something they weren't willing to give and military force would be all that could be used to stop them, or perhaps ensure peace. Basically, we can't tell Germany enough, if we don't have the muscle to actually stop them.
Churchill's position all along was that appeasement was bad policy and that Britain should do all it can to strengthen it's alliances, particularly with the French and be prepared to go to war over any German territorial demands.
Halifax and Churchill were both strong supporters of Edward VIII. Chances are the result of Edward VIII remaining in power would have meant a Halifax government and a more rapid re-arming campaign that would have put Britain on a stronger war standing much sooner. It would have also most likely involved some level of appeasement to German demands.
So, what would the outcome be? Perhpas Austria is allowed to be annexed (there was strong support in Austria for this after WW1 anyway), the Sudetenland was of no consequence and re-militarizing the Rheinland and repealing some of the provisions at Versailles, would most likely have been viewed as acceptable.
However, the line would still be drawn at Poland. In that light, the only effect may have been the Germans thinking twice about going after Poland if Britain was stronger militarily and on a war footing. Maybe Germany would have been happy simply getting Danzig back through negotiations, but how long would that have really satiated Hitler?
I think the only change may have been the start date of the war and Britains ability to wage it would have been much greater. Ultimately it was the actions of Germany and Hitler that caused the war, not the inactions or ineptitude of the Allies. However, a stronger Allied stance may have made Hitler think twice.
One thing I've wondered - if Edward had remained king until his death in 1972, who would have succeeded him? Prince Charles?
If he had no heirs (he never did have any kids), it would have passed to the oldest surviving child of his brother...Elizabeth (the current queen), then followed her line after that. So, not much would have changed in the succession, just that the reign of Elizabeth II wouldn't have started until 1972.
If he did have any children as king, they would have been next in line and Elizabeth and her children would have moved down the line.
Edward's brother Henry, Duke of Gloucester, was alive in 1972. Would he have succeeded Edward?
No, the line follows the males first and then the females, but places children of higher ranking claimants above older, but lower ranking claimants.
Edward VIII is king, his borther George VI is heir, followed by Henry. As soon as George VI had issue his children moved Henry down the line of succession.
This is the current top 10 successors to the throne:
As you can see, Prince Charles' sons supercede the claim of Prince Andrew and Prince Andrew's daughters supercede the claim of Prince Edward upon their birth and so on. If Prince Charles were to die tomorrow, Prince William would become the next direct heir to the throne. So to did Elizabeths birth supercede the claim of Henry, Duke of Gloucester.
Thanks again, NJGOAT, for another clear explanation of an arcane system.
I read in the newspaper recently that some in Britain are calling for a change in the royal inheritance rules, specifically to eliminate the preference for males over females. They want the eldest child to inherit regardless of gender. So, for example, if William & Kate had a daughter first, she would become Queen even if a boy was born to them later.
Yeah, I think this hits it on the head. Edward was more pro-German than he was pro-Nazi. Lots of people were thinking that the Germans were a good choice to be a counter to the communists. And as you correctly point out, Edward had only slightly more influence on British politics than I did, and I wasn't even born yet.
Their surname is Saxe - Coburg - Gotha, so yes, the Duke of Windsor was certainly pro - German. I even think his great-uncle Wilhelm, the former kaiser of Germany was still alive at the time of his abdication.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The British royals are German
