Basically what it says in the title. Would the marriage really cause the British and dominion governments to resign? What would be the public response? If general elections are held, what would be the potential results? What would WWII Britain look like with Edward VIII as King? What about the rest of his reign? Please discuss!
WI: Edward VIII marries Wallis and keeps the throne?
- Thread starter Emperor Constantine
- Start date
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
The King marries Wallis without the support of Parliament, his Prime Minister, the Liberal and Labour Party, Trade Unions, the Dominions, the Upper and Middle Class, and a large portion of the Church of England, all of whom drew the line in the sand.
Yes, the Government would resign, both that of Baldwin and the Dominions. Attlee and Sinclair would refuse to form a Government, and a snap election will have to be called. The Public will be divided along class lines, the Working Class in support, whilst those in the Upper and Middle would oppose the King's choice. The General Election is unlikely to go well for the Conservatives, and will likely swing to Labour, although it's possible they would simply refuse to form a Government, and the King asks a minor pro-Marriage Party to form the next Government. In the Dominions, you see a similar effect, with the result being constitutional and social chaos across the board. Whilst certainly not catastrophic, you will still see a level of chaos.
Yes, the Government would resign, both that of Baldwin and the Dominions. Attlee and Sinclair would refuse to form a Government, and a snap election will have to be called. The Public will be divided along class lines, the Working Class in support, whilst those in the Upper and Middle would oppose the King's choice. The General Election is unlikely to go well for the Conservatives, and will likely swing to Labour, although it's possible they would simply refuse to form a Government, and the King asks a minor pro-Marriage Party to form the next Government. In the Dominions, you see a similar effect, with the result being constitutional and social chaos across the board. Whilst certainly not catastrophic, you will still see a level of chaos.
Probably.
Although, there is perhaps a non-zero number of instances in the multiverse where Lloyd George, Churchill and Mosley form the "King's Party" (as speculated at the time) and do well enough in the election to be able to form a government.
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
The last bit about a King's Party is the only conclusion I could reach if you have Attlee and Sinclair refuse a Government, and would almost certainly fail due to it lacking even a workable minority.
But if push came to shove how many would ministers would follow through with the threat? I mean it seems to me that the public would swing against the (former) government for creating a constitutional crisis over something that shouldn't be a major deal. As for the Church, personally I think its hypocritical of them to condemn the King for marrying a divorcee when the Anglican Church only came about because a previous King wanted a divorce.
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
If the Government blinked first, I imagine along with Baldwin, the more principled members who spoke against it would follow suite; some would remain and balk at actually leaving, but I imagine the numbers would be significant.
On the issue regarding the Church, the issue was that the Church would not allow divorcees to remarry whilst their former spouse was alive, and as Edward was the head of the Church, marrying a two-time Divorcee conflicted with his duty. The bigger issue, however, was that the Church did not recognize the first divorce, thus Wallis was a bigamist, which again was not a good thing for the Head of the Church to engage in. You are right about hypocrisy in some regards, as the matter split the Church. It is worth noting that bar Catherine of Argon, all of Henry's wives were dead by the time of his next marriage.
So really it would be less of a full blown constitutional crisis and more of a change in government. I mean technically the King wasn't intervening in politics so he's not violating his neutrality or favoring one party over another.
As for the Church, can see how its a bit of a problem. Wallis's first husband, Earl Winfield Spencer, Jr., was supposedly very abusive and an alcoholic. I think an argument could be made about the first marriage. Its the second marriage that's the real issue. That one I'm not sure about, other than maybe finding a way for the Church to declare it invalid.
Regardless of whether it should be a major deal, the players in question all convinced each other that they all felt it was one.
One might suggest that the intervening four centuries provide a certain amount of distance between the two cases so that direct comparisons are... not that applicable.
Henry VIII wanted a symbolic statement of independence from Spain and Spain's pet pope - Catherine of Aragon was just poker chip in a game of thrones that makes GRR Martin look like a piker. It's not like his marriage was much obstacle to his rogering his way through the Boleyns, after all.
Edward VIII wasn't ruling from the throne and making a political statement about international relations with his fiancée; rather, his actions serve more to contrast the vast difference between the scope of his authority and that of a Tudor monarch. It's almost like the two revolutions that transpired in the interim had vastly altered the country's relationship with the monarchy, what with a regicide and a usurpation and all that.
Last edited:
Exactly how much hardball was Parliament willing to play?
AFAIK, the elected government controls ALL the money. If not, they very much DO have the power to tax whatever they so choose, like the Royal estates at a rate of 99.998% of appraised value.
Might get a bit nippy if the Government won't pay the electrical and heating bills. Get a bit lonely when the Queen has to make their breakfast, after going shopping, since the household staff has been laid off and the military & civilian guard force has been withdrawn.
Be an interesting study in the power of the purse.
Could Edward type? Might be able to get a job in the City.
AFAIK, the elected government controls ALL the money. If not, they very much DO have the power to tax whatever they so choose, like the Royal estates at a rate of 99.998% of appraised value.
Might get a bit nippy if the Government won't pay the electrical and heating bills. Get a bit lonely when the Queen has to make their breakfast, after going shopping, since the household staff has been laid off and the military & civilian guard force has been withdrawn.
Be an interesting study in the power of the purse.
Could Edward type? Might be able to get a job in the City.
RodentRevolution
Banned
The Government controls the Civil List money, I am not sure how independently wealth the Windsors were at this time and how much income that amounted to. The problem arises though that if the Civil List money is stopped the revenues of what is now known as the Crown Estate* reverts to the Monarch. That is the point it gets tricky for the public purse.
*not sure if it had that exact title at the time
The issue of her prior husbands could have been easily remedied: Edward has the prior husbands of Wallis assassinated then formalizes his union with her. With execution of the exes, the problem's solved.
The only other problem is that Edward and the Duchess are reprehensible people, which is really not all that muc of a problem.
The only other problem is that Edward and the Duchess are reprehensible people, which is really not all that muc of a problem.
I was wondering how Edward VIII's Nazi sympathies would affect an alternate WWII in this scenario. Would he try to push Britain toward neutrality (or outright Axis support) if Hitler doesn't invade?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...te-on-visit-to-Germany-emerge-at-auction.html
This Telegraph article gives a few details on Edward's relationship with the Nazis.
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
No. This will be the first and only time I will want to say this here, but the Monarch cannot have people assassinated.
It also goes against Edwards character.
Quite so. When a monarch has people done away with, the term is executed, but tradition has it that it only refers to ex-wives.
So only the PM can authorize a termination with extreme prejudice?
That Sucks.
What good is it to be King if you can't occasionally yell "Off with their head!"?
By all accounts from the time, the public - especially in the dominions - would have been appalled. Edward was being told he could get away with having her as a mistress but marriage, that was a very different story. The public expected him to put duty first.
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
Not quite. To my knowledge on the subject of forcing abdication, Parliament has the power to remove the Monarch, however it has to be at the Monarch's volition, as was the case with Edward, who voluntarily stepped down when faced with the ultimatum IoTL. There is no legal method of removing the Monarch (Charles I notwithstanding), so Edward would have to either be declared unfit, or leave of his own choice, unless Parliament were to grant themselves the ability to do so, but this would require Edward to sign off on it.
So only the PM can authorize a termination with extreme prejudice?
That Sucks.
What good is it to be King if you can't occasionally yell "Off with their head!"?
They were stripped of that right the moment Parliament found it could apply to the Monarch.
Fun fact: The Room the Queen has to wait in before She opens Parliament contains the Execution Warrant of Charles I as the only piece of decoration.
Well, the job comes with quite nice company cars. And at the time, a quite large boat or two. And some quite nice places to stay, with pretty swanky décor. And, if you are of religious bent, quite a few people fairly regularly raise their voices in song to ask the Supreme Being to intervene on your behalf, which is nice.What good is it to be King if you can't occasionally yell "Off with their head!"?
Although it has to be said the retirement package is pretty poor.