Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: After 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 10th, 2012, 08:34 PM
Parterre Parterre is offline
This is my new home, I guess.
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 329
The Duke and Duchess of Windsor have children

The former Edward VIII died in exile in 1972 estranged, disliked, and childless. But what if he hadn't- at least the not the latter? We do not know whether one or both of them had any "problems" preventing the couple from having children, and in any case Wallis was in her forties by the time she married the Duke, but let's handwave this away and assume that the Duke and Duchess have two children:

Lord Albert William Ernest Arthur Windsor (b. 1939)

Lady Alice Victoria Louise Alexandra Windsor (b. 1941)

Now, the letters patent for the Dukedom of Windsor specifically deny Wallis and any issue royal titles, so when William succeeds to the title in 1972 he shall simply be "His Grace the Duke of Windsor."

So the questions arise. What kind of upbringing shall these children receive? Shall they be educated at the traditional schools- Eton and the like, or shall their education follow their parents' continental lifestyle; Le Rosey does not look too unreasonable in such a scenario. In that vein, Oxbridge or elsewhere? It depends, I think, if children can change the popular view of the Windsors. The Royal Family was more than willing to let them drink and tan themselves to death in Mediterranean obscurity, an obscurity inherently compromised by the continuation of their line.

And what becomes of the Windsor line? The Duke and Duchess were not supported by the Civil List but rather George VI's personal allowance and some cash grants from time to time. In that case, there would be little to pass to the children besides the de facto title to the Villa Windsor in Paris, unless they were willing to pawn off their parents' possessions, which might rake in some 45 million, at most. In other terms, they (or at least Lord Albert) would have to work. But in what? Might we see the Duke of Windsor sit in the Lords?

Of course, one must wonder what kind of people these Windsor children would be. This is inherently difficult to predict, but might they be the fairly vapid sort that the Duke and Duchess were or might they be more "serious" people? Who would they marry? Would the Royal Family warm to them or shall they remain perpetual Continental outcasts?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old November 10th, 2012, 08:53 PM
Flubber Flubber is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parterre View Post
Of course, one must wonder what kind of people these Windsor children would be.

Given their parents, their parents' lifestyle, and the institutional cold shoulder offered by the British establishment, I'd say the odds are very much in favor of these children being the same sort of vapid assclowns their parents were.

Children are not going to rehabilitate Edward's reputation. If anything, the "threat" posed by the existence of these children make Edward's various peccadillos all the more known. His going AWOL in France in 1940, his involvement in a murder while governor of the Bahamas, his postwar illegal currency trading, and all the rest will be dragged out into the open.

Any children will just add to the number of minor Euro-trash nobility whose lives the picture rags so lovingly and snarkily detail.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old November 10th, 2012, 11:12 PM
Parterre Parterre is offline
This is my new home, I guess.
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 329
Well that's harsh. What kind of threat do they pose, exactly?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old November 10th, 2012, 11:20 PM
Danth Danth is offline
Royalist Resistance Leader
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parterre View Post
Well that's harsh. What kind of threat do they pose, exactly?
Their pretenders to the commonwealth realm and are so a threat as they could use any f up from the monarchy to say: yeah look how bad things are you should have kept us...
__________________
Shadow of the Karakan - The Story of Britain after the Fall of the Earth
Chapter 5: The Dawn Never Came

My Blog: The View of the World Around Me
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old November 10th, 2012, 11:27 PM
Parterre Parterre is offline
This is my new home, I guess.
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 329
Pretenders? Edward VIII, in abdicating, had renounced any kind of claim for himself and his descendants to the throne. The only way they would appear on the line of succession would be if someone married someone along the line and therefore their children would be somewhere on it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old November 10th, 2012, 11:30 PM
Danth Danth is offline
Royalist Resistance Leader
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parterre View Post
Pretenders? Edward VIII, in abdicating, had renounced any kind of claim for himself and his descendants to the throne. The only way they would appear on the line of succession would be if someone married someone along the line and therefore their children would be somewhere on it.
Just because he has abdicated dosn't mean he/descendants are not legitimate contenders to the throne

And that is a threat
__________________
Shadow of the Karakan - The Story of Britain after the Fall of the Earth
Chapter 5: The Dawn Never Came

My Blog: The View of the World Around Me
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old November 10th, 2012, 11:34 PM
Flubber Flubber is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parterre View Post
What kind of threat do they pose, exactly?
It's a perceived threat and not necessarily one perceived by the current Royals but instead perceived by those hoping to curry their favor and the favor of the government. It's an old old game that humans play.

Look at the various press barons in UK historically and currently. There are men like Max Aitken or the Harmsworth brothers who actually managed to wrangle titles like Lord Beaverbrook or Viscount Northcliffe in reward for their "services". Then there are people like Rupert Murdoch who also curry favor with the powerful but don't manage to get a title. Finally there are plenty of others whose names we don't normally hear about but who are almost as powerful.

All of these media people, and plenty of others in other industries, curry favor with the establishment and the powerful in hopes of becoming the establishment and powerful themselves. They're going to do "favors" for the people they're sucking up to, favors that haven't even been asked of them, favors that they only think the powerful will want. That's why the Windsors will be in for more exposes concerning their private lives and histories.

A childless Duke and Duchess of Windsor working on their tans, visiting sycophants, hobnobbing with parvenus, and living off pity payments from George VI are nothing at all. They're worth an occasional Sunday supplement of the "Oh the sad little buggers..." variety.

A Duke and Duchess of Windsor with heirs in another kettle of fish entirely. Suddenly they're going to get more sympathy, they're going to get more attention, and the press barons are going to slap them good and hard down because of the perception that it will put them in good with the establishment.

Once the Duke and Duchess stick their heads up past a certain point, the hammer is coming down. It's like Whack-A-Mole.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old November 11th, 2012, 12:08 PM
Welshroyalhistory Welshroyalhistory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danth View Post
Just because he has abdicated dosn't mean he/descendants are not legitimate contenders to the throne

And that is a threat
Aww bless. That's kind of exactly what effect abdication has.

There is no such thing as a legitimate contender, that is why in a Western European style constitutional monarchy you have a line of succession, it provides certainty and is assured by Parliament.

Does anyone seriously think that a child of Edward and Wallis Simpson is going to be a "threat" to Elizabeth II? She was virtually worshipped as untouchable in the 1950s and 1960s, the public became less deferential but her popularity has never been affected.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old November 11th, 2012, 12:10 PM
Welshroyalhistory Welshroyalhistory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flubber View Post
It's a perceived threat and not necessarily one perceived by the current Royals but instead perceived by those hoping to curry their favor and the favor of the government. It's an old old game that humans play.

Look at the various press barons in UK historically and currently. There are men like Max Aitken or the Harmsworth brothers who actually managed to wrangle titles like Lord Beaverbrook or Viscount Northcliffe in reward for their "services". Then there are people like Rupert Murdoch who also curry favor with the powerful but don't manage to get a title. Finally there are plenty of others whose names we don't normally hear about but who are almost as powerful.

All of these media people, and plenty of others in other industries, curry favor with the establishment and the powerful in hopes of becoming the establishment and powerful themselves. They're going to do "favors" for the people they're sucking up to, favors that haven't even been asked of them, favors that they only think the powerful will want. That's why the Windsors will be in for more exposes concerning their private lives and histories.

A childless Duke and Duchess of Windsor working on their tans, visiting sycophants, hobnobbing with parvenus, and living off pity payments from George VI are nothing at all. They're worth an occasional Sunday supplement of the "Oh the sad little buggers..." variety.

A Duke and Duchess of Windsor with heirs in another kettle of fish entirely. Suddenly they're going to get more sympathy, they're going to get more attention, and the press barons are going to slap them good and hard down because of the perception that it will put them in good with the establishment.

Once the Duke and Duchess stick their heads up past a certain point, the hammer is coming down. It's like Whack-A-Mole.
I think there was a fairly strong belief that the Duke and Duchess would never be able to breed.

Had this not been the case, things might have been handled very differently in 1936.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old November 11th, 2012, 05:29 PM
David S Poepoe David S Poepoe is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: El Segundo, California
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parterre View Post
The former Edward VIII died in exile in 1972 estranged, disliked, and childless. But what if he hadn't- at least the not the latter? We do not know whether one or both of them had any "problems" preventing the couple from having children, and in any case Wallis was in her forties by the time she married the Duke, but let's handwave this away and assume that the Duke and Duchess have two children:

Lord Albert William Ernest Arthur Windsor (b. 1939)

Lady Alice Victoria Louise Alexandra Windsor (b. 1941)

Now, the letters patent for the Dukedom of Windsor specifically deny Wallis and any issue royal titles, so when William succeeds to the title in 1972 he shall simply be "His Grace the Duke of Windsor."
I would consider that the title of Duke of Windsor dies with Edward and there is no title to succeed to in 1972. Any heir would simply be Mr. Albert Windsor.
__________________
Coincidence? We invite you, the reader with no inclination to do his own research, to decide.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old November 11th, 2012, 05:39 PM
zippy zippy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 350
As was suggested above there's every chance any children the Duke of Windsor had would because ' just another face in the mass of euro-trash minor royals and faded aristocracy ...

As Edward VIII himself had been educated at home and then Osborne and Dartmouth Naval Colleges ,it;s not as if he is linked to any particular British school to influence where he may send his children; compare Prince Charles and his dislike of Gordonstoun and the Spencer family links with Eton meaning William and Harry ended up attending Eton ,

If ITL Duke of Windsor was as far right sympathetic as he is generally portrayed I doubt his children would necessarily attend Gordonstoun, given Kurt Hahn's background, which is the school that the Duke of Edinburgh had attended and to which Charles, Andrew and Edward would attend in due course.

I doubt any of the big name schools in the UK would have turned the children of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor away and the suggested ages / DoBs given in this time line would limit the 'risk' of a conflict with the schooling of George VI 's grandchildren (as Prince Charles was born in 1948 as the eldest of Elizabath and Philip's children, Princess Anne 1950, Prince Andrew 1960 and Prince Edward in 1964. David , Viscount Linley , Princes Margaret's eldest child was born in 1961 and Sarah her youngest was born in 1964.

That said with the dates of birth for the Duke of Windsors' Children ITL it's quite possible that a Grandchild could be a contemporary of Prince Edward and Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones, being born to a mid twenties Albert or Alice and their (probagly still relatively new) spouse as in in 1963, as Albert would be 24 and Alice 22 ...

Last edited by zippy; November 11th, 2012 at 05:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old November 11th, 2012, 06:30 PM
Parterre Parterre is offline
This is my new home, I guess.
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by David S Poepoe View Post
I would consider that the title of Duke of Windsor dies with Edward and there is no title to succeed to in 1972. Any heir would simply be Mr. Albert Windsor.
Is this a recommendation or your reading of the grant? If it's the former, it's rather harsh. If it's the latter, then I'm pretty sure the letters patent deprived his heirs of the title of HRH, not the dukedom per se.Even if they were to be granted no title, his children, as those of a duke, would at least be entitled to refer to themselves as Lord and Lady. So there's no reason to assume that "Lord Albert" shall not succeed to the title of Duke of Windsor come 1972. This raises the interesting possibility of a Duke of Windsor sitting in the Lords, at least until 1997.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old November 11th, 2012, 06:56 PM
Welshroyalhistory Welshroyalhistory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parterre View Post
Is this a recommendation or your reading of the grant? If it's the former, it's rather harsh. If it's the latter, then I'm pretty sure the letters patent deprived his heirs of the title of HRH, not the dukedom per se.Even if they were to be granted no title, his children, as those of a duke, would at least be entitled to refer to themselves as Lord and Lady. So there's no reason to assume that "Lord Albert" shall not succeed to the title of Duke of Windsor come 1972. This raises the interesting possibility of a Duke of Windsor sitting in the Lords, at least until 1997.
Your right, the Letters Patent deprived Wallis and any future children of the HRH title not the Dukedom, so theoretically a son could have inherited the Dukedom.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old November 11th, 2012, 07:01 PM
Danth Danth is offline
Royalist Resistance Leader
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welshroyalhistory View Post
Aww bless. That's kind of exactly what effect abdication has.

There is no such thing as a legitimate contender, that is why in a Western European style constitutional monarchy you have a line of succession, it provides certainty and is assured by Parliament.

Does anyone seriously think that a child of Edward and Wallis Simpson is going to be a "threat" to Elizabeth II? She was virtually worshipped as untouchable in the 1950s and 1960s, the public became less deferential but her popularity has never been affected.
No need to bless me as if I am a moron I know what abdicate means. However his children could still say (as could he) that the abdication was forced -which it was- and their for void.
This creates a contender and a scandal and as such a threat

No one has said that they could retake the throne merely that they would be a threat the same way other pretenders are even if they do not support their own claims
__________________
Shadow of the Karakan - The Story of Britain after the Fall of the Earth
Chapter 5: The Dawn Never Came

My Blog: The View of the World Around Me
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old November 11th, 2012, 07:04 PM
Welshroyalhistory Welshroyalhistory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welshroyalhistory View Post
Your right, the Letters Patent deprived Wallis and any future children of the HRH title not the Dukedom, so theoretically a son could have inherited the Dukedom.
I wanted to add, that I say theoretically as clearly we saw with the deliberate prevention of Wallis having the title HRH, steps could have been taken to change basic long standing principles - that a woman takes her husband's style and rank on marriage - when there was the political will to do so.

Theoretically after the shock birth of Lord Arthur in 1939, steps could have been taken to legally prevent him inheriting his father's title. In light of the Duke's dalliance with Hitler and the imminent outbreak of war, it could have been achieved relatively quietly without any strong public reaction.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old November 11th, 2012, 07:11 PM
Welshroyalhistory Welshroyalhistory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danth View Post
No need to bless me as if I am a moron I know what abdicate means. However his children could still say (as could he) that the abdication was forced -which it was- and their for void.
This creates a contender and a scandal and as such a threat

No one has said that they could retake the throne merely that they would be a threat the same way other pretenders are even if they do not support their own claims
What evidence is there that the abdication was forced? Edward signed the document and he made an address to Empire making it quite clear that he wanted to abdicate in order to marry Wallis Simpson. I suppose one could argue there was an element of force in the sense that the Empire refused to recognize Wallis as Queen/Empress and Edward was not prepared to compromise but Edward retained the option of keeping her as his mistress. It was he who tried to force the issue by requiring that they recognize her as his wife, Queen, Empress etc.

I don't perceive the children of Edward and Wallis as a threat to the line of George VI. I think they would be in a situation not dissimilar to the York Princesses today, they are rather unfairly tarred with their mother's scandals.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old November 11th, 2012, 07:16 PM
Danth Danth is offline
Royalist Resistance Leader
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welshroyalhistory View Post
What evidence is there that the abdication was forced? Edward signed the document and he made an address to Empire making it quite clear that he wanted to abdicate in order to marry Wallis Simpson. I suppose one could argue there was an element of force in the sense that the Empire refused to recognize Wallis as Queen/Empress and Edward was not prepared to compromise but Edward retained the option of keeping her as his mistress. It was he who tried to force the issue by requiring that they recognize her as his wife, Queen, Empress etc.
indeed their was no actual force as such.
But their was that threat, both the Angliacian church and the PM had expressed their dislike about the situation and the King was loosing favour with those around him, while his brother grew in strength especially as the King was being seen as a nazi sypathiser and as such had started to become embroiled in politics which the monarchy shouldn't do

I don't perceive the children of Edward and Wallis as a threat to the line of George VI. I think they would be in a situation not dissimilar to the York Princesses today, they are rather unfairly tarred with their mother's scandals.
Except that these children are the offspring of a King and should be the future monarch had their father not been forced to abdicate
Answers in bold
__________________
Shadow of the Karakan - The Story of Britain after the Fall of the Earth
Chapter 5: The Dawn Never Came

My Blog: The View of the World Around Me
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old November 11th, 2012, 07:24 PM
zippy zippy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danth View Post
No need to bless me as if I am a moron I know what abdicate means. However his children could still say (as could he) that the abdication was forced -which it was- and their for void.
This creates a contender and a scandal and as such a threat

No one has said that they could retake the throne merely that they would be a threat the same way other pretenders are even if they do not support their own claims
assuming an otherwise OTL progression ( i.e. Nazi Germany is defeated ) who is going to support Lord Albert Windsor's pretendership ?

I don't really see any of the other royal houses of Europe supporting him ( the Danes and Greeks definitely wouldn't given Philip marrying Elizabeth), and the way in which George VI supported the other royal families of Europe during WW2

The interests or the fascists in the Duke of Windsor were far more about what they may gain from splitting the commonwealth / empire with a 'free empire' run from Bermuda/ Canada by George VI and a Puppet/ 'Vichy' Empire run from London by Edward VIII -

but as the generally held position is that requires the-aquatic-mammal-that-shall-not-be-mentioned to succeed - and that success is ASB it's irrelevant.

I'm not sure that the York girls are especially tarnished by the shenanigans of their mother, and while some may want to bring in Charles and camilla i'm not sure that this is relevant a great deal given the likelihood of issue from Charles and Camilla's marriage is even less than from Edward and Wallis , and even if there were issue from Charles and Camilla they would come after William and Harry ( and any baby Cambridge if and when he/ she / they arrive and any offspring of Harry should he marry and have children)
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old November 11th, 2012, 07:26 PM
Parterre Parterre is offline
This is my new home, I guess.
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welshroyalhistory View Post
I wanted to add, that I say theoretically as clearly we saw with the deliberate prevention of Wallis having the title HRH, steps could have been taken to change basic long standing principles - that a woman takes her husband's style and rank on marriage - when there was the political will to do so.

Theoretically after the shock birth of Lord Arthur in 1939, steps could have been taken to legally prevent him inheriting his father's title. In light of the Duke's dalliance with Hitler and the imminent outbreak of war, it could have been achieved relatively quietly without any strong public reaction.
But there had been a strong public reaction during the Abdication. I think depriving children of the title would have been seen as needlessly punitive, remember Edward VIII had been popular amongst many in the working class. To strip his children of the title would be seen as a near-criminal punishment when no crime had been committed, especially if such a move was made after the Duchess had given birth.

A mildly related random thought: a Mitford sister for a godmother? And in that vein, might depriving the Windsors of the title push them further into the right-wing camp?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old November 11th, 2012, 07:44 PM
Welshroyalhistory Welshroyalhistory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parterre View Post
But there had been a strong public reaction during the Abdication. I think depriving children of the title would have been seen as needlessly punitive, remember Edward VIII had been popular amongst many in the working class. To strip his children of the title would be seen as a near-criminal punishment when no crime had been committed, especially if such a move was made after the Duchess had given birth.

A mildly related random thought: a Mitford sister for a godmother? And in that vein, might depriving the Windsors of the title push them further into the right-wing camp?
There was a strong opposition amongst the working classes to the King abdicating, however there was no groundswell of affection for Wallis Simpson and there was no public outcry at her being deprived of the style HRH. Indeed
the Duchess of Kent changed her mind about meeting Wallis in 1937 after their sister-in-law the Duchess of Gloucester had received hate mail after the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester had entertained the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. Wallis Simpson remained deeply unpopular and I don't think her children would be the subject of grave concern.

Albert (talk about an inflammatory name !) Windsor's birth in 1939, presumably just before or after the outbreak of war is going to permit the King/Government to take steps which they may not have been able to do otherwise.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.