Chapter 7
“The present House of Lords is an anachronism.”
_____________________________________________
(Taken from “An encyclopaedia of 20th Century History” ed. Dunn, Longman 1999)
“WALWAL INCIDENT: Border clash between Italian and Abyssinian troops in December 1934, and a major factor in the Italian invasion of the
country the following year. In 1930, the Italian Government ordered the construction of a fort at the Walwal oasis in the Ogaden desert, claiming that the Italo-Abyssinian treaty of two years before put the region under Italian jurisdiction. In the November of 1934, Abyssinia protested this move, and in early December, the tensions mounted to a clash at the oasis that left 150 Abyssinian and 50 Italian casualties. Both sides demanded apologies of the other, and while the dispute was taken to the League of Nations before the New Year both sides had begun preparations for the war that would begin the following autumn…”
(Taken from “Edward VIII- A Life” by Isabelle Green, Longman 1978)
“…For a brief period however the future King’s attention was drawn to another woman, much to Thelma’s chagrin. On January 10, 1931, the Prince attended a party hosted by Thelma- also invited were Ernest and Wallis Simpson, a wealthy American banker based in London and his socialite wife. Initially Simpson did not make a very big impression on the Prince, but four months later they met again and from there a mutual attraction began to develop. In the winter of 1931 the Prince had dinner with the Simpsons, staying until the early hours of the morning….
…When Thelma went on a trip to the United States in January 1934 she asked Wallis Simpson to look after the Prince for her. When she returned, however, she found that she had been replaced in the Prince’s affections and now Wallis Simpson seemed to be the only woman for Edward… According to Wallis, it was in August 1934 that their relationship became more serious. During that month, the Prince took a cruise on Lord Moyne's yacht, the Rosaura. Though both Simpsons were invited, Ernest Simpson could not accompany his wife on the cruise because of a business trip to the United States. It was on this cruise, Wallis later stated, that she and the Prince "crossed the line that marks the indefinable boundary between friendship and love."
For around six months, Simpson was the only woman in Edward’s life. Previous mistresses- Thelma among them- were ignored entirely. For his part, the Prince was passionately devoted to her- to the extent that many worried that he neglected his own duties for her. For Simpson’s part, her feelings towards Edward remain ambiguous. It was popularly believed at the time that she was seduced less by the Prince himself then by the glamour and power of his position and that she was a ruthlessly ambitious social climber- a judgement reinforced by her alleged actions in the autumn and winter of 1934…
…Around the time of the death of the Prince’s father however, Edward’s relationship with Simpson began to fall apart. By September 1934 it is known that Simpson (who was still married) was conducting multiple affairs, one with a married car salesman named Guy Trundle. There are even rumours that she had secret assignations with the Prime Minister Oswald Mosley, although this has never been proven[40]… She also found Edward's dependence upon her burdensome and claustrophobic, writing to her uncle: "How can a woman be a whole empire to a man?" As the autumn wore on she treated the Prince increasingly rudely in the hope that he would break off their affair of its own accord, but he seemed oblivious to the contempt and bullying she poured on him.
In the end, Simpson used the death of the King in November 1934 as a pretext to end the relationship, claiming that she preferred to ‘fade into the shadows’ then to be exposed to the eye of the public. Heartbroken, the newly-proclaimed King Edward nonetheless found time to have a brief affair with Diana Mitford, the future wife of Oswald Mosley, who introduced the two to each other at a party in December[41]. When this relationship also failed, the King found himself crawling back to his old paramour Thelma Furness, who eventually accepted him again- although it is said that she never truly forgave him for his dalliance with Simpson…”
(Taken from the Notes and Queries section of the Guardian, 17th July 1999)
“Q: Is it true that Oswald Mosley stole Edward VIII’s mistress Wallis Simpson?
(Guy Richardson, Stroud, Gloucestershire)
A: The question of whether Mosley had a relationship with Wallis Simpson is a controversial one, and will only be properly answered in 2015 when the relevant files are made public[42]. However, it is generally regarded that the two had a brief affair in the autumn of 1934, just before the death of George V. Mosley and Simpson had first met at a party organised by Lady Cunard that September, and their meeting certainly coincided with the decline of Simpson’s relationship with the Prince of Wales. Mosley was certainly a compulsive womaniser, and the death of his wife ‘Cimmie’ the year before gave him even less reason to exercise restraint then he might have done otherwise, although it is known that around the time he had also been seeing his future wife and long-term mistress, Diana Mitford…”
(Taken from the Labour General Election manifesto, June 1932)
“…The House of Lords will be replaced by a Second Chamber representing the industry, culture and ability of the Nation. This Second Chamber will also contain representatives whose technical knowledge of science and industry shall be specific and detailed beyond the needs of the House of Commons and will also contain representatives of Education, Religion, the Services, Science, Art, and every aspect of the people's life… The present House of Lords is an anachronism. By abolishing the present House of Lords in favour of an Assembly genuinely representing the industry and culture of the Nation, Labour will restore the original conception of the British Constitution.”
(Taken from “The Mosley Era” by Tobias Griffin, Picador 1987)
“The accession of Edward VIII to the throne was a fantastic boon to the Labour Government. The new King was a self-conscious moderniser and liked to see himself as a man of the people, a world apart from his conservative and cautious father. He fully supported the Government’s economic reforms, and took a great interest in the affairs of state- much to the irritation of many of his close advisors. From the very beginning of his reign he angered many within the traditional ‘establishment’ by his relentless enthusiasm for change- his first act as King was to end the tradition of having the clocks at Sandringham put forward half an hour, instead ordering that they show the correct time. King Edward’s drive, energy and his unfailing ability to infuriate the establishment made him the perfect counterpart to Mosley as Premier- a fact lost on neither man[43]…
…The issue of constitutional reform had long been on the government’s agenda, and now that a sympathetic figure was on the throne Labour felt able to broach the idea of re-organising the House of Lords. Intriguingly though, the King himself was the first to raise the idea in a meaningful way, expressing a concrete if vague desire for reform to Mosley on his return from Como[44] in April 1935. With Royal support guaranteed and Eden’s Conservatives able to do little to prevent the passage of the bill through the Commons, only the Lords remained as an obstacle to reform- and they were soon bought off by the promise that many individual members of the upper house would remain, in their capacity as experts and representatives of the various sections of British society…”
(Taken from “Parliament; A History” by Sebastian Spencer, CUP 1989)
“Despite the radical revisions that the Parliament Act of 1935 made to the Upper Chamber, it was passed with remarkably little controversy. Enthusiastic Royal approval and the support for the reforms by many on the right undermined the Conservative Party’s ability to resist the changes, especially when in May Lord Beaverbrook threw his weight behind reform, characterising the opponents of the move as hopeless reactionary anachronisms in the process…
When Parliament returned after the summer recess, it was to a new Upper House. Gone were the hereditary Peers that had endured for centuries- in their place were a complex mixture of indirectly elected representatives, appointees made by an independent commission, and a selection of figures who could sit in the chamber by virtue of their public position[45]. The Government intended that the new House of Lords (whose unchanged name was one of the few things that the Conservatives managed to preserve from the old system) would represent every section of British society and allow expert scrutiny to be given to legislation arriving from the House of Commons…”
(Taken from “The Mosley Era” by Tobias Griffin, Picador 1987)
“…The King’s support for the Parliament Act proved to be a shrewd move on his part, for it put the Government in his debt… When in the August of 1935 he privately told Mosley that he intended to marry his long-time mistress the Viscountess Furness, the Prime Minister felt obliged to make King Edward’s desire a reality. Mosley himself had no objection to the union- indeed later he wrote;
“There is something symbolic of all their failure in the stiff absurdity of the English ruling class at this time, that they sneer at any form of marriage with an American of beauty, intelligence, charm and character…”
However, the union was a controversial one in many circles, where the Viscountess’ two divorces were seen as scandalous and likely to bring the Monarchy into disrepute. The idea that a divorcee would marry the King was especially disconcerting to many because his father had refused even to allow divorced persons to attend court. The Conservative Party in particular was horrified, although Anthony Eden’s comments on the issue were undermined by other figures on the right, most notably the veteran parliamentarian and serial rebel Winston Churchill, who warmly praised the idea of marriage…
As long as the Government remained supportive of the King however there was little the opponents of the match could do, and public opinion seemed generally supportive of the King, although only if the Viscountess renounced the title of queen. After several months of acrimonious debate that constantly threatened to erupt into a full-blown constitutional crisis, a compromise was reached; the King’s paramour would be allowed to marry, but only in a morganatic marriage…[46]”
(Taken from “The Monarchy in Constitutional Context” by Ivor Gibbons, Picador 1998)
“…Morganatic marriages have been known in foreign royal houses, primarily because, in those houses, sovereigns are required to marry someone from a specific range of houses. In Britain however there are no such restrictions on the sovereign, and therefore until 1935 the concept of a morganatic marriage was unknown to the law. In Britain for example, Countess Sophie Chotek, the morganatic wife of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, would have been perfectly eligible to be queen, provided she renounced her Catholicism. Thus, a morganatic marriage could not be made legitimate without legislation. It was for this reason that the King needed ministerial consent for the idea…
…A further hurdle for the King was obtaining the consent of the Governments of the other Dominions, at the time meaning Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Irish Free State. Most could be expected to support the King, although in Australia there were worries that the Act might be voted down in Parliament… Surprisingly even the Irish were in favour of the move, despite the fears of many on the mainland[47]. In the event the Dominions acquiesced to the King’s marriage, and the potential crisis was averted… The King finally married his consort on Christmas Eve, 1935”
_____________________________________________
[40]This particular sentence will cause a media frenzy when the book is published in 1978, only a few years after Edward’s death. It’s one of those things that had been hinted at in some circles for years, but had never been printed.
[41]Diana and Oswald have had the affair they had OTL. Their relationship is pretty similar to OTL’s all considered, although she will divorce Bryan Guinness somewhat later.
[42]On one level, having the Prince of Wales’s mistress dump him for an affair with the Prime Minister sounds like something from a bad film, probably one by Richard Curtis (Hugh Laurie as the Prince? If only we could rejuvenate Leslie Phillips to let him take the Mosley part…). But, I reckon this is somewhat plausible. OTL Mosley was a notorious womaniser, and he and Wallis would have been a perfect match in many ways- they were both pretty amoral when it came to ‘affairs of the heart’. Somehow I feel this just works…
[43]OTL Mosley and the (by then) Duke of Windsor got on very well, although they only met after the war- I imagine they’d be even better suited when they’re both in power, although sadly neither is going to exactly act as a break on the other…
[44]This of course is an analogue of the Stresa conference of 1935. It goes pretty much as OTL which is why I’m not covering it in more detail- it’s a little chummier then Stresa was as Mosley and Mussolini get on so well, but apart from that little changes.
[45]What I’m imagining here is something of a mess- it’s a mixture of the Bryce proposals of 1918 and what the BUF was calling for in the 1930’s. Basically there are some peers who are chosen by regional groups of MPs, who comprise the elected element. Then there are the appointed peers, who are similar to OTL’s. The innovation in the reform really comes from the third group, who are meant to be leaders of the nation by virtue of the public prominence. It’s an extension of the ‘National Council’ the Mosley government has already put into place really- so basically Generals, Union Leaders, captains of Industry and press Barons amongst others will all be able to sit in the Lords and give their views on legislation.
[46]Why is the *abdication crisis so less severe in this TL? Well, for a start the government’s support for the King means that there’s no need for a constitutional crisis. Matters are also made easier by the fact that Thelma Morgan is altogether far less objectionable then Wallis Simpson- there are moral grounds for people to dislike her, but as the King’s consort herself isn’t widely hated it’s felt that a deal can be done.
[47]OTL De Valera was the only Dominion premier to favour the concept of a Morganatic marriage. Why does this work in this TL? Well, the British Government supports the idea which counts for a lot, and as mentioned in the previous footnote Thelma Morgan doesn’t inspire the same extraordinary hate that Wallis Simpson did.
