Edward VIII made a sane marriage?


During World War I, the Prince of Wales made the acquaintance of Lady Rosemary Leveson-Gower, daughter of the 4th Duke of Sutherland, the latter of whom was serving as a VAD nurse. The prince was evidently very much in love, but George V refused to give his permission. Rosemary's family was problematic, to say the least - her mother had been married and separated from a homosexual divorcée, while her uncle was a well-known alcoholic gambler.

It may be an exaggeration, but it seems the prince was so angered by this he gave up on trying to find an acceptable bride.

Is it somehow possible for George V to accept the match, and how could it affect the United Kingdom and the Empire going forward?
 
Rosemary's mother, the Dowager Duchess, was widowed in 1913 and respectably remarried to a major in the 11th Hussars; and serving very notably in as a hospital director in France. Her divorce and later brief marriage to a homosexual came after the war.

So I don't think that would be a problem. The uncle, maybe.

But the real stumbling block would be the heir to the throne marrying domestically. It would be the first such marriage since the future James II married Anne Hyde. (Not counting George IV's escapade.) The future George VI married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon when he was not expected to succeed. After that, a British consort was acceptable (and the supply of German consorts had been cut off).

Probably though it could go through, what with her service as a nurse and her aristocratic background.

What was George V's objection? Did anyone know?

As to the consequences: it means Edward settles down. George is spared the ordeal of kingship. The Princess and Queen may be noted for her support of medical charities and the nursing profession. She'd only be 46 in 1939, so she might emulate her mother by working as a hospital director during alt-WW-II.
 
Rosemary's mother, the Dowager Duchess, was widowed in 1913 and respectably remarried to a major in the 11th Hussars; and serving very notably in as a hospital director in France. Her divorce and later brief marriage to a homosexual came after the war.

So I don't think that would be a problem. The uncle, maybe.

But the real stumbling block would be the heir to the throne marrying domestically. It would be the first such marriage since the future James II married Anne Hyde. (Not counting George IV's escapade.) The future George VI married Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon when he was not expected to succeed. After that, a British consort was acceptable (and the supply of German consorts had been cut off).

Probably though it could go through, what with her service as a nurse and her aristocratic background.

What was George V's objection? Did anyone know?

As to the consequences: it means Edward settles down. George is spared the ordeal of kingship. The Princess and Queen may be noted for her support of medical charities and the nursing profession. She'd only be 46 in 1939, so she might emulate her mother by working as a hospital director during alt-WW-II.
From what I remember (grain of salt advised), George V encouraged his children to seek domestic matches.
 
He had a sane marriage. He married the woman he wanted to spend the rest of his life with. What he didn't have was a state marriage. You should change the wording of the OP.
 
Have the mother not make the same mistake and the uncle die during the war and it would be perfectly possibly. George V changed the family name to Windsor, so objections by the Prince of Wales of not wanting to marry a German (a perfect excuse) would be plausible.
 
He had a sane marriage. He married the woman he wanted to spend the rest of his life with. What he didn't have was a state marriage. You should change the wording of the OP.
I assure you no offense was intended, and I'm glad you pointed this out. When I used the term "sane" it was intended to poke fun at those who were against the marriage, not agree with them.

There are a number of humorous titles for threads here, so at the time, I did not believe I was doing something objectionable. The several "Sanity Options... " threads are not intended to mock or attack their subjects as far as I'm aware, they're just poking fun at what are or were perceived to be poor decisions.
 
Last edited:
From what I remember (grain of salt advised), George V encouraged his children to seek domestic matches.

Yes in 1917 at the time he changed the Family name, he told the Privy Council that he would permit his children to marry British subjects. It was a logical decision, given the war the pool of possible princess brides for his 4 sons were limited to a couple of princesses in neutral Denmark an Sweden - I am discounting the possibility of any Balkan brides at this stage given the war.
 
Yes in 1917 at the time he changed the Family name, he told the Privy Council that he would permit his children to marry British subjects. It was a logical decision, given the war the pool of possible princess brides for his 4 sons were limited to a couple of princesses in neutral Denmark an Sweden - I am discounting the possibility of any Balkan brides at this stage given the war.

Wouldn't that still leave Norway and Belgium?
 
Wouldn't that still leave Norway and Belgium?

There were no princesses in Norway. The Royal Family in the 1920s consisted of the King, Queen Maud (George V's sister) and Prince Olav. In 1929 Olav married Martha of Sweden, reducing the available pool of suitable princesses.

The only option in Belgium was Marie-Jose (who ended up becoming the last Queen of Italy). Her parents made a state visit to the UK in the 1920s which lead to lots of press stories about a betrothal to one of George V and Queen Mary's sons but there was always the issue of Catholicism to overcome. George was a traditionalist, much more so than his grandmother, who had been open to the idea of George's older brother marrying a French princess provided she converted but her father and the Pope objected.

If one of George and Mary's sons had been determined to marry a Catholic princess of a neutral or Allied country, I anticipate it would have been permitted provided the bride would convert, however I stress that they wouldn't have been top of the list in the way maybe that say Margaretha or Martha or Ingrid of Sweden would have been.
 
He had a sane marriage. He married the woman he wanted to spend the rest of his life with. What he didn't have was a state marriage. You should change the wording of the OP.
What he didn't have was an acceptable marriage for the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and ceremonial head of the British Empire.
 
What he didn't have was an acceptable marriage for the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and ceremonial head of the British Empire.
Maybe it's because I'm a republican and an atheist, but the fact that the PTB in Britain were more concerned with his choice of a wife than with his political convictions seems very Tudor to me..
 
Maybe it's because I'm a republican and an atheist, but the fact that the PTB in Britain were more concerned with his choice of a wife than with his political convictions seems very Tudor to me..

I think the issue is that you are unable to put yourself in the mindset of the 1936 world.

As I have posted on this board before, you would be staggered by the % of British people in 1936 who believed the King was chosen by God. As I have posted on this board previously, "as late as 1964, according to Mass Observation, more than 34% of the British population believed the Queen was specifically chosen by God, leading royal author Philip Ziegler to conclude that in 1937 it would have been closer to half as with every decade that has passed, the UK has become significantly more secular."


The idea that the King could marry against the teachings of the Church would have been unfathomable, even insane to many.
 
Beause his political convictions are irrelevant, he is just the king.
I understand the rules, I'm just happy I live in country were I don't have to play the game.

And despite not liking his politics one bit, I think that when it cames to marriage he made the right choice. Your wife is more importante than your job, whatever your job is. If your employers tell you who you can or cannot marry, the only sane thing to do is to quit the damned firm.
 
Seeing as the King was head of a church started by a divorce- he was entirely in the right and should have appealed to the people in a referendum if need be.
 
I think the issue is that you are unable to put yourself in the mindset of the 1936 world.

As I have posted on this board before, you would be staggered by the % of British people in 1936 who believed the King was chosen by God. As I have posted on this board previously, "as late as 1964, according to Mass Observation, more than 34% of the British population believed the Queen was specifically chosen by God, leading royal author Philip Ziegler to conclude that in 1937 it would have been closer to half as with every decade that has passed, the UK has become significantly more secular."


The idea that the King could marry against the teachings of the Church would have been unfathomable, even insane to many.
To be fair, Christian doctrine is that all leaders are technically chosen by God. As in, nothing happens outside of God's plan. Though that does not mean they are necessarily godly or that he will not remove them, or that you are supposed to follow them when what they say run contrary to biblical (and/or ecclesiastical, depending on tradition) teachings. This is particularly true with Monarchies. The idea might seem strange as our culture is pretty secular (Almost religiously so ;)) but it is actually a pretty standard Christian belief even today (though the depth of belief obviously varies).
Romans 13:1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
 
Portugal had opted out of that world 26 years before.

Your point? It had ceased to be a monarchy and had become a dictatorship.

The UK and Portugal were very different countries in 1909 when both were monarchies and have developed in completely different ways in the century that followed. Making some arbitrary comparison between a republic and monarchy and one country in 1936 to another country in 1936 without comparing the respective differences is fundamentally absurd.
 
Last edited:
Top