Edward VIII never meets Wallis Simpson -- what happens?

As you may or may not know, King Edward VIII was a strong supporter of the Nazis and a thoroughly unpleasant, arrogant person. During his short reign as king he basically did everything he could to support Germany, openly going against Parliament's stance at the time. His intentions to marry Wallis Simpson basically gave Parliament the perfect excuse to back him into abdicating.

The question is: without Wallis being there, what becomes of Edward and of Britain?

(I saw a documentary on Edward and his connection to the Nazis last weekend. The audio clips they played of his voice were surprisingly funny -- you wouldn't guess it from his picture, but Edward had an oddly high voice. He sounded like an old woman.)
 
As you may or may not know, King Edward VIII was a strong supporter of the Nazis and a thoroughly unpleasant, arrogant person. During his short reign as king he basically did everything he could to support Germany, openly going against Parliament's stance at the time. His intentions to marry Wallis Simpson basically gave Parliament the perfect excuse to back him into abdicating.

The question is: without Wallis being there, what becomes of Edward and of Britain?

(I saw a documentary on Edward and his connection to the Nazis last weekend. The audio clips they played of his voice were surprisingly funny -- you wouldn't guess it from his picture, but Edward had an oddly high voice. He sounded like an old woman.)
I'd say nothing happens really. A massive embarrassment to the Monarchy, though I suspect people would demand he abdicate in favour of his younger brother (or son, if he has one with a different wife). If he refuses to abdicate then I can see Republicanism gaining some ground, though I'm sure Parliament would pass some Act to get him out.
 
I'd say nothing happens really. A massive embarrassment to the Monarchy, though I suspect people would demand he abdicate in favour of his younger brother (or son, if he has one with a different wife). If he refuses to abdicate then I can see Republicanism gaining some ground, though I'm sure Parliament would pass some Act to get him out.


Well, George VI and Queen Elizabeth invited Neville Chamberlain to join them on the Palace balcony after his retuurn from Munich. That was more constitutionally questionable than anything Edward did while on the throne, yet nobody demanded their abdication.
 
Or he'd have a terrible accident and fall down a flight of stairs and break his neck.
Why can't they just behead him honestly like in the good old days? :D

Seriously, though, I'd like some opinions on the ramifications of a reigning monarch who openly supports the Nazis. Does the nation follow the king, or follow Parliament? What about the rest of the Empire -- what do they think? And if Britain does follow the king, what happens then?
 
I think you're overestimating how much Edward would do/be able to do. If he started openly supporting the Nazis, he'd quickly end up publicly contradicting the government of the day, and therefore be in breach of the post-1688 consensus regarding the role of the monarch. This, combined with general public dislike for a Nazi sympathiser (it's 1936/7 now, not 1933/4) would easily see him forced to abdicate. Remember Parliament can just vote to remove whoever they please.

Because of this, and OTL behaviour, it's also very unlikely he would 'openly support the Nazis'. He might suggest to Baldwin privately that Hitler should be approached more friendlily and do the usual 'the real enemy is Bolshevism' spiel, but I can't see him telling the country on the radio, or from the balcony of Buckingham Palace, how he feels about the Nazis. He was a bit dim but he, or at least those close to him, would have told him that doing so would have been suicide, either politically or, in the case of an unfortunate accident, literally.
 
I think you're overestimating how much Edward would do/be able to do. If he started openly supporting the Nazis, he'd quickly end up publicly contradicting the government of the day, and therefore be in breach of the post-1688 consensus regarding the role of the monarch. This, combined with general public dislike for a Nazi sympathiser (it's 1936/7 now, not 1933/4) would easily see him forced to abdicate. Remember Parliament can just vote to remove whoever they please.

Because of this, and OTL behaviour, it's also very unlikely he would 'openly support the Nazis'. He might suggest to Baldwin privately that Hitler should be approached more friendlily and do the usual 'the real enemy is Bolshevism' spiel, but I can't see him telling the country on the radio, or from the balcony of Buckingham Palace, how he feels about the Nazis. He was a bit dim but he, or at least those close to him, would have told him that doing so would have been suicide, either politically or, in the case of an unfortunate accident, literally.


Agreed. After all, had Edward really been a political animal, would he ever have abdicated as he did for purely personal reasons? He would have said "Wallis dear, you'll always be special to me, but - -", and stayed on the throne.

Whatever he thought about Hitler, or anything else of a political nature, it was never his main concern. Had the government offered to accept his marriage to Wallis, in return for keeping his opinions to himself about Germany, he would have agreed like a shot. And had Wallis not been in his life, there's little reason to think he would have defied his ministers on a major policy question. After all, as his successors' behaviour in 1938 shows (see my earlier message) he'd have had to go a very long way indeed before getting into a real quarrel with them.
 
I think you're overestimating how much Edward would do/be able to do. If he started openly supporting the Nazis, he'd quickly end up publicly contradicting the government of the day, and therefore be in breach of the post-1688 consensus regarding the role of the monarch. This, combined with general public dislike for a Nazi sympathiser (it's 1936/7 now, not 1933/4) would easily see him forced to abdicate. Remember Parliament can just vote to remove whoever they please.

Because of this, and OTL behaviour, it's also very unlikely he would 'openly support the Nazis'. He might suggest to Baldwin privately that Hitler should be approached more friendlily and do the usual 'the real enemy is Bolshevism' spiel, but I can't see him telling the country on the radio, or from the balcony of Buckingham Palace, how he feels about the Nazis. He was a bit dim but he, or at least those close to him, would have told him that doing so would have been suicide, either politically or, in the case of an unfortunate accident, literally.

I entirely agree.

He was also rather popular with the workers at a personal level. I think the original poster has either watched a highly biased documentary, or has a very negative opinion of Edward that plays up his negatives without looking at his positives

One could also note that if he never meets Wallis, he might get round to marrying somebody appropriate, especially when he becomes king and needs to take his responsibilities seriously.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I'm posting here to learn, not teach. As an American, I of course wouldn't know. But I recall something about the man having something of a fetish for divorced women?:confused: Biased history, or...? True or not true?:eek:
 
Well, George VI and Queen Elizabeth invited Neville Chamberlain to join them on the Palace balcony after his retuurn from Munich. That was more constitutionally questionable than anything Edward did while on the throne, yet nobody demanded their abdication.

There's a difference between having your cities bombed to crap but your king being 'neutral', and someone going on the balcony. If the King won't support the war (which, seeing as he was a dumb, stubborn guy I could imagine) then the people will get angry about it.

Though the only thing I could see happen is the King almost bully Lord Halifax to take the Premiership in the hope that he would make a peace-treaty with Germany. Though this is a tad unlikely, and thus if Churchill did come to power then Edward VIII would be quite hated I expect.
 
As you may or may not know, King Edward VIII was a strong supporter of the Nazis and a thoroughly unpleasant, arrogant person. During his short reign as king he basically did everything he could to support Germany, openly going against Parliament's stance at the time. His intentions to marry Wallis Simpson basically gave Parliament the perfect excuse to back him into abdicating.

The question is: without Wallis being there, what becomes of Edward and of Britain?

(I saw a documentary on Edward and his connection to the Nazis last weekend. The audio clips they played of his voice were surprisingly funny -- you wouldn't guess it from his picture, but Edward had an oddly high voice. He sounded like an old woman.)


I think Edward VIII, like a lot of people, went to Germany and said "ooh, look at the autobahn, that cures unemployment." I'm not sure any serious case has been made for anything else ever.
 
Well, George VI and Queen Elizabeth invited Neville Chamberlain to join them on the Palace balcony after his retuurn from Munich. That was more constitutionally questionable than anything Edward did while on the throne, yet nobody demanded their abdication.

How? Filler.
 
There's a difference between having your cities bombed to crap but your king being 'neutral', and someone going on the balcony. If the King won't support the war (which, seeing as he was a dumb, stubborn guy I could imagine) then the people will get angry about it.

Though the only thing I could see happen is the King almost bully Lord Halifax to take the Premiership in the hope that he would make a peace-treaty with Germany. Though this is a tad unlikely, and thus if Churchill did come to power then Edward VIII would be quite hated I expect.

Well, in this TL there won't have BEEN an abdication crisis so all the bad blood that was brewed then between sides would never have been fermented... fermenting bad blood? What does that taste like?

And he won't need to bully Halifax, simply appoint him. But in order to do that he has to overcome the objections of his private secretary, unless of course he has a different one here too.

And I think you can be pretty sure that if Britain DOES end up at war with Germany, whilst he may think it disappointing, he will wholeheartedly suuport his country, especially once it starts to get bombed!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
How? Filler.

Because the opposition did not support the Munich Agreeement, this action meant that the King was taking sides on a political issue - and in a very public way. I can't think of any occasion during his reign when Edward went so far.
 
Because the opposition did not support the Munich Agreeement, this action meant that the King was taking sides on a political issue - and in a very public way. I can't think of any occasion during his reign when Edward went so far.

Not sure how obvious that was at the time, I forget the precise chronology, I suspect theKing and Queen wanted Chamberlain's glory not the other way around.

Also Labour seemed to have put down some sort of amendment on Munich, covering their backs...
 
Not sure how obvious that was at the time, I forget the precise chronology, I suspect theKing and Queen wanted Chamberlain's glory not the other way around.

Also Labour seemed to have put down some sort of amendment on Munich, covering their backs...

Quite possibly. I was just thinking of the interpretation Edward VIII's critics would have been likely to put on a similar action by him.
 
Quite possibly. I was just thinking of the interpretation Edward VIII's critics would have been likely to put on a similar action by him.

Oh, I agree: more would have been read into it. But then George and Elizabeth's pro-appeasement stance has been forgotten because of their role in 1940 (as opposed to Edward's.) If Edward had been a heroic leader in 1940 his actions might have been interpreted differently.

ie - we are often actually reading these actors backwards from a certain point and imposing a narrative.
 

cumbria

Banned
Because the opposition did not support the Munich Agreeement, this action meant that the King was taking sides on a political issue - and in a very public way. I can't think of any occasion during his reign when Edward went so far.

All the parties supported the agreement.
 

cumbria

Banned
People tend to view the past with the standards of today which as always is a big mistake.
Both Edward VIII and the policy of Appeasement were very popular with the British people of the time.
Only after the occupation of Czechoslovakia and Chamberlain adopting a harder more confrontationlist line did the public view of Appeasement change to any degree at all.
Even then public opinion wasn’t clear cut and much of the press was still supporting Appeasement.
This anti-appeasement line is very much a post war creation.
 
Top