Edward VIII on the Throne......

Okay, if this has been posted before I apologise :p Newbie and all....
Anyway....I'm a writer, and after delving into history, I wanted to try my hand at alternative history, and since The King's Speech is my favourite film ever, I decided to have a stab at what could've happened had Edward VIII not abdicated in 1936....in my timeline (story) he never actually meets Wallis Simpson, and has a wife and children....but that aside, what do you all think would've happened politically/socially/economically for Britain, and also, the war, would it've been any different? I'm not going to start saying Nazi sympathiser or anything, but do you think that Edward being on the throne would've had any different outcome on the whole thing?

Sorry if thats all a little jumbled, it's just my first post on here :)

Please be nice and give me a hand :)

Thank you!

Kate
 
Welcome to the Board.

I don't think the UK would have leaned towards the Nazis with Edward still on the throne.
There may have been a couple of embarrassing moments if Edward does mention his right wing sympathies - tho these are unlikely if he has good counsel.

If Chamberlain comes back with the same peace as OTL and Edward publicly supports it, then when Hitler makes his move Edward's credibility, and that of the Royals in general, will be at an all time low. And he'd be forced to retreat from public life.
 
Irrevocable Determination

A joint TL by myself and RogueBeaver. Ed becomes King in 1930 because George V catches pneumonia while riding and as a result never meets Mrs Simpson and there's no question of an abdication. We've reached the mid 1930s by now and Britain is not exactly 'Nazi sympathising', as I hope you'll see if you take a look :)
 
Welcome to the Board.

I don't think the UK would have leaned towards the Nazis with Edward still on the throne.
There may have been a couple of embarrassing moments if Edward does mention his right wing sympathies - tho these are unlikely if he has good counsel.

If Chamberlain comes back with the same peace as OTL and Edward publicly supports it, then when Hitler makes his move Edward's credibility, and that of the Royals in general, will be at an all time low. And he'd be forced to retreat from public life.


George VI and Queen Elizabeth invited Chamberlain onto the Palace balcony after his return from Munich - a pretty clear endorsement - but their position was quite unaffected..
 
Thank you for your help :) I'm tempted to post a timeline, but I have made up characters in it, is that allowed?
And also, is it okay not to put politically heavy stuff in there? I suck at politics and all that jazz, am much better at creating social scenarios....

Ta

Kate
 
It's quite alright, just don't be surprised if people give you constructive criticism if certain things don't make sense. Not knowing the politics of the era can lead to the timeline seeming very unrealistic, I'd recommend you do a little reading about the political situation in 1936 on Wikipedia before you get started. Looking up the 1931 and 1935 elections would be a good start, as would the article on Stanley Baldwin and his time as PM.
 
I would like to write a timeline where in Wallis and Edward reign as King and Queen and Charles marries Camilla and becomes crown prince upon his mother's succession and Diana marries Dodi and becomes a member of Saudi nobility.
 
I would like to write a timeline where in Wallis and Edward reign as King and Queen and Charles marries Camilla and becomes crown prince upon his mother's succession and Diana marries Dodi and becomes a member of Saudi nobility.

You'd need Edward and Wallis to remain childless for Elizabeth to get near the throne. If they did you'd be fine, but despite the rumours of Ed's impotence he did in fact have a rather... virile sex life. He may have been sterile though for all we know.

You should also know that Wallis as Queen is pretty much ASB because of British society at the time, as well as the main stumbling block being the fact that by 1936 Edward was himself completely unacceptable for the throne. An autocratic playboy with Germanophilic leanings what the polar opposite of what Britain needed, and so the men in grey suits had to get rid of him - he made it somewhat easier with his choice of bride. This was probably at least somewhat deliberate - he, after all, talked about abdicating long before he became King anyway, and was fully aware of how the political classes, and the chattering classes too, viewed him.
 
the main stumbling block being the fact that by 1936 Edward was himself completely unacceptable for the throne. An autocratic playboy with Germanophilic leanings what the polar opposite of what Britain needed, and so the men in grey suits had to get rid of him - he made it somewhat easier with his choice of bride.


Yet he was on excellent terms with Churchill, while the appeasers who dominated British politics at the time would have little immediate problem with his views on Germany. Things might have got more difficult in 1939, but it wasn't a huge problem in '36.
 
Yet he was on excellent terms with Churchill, while the appeasers who dominated British politics at the time would have little immediate problem with his views on Germany. Things might have got more difficult in 1939, but it wasn't a huge problem in '36.

Don't forget that the Appeasers started rearming in 1934, and didn't appease out of love for Germany but out of fear of it. A very big difference to Edward's support for autocracy and, to an extent, Hitler. And really the Nazism angle is overplayed these days - Edward was, in his 1936 form, a thoroughly inappropriate figure to be king. He was considered mentally and emotionally unsuitable and was petulant, debauched and above all interfering. If he'd not married Wallis he would have been marginalised or got rid of by some other means very quickly.
 
My favourite alternate-history book, by Guy Walters, is The Leader. It's quite implausible but looks at how Edward VIII staying on the throne led to a government that struggled to function and with riots going on around Britain the British Union of Fascists were elected into power.

I wouldn't consider this ASB, but rather implausible. Anyway I like the book.
 
You'd need Edward and Wallis to remain childless for Elizabeth to get near the throne. If they did you'd be fine, but despite the rumours of Ed's impotence he did in fact have a rather... virile sex life. He may have been sterile though for all we know.
I think it's more probable they would remain childless than not, since they did so iOTL for whatever reason.
 
You'd need Edward and Wallis to remain childless for Elizabeth to get near the throne. If they did you'd be fine, but despite the rumours of Ed's impotence he did in fact have a rather... virile sex life. He may have been sterile though for all we know.

According to wikipedia they never had children, so even IF they married and he remained king the only real change would be that QE would be queen 1972 and have her 40th celebration next year in time for the Londonolympics.

And there wouldnt be a movie called The kings speach
 
Edward VIII

Welcome along, Kate :)

I think if you're going to write a TL with Edward VIII on the throne, you're going to have to butterfly Wallis away as I think the forces ranged against her being Queen were just too strong (morganatic marriages notwithstanding).

If he is to be King, then a Queen will have to be found at some point and research could throw up some candidates. I don't think Edward's presence changes the broad sweep of events - the journey to war via Munich and the overall course of the conflict.

It's possible George's health would be improved without the stress of being King and he might well live longer than in OTL - this is relevant because he would remain next in line if Edward doesn't have an heir. Having him live twenty extra years seems unlikely so his elder daughter, Elizabeth, becomes Queen in 1972 and Charles becomes Prince of Wales.

Edward would cut an incongruous figure in his later years, especially if a widower or childless. He would seem unsuited to the rapidly-changing era of the 1960s in a way that the young Queen Elizabeth wasn't. Again, we don't know if his decline would be rapid or slow - to presuppose that HIS life would be the same if he was alone and King seems unlikely.

I think it more likely he would die in the early 1960s and his brother would become George VI for a brief period before Elizabeth becomes Queen in the early 70s.
 
You'd need Edward and Wallis to remain childless for Elizabeth to get near the throne. If they did you'd be fine, but despite the rumours of Ed's impotence he did in fact have a rather... virile sex life. He may have been sterile though for all we know.
In fact it was Wallis Simpson who couldn't have children. Due to a botched abortion during her affair with Count Ciano.
 
In fact it was Wallis Simpson who couldn't have children. Due to a botched abortion during her affair with Count Ciano.

That's a rumour that's never been substantiated, but I take the point. They did remain childless IOTL, and while it may be true that they did so to avoid the problems of producing children that might cause trouble for the succession process (they wouldn't, but the children might want to act like they could), it's probably giving troublemaker Ed too much credit.

Either way, they probably would have remained childless even if he'd stayed on the throne.
 
Top