Edward VIII refuses to abdicate

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Your entire point is he cant be forced to abdicate because people and 'tory coup' which have nothing to back it up.
I never said he couldn't be forced to abdicate, rather that there would be some consequences from forcing out a relatively popular (with some classes) king.

In what ways does it benefit the monarchy then? Him not abidcating causes more problems as he is going rogue. Parliament is sovereign not the king. Also why does labour care? The person replacing is next in line so it isn't a tory plot.
I'm not sure Parliament wants to pick a fight with the monarchy about who he is allowed to marry if he digs in his heels and Labour could well see this as a means to tarnish the Tories for electoral gain. Historically the government threatened to resign, were they really prepared to cause a constitutional crisis over the king's choice of wife?
 
I never said he couldn't be forced to abdicate, rather that there would be some consequences from forcing out a relatively popular (with some classes) king.
You over play his popularity, and influence. Popular in wales does not mean the UK.

I'm not sure Parliament wants to pick a fight with the monarchy about who he is allowed to marry if he digs in his heels and Labour could well see this as a means to tarnish the Tories for electoral gain. Historically the government threatened to resign, were they really prepared to cause a constitutional crisis over the king's choice of wife?
Parliament isn't picking fight as that implies the king can resist. Parliament was ready to cause a constitutional crisis as they would win also he was causing it by breaking the rules. Tell me how does he win? Why would labour go against this majority of people don't want an american on the throne, so what you are saying is Labour should shoot themselves in the foot to get one (labour is old labour ie very working class focused the working class don't care and dislike wallice). Majority of the working class are religious meaning anglican or catholic both faiths were against this action, king or religion?

Also stop this labour stuff ramsay McDonald was against him. Also edward was anti labour party, calling them names.

Also he isn't just the king of the uk but also the commonwealth they opposed it, he could have broken the commonwealth doing it.

You do realise the abdication was meant to save the monarchy? Not force edward away as parliament could have done it. If he didnt, the monarchy would have lost support, commonwealth could break away, leading to more republicanism in the UK.

If i used your arguement i could say Diana could topple the monarchy because she was popular, but the monarchy lives on no matter how bad she was treated by them or how loved she was.
 
Lets take a step back here, this isn't a game of A Very British Civil War after all.

The first question is, why does he change his mind and dig in? However once it becomes clear that the King will not abdicate, its pretty clear whats going to happen.

The first action will be that the government will resign and call an election explicitly over the issue. Baldwin was a pretty savvy operator and he's going to win a massive majority. Baldwin will also draw into the idea of maintaining the concept of a National Government (even if its overwhelming Conservative) and Labour nor the Liberals are going to support the King - Attlee's and Sinclair's OTL actions and responses would suggest they wouldn't. This is going to be 1918's Coupon Election in overdrive with the big three parties all aligned to send a message to the King that parliament authority is supreme, and that the will of the nation is against him.

So on balance, the parties are not going to hemorrhage many supporters or members to a mooted King's party. This is trouble with any notion of a Kings Party is that it’s inherently unstable and on any other issue/policy than the King, so even if enough MPs could align on the issue, it’s more than likely to collapse and fall apart, given the wide spectrum of members it would have. It would lack any coherent policies or objectives. It lacks the local political infrastructure of the established party machines.
 
I'll do you one better, contrapose National, Winston shits in the weetbix by forming a coalition of splitters, all of whom protest that they're the genuine Tories, Liberals or Labour but who are sullenly decried as "Royal, not loyal". The few members they return divide against the act of parliamentary supremacy. Republicanism is made credible for debate in the general Labour Party and the Windsor on hand has an even bigger stone to push up hill to restore their credibility. Australia passes Westminster before the war and Canada demands a new act.
 
I did some research into how Parliament and the parties could force an unwilling King from the throne. Note this applies to the UK only, not the Dominions.

The simplest option would be the resignation of the government, followed by the refusal of opposition politicians and other prominent politicians, which probably would have ultimately included Churchill, to form a government. Assuming the armed forces do not back a royal dictatorship, and they wouldn't, the King would at this point change his mind and abdicate. Something like this could have occurred behind closed doors in our actual timeline and been resolved without public knowledge.

In 1811 a Regency was appointed without the consent of George III, with the Lord Chancellor affixing the Great Seal to the required legislation, without the consent of the Sovereign. This could be done on the assumption that George III was incapacitated. A Regecny Act could be enacted without the consent of the King if everyone agreed that the King was mentally ill.

The third option would be a military coup as essentially happened to James II.

Colonel Grubb is correct that it makes a difference as to why Edward VIII would not go quietly. I don't get the impression that he wanted to remain King that badly and he would have agreed not to marry Mrs. Simpson if he did. You could have scenarios where he is mentally unbalanced, there are other and more political issues in play, or he has a good deal of public and political support, but any of these three would completely change the nature of the abdication crisis.
 
Note that a British monarch is well within his or her rights to dismiss a Prime Minister who gives him or her unpalatable advice, the issue is if a viable alternative government can be formed In 1975 the Governor General of Australia did dismiss the PM and was backed by the voters in the next general election. But you would need a different abdication crisis for something like this to happen.
 
I'll do you one better, contrapose National, Winston shits in the weetbix by forming a coalition of splitters, all of whom protest that they're the genuine Tories, Liberals or Labour but who are sullenly decried as "Royal, not loyal". The few members they return divide against the act of parliamentary supremacy. Republicanism is made credible for debate in the general Labour Party and the Windsor on hand has an even bigger stone to push up hill to restore their credibility. Australia passes Westminster before the war and Canada demands a new act.
So Churchill and a few splitters stir things up from the back benches if they are that committed to the King over parliamentary democracy - but there will be a government with a fresh, massive majority, possibly even a grand coalition until the crisis is resolved and Edward VIII gone. It doesn't make the Republic debate during this era any more credible - the only voices of Republicanism at this level were either from Irish nationalists, Communists, fringe elements of the ILP and some elements of the far right - although most of these were were outside of parliament, and if they were, definitely not part of the government.

After the crisis is over in this scenario, Churchill after hitching his wagon to the lost King's cause, would be viewed as a historical curiosity and largely forgotten - a foot note to events during the interwar era; remembered perhaps in popular histories for his role in the Gallipoli campaign or in economic histories for returning Britain to the Gold Standard.
 
the only voices of Republicanism at this level were … from … fringe elements of the ILP
Which is why I'm suggesting that the act of loyal supremacy's greatest extension of the republican debate would be to legitimise the debate, not the position, in labour.

Also a very angry Canada.
 

Deleted member 94680

Labour was the party on Edward’s side, not the Tories.

Winston may have stirred a bit of trouble, but when it came to the crunch, he was effectively on Baldwin’s side.
 
Won't the act of marrying Wallace (which is what provoked the crisis) make him ineligible for the throne as he will be breaking his Coronation Oath to " maintaine the Laws of God the true profession of the Gospell and the Protestant
reformed religion established by law".

If he doesn't marry Wallace there is no crisis.

Edward may have been popular but there was still a pretty big stigma against divorce in the 1930's as far as the common man was concerned.
 
The simplest option would be the resignation of the government, followed by the refusal of opposition politicians and other prominent politicians, which probably would have ultimately included Churchill, to form a government. Assuming the armed forces do not back a royal dictatorship, and they wouldn't, the King would at this point change his mind and abdicate. Something like this could have occurred behind closed doors in our actual timeline and been resolved without public knowledge.

I agree with this. However, although Edward would almost certainly abdicate at this point, constitutionally-speaking he would be within his rights to dissolve parliament and call a fresh election. This is unlikely to mean much, as MPs returned to Parliament would probably be even less supportive of the King than before. But it does provide a means for Edward to prolong the crisis if he felt it was in his interests for some reason.

Also, to those who insist 'Parliament is sovereign' - sovereignty in the British (uncodified) constitution is actually given to the 'Crown-in-Parliament'. This means that legally neither institution can do anything without the consent of the other. Functionally, of course, monarchs always give assent and Parliament is effectively sovereign. It is important to note, however, that if Edward were stubborn enough he would be capable of grinding the entire business of government to a halt, unless Parliament can find a workaround (some possibilities have already been proposed on this thread).
 
Hmm. A crisis. However it sorta happened before. Parliament convenes (possibly via a Convention), the government communicates with the five Dominion heads-of-government[1], and declares the throne vacant. It's offered to the next in line (i.e. Albert) who becomes king and reconvenes parliament (if necessary). An enabling act, along the lines of the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act of 1689 is passed and life continues. Probably Albert grants a title to his brother, though the allowance is more dubious.
Life continues until the Internet is developed and the matter is speculated about on soc.history.whatif.



[1] Possibly causing de Valera to die from an apoplectic fit due to excessive chortling.
 
A complex issue and the suggestion of a King's Party was much talked about - However mainstream politicians in Britain were pretty unified about the fact that Mrs Simpson was "unacceptable" as Queen Consort.
Baldwin consulted on the options - King marries Mrs Simpson and becomes Queen, King marries Mrs Simpson and she receives a title but is not Queen, he abdicates and is free to marry where he wishes.
All the key figures ruled out the first two options - even Churchill had advised a wait and see (in the hope the King would fall out of love with Mrs S). Labour politicians were no more enamoured of the idea of a marriage than most Conservatives.
The Five Dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the Irish Free State) were no keener on the match either - the response from their government's was clear - definite no to her becoming Queen, some supported the morganatic solution if it meant ending the crisis and keeping the King.
Baldwin opposed Churchill's desire for a delay cos he wanted the business dealt with - and because from his conversations with the King probably meant he realised he wouldn't change his desire to marry his mistress.
There was more to it of course - largely the growing concern in Whitehall about the King's behaviour (even the former Labour PM Ramsey McDonald though the King's reported comments after his Wales visit were going too far) - comments he made, his attitude to ministers, his apparent boredom at the routine of being King (he enjoyed the perks but not the work), his opinions particularly on foreign affairs etc.
The King's support largely came from out of field people - Mosley (who still at this point had large support in the country but was no longer an MP), Lloyd George (not suprising given his own private life etc and he wasn't in the country) - Churchill had already made it clear he wouldn't lead a "King's Party".
Edward certainly had domestic support and papers such as those owned by Beaverbrook and Rotherhmore appeared to support him (although they favoured the morganatic marriage option). The more middle-class you were the less likely you were to favour the marriage.
After he was finally told he couldn't address the nation "to go away for a while" he decided to abdicate - the only course left.
If he refuses at that point - then Baldwin was prepared to resign (confident no-one else would accept the King's invitation to form a government).
So an election would have been called but that doesn't solve the immediate problem - even if a King's Party emerges with working class support and a rag tag of BUF members, a few arch tories and a few Labour and Liberal members it is unlikely to actually win a majority.
Baldwin returns to Buckingham Palace and says "Well Sir you wanted the people to have their say, they've had it" - at that point Baldwin says go and the terms are going to be even worse than in OTL for Edward.
 
I'm not sure Parliament wants to pick a fight with the monarchy about who he is allowed to marry if he digs in his heels and Labour could well see this as a means to tarnish the Tories for electoral gain. Historically the government threatened to resign, were they really prepared to cause a constitutional crisis over the king's choice of wife?

This wife? Yes. It was hushed up at the time, but Wallis' pro-Nazi sympathies at the time were well known to the Establishment (she was reportedly having an affair with von Ribbentrop, then German ambassador to London, even while supposedly being in a relationship with Edward). I suspect if the king had proven stubborn then KING DETERMINED TO MARRY NAZI SPY type headlines would start appearing in the yellow press. Edward would never be able to withstand the kickback from something like this.
 
An interesting wrinkle here is that under the Treason Felony Act of 1848, any effort by Baldwin or anyone else to "compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to deprive or depose [the King], from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown" would be a felony punishable by transportation or imprisonment for life.

On paper, that means Edward could have had Baldwin and anyone else on the record in favor of trying to force abdication arrested, tried, and imprisoned. In practice, though, it would have been politically disastrous for Edward and would probably have been used as grounds to declare Edward insane and appoint his brother Albert as regent.
 
An interesting wrinkle here is that under the Treason Felony Act of 1848, any effort by Baldwin or anyone else to "compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to deprive or depose [the King], from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown" would be a felony punishable by transportation or imprisonment for life.

On paper, that means Edward could have had Baldwin and anyone else on the record in favor of trying to force abdication arrested, tried, and imprisoned. In practice, though, it would have been politically disastrous for Edward and would probably have been used as grounds to declare Edward insane and appoint his brother Albert as regent.

The important thing to remember is how pragmatic the British used to be.
 
Labour was the party on Edward’s side, not the Tories.

Winston may have stirred a bit of trouble, but when it came to the crunch, he was effectively on Baldwin’s side.
None of the National Government parties, Labour or the Liberals were on Edward's side. As pointed out above in @mcdnab , Baldwin consulted both Attlee and Sinclair on the courses of action available and he had their support.

The issue becomes a bit more clouded if the Morganic solution is the unmovable King's position, but if the King is digging his heels in on full marriage, then that's unlikely to be an acceptable solution for him and he burns any good will in the Dominions where the Morganic option was more palatable.
 
None of the National Government parties, Labour or the Liberals were on Edward's side. As pointed out above in @mcdnab , Baldwin consulted both Attlee and Sinclair on the courses of action available and he had their support.

The issue becomes a bit more clouded if the Morganic solution is the unmovable King's position, but if the King is digging his heels in on full marriage, then that's unlikely to be an acceptable solution for him and he burns any good will in the Dominions where the Morganic option was more palatable.
That is important to remember, if he fought for a morganatic marriage it would be far more difficult to push it through.

A great many people did not care all that much about divorce, and their opposition to the match had to be justified more through concerns about the risks of someone of the moral character of Mrs. Simpson producing illegitimate royals.

I am reminded of Beaverbrooke's statement regarding the public's response to the King's radio broadcast, if the King chooses to go directly to the people, well, it would be difficult to stop him and he could perhaps make things very ugly (though Aitken of course overstated his impact). His request for that was refused but if he should have acted more unilaterally I think he could have done it, it would be difficult to stop him if he marched into the radio station. And he has plenty of papers that would be happy to publish his speech verbatim on the front page (with lengthy articles discussing every scandal Baldwin etc. could have ever been associated with) if the radios should be successfully blocked.

Ultimately, given the situation of 1936 Edward probably can't save his throne if all we change is his decision. But he can certainly destroy Baldwin. And can hold on for longer and force at least one general election on the issue. The Loyal Government Candidates could expect a great deal of support in papers like the Evening Standard and so people like Mosley would have a decent chance of getting into the Commons alongside Churchill and Lloyd George. Plenty of papers will probably be saying "Huzzah for the Blackshirts" for years to come while giving those parties a voice as they sought to delegitimize the post-abdication order.
 
Last edited:
@threadnecromancer I think that is quite a interesting scenario and with enough conditions or events, Baldwin would be personally finished politically and the National Government and the leading Labour and Liberals quite badly hurt - however I think that in the election they could still achieve a majority, and Baldwin still drive the abdication, and then stepping down immediately once the crisis was over. I think the 'Loyal Government Candidates' loosely led by the triumvirate of Mosley, Churchill and Lloyd George (stability might be an issue with those personalities in alignment, let alone in coalition, and never mind in the same room! ;)
 
@threadnecromancer I think that is quite a interesting scenario and with enough conditions or events, Baldwin would be personally finished politically and the National Government and the leading Labour and Liberals quite badly hurt - however I think that in the election they could still achieve a majority, and Baldwin still drive the abdication, and then stepping down immediately once the crisis was over. I think the 'Loyal Government Candidates' loosely led by the triumvirate of Mosley, Churchill and Lloyd George (stability might be an issue with those personalities in alignment, let alone in coalition, and never mind in the same room! ;)

Churchill's view was pretty clear - he supported Edward initially - but he was clear that he would not support or lead a "King's Party" - while I can see a rabble of pro-King MPs I can't see them getting a majority - a campaign over a few weeks would soon expose the rifts among those who supported the King.
Much will depend where those candidates emerge from (and if they can afford to stand for Parliament) - many of the King's natural supporters might not be too keen to vote for the King's Party if it means voting for a rather dodgy blackshirt.

The morganatic marriage issue was complex - Edward thought it the perfect solution - however in British law there is no provision for a woman to marry and not share her husband's styles and titles - there would have had to be enabling legislation and an amendment to the Act of Settlement presumably to bar any possible children they may have and that would also have to be enacted in the Dominions - also Baldwin and others believed the King was lying about it - that it would be the first step in Wallis becoming Queen and Empress of India.
There is the other issue of where he could marry her - they wouldn't have been able to marry in an Anglican church and there is the possibility that it wasn't legally possible for the King Emperor to marry in a civil ceremony.
You add in the real issue that Edward is Supreme Governor of the Church of England - the church was still implacably opposed to the remarriage of divorcees.

Messy either way.

I've always believed that Wallis enjoyed the attention of people like Von Ribbentrop - but to say she was pro-nazi is probably going a bit far - in exile Edward was foolish (he missed being King) and was willing to fall into the plans of other far more intelligent people and he harboured a growing resentment to his family in Britain
 
Top