Edward VIII refuses to abdicate

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
That is important to remember, if he fought for a morganatic marriage it would be far more difficult to push it through.
A major problem with the idea of a morganatic marriage is the lack of basis for it in English common law and lack of precedent in British constitutional history.
 
Whatever happens however messy it gets Parliament will come out on top. Parliament controls the purse strings its no good being King if you dont have any money.
 
OK. Let's run with the apocalyptic option.

1. The King declares he's staying.
2. Baldwin resigns. Labour and Liberals refuse to form a government.
3. The King appoints someone who wants him (does not have to be an MP)
4. New PM defeated in a vote of no-confidence.
5. Election. Anti-King Party likely winners.
6. Conservatives, Labour, and Liberals refuse to form a government.
7. Repeat 3-4.
8. Another Election.
9. Repeat 6-8 until the Government runs out of money.
10. The King revokes the income from the Crown Estates (traditionally surrendered to Parliament at the start of the reign), and tries to run a skeleton government off that.
11. Revolution or military coup.
 
I should mention that there is no legal mechanism for removing a monarch. It's why James II running away was declared as abdication - if he'd stayed put in London, William would have been in a seriously awkward situation.
 
I should mention that there is no legal mechanism for removing a monarch. It's why James II running away was declared as abdication - if he'd stayed put in London, William would have been in a seriously awkward situation.
In theory parliament could declare that Edwards is no longer monarch, create a provisional government (in the manner of the Convention Parliament of 1689), invite Albert to become king and then pass enabling legislation to legalise the position. Parliament is supreme.
 
In theory parliament could declare that Edwards is no longer monarch, create a provisional government (in the manner of the Convention Parliament of 1689), invite Albert to become king and then pass enabling legislation to legalise the position. Parliament is supreme.

Very true. Alternatively they could focus Edward's mind by erecting a wooden platform outside the Banqueting House in Whitehall.
 
Having your wannabe wife sleeping with Ribbentrop though might be.

Also, Parliament’s supremacy is not going to be challenged here. When push comes to shove, even the Kings Party crowd (save Moseley) would side with Parliament for institutional reasons.

Eddie’s on a short leash even with his supporters.
 
Pretty much what it says on the tin: what if rather than accept the abdication being pushed on him Edward instead refuses and fights to keep his status as heir to the throne?
If he mange to reign until his death it will be his his eldest surviving brother, Henry, Duke of Gloucester, who will become King Henry IX in 1972 at the age of 72. Henry's reign would have lasted only two years before his death in 1974. Of Henry's two sons, the eldest, William, had died in a tragic accident two years before his father's death, thus leaving his brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester to ascend to the throne as King Richard IV in 1974.
 
I saw a Channel 4 doc a few years back that included the charge that she was passing on classified information to Ron Vibbentropp. Basically the cabinet met in the morning, the PM briefed the King who the went home and told Wallis. She immediately ran round to the German embassy and spilled the beans to Ron, who then couldn't resist revealing what he knew to a shocked British diplomat at a cocktail party that evening.
 
If he mange to reign until his death it will be his his eldest surviving brother, Henry, Duke of Gloucester, who will become King Henry IX in 1972 at the age of 72. Henry's reign would have lasted only two years before his death in 1974. Of Henry's two sons, the eldest, William, had died in a tragic accident two years before his father's death, thus leaving his brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester to ascend to the throne as King Richard IV in 1974.

Why Henry instead of Elizabeth? Albert, Duke of York (OTL George VI) would probably still have predeceased his older brother, but I'm pretty sure his daughters and their respective issue would still have been in the line of succession before Albert's younger brothers and their issue. It's the same logic as the succession for George II in 1760: he'd outlived his eldest son, Prince Frederick, but the throne passed to Frederick's son (George III) instead of Frederick's surviving younger brother (William, Duke of Cumberland).
 

Asami

Banned
If he mange to reign until his death it will be his his eldest surviving brother, Henry, Duke of Gloucester, who will become King Henry IX in 1972 at the age of 72. Henry's reign would have lasted only two years before his death in 1974. Of Henry's two sons, the eldest, William, had died in a tragic accident two years before his father's death, thus leaving his brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester to ascend to the throne as King Richard IV in 1974.

Incorrect. The Crown works in such a manner that it assumes all potential monarchs are living until the crown reaches them. If Edward VIII reigned until 1972 and had no children, the crown would have legally passed to Elizabeth Mountbatten, Duchess of Edinburgh; then to her children, grandchildren, et al.

It's agnatic-cognatic primogeniture; not agnatic seniority.

The only way the Crown goes to Henry is if Elizabeth and Margaret die before having children.
 
OK. Let's run with the apocalyptic option.

1. The King declares he's staying.
2. Baldwin resigns. Labour and Liberals refuse to form a government.
3. The King appoints someone who wants him (does not have to be an MP)
4. New PM defeated in a vote of no-confidence.
5. Election. Anti-King Party likely winners.
6. Conservatives, Labour, and Liberals refuse to form a government.
7. Repeat 3-4.
8. Another Election.
9. Repeat 6-8 until the Government runs out of money.
10. The King revokes the income from the Crown Estates (traditionally surrendered to Parliament at the start of the reign), and tries to run a skeleton government off that.
11. Revolution or military coup.
Its not going to pan out anything like that. Provided even during the transition to crisis is relatively OTL, neither the National Government parties, Labour or the Liberals are going to form a government. There were just 20 MPs from outside these parties in the parliament based on the 1935 election results.

Once the cabinet has resigned, there will be an election. Its totally pointless for the King to try and 'beat the system' - he can't. The institutions and establishments are simply to powerful and ingrained - this isn't a banana republic or a fledgling young democracy and its not an issue that people are going to rise in revolution in the streets about or the military unilaterally intervene.

Not even the King would reach that peak delusion. After the very short general election solely on this issue, where an agreement between the major parties is very likely (see: something akin to the 1918 Coupon Agreement), Baldwin can demand rightfully that the King must go, that the voice of the people has spoken through representative democracy.
 
In theory parliament could declare that Edwards is no longer monarch, create a provisional government (in the manner of the Convention Parliament of 1689), invite Albert to become king and then pass enabling legislation to legalise the position. Parliament is supreme.

Parliament in the UK has three components - the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the Sovereign. A declaration from the Commons and Lords without the Sovereign would be a coup (the military, BTW, is sworn to the monarch, not the PM).

Parliament is Supreme, but the House of Commons alone is not.
 
Its not going to pan out anything like that. Provided even during the transition to crisis is relatively OTL, neither the National Government parties, Labour or the Liberals are going to form a government. There were just 20 MPs from outside these parties in the parliament based on the 1935 election results.

Once the cabinet has resigned, there will be an election. Its totally pointless for the King to try and 'beat the system' - he can't. The institutions and establishments are simply to powerful and ingrained - this isn't a banana republic or a fledgling young democracy and its not an issue that people are going to rise in revolution in the streets about or the military unilaterally intervene.

Not even the King would reach that peak delusion. After the very short general election solely on this issue, where an agreement between the major parties is very likely (see: something akin to the 1918 Coupon Agreement), Baldwin can demand rightfully that the King must go, that the voice of the people has spoken through representative democracy.

I know it is unrealistic. I am describing the apocalyptic situation where neither King nor MPs back down.
 
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.
The key word is "reportedly ". The Press was used as propaganda then, no less than now. Her detractors undoubtedly spread many unpleasant rumours about her.
 
There were loads of rumours - some were close to true and others weren't - to be fair Wallis is the only one whose view of what was happening is rather murky - there are two or three schools of thought.
Wallis was politically quite innocent with little understanding of the role of a constitutional monarch - Edward was very pro-appeasement and pro-German (his affection for Germany dated from a pre WWI and his horror of war relate like many to what happened in WWI) - Edward was careless with his mouth and his papers - i suspect Wallis enjoyed the attention of knowing things others didn't and happily passed them on - to be fair Edward wasn't much better - eventually ministers started censoring which papers were sent to the King.
We do know that the British Government intelligence on her suggested she was seeing other people (a certain car salesman) which in fact hardened their attitude against her.
Wallis was in an old fashioned sense a bit of a gold digger with a murky past to the British Establishment of the day - and many, even people he considered close friends, never really understood his passion for her.
He talked of the horrors of what he'd seen in Wales at the same time showered her with jewels and saw no irony in it at all - had his adoring public really known him his popularity might have started to fade - an easy comparison is with Diana Princess of Wales or the late Queen Mother both adored and enormously popular but the real person behind the smile is rather elusive to most of the public.
His previous mistresses had on the whole been tolerated because they didn't pose a threat - in an old fashioned sense it was a case of "boys will be boys" - the Yorks and the Kents for example all got on reasonably well with Thelma Lady Furness.

By the time the crisis was public behind the scene's briefings were in full flow - the politicians and the Church of England were in full agreement - he could only stay if he gave up his wish to marry her.
I think in reality the key figures were determined he had to go full stop - effectively they wanted rid of him - Baldwin had already made it clear to the Duke of York (his wife took to her bed as she usually did at major crisis points) that he almost certainly would be King.

If Edward digs his heels in then support might be strong initially - the parties might go into election mode facing a groundswell of popular support for the King egged on by Beaverbrook and Rothermere - but i suspect it starts to slowly fade away as the election nears - Edward is almost certainly going to cock it up.

As has been pointed out it is actually hard to remove a King who won't go - and attempts to do so are going to cause long-term damage to both Parliament and the Crown.
 
If the king won't take sense, then commons will call an election. If he still won't take sense than all three major parties in commons will make a manifesto postition of an act for the king to leave. Lords won't refuse the top three parties being a massively super-majority on a manifesto issue.

When was the last refused assent to an act that passed both U.K. houses? Refused assent to a manifesto type issue?

Also, long before such a thing would happen I'd expect an unfortunate boating accident / sudden lamentable illness / etc. probably organised by the Windsors themselves to keep the shop going. And the whole story would be repeated to little Windsors about why you can chase, but don't marry it.
 
If the king won't take sense, then commons will call an election. If he still won't take sense than all three major parties in commons will make a manifesto postition of an act for the king to leave. Lords won't refuse the top three parties being a massively super-majority on a manifesto issue.

When was the last refused assent to an act that passed both U.K. houses? Refused assent to a manifesto type issue?

Also, long before such a thing would happen I'd expect an unfortunate boating accident / sudden lamentable illness / etc. probably organised by the Windsors themselves to keep the shop going. And the whole story would be repeated to little Windsors about why you can chase, but don't marry it.

Last time Royal Assent was refused was by Queen Anne in 1707 I believe.
 
Top