George VIII's successor

If the Abdication Crisis had not occurred, or indeed if he had been restored to the throne as the result of a 1940 British peace treaty with Germany, who was George VIII's heir apparent?

I can't find a record of any children, and while my guess is Elizabeth, George VI's daughter, I'm specifically looking for who it would be if George VI had renounced the claims of himself and his successors.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Do you mean Edward VIII?

Assuming normal succession, it would have been OTL's George VI.

Assuming George VI renounces his rights to the succession along with his own progeny, even unto the billionth generation, then it would have been Henry, Duke of Gloucester.
 
Do you mean Edward VIII?

Assuming normal succession, it would have been OTL's George VI.

Assuming George VI renounces his rights to the succession along with his own progeny, even unto the billionth generation, then it would have been Henry, Duke of Gloucester.


Wasn't Henry of Gloucester the one about whom it was said:

"if he ever managed to ascend to the thone, he'd probably fall off" :confused:
 
Ah right, read this a few times and I see what you mean. You mean who was EDWARD VIII's heir apparent if he had ruled until his death in 1972. If there had been NO abdication and subsequent retaking up of the throne then it would indeed have been Elizabeth, daughter of the Duke of York (OTL's George VI).

However, if you are assuming a Nazi-inspired reassumption of rule for Edward VIII then the successor could be whoever he wants it to be. This would basically be due to the Nazi British government having attainted which ever members of the royal family had fled abroad.

Indeed, in a story I wrote, Edward VIII adopts the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Albany (attainder reversed under Edward VIII) and he succeeds as, IIRC, Charles III !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Oops, just read the bit where you say George VI had to renounce the throne for him and his successors.

In that case it would, if straighforward, be Henry, Duke of Gloucester who would become Henry IX but he may have agreed by then to pass over his rights for his son, who would be . . . well, it depends !

Prince William, Duke of Gloucester was born in 1941 and died in an accident in OTL in 1972. However, its possible that neither of these events have gone according to OTL in a 1940 Nazi invasion timeline. His mother may have miscarried through stress, or if he were born after George VI's abdication and renunciation, the prince may have been named something other than William. I doubt he would have been flying a plane around the country if he had been Heir Apparent so his OTL death is unlikely too

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Henry IX, William V, or Frederick I?

He doesn't neccessarily have to use any of his own names as his regnal name. (Although it's quite likely.) Considering how unimaginative he was, he may opt for something like George VI.

What I would really like to see is a TL where George, Duke of Kent becomes King. :D
 
He doesn't neccessarily have to use any of his own names as his regnal name. (Although it's quite likely.) Considering how unimaginative he was, he may opt for something like George VI.

What I would really like to see is a TL where George, Duke of Kent becomes King. :D

There were people who actually proposed that during the Abdication Crisis on the basis that Kent was the only brother of Edward VIII who had any sons at the time

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
There were people who actually proposed that during the Abdication Crisis on the basis that Kent was the only brother of Edward VIII who had any sons at the time

It's a nice idea, but I think it's ultimately unrealistic because it would play havoc with the succession. In a system in which the eldest male is supposed to inherit, giving the throne to the youngest more or less on a whim seems a bit dodgy.
 
It's a nice idea, but I think it's ultimately unrealistic because it would play havoc with the succession. In a system in which the eldest male is supposed to inherit, giving the throne to the youngest more or less on a whim seems a bit dodgy.

Well, its why it was decided against !

A more realistic idea would be to blow up Buckingham Palace in 1940, taking out George VI and his daughters and also get the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester in some attack. IMHO this is really only likely during an actual invasion though.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
It's a nice idea, but I think it's ultimately unrealistic because it would play havoc with the succession. In a system in which the eldest male is supposed to inherit, giving the throne to the youngest more or less on a whim seems a bit dodgy.
But it would be cool for there to have been a recent king who wasn't all weak and genial "Oh, hello, hello... What do you do? Oh, you're a plumber? What on earth is that..." (thank you Eddie Izzard :D)
 
It's a nice idea, but I think it's ultimately unrealistic because it would play havoc with the succession. In a system in which the eldest male is supposed to inherit, giving the throne to the youngest more or less on a whim seems a bit dodgy.

Edward VIII had already played havoc with the succession, there was no provision for abdication in any of the laws enacted since the end of the Stuarts that related to succession. In 1937 the British Parliament had to enact a special law in order to accept the abdication and with that in mind many realised that the normal rules didn't apply, so that is why there was actual discussion as to the choice of next King. The Duke of Kent had his supporters because he was so much like his older brother, only without the Divorced American Wife, the Duke of York was chosen because he was so unlike his brother. And if there is ever another abdication there would need to be more special laws enacted because the 1937 laws weren't general in nature and only applied to the events of 1937.
 
Top