God save the King. Edward VIII,1936-1972.

What if Edward VIII ,had never met Mrs Wally Simpson,and had remained King?
You can imagine he as King in WW-II,50s,60s and early 70s?
And assuming that he would never married,
Elizabeth-II would be Queen in 1972 ?
 
The obvious scenario would be that Britain came to some kind of agreement with Nazi Germany in 1940. The most likely to be quoted one would be that we would be part of the Third Reich but that probably wouldn't be the actual outcome. A lot depends on how much influence we could have wielded. Initially George V1 was in favour of appeasment but given the continued aggression of Nazi Germany like others moved asway from the position.

He probably couldn't have persuaded the governmnent to reach agreement over Danzig but may have been able to persuade them to accept peace talks in 1940 before any invasion could take place and in time to reach what was on the surface a face saving offer leaving the empire intact but left Hitler dominant in much of Europe. Britain would decline in in fluence whilst Nazi Germany became a super power and come increasingly under German infleunce but probably not domination. We may even have been persuaded to provide support for the invasion of Russia. However Roposevelt would not have been pleased.
 
The obvious scenario would be that Britain came to some kind of agreement with Nazi Germany in 1940.


He probably couldn't have persuaded the governmnent to reach agreement over Danzig but may have been able to persuade them to accept peace talks in 1940 before any invasion could take place and in time to reach what was on the surface a face saving offer leaving the empire intact but left Hitler dominant in much of Europe.
How?
in a costitutional Monarchy the King not rule.


Britain would decline in in fluence whilst Nazi Germany became a super power

Less or more that in post war OTL?

and come increasingly under German infleunce but probably not domination.

Like USA in OTL?

We may even have been persuaded to provide support for the invasion of Russia.

I think that without a fascist government (Mosley?) is improbable.
The more logical choise is neutrality.

However Roosevelt would not have been pleased.
Yes,but without a war in East Europe i dont'think that could get much.
But what about Japan?
Hitler help to reach an agreement Japan and British Empire,or we have a war in Pacific between USA,UK and Japan,and in this case which is the side of Hitler?
 
Andrew Hudson

I would agree with most of lounge60's point. If he did manage to use his influence to force a negotiated peace England/Britain has a way of disposing of leaders who act in ways that were not in our interests. I could see an abdication being forced in the next couple of years or at least forced into a powerless status.

Although it might work to Britain's advantage as long as the pro-fascist elements are defeated pretty quickly. While the empire's of Hitler and Stalin are tearing themselves apart in bloody conflict Britain gets the chance to regroup and hopefully regenerate a good bit of its industry, economics and military. Ready to play a decisive role, in the Pacific against Japan if that country follows its OTL path, and later to intervene in the continent when the enemy are exhausted.

Steve
 

Eurofed

Banned
Interesting question. Could have Edward VIII used his influence to keep Churchill away from the Premiership in May 1940, and put Halifax in his place, without causing a constitutional crisis ? This is very much the extent of the influence that I think he could have exercised, to steer history in a different direction, and I'm not sure he could have pulled off.

The constitutional precedents about a premier stepping down and being replaced by his party/coalition in wartime, and the degree of influence the monarch can exercise, in 1940 are not so clear for me. God, how much I prefer written constitutions.
 
Well, until 1964 the Conservative Party, somewhat astonishingly, did not have a leadership election procedure. Senior Cabinet members and Tory grandees (Magic Circle) would convene and ask the monarch to appoint one of their number Prime Minister and party leader. (so much for beign apolitical) Most famously except for Churchill with Home over Butler in '63.
 

wormyguy

Banned
I doubt that he would be as popular a monarch as Lizzie. I could see the UK becoming a republic when he dies in the murkiest time of the 70s.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Well, until 1964 the Conservative Party, somewhat astonishingly, did not have a leadership election procedure. Senior Cabinet members and Tory grandees (Magic Circle) would convene and ask the monarch to appoint one of their number Prime Minister and party leader. (so much for beign apolitical) Most famously except for Churchill with Home over Butler in '63.

Well, if the procedure is so informal, I think that Edward should be able to keep Churchill away from 10 Downing Street. And that, boys and girls, should change history considerably.
 
In 1940 Churchill, rather than Halifax, was the controversial choice, so I doubt King Edward would be slated for picking Halifax over Churchill. Most of the Conservative Party and the establishment wanted Halifax and apparently even the Labour Party was somewhat more sympathetic towards Halifax than Churchill, given the latter's role in the general strike.
 
In 1940 Churchill, rather than Halifax, was the controversial choice, so I doubt King Edward would be slated for picking Halifax over Churchill. Most of the Conservative Party and the establishment wanted Halifax and apparently even the Labour Party was somewhat more sympathetic towards Halifax than Churchill, given the latter's role in the general strike.

Lord Douglas

Possibly, although as Fletcher's excellent TL suggests that might be far from totally disastrous, for Britain, Europe or the world. The problem might be, if Edward was as pro-Nazi as some sources suggests, or simply as corrupt as others:(, what else he might have done?

Steve
 
If Edward doesn't meet Simpson thats a pre-1936 POD, meaning he could have become King sooner or later depending on his father's ailing health. Also no Constitutional Crisis has major butterflies, much more than simply a different bride.

Stanley Baldwin wouldn't step down and unless he cocks up (remember he's just won a landslide election for the National Government) I can't see him being ousted before an alt-WWII breaks out, combination of his politicking and the growing spectre of war would keep him in place. His only real rival was Chamberlain and they were allies more than anything, though Neville's calculating nature and his advancing years might see him go for it.

How Baldwin would deal with the coming of war is tricky. He was adament for peace but during the national euphoria after Chamberlain returned from Munich with the 'piece of paper' Baldwin said he admired the PM's courage but said he himself would not have gone. Also he believed Churchill was the man for a war Prime Minister back in '35, so maybe he would stand aside when things kicked off?

Regardless when it comes down to tanks and bombs I doubt he would have been anymore prepared than Chamberlain.

All this about Edward forcing peace, I really doubt it. I'm not totally up on the subject but bar the infamous hitler salute and a vague support of 'dynamic' political reform I've not seen anything to suggest he was openly pro-Nazi, his constitutional limitations aside.

Right, well Wallis met Edward in 1931 but she didn't replace Viscountess Furness as his mistress until Jan. 1934 when she went to holiday with family and Wallis stayed to 'keep him company'. Scratch that let's say in a fit of passion the Prince of Wales jets off with Furness, seems like his style. I have no doubt he and Wallis might have done a big of canoodling but this is the period they fell for each other. Instead on his extended holiday for falls head over heels for Furness and she stays his girl (he certainly had strong feelings for her so not unlikely). Then we have Wallis shoot off with some other young bachelor.

Minor butterflies will take place but it wont be major, until the point one of them has chance to be Queen, I can't see opinion of Edward's galavanting being too different for Furness or Wallis bar royal circles having more time for Furness. George V might be less stressed over Furness but he had strong moral convictions, relations outside of wedlock was a big no-no regardless of who was involved.

Butterflies will effect the King's death however but I'd say a window of Nov. 35 - Mar. 36 is reasonable, he was very poorly in his later years and flu season was what saw him off. Say March 1936.

This where things get trickier. Edward still upsets plenty of establishment figures by ignoring traditions but Furness will be a much bigger improvement in terms of the State's fears. She won't have anywhere near the dominating effect Wallis had on Eddie so fears of national security and being compromised will be gone. However we're still looking at a controversial divorcee. Best bet to have Baldwin agree will be for a morgantic marriage, barring any children from taking the throne. There were also plans afoot IOTL for a civil ceremony to avoid religious problems but that seems even more radical than allowing a CofE service, don't see the Defender of the Faith getting away with a secular wedding!

It will be under duress but the simple fact Edward VIII stays will be a victory and alot less stressful for the PM. So Baldwin definately stays, though Hertzog the South African PM might kick up a fuss over the issue, being even more hardline than Baldwin IOTL. Excusing the extra burden it will give SA-UK relations in the future not much difference.

Fast-forward to Anschluss, same as IOTL. Then the Sudetenland... hmmm, Baldwin quote saying he would not have the 'courage' to go to Munich bearing in mind his wish for peace and the positive public opinion on the move in OTL makes me think he might stand up for the Czechs. His views on Germany and War are complicated but I basically think he was pro-peace but not the idealist Chamberlain was. I'd imagine Eden remains at FO and with his confidence in Churchill as a future war leader, I think cynicism and the escalation of tensions by 1938 could see Baldwin doubt Hitler's sincerity all not without raging arguments in Cabinet.

Add to that Daladier, if he still becomes French PM after the fall of the Popular Front, a series of events I think would have happened pretty similar to OTL given the short period following the major POD of Edward and Furness' coronation, he will be far from an appeasement voice. French foreign policy relied on British agreement in this period, Daladier hated Hitler but was unconvinced France could go it alone so gave into Chamberlain's passionate support for appeasement. Here, a chaotic British Cabinet combined with French opposition to a deal might tip Baldwin to stand up for Czechoslovakia.

Then its up to Hitler what happens next. Munich gave Hitler the confidence to invade Poland but that was even despite an Anglo-French promise of support to Warsaw after the German takeover of Bohemia-Moravia. Will his free ride into the Rhineland and Austria combined with a tepid British PM convince him to risk it? Refusal to negotiate combined with continued Nazi postering will almost certainly see rearmament being kicked into high gear in the Allied camp. This too might make Hitler risk it, knowing his military machine will be eventually overtaken by the combined power of the world's two global empires. Also unlike Poland, the Sudeten Germans might be seen in Berlin as a guarantee of popular opposition to war in Britain and France.

In the name of interesting alt-history let's say he decides to go for it in spring '39. In the meantime he'll be looking to Poland and Hungary as possible allies to seize territory they've been looking at for years. Maybe Hitler is desperate to use a coalition invasion to shows its merely dismantling another creation of Versailles. Hungary's cause will be particularly well fought for, the Daily Mail under Lord Rothermere was extremly pro-Hungarian irrenditism.

Regardless if he can Daladier will fight for the Czechs and by this point Baldwin will probably have accepted the situation. Germany attacks, making used of the Austrian border to partially bypass Czech defences. Hungary may well go for it though Poland is a lot less likely given their small-ish claims and ties to France.

So German forces cross the border on March 1st 1939 along with Hungarians forces attacking Slovakia from the south. The Allies give an ultimatum, its rejected, they declare war. Stating health reasons and the need for unity (all this wrangling over war will have compromised Baldwin with the doves he was once apart of), Baldwin stands down for Churchill to take his place at the head of a War Cabinet, including National Govt, Labour and Liberal politicians.

How things go will be intriguing but military history is my weak point. I'd say the Soviets would take advantage to press the Baltic States and possibly Bessarabia. Poland I'm not sure about, will probably stay neutral and see how the winds go. If they side with Germany and then things turn sour I wouldn't be surprised to see the Soviets make an ad-hoc deal with the Allies and roll into Poland.

Anyway thems my thoughts on the idea.
 
Any military buffs have ideas regarding the various nation's capabilities in early '39? Would the lack of the Skoda Works and Polish experience have a major impact on the German war effort? Would the earlier start be worse for the Allies or Axis? How would the Czechoslovaks handle an invasion*? Would the French be more confident in assaulting Germany? What effect would Churchill as PM have right from the off?

*On this I can actually imagine some decent unity as the Slovaks will be more terrified of Hungarian imperialism than standing firm with the Czechs.
 
Everything I've ever come across indicates that an early war is bad for Germany, if that's any help, and if butterflies kick the French into a more aggressive stance, the effect of the difference in doctrines reduces, i Think.

Though that might take some pretty big butterflies.
 
No Wallis has significant butterflies, but does not necessarily mean no problems.

Despite his father's disapproval of his affairs the rest of the Royal Family (particularly the York's and the Kent's) got on well with Lady Furness (who was full of praise for the Duchess of York in her autobiography although to be fair Thelma probably didn't want to offend the by then popular Queen Mother).
However Thelma Furness is still going to be embroiled in the 1934 Vanderbilt custody trial and the subsequent fall out. Which suggests she would still have broken with the Prince that year (her divorce from Furness in 1933 would have been an added problem as the Prince had tended to avoid single women)
The Prince's character (whatever the revisionists might like to say) was pretty set by the thirties and the playboy prince was a rather jaded, selfith and spoilt individual by the time of his accession. That is unlikely to change in this TL.
An interesting point is that even before his accession it was common currency that he was uninspired by religion and bored by his royal duties and was rather ill informed of his constitutional duties.
His so called inspirational visit to Wales after his accession was in part mischief making by the anti Baldwin Beaverbrook press and secondly considerable spin.
With no Wallis divorce Baldwin probably does stay on in the short term but his likely successor remains Chamberlain (who had no time for Edward VIII at all). Edward VIII might have urged his government to peace, (pretty much as his brother George VI did) they came from a generation that had witnessed the first world war and had seen its effects on society (they weren't unique in their pro-appeasement stance), but his government has little obligation to listen to him. If war does happen and Chamberlain resigns as in OTL (he was dying at the time) then Winston is still the obvious choice. (He'd always got on with the Prince of Wales and is a big pal of Beaverbrook - one reason why in OTL George VI was so unhappy initially about his appointment). Halifax was close to the York's - and had very traditional views and was relatively devout man whatever his political views he himself was unwilling to take the premiership because as a peer he thought it would be hard to control the commons. He is also going to be of a generation and a view that will clash far more with the unmarried King with married or divorced girlfriends.
I would also say that its often too easy to overestimate David's pro Nazi stance. In exile he was a pretty bitter man and he and Wallis attracted a range of unsuitable friends. His pro-german views largely dated to the pleasure he'd had in visiting Germany before the 1st World War and his reasonably good relations with some of his german relations during the twenties and thirties. And in common with many people I suspect he was willing to believe most German propoganda if it avoided a war that most of society dreaded.
I think that any continuation of his reign will have a slightly more modern appearance in regard life at court, though I suspect he will argue more with his ministers (particularly those on the far right and far left than George VI), I suspect the York's, the Kent's and the Gloucester's will continue to enjoy a close relationship with the King and the York's in particular will play a pretty prominant role.
 
Top