The Duke and Duchess of Windsor have children

[Nicola]

Lord Albert and Lady Alice in a titled , but none HRH and out of the line of succession cul de sac pose little threat unless and until the-aquatic-mammal-that-must-not-be-mentioned succeeds and Edward is restored as king of the puppet Empire ...

The relationship between Albert and Alice and their mother would have some effect on any desires they may have had towards anything to do with the Monarchy.

 

[Welshroyalhistory]

Answers in bold

People have short memories. By the time that little Albert and Alice are old enough to be in the public eye in the 1950s, the public has moved on and Elizabeth is universally accepted as Queen, her cousins would probably have far happier and easier lives if they do not try and make things difficult. The abdication is by that point a part of history.

Elizabeth II was accepted as Queen in 1952 despite the Duke of Windsor being alive and well. There were no one rushing to claim the abdication was forced or false.

Anyway who would swap Elizabeth II in 1952 for Edward and Wallis?

To his credit the Duke always recognized his niece as HM The Queen, there is quite a moving account of her visiting Paris just before his death in 1972 at their villa and him insisting on standing despite being very sick in order to greet his Sovereign appropriately with a deep bow. There is a picture of the Duchess curtseying to her niece by marriage.

I do imagine the presence of Windsor children would have forced the Royal family to be more conciliatory to the Duke and Duchess enough not to alienate the children.

 

[Nicola]

<snip>

I do imagine the presence of Windsor children would have forced the Royal family to be more conciliatory to the Duke and Duchess enough not to alienate the children.

which could prove an interesting part of this TL if Albert and/ or Alice were to have a child in the period 1961 -1965 making that child a contemporary of Prince Edward, Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah Armstrong -Jones

 

[Welshroyalhistory]

which could prove an interesting part of this TL if Albert and/ or Alice were to have a child in the period 1961 -1965 making that child a contemporary of Prince Edward, Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah Armstrong -Jones

Not sure what you are suggesting? Hopefully not a marriage!

I don't think a child of Albert or Alice Windsor is going to be any more important or high profile than Viscount Linley or Sarah Chatto is now, which is very, very minor.

 

[Parterre]

Is Albert really an inflammatory name? I actually had no idea what to call the children, I was going to go with Ernest but that was Wallis' ex-husband's name, even now it seems unlikely that the DoW would have named his son after his brother.

 

[Nicola]

People have short memories. By the time that little Albert and Alice are old enough to be in the public eye in the 1950s,

no so little really... given the DoBs suggested , at the time of the coronation in 1953 Albert would be 13 or 14 depending on exact dates and Alice would be 11 or 12 ...

 

[Welshroyalhistory]

Is Albert really an inflammatory name? I actually had no idea what to call the children, I was going to go with Ernest but that was Wallis' ex-husband's name, even now it seems unlikely that the DoW would have named his son after his brother.

Albert was obviously the name of George VI, who was known within the family as Bertie.

Bertie and David had a very difficult relationship in these years, David was very angry about Wallis being deprived of the HRH and in turn the King was angry that David had lied to him about his finances.

I just can't see the Duke of Windsor naming his first born son after his brother at this particular time.

 

[Welshroyalhistory]

I don't really see any of the other royal houses of Europe supporting him ( the Danes and Greeks definitely wouldn't given Philip marrying Elizabeth), and the way in which George VI supported the other royal families of Europe during WW2

Perhaps the current Prince of Liechtenstein might wish to cause trouble and come out in favour of Albert Windsor. Might be a way of causing trouble plus benefits its family in the long run,

Once Albert Windsor and Elizabeth II are fighting, he can then propose to resolve it by returning Britain to its rightful monarchy - in the person of his his daughter-in-law HRH Hereditary Princess Sophie.

 

[Nicola]

Is Albert really an inflammatory name? I actually had no idea what to call the children, I was going to go with Ernest but that was Wallis' ex-husband's name, even now it seems unlikely that the DoW would have named his son after his brother.

I presume that people are saying it;s inflammatory because or Prince Albert, Queen Victoria 's Husband

however ...

Edward VII 's given names were Albert Edward

George V 's given names were George Frederick Ernest Albert
his brothers were Albert Victor and
Alexander John Charles Albert

EdwardVIII's given names were Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David
George VI's given names were Albert Frederick Arthur George

their brothers ' given names were
John Charles Francis (' the lost prince ' - died aged 14 is documented to have epilepsy and though to have other neurological problems / learning disabilities)
George Edward Alexander Edmund; (the Duke of Kent)
Henry William Frederick Albert; ( the Duke of Gloucester)

so not all that much of a suprise or deliberate inflammatory act really ...

 

[Danth]

Elizabeth II was accepted as Queen in 1952 despite the Duke of Windsor being alive and well. There were no one rushing to claim the abdication was forced or false.


I do imagine the presence of Windsor children would have forced the Royal family to be more conciliatory to the Duke and Duchess enough not to alienate the children.

Because he was dying

Personally I agree but I am trying to show how they are still technically a threat

 

[Welshroyalhistory]

Because he was dying

Personally I agree but I am trying to show how they are still technically a threat

Dying? The Duke of Windsor lived for 20 years after his niece became Queen.

Its fine to say technically they were a threat but you have not explained why and in what context you perceive them as a potential threat?

One could argue that the existence of the Prince of Wales or Duke of Cambridge is a threat to Elizabeth II, they present the British people with an alternative. However they do not threaten her because to undermine the Sovereign, which would in turn jeopardize their own futures.

Its fine for Albert Windsor to argue he is the legitimate monarch but on what basis? Right of birth? Um no, tell that to Franz of Bavaria or his brother Max or his daughter Sophie of Liechtenstein!

You cant have your cake and eat it.

So that leaves you with the legal position, which is the basis upon which the Windsors reign in Britain. The legal position is clear, Elizabeth II is the rightful Queen. To oppose that is to oppose British law, now we all know the Duke of Windsor was quite fond of fascism so it isn't too far removed to imagine that his son would follow suit but the British establishment are not going to take it lying down and is going to come out fighting.

Say for example in the 1960s Albert comes of age and starts getting a bit mouthy, it upsets the British government, it is proud of its monarchy and an unstable monarchy is bad for Britain and its image overseas. The British government is going to raise issues with the French government, who since the 1940s have been providing the Duke of Windsor with a grace and favour home and special taxation privileges which allow him to develop a great fortune. France isn't going to risk its relationship with Britain over the children of the Duke of Windsor. They tell them to shut up or leave.

 

[libbrit]

Just because he has abdicated dosn't mean he/descendants are not legitimate contenders to the throne

And that is a threat

Um, yes it does illegitimise future children. Quite explicitly.

the Instrument of Abdication

 

[Parterre]

Any children would not have been a threat. But what would they do with their lives? What would their relationship with the RF be like?

 

[Nicola]

Any children would not have been a threat. But what would they do with their lives? What would their relationship with the RF be like?

potentially live their lives in the way that other 'minor' royals do ...

working in art / wine/ antiques etc ( e.g, s from real life Lord Snowdon and Viscount Linley ) or like Peter Philips in corporate roles where the fact he is who he is is possibly more important than being the absolute best at the job

Albert would probably be unlikely to take a commission in one of the British Armed Forces, however if he did he may, like Edward - Duke of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent or Prince Andrew serve a full career of a military officer ( it's quite possible that Prince Harry will serve a full career like his Uncle Andrew - especially once there is a little Cambridge or two running around and Harry stops being the primary 'spare')

as for ALice that depends on if and when she marries ...

 

[Parterre]

And who might she marry? The same question could apply to Albert.

 

[Welshroyalhistory]

And who might she marry? The same question could apply to Albert.

Well that's impossible speculation. Since 1917 there has been no expectation for members of the BRF to marry royalty, no could have speculated before 1960 that Princess Margaret would marry a photographer, there are really no rules and so who Albert and Alice could marry is pretty much impossible to speculate about, they could have married just about anyone...although if Alice had one ounce of her mother's spirit in her you know she would have married a seriously wealthy man!

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Given that Wallis was no spring chicken, its entirely possible said child might have had Downs Syndrome, the risk of which increases dramatically as the mother gets older....

 

[Cook]

Just because he has abdicated dosn't mean he/descendants are not legitimate contenders to the throne

And that is a threat

This is not the fifteenth century, there is not going to be another War of the Roses, the succession is decided by act of Parliament so there couldn’t even be a legal challenge; so there is no threat.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Is this a recommendation or your reading of the grant? If it's the former, it's rather harsh. If it's the latter, then I'm pretty sure the letters patent deprived his heirs of the title of HRH, not the dukedom per se.Even if they were to be granted no title, his children, as those of a duke, would at least be entitled to refer to themselves as Lord and Lady. So there's no reason to assume that "Lord Albert" shall not succeed to the title of Duke of Windsor come 1972. This raises the interesting possibility of a Duke of Windsor sitting in the Lords, at least until 1997.

It is a recomendation based on readings into modifications to other titles that George V did earlier. The Monarch is the fount of all titles and George VI apparently created the title in 1937. That any children of Edward and Wallis would receive a title would be dependent upon their uncle, George VI.

 

[Danth]

This is not the fifteenth century, there is not going to be another War of the Roses, the succession is decided by act of Parliament so there couldn’t even be a legal challenge; so there is no threat.

No one said war god sake why do people dramatis everything

Technically they are a threat from birth as was their father.
BUT
like their father they would probably do nothing and respect the current monarch it's as simple as that
No wars
No crisis
Nothing
Unless one of them starts saying they should be monarch then the SUN picks it up and runs with it for a headline if nothing happens and everyone laughs for a weekend