WI: Edward VII gets married?

What if, despite the Constitutional crisis that would result, Edward had decided to marry Wallis Simpson? What would happen?
 
Oh bugger. VIII. At some point the Brits should've just let them have different names.

Well, their first names were actually different (Albert Edward vs. Edward Albert), but Edward VII went for that due to respect for Victoria's wishes that there shouldn't be a King Albert following the Prince's death.
 
Well, their first names were actually different (Albert Edward vs. Edward Albert), but Edward VII went for that due to respect for Victoria's wishes that there shouldn't be a King Albert following the Prince's death.

Well that makes sense, but the whole "Imperial name" nonsense makes it worse.
 
Baldwin resigns, a snap election is held and the Tories win a third consecutive landslide. Immediately afterwards they ram through legislation declaring the throne vacant and "elect" the then-Duke of York King. It's not pretty and sets a constitutional precedent or 2.
 
Baldwin resigns, a snap election is held and the Tories win a third consecutive landslide. Immediately afterwards they ram through legislation declaring the throne vacant and "elect" the then-Duke of York King. It's not pretty and sets a constitutional precedent or 2.

So basically, we get the same outcome as OTL? Damn.
 
Something I've never understood is why there was so much opposition to Edward as King and Head of the Church of England marrying a divorcee, especially saying as the Church was basically set up so that the monarch could get divorced. :confused:
 
Well, their first names were actually different (Albert Edward vs. Edward Albert), but Edward VII went for that due to respect for Victoria's wishes that there shouldn't be a King Albert following the Prince's death.

Actually, I believe (though I may be misinformed) that Victoria's wish was that her son reign as King Albert Edward.
 
Something I've never understood is why there was so much opposition to Edward as King and Head of the Church of England marrying a divorcee, especially saying as the Church was basically set up so that the monarch could get divorced. :confused:

Divorce was not permitted by the Church of England.

(Henry VIII's marriage was annulled, not divorced.)
 
Edward's leaving the throne allowed for a smoother transition. Kicking him off the throne would have required a long drawn out crisis.
 
Well thats what I was thinking. Could they have kicked him off the throne?

I just explained yes, by passing legislation declaring it vacant. However this scenario is near-ASB, primarily because a) he desired Wallis more than the throne b) had nowhere near the willpower to hold out that long.
 
There was public support for Edward. The government of New Zealand was the only dominion ready to support a "Princess consort Wallis" and didn't push for abdication.

In early December, Edward wanted to make a public speech, declaring his intention to marry and not abdicate, unless forced to. Baldwin and the Cabinet wouldn't allow this speech to be broadcast. However, if Edward was to circumvent Baldwin, and broadcast the speech, you could have public sentiment rise. Baldwin and much of his National Cabinet would probably resign, as threatened.

Elections may be held, but in the meantime you have Churchill as the only top-tiered MP who supported Edward. If the Torys win, could Churchill be Prime Minister? It's hard to imagine him supporting a forced abdication against the will of the people and the man who helped usher him into office.

All of this will of course, play out before the wedding. With increased public sentiment, more MPs will flock to the King's side. If we get a Conservative landslide, we'll probably end up with a morganatic marriage as a compromise that most people will hate but have to deal with.

King Edward and Princess Wallis get to enjoy mostly disdain from their royal peers, probably aren't allowed a marriage by the Church of England (Civil ceremony on top of all the other scandals), and the government isolates itself from the monarchy even more as they edge closer to World War III.

As King and Princess, they'd never be allowed to visit Germany, they'd never retire to engage in illegal trading, and they'd never retire to France. Edward would probably still die in the early '70s (assuming his cancer isn't exacerbated by Royal stress), and would be succeeded by his niece Elizabeth, next in the line of succession (assuming he and Wallis didn't do more to try and get an heir in this timeline - which the government would hope against).
 
Edward did not have the willpower to hold out that long. If Baldwin resigns, then there will be a snap election which produces the 3rd Tory landslide in 5 years. Why would the government be forced to accept a compromise when they hold all the cards?
 
Edward did not have the willpower to hold out that long. If Baldwin resigns, then there will be a snap election which produces the 3rd Tory landslide in 5 years. Why would the government be forced to accept a compromise when they hold all the cards?

It would be a compromise with the other Dominions following increased public support after Edward's speech and the ascendancy of certain politicians (Churchill) who publicly supported Edward and did not resign following Edward's announcement of marriage.

Admittedly, I may not know everything that's going on. I just think, personally, that it'd be harder in the 1930s to force out a British King, who didn't want to abdicate, than it was in the 1680s. In the planned speech, he implied he would only abdicate if forced to. There are more pressing concerns on the horizon, and the new government might not want to be seen as anti-monarchist. Perhaps a compromise with Edward is in order, saying "You stay out of politics and no longer do this, this, and this, and we'll pass legislation allowing your marriage to Mrs. Simpson."
 
could Churchill be Prime Minister? ).[/QUOTE]

An earlier Prime Minister Churchill is the only way I see King Edward and Princess Wallace really change history. The big question would be would he survive a no confidence motion in September 1938, when he wants to
go to war.
 
Divorce was not permitted by the Church of England.

(Henry VIII's marriage was annulled, not divorced.)

Two of them anyway.
;)
Point is, NONE were divorced. 6 wives, 2 annulled, 2 beheaded, 1 died in childbirth, 1 outlived him.

People think that "annulment" is the Roman synonym for "divorce". It isn't. Annulment means the marriage NEVER HAPPENED, (even if the wedding did:))

Obviously, it sometimes was used by royalty as a replacement for divorce, since the latter wasn't allowed in the West.
 
Top