WI Edward VIII Does Not Abdicate?

[Mysterion]

Let's assume that Edward VIII does not abdicate. He either decides not to pursue marriage to Wallis Simpson, or an acceptable marriage plan is worked out with the Church and/or Government.

What effect ould an extended reign of Edward VIII have on the history of Britain and the UK, etc. as oppossed to the reigns of Geoerge VI, and Elizabeth II (from 1952 instead of 1972)?

Further, let's say he reigns until his death in 1972, but produces no heir. Am I correct in assuming that Elizabeth would still be next in line for the throne, as the oldest child the King's brother (Goerge VI in OTL)? what title would she have held in the meantime? I assume she would have been a Duchess (of York?) or something?

 

[GarethC]

Let's assume that Edward VIII does not abdicate. He either decides not to pursue marriage to Wallis Simpson, or an acceptable marriage plan is worked out with the Church and/or Government.

What effect ould an extended reign of Edward VIII have on the history of Britain and the UK, etc. as oppossed to the reigns of Geoerge VI, and Elizabeth II (from 1952 instead of 1972)?

Further, let's say he reigns until his death in 1972, but produces no heir. Am I correct in assuming that Elizabeth would still be next in line for the throne, as the oldest child the King's brother (Goerge VI in OTL)? what title would she have held in the meantime? I assume she would have been a Duchess (of York?) or something?

An acceptable marriage plan is one that isn't to Wallis Simpson.

If Edward was the sort of person with the sense of duty to forgo his romance for the state, then I suspect he'd be every bit the king his brother was - any admiration he might personally have felt for Hitler would be cast aside by war and trampled into the dirt by the Blitz.

He'd had mumps - was he able to father children? It doesn't seem to have been for lack of trying.

If you want a traditional (well, clichéd) device, then have him have a big change in character upon the death of George V, at which point he ditches Wallis, starts reading his mail, pushes the RAF (he'd been a pilot since WW1).

I guess my main point is, that if he's going to be King at all, he's got to be so different from the OTL person that you can pretty much let your writer's imagination run free.

 

[IndefatigableRN]

An acceptable marriage plan is one that isn't to Wallis Simpson.

If Edward was the sort of person with the sense of duty to forgo his romance for the state, then I suspect he'd be every bit the king his brother was - any admiration he might personally have felt for Hitler would be cast aside by war and trampled into the dirt by the Blitz.

He'd had mumps - was he able to father children? It doesn't seem to have been for lack of trying.

If you want a traditional (well, clichéd) device, then have him have a big change in character upon the death of George V, at which point he ditches Wallis, starts reading his mail, pushes the RAF (he'd been a pilot since WW1).

I guess my main point is, that if he's going to be King at all, he's got to be so different from the OTL person that you can pretty much let your writer's imagination run free.

Indeed, I have no doubt he would be every bit the king that was George VI

 

[GarethC]

Indeed, I have no doubt he would be every bit the king that was George VI

Well bah humbug to you too. A stoic figure of national unity in wartime, an absence of egregiously public moral failings, an appropriately-photogenic family to ensure the succession, and death before embarrassing senility but after an illness long enough to give the media plenty of warning. Sounds like a superb innings for a head of state, let alone a last-minute substitute.

 

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

One thing to consider is that Winston Churchill firmly supported edward even going so far as to offer to stand for election heading "The King's Party". A RAF pilot as King and Churchill if not Prime Minister at least in the Cabinet would have made for a very different preperation for war.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

He has to keep his pro Nazi views to himself. I think if his desire for a peace with Germany became public, he would have been forced from the throne. He has restrain himself in his meetings with the Prime Minister. Churchill strikes me as blabbermouth. If George dies on schedule and as a heavy smoker he probably would die before his brother, even without the stress of being king, then Elizabeth is Queen, when Edward dies.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

That is unless Edward marries someone else and has children. I have read that Wallis could not have children because of a botched abortion.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

One thing to consider is that Winston Churchill firmly supported edward even going so far as to offer to stand for election heading "The King's Party". A RAF pilot as King and Churchill if not Prime Minister at least in the Cabinet would have made for a very different preperation for war.

Churchill did support Edward before the abdication, hoping some compromise could be found. However, the 'Kings Party' seems to have been just rumour, and i believe Churchill denied it.

 

[bm79]

Let's assume that Edward VIII does not abdicate. He either decides not to pursue marriage to Wallis Simpson, or an acceptable marriage plan is worked out with the Church and/or Government.

What effect ould an extended reign of Edward VIII have on the history of Britain and the UK, etc. as oppossed to the reigns of Geoerge VI, and Elizabeth II (from 1952 instead of 1972)?

Further, let's say he reigns until his death in 1972, but produces no heir. Am I correct in assuming that Elizabeth would still be next in line for the throne, as the oldest child the King's brother (Goerge VI in OTL)? what title would she have held in the meantime? I assume she would have been a Duchess (of York?) or something?

NOPE!!!

If Edward were to live to 1972, there'd still be one living brother in line before Elizabeth, Henry Duke of Gloucester. Upon his death a few years later, his son Richard would become king (George VI, most likely ).

As for Lizzy, she would have become Duchess of York upon her father's death. Since Henry is the last surviving offspring of George V, and since Richard/George would have had no surviving sibling upon his accession (and is still living), she'd still hold that title today. His son Alexander, current Earl of Ulster, would now be Prince of Wales.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

NOPE!!!

If Edward were to live to 1972, there'd still be one living brother in line before Elizabeth, Henry Duke of Gloucester. Upon his death a few years later, his son Richard would become king (George VI, most likely ).

As for Lizzy, she would have become Duchess of York upon her father's death. Since Henry is the last surviving offspring of George V, and since Richard/George would have had no surviving sibling upon his accession (and is still living), she'd still hold that title today. His son Alexander, current Earl of Ulster, would now be Prince of Wales.

No Elizabeth would have been the heir. Since George was next in line, his eldest daughter followed him. In the British line of succession your children come right after you.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

Even in the pre 2011 system of primogenitor daughters came right behind their parents. That is how the present Queen got to be Queen.
1. HRH Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales (b. 1948)
2. HRH Prince William of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge (b. 1982)
3. HRH Prince Henry of Wales (b. 1984)
4. HRH Prince Andrew, The Duke of York (b. 1960)
5. HRH Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988)
6. HRH Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990)
7. HRH Prince Edward (b. 1964)

Notice how Andrew's daughters come before Edward.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

I wrote a TL where Edward just ignored Parliament and the Church and just married Wallace. How plausible is that?

 

[JimTheB]

I wrote a TL where Edward just ignored Parliament and the Church and just married Wallace. How plausible is that?

And remain King? Very implausible. If it came to a showdown, Parliament could, and probably would:

1. Pass a law removing the need for royal assent in future legislation.
2. Pass a law giving itself the ability to remove monarchs deemed to be acting unconstitutionally (as defined by itself).
3. Depose him and install the next in line.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

How would it go over if he agrees not marry Wallis but kept her on as mistress and marrying noone?

 

[PandaRosa]

I think that's what Wallis Simpson was secretly angling for. As royal mistress Wallis might think she'd get the best of both worlds. There is some conjecture that she was already ready to move on from Edward; she was gambling that he would not dare give up the throne even for her, so she felt fairly justified in whatever decision she made.
I also doubt the British people would have accepted anything that flagrant.

 

[Mikestone8]

How would it go over if he agrees not marry Wallis but kept her on as mistress and marrying noone?

No problem at all. Lots of Kings had mistresses.

His failure to marry would cause raised eyebrows but wouldn't call his throne into question.

 

[JimTheB]

How would it go over if he agrees not marry Wallis but kept her on as mistress and marrying noone?

Possible, but the C of E hierarchy would have ten kinds of frothing fit and might have to be threatened with disestablishment to shut them up.
It wouldn't go down at all well with most other flavours of church in the UK and Empire/Commonwealth, either.

 

[Magnum]

1. Pass a law removing the need for royal assent in future legislation.

Wouldn't such a law require royal assent though ?

 

[Paul V McNutt]

Wouldn't such a law require royal assent though ?

That would make Edward the first British monarch to veto a bill since Ann, over three hundred years earlier, He would be violating a time honored tradition. He would quickly lose that power and probably the throne.

 

[Mysterion]

NOPE!!!

If Edward were to live to 1972, there'd still be one living brother in line before Elizabeth, Henry Duke of Gloucester. Upon his death a few years later, his son Richard would become king (George VI, most likely ).

As for Lizzy, she would have become Duchess of York upon her father's death. Since Henry is the last surviving offspring of George V, and since Richard/George would have had no surviving sibling upon his accession (and is still living), she'd still hold that title today. His son Alexander, current Earl of Ulster, would now be Prince of Wales.

Really? I figured since her father followed Edward VIII, and she followed her father that, in her father's absence, she would have been next in line after Edward VIII if things had happened as I described in my OP.