WI: Edward VIII Doesn't Abdicate?

Suppose Edward VIII keeps his throne (doesn't matter how) and dies childless in 1972 as in OTL. Does the current Elizabeth II succeed or is she passed over in favor of the then 24 year old Prince Charles? How would male-preference primogeniture have worked in that case?
 
Last edited:
Suppose Edward VIII keeps his throne (doesn't matter how) and dies childless in 1972 as in OTL. Does the current Elizabeth II succeed or is she passed over in favor of the then 24 year old Prince Charles? How would male-preference primogeniture have worked in that case?
Elizabeth II succeeds.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Butterflies, man. But yeah, Elizabeth succeeds. Depending on the impact of Edward's actions, she may or may not make a Covenant with God, but she will be Queen.

Of course, this would rely on Edward not having kids (easy enough, he had... some issues), breaking off with Simpson (bit harder, but not impossible), or never meeting her (easy as well).
 
Butterflies, man. But yeah, Elizabeth succeeds. Depending on the impact of Edward's actions, she may or may not make a Covenant with God, but she will be Queen.

Of course, this would rely on Edward not having kids (easy enough, he had... some issues), breaking off with Simpson (bit harder, but not impossible), or never meeting her (easy as well).

Wallis had serious issues; and one serious question is - what if Edward didn't abdicate but still married her? There will be no children, and IMHO no expectation of them (she was 39 in 1935). But she will be the most unpopular queen consort since Elizabeth Woodville.

If she (foolishly) tries to influence British government policy in favor of Nazi Germany, it will damage the monarchy. If (as OTL) Edward lives till 1972, with her as Queen... There could be a serious movement to abolish the monarchy after the war. It might fail then, but another ten or fifteen years of misfeasance could put it over the top in the 1960. Even the expected succession of Elizabeth might not help.
 
Wallis had serious issues; and one serious question is - what if Edward didn't abdicate but still married her? There will be no children, and IMHO no expectation of them (she was 39 in 1935). But she will be the most unpopular queen consort since Elizabeth Woodville.

If she (foolishly) tries to influence British government policy in favor of Nazi Germany, it will damage the monarchy. If (as OTL) Edward lives till 1972, with her as Queen... There could be a serious movement to abolish the monarchy after the war. It might fail then, but another ten or fifteen years of misfeasance could put it over the top in the 1960. Even the expected succession of Elizabeth might not help.

Actually not having children had nothing to do with her age. Wallis had a botched abortion that required a hysterectomy due to an infection.

If Wallis attempts to influence policy, it will be behind doors. Still the monarchs will be very unpopular due to public perception. I can definetly see the two meeting Hitler as they did OTL. There will be strain between the monarchy and the government on the issue of Jewish refuges. Edward opposing it, the PM (I'm not sure who'd it be in this scenario) would support it.

Overall, I think it's going to be like Italy in 1946. A referendum will be held on the monarchy. It does succeed, and it's over.
 
I think the two main points are in the details. If it's a 'Break Point Wallis' situation, then that means the National Government will resign in 1936 and probably a split within the Conservative Party over the issue. Labour will still be divided from the previous few years and the Liberals (of all shades) aren't in a much better political spot either. There's a good chance that the butterflies start flapping and Munich doesn't happen like OTL...

The second is Edward remains King, but doesn't marry her, the relationship is an open secret (he made few bones about his relationships with most of his previous ones) or they have a fling and move on, it could still mean that he is still challenged by Baldwin, but Baldwin and the government still resign. After all that, I think the government (whoever it is) will tell him to shut up and be quiet and keep him on a tight leash if he starts making to many friendly noises about Germany, at least more so than were acceptable in political circles before 1939 and that once war started, he was on the same page as his government.

As a wartime leader, I'm not sure how'd he go (his reception in America might depend on the Wallis situation and how that was solved). In terms of his politics, he seemed a mixed bag from across the board, but did extensive tours of the Empire in the 20s and 30s. So his performance during that time could affect how he's seen.

If he lasts to '72 and isn't married or involved with Wallace, there's probably a good chance of a Profumo-esque sized (impact I mean) scandal given his previous behavior patterns after the war. If its big enough, then he abdicates then and Elizabeth becomes Queen.
 
Suppose Edward VIII keeps his throne (doesn't matter how) and dies childless in 1972 as in OTL. Does the current Elizabeth II succeed or is she passed over in favor of the then 24 year old Prince Charles? How would male-preference primogeniture have worked in that case?

The King is dead, long like the Queen.

Its automatic.

There is no such thing as passing over.

Male preference primogeniture has no relevance here. Elizabeth is the senior descendant of the (presumably dead) Albert, Duke of York as she had no brothers.

In this scenario, Elizabeth would be the first ever female heir apparent to the British throne.
 
How much longer would the Duke of York have lived if he hadn't become King in 1936? Might he have outlived his elder brother and briefly been King George VI in the 70s. He would have been 76½ on 28th May 1972.

Edit
Elizabeth is the senior descendant of the (presumably dead) Albert, Duke of York as she had no brothers.
Sorry, I didn't see that until after I did my post.
 
On reflection, I want to correct my post because it is not correct, Elizabeth could never be her uncle's heir apparent as he was still capable of producing children who could supplant her.

Of course she would be her late father's heir apparent but in that sense Queen Victoria was also, even though she never was heir apparent to the throne as her uncle William could have produced an heir to displace her at any time.

For a female to have been heir apparent, her father has to be the heir apparent and he has to be dead. For example, the King has a son the Prince of Wales, who has a sole child, a daughter. Then the prince dies. That daughter would be heir apparent, as there is no way that her claim to the throne can be trumped by anyone else.

Of course since the change to the laws of succession, this is all moot. It is now possible for a woman to be heir apparent.
 
How much longer would the Duke of York have lived if he hadn't become King in 1936? Might he have outlived his elder brother and briefly been King George VI in the 70s. He would have been 76½ on 28th May 1972.

George VI died of lung cancer. He was a serial smoker, much like his father and his daughter Princess Margaret, both of whom died prematurely as a result of hard living.

Yes the impact of becoming King and leading the Empire during the war probably caused him additional stress and increased his smoking but I still think it is unlikely he would have lived a much longer life given his addiction to nicotine.

Edward VIII was the longest living of the children of George V and Queen Mary by a respectable margin.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
On reflection, I want to correct my post because it is not correct, Elizabeth could never be her uncle's heir apparent as he was still capable of producing children who could supplant her.
Edward was possibly impotent; in some documents, according to the former Duke of Wurttemburg, Simpson had revealed to friends "The duke is impotent and although he had tried sexual intercourse with numerous women they had been unsuccessful in satisfying his passions."

The former Duke would further say "The duchess in her own inimitable and unique manner has been the only woman who had been able to satisfactorily gratify the duke's sexual desires."
A vicious and scandalous rumour at the time was that the Duchess performed Oral Sex on Edward, which helped him maintain an erection

The bottom line is that Edward had issues in his private region and was unable to have a child, even with a woman he was able to have sex with, so Elizabeth would have likely been his successor.
 
Yes, I've also read that he might have been sterile as a result of mumps, which is another reason attributed to his never fathering a child, however legally speaking, Elizabeth could never be acknowledged as his heir apparent as technically he could have fathered a child at any point up to his death.

A comparison might be made to King William IV and Queen Victoria, after a certain point it was widely accepted that Queen Adelaide would not be able to produce a child and Victoria would become Queen, however, what there was always the possibility of a suprise.

Its just a quirk of the system.

In the Netherlands Princess Beatrix was always referred to as heiress presumptive to her mother Queen Juliana, even though it would have been quite reasonable to assume that after a certain time she was no longer able to produce a son to supplant Beatrix.
 
OK, so after her father's death Elizabeth is Heir Presumptive but unless Edward VIII marries again his wife is too old by 1952 to give him heirs so it is irrelevant really

The main questions are over British and European diplomatic history. Churchill was ok to go with the morganatic marriage idea, but the establishment both wanted rid of Wallace and wanted an Edward who wouldn't speak his mind over poverty and distress.

But the general people only found out about the crisis when it was at crisis point, they largely rallied to the king but underneath it all the politicians and establishment had been manoevring for months. If Edward stuck to his guns, and Wallace remained with him (not leaving for France) then he could have forced the crisis to a head.

Why should Baldwin and non-intervention to help the poverty-stricken be seen as the only way? A king's party larger than OTL would have coalesced if he had stuck to his position. Everything would have been very messy but the establishment does not have the option of displacing the king, unless in the Charles I or James II manners. Nobody can proclaim him to have been abdicated. The people massing in front of Buckingham Palace would know the truth. If Baldwin and co try to push it, it will come down to the loyalty of the army - but in the first resort the Horseguards etc WILL protect the king, because that is their entire point.
 
OK, so after her father's death Elizabeth is Heir Presumptive but unless Edward VIII marries again his wife is too old by 1952 to give him heirs so it is irrelevant really

The main questions are over British and European diplomatic history. Churchill was ok to go with the morganatic marriage idea, but the establishment both wanted rid of Wallace and wanted an Edward who wouldn't speak his mind over poverty and distress.

But the general people only found out about the crisis when it was at crisis point, they largely rallied to the king but underneath it all the politicians and establishment had been manoevring for months. If Edward stuck to his guns, and Wallace remained with him (not leaving for France) then he could have forced the crisis to a head.

Why should Baldwin and non-intervention to help the poverty-stricken be seen as the only way? A king's party larger than OTL would have coalesced if he had stuck to his position. Everything would have been very messy but the establishment does not have the option of displacing the king, unless in the Charles I or James II manners. Nobody can proclaim him to have been abdicated. The people massing in front of Buckingham Palace would know the truth. If Baldwin and co try to push it, it will come down to the loyalty of the army - but in the first resort the Horseguards etc WILL protect the king, because that is their entire point.
As cool as that sounds, I don't think the government would have tried to actually overthrow the King.
 
Only because they managed it without having to be seen to be doing it
Yes, because Edward accepted it. If he says he wants to stay on the throne I don't think they would launch a coup against him. Then again, I'm not an expert. It just seems too risky, why risk civil war when the people are still for the King? Not to mention that a significant portion of Parliament would stand with the King, enough for him to claim to having the support of the people. Not to mention Mosley and the BUF would have backed Edward VIII to the hilt, Mosley would still be able to mobilize a few thousand Blackshirts in London, if it came to a coup. If Edward agrees to abdicate as OTL, then he is gone. If he decides to remain King, I don't see any British government sending tanks to drag him out of Buckingham palace kicking and screaming, especially not a Tory government.
 
It wasn't just the government, it was also the Church - the Archbishop campaigned both unofficially in public (which later led to his downfall) and officially behind the scenes. If Wallace had a mysterious 'accident he can stay. However, maybe he didn't like the obligations of being the 'King' so was glad of the get out option.

And children, no legitimate children, but there may have been an illegitimate one! Saw in the UK press recently a Frenchman, who claimed to be his grandson. Judging by the photograph very believable. The back story being that, his grandmother met Edward while he was in Paris in 1915 - she suddenly gave well off enough to finance herself as up-market fashion designer. There was more - it was very plausible.
 
Top