Elizabeth II succeeds.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?
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.
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?
Sorry, I didn't see that until after I did my post.Elizabeth is the senior descendant of the (presumably dead) Albert, Duke of York as she had no brothers.
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.
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."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.
As cool as that sounds, I don't think the government would have tried to actually overthrow the King.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.
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.Only because they managed it without having to be seen to be doing it