What it says on the tin. What if Edward and Wallis had children? Would those children even have any right to the throne? How would WWII affect them, considering Ed had Nazi sympathies?
What it says on the tin. What if Edward and Wallis had children? Would those children even have any right to the throne? How would WWII affect them, considering Ed had Nazi sympathies?
ASBWI: George VI adopts Edward's son? Is Elizabeth now no longer heir to George?
The idea of ignoring an abdication has some precedent, one of the current pretender to the throne of France (sic) is Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou who make his claim as descendant of Philip of Anjou despite the fact the later renounced his claim to the throne of France for him and all his descendant something the Legitimists argue he had no right to do. Obviously the Orleanists disagree but considering the legitimacy of any monarchy depends on those being ruled accepting it passively or actively, rules can, have and will be changed as needed.
So at the very least, Ed jr. might end up being used (if he allowed it ) as a frontman for an equivalent of UKIP, putting forward that his dad would not have "given away british independence" and that were he in power, neither would he......
........not that he's advocating a coup or anything mind you. *He* respects the rules after all.....
Surely all the people who would have been UK Legitimists support the Jacobites instead?
>implying support for Jacobites
The fact that so few people support the Duke of Bavaria kind of implies that a movement in favour of restoring the throne to the 2nd Duke of Windsor probably wouldn't get off the ground. They'd probably just mess about in superyachts in the Caribbean until the money ran out.
Britain has historical precedent for abdication and revocation of inheritance rights based upon the perceived needs of state, france does not.
Adoption gives no dynastic rights in any modern monarchy.
The fictional children could have rights to the throne but they would only achieve this by act of parliament, which would be unlikely.
ASBWI: George VI adopts Edward's son? Is Elizabeth now no longer heir to George?
Ok, suppose Edward VIII doesn't marry, has no children, reigns until his death in 1972. Would Elizabeth still have been the next in line for the throne (assuming the rest of the royal family reproduces the same way as in OTL)?
Depends who's in parliament. Ed sr. got the boot because his marriage didn't fit with the image of what a monarch should be in the eyes of the various commonwealth governments at the time. If you have a highly reactionary party or coalition that came to power in the present and the monarch will clearly not play ball, a government would more then likely, if all else fail, do the same.
Short answer is yes. She would have been the heir to the throne. It is just possible that Charles would have crowned instead but very unlikely.
If Elizabeth ITTL had married a Catholic then the Charles analogue would have been raised one which also disbars him from the Throne. Unless Parliament changes the rules then its Margaret and her children, then the Dukes of Gloucester.
british constitutional theory does not give one the right to renounce your claim to the throne.