WI: Edward VIII marries Wallis and keeps the throne?

The monarch can try to have people assassinated--it's illegal, though.

That said, I was being facetious. I need to remember to add one of those smilie things.
No. This will be the first and only time I will want to say this here, but the Monarch cannot have people assassinated.

It also goes against Edwards character.
 
Why is it that every time there's a discussion about the abdication crisis it devolves into conspiracy theories and unproven character assassinations?!?! Its childish and ridiculous.

Neither Wallis nor Edward were terrible reprehensible people who were Nazis in disguise. So many people forget that, before WWII, much of Europe admired Hitler for what he did for Germany: seemingly restoring the economy, recovering from the humiliations of Versailles and rebuilding national pride. There's a BIG difference between admiring Hitler at some point and being a Nazi puppet.

Calbear, as for Parliament playing hardball, that first assumes that everyone is united around the idea. When you look at British politics, that's unlikely. Second, then Parliament would be creating a crisis over something that they couldn't fix anyway. Third, in a scenario in which Parliament refuses to vote on the Civil list, the deal over the Crown estate would be void and that income would revert to the Sovereign. A much larger amount of money then the civil list. I can't see MPs wanting to cause such a massive crisis in the middle of recovery from the Stock market crash and depression.

Now could we please have a discussion on the topic without turning this into a Windsor bashing?
 
Both Wallis and Edward were reprehensible people.

You have to look long and hard to find a redeeming moral characteristic between the two of them.

Both were vain, self-indulgent, greedy, and less than honest. Edwards personal secretary wrote that "for some hereditary or physiological reason [Edwards'] normal mental development stopped dead when he reached adolescence." He went on, writing that Edward's "only yardstick in measuring the advisability or non-advisability of any particular action was, 'Can I get away with it?' - an attitude typical of boyhood. "

I agree that the phrase "Nazis in disguise" doesn't do justice to the political views of Edward and Wallis. "Openly fascistic" probably better describes their views. Oh, and let's not forget anti-Semitic and just generally racist. Of course, like the admiration of Hitler, ant-Semiticism was a widely held view.

The UK really dodged a bullet with his abdication.

Neither Wallis nor Edward were terrible reprehensible people who were Nazis in disguise. So many people forget that, before WWII, much of Europe admired Hitler for what he did for Germany: seemingly restoring the economy, recovering from the humiliations of Versailles and rebuilding national pride. There's a BIG difference between admiring Hitler at some point and being a Nazi puppet.
 
Last edited:
Both Wallis and Edward were reprehensible people.

You have to look long and hard to find a redeeming moral characteristic between the two of them.

Both were vain, self-indulgent, greedy, and less than honest. Edwards personal secretary wrote that "for some hereditary or physiological reason [Edwards'] normal mental development stopped dead when he reached adolescence." He went on, writing that Edward's "only yardstick in measuring the advisability or non-advisability of any particular action was, 'Can I get away with it?' - an attitude typical of boyhood. "

I agree that the phrase "Nazis in disguise" doesn't do justice to the political views of Edward and Wallis. "Openly fascistic" probably better describes their views. Oh, and let's not forget anti-Semitic and just generally racist. Of course, like the admiration of Hitler, ant-Semiticism was a widely held view.

The UK really dodged a bullet with his abdication.

OK right now I'm to tired to get give a more detailed answer and will do so later. However, a quote from someone who disliked Edward to begin with and was loyal to the establishment doesn't mean much. Find a quote that wasn't motivated by blackening the Windsors' reputation and then I'll take it seriously.
 
OK right now I'm to tired to get give a more detailed answer and will do so later. However, a quote from someone who disliked Edward to begin with and was loyal to the establishment doesn't mean much. Find a quote that wasn't motivated by blackening the Windsors' reputation and then I'll take it seriously.
A picture is worth a thousand words, or as one UK football fan said, "Every picture tells a story, don't it?"

Edward teaching his nieces about their German roots.

Saxe_Coburg_Family_values.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to go as far as some people in this thread, but Eddy8's choice of spouse was more of a symptom of his general rascalhood and rebellion against The Establishment (his actual love and affection for Mme. Simpson notwithstanding), so if it hadn't been the marriage, there undoubtedly would've been some earth-shattering conflict or other between him and the Parliaments.
 

Asami

Banned
Exactly how much hardball was Parliament willing to play?

AFAIK, the elected government controls ALL the money. If not, they very much DO have the power to tax whatever they so choose, like the Royal estates at a rate of 99.998% of appraised value.

Might get a bit nippy if the Government won't pay the electrical and heating bills. Get a bit lonely when the Queen has to make their breakfast, after going shopping, since the household staff has been laid off and the military & civilian guard force has been withdrawn.

Be an interesting study in the power of the purse.

Could Edward type? Might be able to get a job in the City.

The Windsors still owned a lot of land, and they gave up the income from that land to Parliament in exchange for a civil salary. If Parliament withdraws all that, the Windsors will just keep their income.

Also, the British monarch can veto things, if I believe; but they'll typically approve Parliament's laws b/c constitutional monarchy.
 
Britain is a constitutional monarchy. That simply means the King is the head of state by the will of the people. The House of Commons represents the common people. The House of Lords represents the 'Establishment' to form neutral ground between opposing political ideologies. The Bishops are there to ensure that things are done in a 'biblical correct' manor. Ie our laws are Christian & not Islamic etc. Parliament cannot remove the King unless it is the will of the people. It a 'Republican Party' were to win a general election, then by the will of the people the Windsors will become just another rich family.
Parliament can, by the will of the people elect a new king ie the invitation to William of Orange, provided they can establish a legitimate claim to the throne.
Today it is possible to remove, Elizabeth Windsor by the will of the people. Charles has 1st claim, William 2nd or we could even crown Richard Montagu Douglas Scott as King Richard IV.
Back to Edward, an election would have to be called for the people to decide. The possibilities Edward could stay as king for modern secularists this would be ok, for the establishment George, who would be most likely or labour could become more left wing (remember Stalin is around) and become a socialist republic.
It could be a real can of worms.
 
But if push came to shove how many would ministers would follow through with the threat?
Quite a lot of them. Baldwin had basically unanimous support within his cabinet and majority support within the House of Commons.

I mean it seems to me that the public would swing against the (former) government for creating a constitutional crisis over something that shouldn't be a major deal.
But it was a big deal. It's difficult to understand in these cynical times but people saw matters differently back then.

If the Government blinked first, I imagine along with Baldwin, the more principled members who spoke against it would follow suite; some would remain and balk at actually leaving, but I imagine the numbers would be significant.
I see the government falling and an election.

On the issue regarding the Church, the issue was that the Church would not allow divorcees to remarry whilst their former spouse was alive, and as Edward was the head of the Church, marrying a two-time Divorcee conflicted with his duty. The bigger issue, however, was that the Church did not recognize the first divorce, thus Wallis was a bigamist, which again was not a good thing for the Head of the Church to engage in. You are right about hypocrisy in some regards, as the matter split the Church. It is worth noting that bar Catherine of Argon, all of Henry's wives were dead by the time of his next marriage.
Yep, I can see Lang refusing to perform such a marriage.

Exactly how much hardball was Parliament willing to play?

AFAIK, the elected government controls ALL the money. If not, they very much DO have the power to tax whatever they so choose, like the Royal estates at a rate of 99.998% of appraised value.

Might get a bit nippy if the Government won't pay the electrical and heating bills. Get a bit lonely when the Queen has to make their breakfast, after going shopping, since the household staff has been laid off and the military & civilian guard force has been withdrawn.

Be an interesting study in the power of the purse.

Could Edward type? Might be able to get a job in the City.
Don't forget the Dominions, specifically the Statute of Westminster and it's requirement for the Dominions' consent to "any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne".
 
A picture is worth a thousand words, or as one UK football fan said, "Every picture tells a story, don't it?"

Edward teaching his nieces about their German roots.

Once again not that rare. That picture was so blown out of proportion. There's also pictures of British diplomats doing the Nazi salute as a sign of respect to the Germans. Pre-WWII it wasn't that rare.

Britain is a constitutional monarchy. That simply means the King is the head of state by the will of the people. The House of Commons represents the common people. The House of Lords represents the 'Establishment' to form neutral ground between opposing political ideologies. The Bishops are there to ensure that things are done in a 'biblical correct' manor. Ie our laws are Christian & not Islamic etc. Parliament cannot remove the King unless it is the will of the people. It a 'Republican Party' were to win a general election, then by the will of the people the Windsors will become just another rich family.
Parliament can, by the will of the people elect a new king ie the invitation to William of Orange, provided they can establish a legitimate claim to the throne.
Today it is possible to remove, Elizabeth Windsor by the will of the people. Charles has 1st claim, William 2nd or we could even crown Richard Montagu Douglas Scott as King Richard IV.
Back to Edward, an election would have to be called for the people to decide. The possibilities Edward could stay as king for modern secularists this would be ok, for the establishment George, who would be most likely or labour could become more left wing (remember Stalin is around) and become a socialist republic.
It could be a real can of worms.

Legally yes but in practice? I don't know if Parliament would have the stones to do so. First off, Charles I and James II's depositions happened two centuries earlier, not a close precedence by any measure. Second, both were considered to have violated the laws of the realm. Edward VIII would have violated no such laws. There wasn't a law that said you can't marry a divorcee with a living former spouse. Third and finally, if Parliament listened to the "will of the people" every time the population got pissed or wanted a change, then Diana would have been made Queen Regnant, Charles would be disinherited, Prince Albert would have been thrown in the Tower multiple times and Queen Victoria would have been deposed in the 1860s. Just to name a few examples.

The COE refused to marry the two even after he stepped down. As you correctly noted, cats ate, their relationship and behavior was indeed a very big deal.

True. But there's a difference between an abdicated King and a reigning Sovereign. I'm sure that a bishop could be found to marry the two if he married and kept the throne. After all, its not the first time a Monarch and Archbishop came to political blows. Chances are Lang would resign and someone with a more modernist view might replace him. Or at the least someone willing to play ball.
 
Another thing about deposing the King: the Statue of Westminster. This gave power of legislation to the dominions, which means that anything affecting the succession has to be approved by all. So what if the British Parliament deposes Edward VIII but one or more dominions keeps him? Would we have a divided empire, with Edward as King of say New Zealand and/or Canada and George VI as sovereign of the rest? With such a possibility I can't see the British Parliament being willing to split the empire in two.
 
That's probably the argument that got him to abdicate.

Just as well, his behaviour after being ordered back to the UK when France fell could be described as desertion in the face of the enemy. He was supposedly a serving officer at the time. Men have been shot for less.

Would he have served as a puppet King? I don't know, but the fact the question can be asked at all says a lot.
 
That's probably the argument that got him to abdicate.

Just as well, his behavior after being ordered back to the UK when France fell could be described as desertion in the face of the enemy. He was supposedly a serving officer at the time. Men have been shot for less.

Would he have served as a puppet King? I don't know, but the fact the question can be asked at all says a lot.

Probably. It also shows that Edward had a stronger hand then he thought.

As for France, both the Duke and King George VI were incredibly petty during that point in time. I mean at point point a telegram ordered "their Royal Highnesses" to Lisbon. The palace was infuriated that Wallis was called HRH instead of Her grace and ordered Churchill and the Foreign secretary to send a new telegram correcting the previous one and to send a memo to the diplomats of the Foreign office instructing them to never refer to her as HRH. This in the middle of a war.

Finally, to a puppet King, I doubt it very seriously. Edward was bitter sure but not bitter enough to betray his country and family in such a way.
 
The King marries Wallis without the support of Parliament, his Prime Minister, the Liberal and Labour Party, Trade Unions, the Dominions, the Upper and Middle Class, and a large portion of the Church of England, all of whom drew the line in the sand.

Yes, the Government would resign, both that of Baldwin and the Dominions. Attlee and Sinclair would refuse to form a Government, and a snap election will have to be called. The Public will be divided along class lines, the Working Class in support, whilst those in the Upper and Middle would oppose the King's choice. The General Election is unlikely to go well for the Conservatives, and will likely swing to Labour, although it's possible they would simply refuse to form a Government, and the King asks a minor pro-Marriage Party to form the next Government. In the Dominions, you see a similar effect, with the result being constitutional and social chaos across the board. Whilst certainly not catastrophic, you will still see a level of chaos.

I don't think that would be true in the Dominions, as I recall they were more ambivalent about abdication than the king was led to believe.

In terms of the general election, I suspect an alternative National Government (Imperial perhaps) headed by David Lloyd George to emerge, there are many ambitious men after all.
 
Britain is a constitutional monarchy. That simply means the King is the head of state by the will of the people. The House of Commons represents the common people. The House of Lords represents the 'Establishment' to form neutral ground between opposing political ideologies. The Bishops are there to ensure that things are done in a 'biblical correct' manor. Ie our laws are Christian & not Islamic etc. Parliament cannot remove the King unless it is the will of the people. It a 'Republican Party' were to win a general election, then by the will of the people the Windsors will become just another rich family.
Parliament can, by the will of the people elect a new king ie the invitation to William of Orange, provided they can establish a legitimate claim to the throne.
Today it is possible to remove, Elizabeth Windsor by the will of the people. Charles has 1st claim, William 2nd or we could even crown Richard Montagu Douglas Scott as King Richard IV.
Back to Edward, an election would have to be called for the people to decide. The possibilities Edward could stay as king for modern secularists this would be ok, for the establishment George, who would be most likely or labour could become more left wing (remember Stalin is around) and become a socialist republic.
It could be a real can of worms.

That isn't really true.

Even in the case of William, the English Parliament did not take James' throne, rather they... creatively interpreted his flight as an abdication.

In this scenario, if Edward had refused to abdicate and had forced Baldwin to resign, it wouldn't have been all that long before someone else took over for him. Ambition is a curious thing - and Edward was willing to reach a compromise as I recall whereby it would have been a morganatic marriage so their children wouldn't have taken the throne and also she may have born a title like Princess Consort.
 
Top