WI Edward VIII wanted to marry a twice widowed Australian

Do you mean Norman France or have the Bretons been very sneaky in avenging King Arthur?

Oops. Messed up on that. I'll fix it. I was thinking of Henry VII. And he DID play up the "King Arthur" role with the Welsh. Hence, the Red Dragon as his personal symbol. I don't remember if he had Breton troops with him or if that was William. Both played up King Arthur as I recall. William, to remind his men that the Saxons under Harold were also conquerors of Britain (Hengist, boo!), and that as many of the Britons fled to northern France and became the Bretons they had an ancestral claim to "Ancient Britannia".
 
I think everyone (beside Owain) is missing the fact that the Act of Settlement is still in force, which disqualifies any royal who marries a Catholic from succcession. And if Edward were to marry an Austrian, she would most likely be Catholic than not.

Thus, this would generate an even bigger scandal than OTL, since a constitutional law is actually being broken (unlike Mrs. Simpson, who was merely a divorcee and no constitutional laws broken).
 
I think everyone (beside Owain) is missing the fact that the Act of Settlement is still in force, which disqualifies any royal who marries a Catholic from succcession. And if Edward were to marry an Austrian, she would most likely be Catholic than not.
Australian.
 
...
AIUI, children of previous marriages are not eligible for the line of succession. While it is true that Britain's constitution doesn't recognize morganatic marriages (If your husband is the King, you are the Queen in Britain), the children would be, if not left out in the cold, still only step-children. Is legal adoption even possible for a British monarch?:confused:
Correct, the succession is HIS children, the heirs of HIS body. Adoption would be legal, but the adopted child cannot inherit (same as a peerage) .

OTOH, doesn't the whole royal marriage thing have an issue about the King marrying virgins? Or is that considered passe?
Never was any such rule. or even convention. Henry II and Elanor of Aquitaine would be the classic case.



I wonder? Has the OP mentioned anything about her faith? If Australian, there's a good chance she is Roman Catholic. As in, Irish!:eek::D


Roman Catholic would be a deal breaker (Act of Settlement, means he would lose the throne). But Irish Protestant (or a conversion) is OK
 
Whoops... :eek:

Well, in that case, unless she's Catholic, no problem. An Austrian would have been an interesting case anywas.
Perhaps it could be a Hitler. Or THE Hitler. There is nothing against homosexuality explicitly in the Coronation laws, is there?
 
Perhaps it could be a Hitler. Or THE Hitler. There is nothing against homosexuality explicitly in the Coronation laws, is there?

Hitler wasn't gay. He just had practices so beastly, so disgusting, that of the five known women he ever had sex with, three killed themselves, one tried, and one was Eva Braun.
 
I have read that the upper classes objected because Mrs. Simpson was divorced, the lower classes because she was American.

Both groups got to the right conclusion for the wrong reason. She would have been the wrong person to be the queen during wartime.
 
Queen Wallace!? UGH!!

I have read that the upper classes objected because Mrs. Simpson was divorced, the lower classes because she was American.

Both groups got to the right conclusion for the wrong reason. She would have been the wrong person to be the queen during wartime.

My impression had always been that her nationality was never considered a barrier. After all, how many foreigners had ever married British Kings (or Queens?) Lots! But between her double-divorcing and especially her politics, not to mention that for everyone close to both Edward and Simpson it was obvious who it was who was wearing the pants in that "relationship"...:mad:

I say this as an American: If that woman had ever become Queen of the British Empire, the American Race would never have lived it down.:mad::( At least, in the eyes of Britons everywhere.:(:(:(:eek:
 
I think everyone (beside Owain) is missing the fact that the Act of Settlement is still in force, which disqualifies any royal who marries a Catholic from succcession. And if Edward were to marry an Austrian, she would most likely be Catholic than not.

Thus, this would generate an even bigger scandal than OTL, since a constitutional law is actually being broken (unlike Mrs. Simpson, who was merely a divorcee and no constitutional laws broken).

Quick! Repeal the Act of Settlement!

By yesterday!:mad::):mad::):D:D:cool::cool:

Yes, seriously! I am being serious here!

The Act of Settlement is one of the more abhorrent pieces of British legislation that I have heard of which is still in effect. Seriously, it has been out-of-date for over a century. I find it surprising that it hasn't long since been repealed.

The Act of Settlement is a stain on Britain which belongs in the sixteenth century, not the twentieth.
 
My impression had always been that her nationality was never considered a barrier. After all, how many foreigners had ever married British Kings (or Queens?) Lots!


Agreed. One meber of the public, questioned on this point, is said to have replied "She could be from Timbuktu, if only she was single", and that pretty much sums it up. Her nationality might well have irritated a few snobs, but that's about it.


But between her double-divorcing and especially her politics,

Make that just the divorce. Her politics may have bothered some people in the know, but wouldn't have been anywhere near enough to prevent the marriage. After all, in 1936 they were shared by a large part of the British upper crust, and even much of the Royal Family was pro-Appeasement.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. One member of the public, questioned on this point, is said to have replied "She could be from Timbuktu, if only she was single", and that pretty much sums it up. Her nationality might well have irritated a few snobs, but that's about it.

Should we start a new thread on that idea? WI Wallace Simpson had been an African Episcopalian virgin from Timbuktu?

Make that just the divorce. Her politics may have bothered some people in the know, (1) but wouldn't have been anywhere near enough to prevent the marriage. After all, in 1936 they were shared by a large part of the British upper crust, and even much of the Royal Family (2) was pro-Appeasement.

1) AIUI, her personal politics were far worse than merely pro-Appeasement. They have been taken to being anywhere from pro-Fascist to pro-Nazi!:eek::mad:

2) :(
 
Interesting...

...Wallis Simpson was unsuitable, but a socialite from Oz who had been widowed, would not be. Excellent!

Apropos of nothing, Prince Andrew was the sailor with a wife in every port...

...The same wife!

...A pre-Sarah-divorce joke. A pity they didn't continue as an item...

*Sigh*
 
1) AIUI, her personal politics were far worse than merely pro-Appeasement. They have been taken to being anywhere from pro-Fascist to pro-Nazi!:eek::mad:


As were those of quite a few upper class Brits. There were those in Whitehall who'd have been uneasy, but it couldn't have come even close to preventing the marriage - had Wallis not had ex-husbands still living.
 
Just to lay the Abdication crisis to rest, it wasn't necessary because Wallis Simpson was divorced (did Henry VIII have to abdicate?), it was because her first divorce (before she met Ernest Simpson) wasn't recognised as valid under English law (which at the time only recognised adultery and cruelty as valid grounds for divorce) and was therefore comitting bigamy before her affair with the Prince of Wales had even begun.

So, did you have a specific twice widowed Australian in mind?
 
Just to lay the Abdication crisis to rest, it wasn't necessary because Wallis Simpson was divorced (did Henry VIII have to abdicate?), it was because her first divorce (before she met Ernest Simpson) wasn't recognised as valid under English law (which at the time only recognised adultery and cruelty as valid grounds for divorce) and was therefore comitting bigamy before her affair with the Prince of Wales had even begun.

So, did you have a specific twice widowed Australian in mind?

Um, you do realize what would happen to you if you mentioned the idea of abdication to Henry VIII? He'd have you hanged, drawn, quartered, and have your entrails ripped out and burned before your eyes. But if he was feeling in a good mood, he'd leave out the flaying alive...:eek:
 
Top