WI: Edward VIII was permitted to marry and crown Wallis Simpson

ordinarylittleme

ordinarylittleme

TDM said:
General unsuitability for the role*, the problem here is it's not just who the king is going to marry (and thus is going to birth and play a large part in raising and influencing the next heir) in abstract. But that the Crown is also the head of the Church of England and so has to uphold all that side of things as well. So she's not just marrying teh King etc, but the head of the church and raising the next one. On top of that the aristocracy is not going to be too chuffed at an American widow gazumping them either. And IIRC Edward's own family weren't keen either! I.e. barring close friends there is no one who is going to go into bat for either Edward or Wallis here.

No matter what way you cut it Wallis Simpson by 1930's standards breaks the accepted mould of a wife to the king. mother of kings/queens in too many ways.

So you have to have either the Crown's power change enough so he can force it through against all that opposition, or wider society in general to change enough so that she fits better and there's no/less issue in the first place.




*or some similarly non specific excuse unless pushed on it, which if that happens things get uncomfortable and embarrassing for all but more so for Edward and Wallis
Click to expand...
To be honest I truly did not see the problem the Parliament had with her in the first place (well, Nazi sympathy aside, she's a vile woman for that alone, but...the reason being she's a divorcee REALLY doesn't sit right with me, I'm related to a lot of divorcees), and widening society in general could butterfly away...well, the whole WWI and II...
 

TDM

Kicked
ordinarylittleme said:
To be honest I truly did not see the problem the Parliament had with her in the first place (well, Nazi sympathy aside, she's a vile woman for that alone, but...the reason being she's a divorcee REALLY doesn't sit right with me, I'm related to a lot of divorcees),
Click to expand...

By today's standards no of course not, but at the time divorce had a serious stigma (especially at that level of society). Perhaps more importantly like I said it's not just the public perception of divorce in abstract, there's also the whole head of the church/religion and setting a good Anglican Christian example angle. And the Anglican Church will be even less forward thinking / accepting in this regard.


ordinarylittleme said:
and widening society in general could butterfly away...well, the whole WWI and II...
Click to expand...

Depends on where it happens but it could well do yes.
 
Last edited:
ordinarylittleme

ordinarylittleme

TDM said:
By today's standards no of course not, but at the time divorce had a serious stigma (especially at that level of society). Perhaps more importantly like I said it's not just the public perception of divorce in abstract, there's also the whole head of the church/religion and setting a good Anglican Christian example angle. And the Anglican Church will be even less forward thinking / accepting in this regard.




Depends on where it happens but it could well do yes.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think I asked the wrong question. The question I should ask is what happens if there's an Edward/Wallis brood of male children bouncing around
 

TDM

Kicked
ordinarylittleme said:
Honestly, I think I asked the wrong question. The question I should ask is what happens if there's an Edward/Wallis brood of male children bouncing around
Click to expand...
You mean after he abdicates?

Not much, the line of succession has passed him by (and thus his issue by)

don't get me wrong if a huge number of people die, then maybe, but it would have to be huge number of people! (and frankly given his subsequent antics I think we'd be more likely to put a distant branch in than his descendants)
 
ordinarylittleme

ordinarylittleme

TDM said:
You mean after he abdicates?

Not much, the line of succession has passed him by (and thus his issue by)

don't get me wrong if a huge number of people die, then maybe, but it would have to be huge number of people! (and frankly given his subsequent antics I think we'd be more likely to put a distant branch in than his descendants)
Click to expand...
Before he abdicates, of course. Then he can just abdicate in favor of the child. Yes this is impossible OTL I know
 

TDM

Kicked
ordinarylittleme said:
Before he abdicates, of course. Then he can just abdicate in favor of the child. Yes this is impossible OTL I know
Click to expand...

Well it kind of is impossible

The act of Settlement 1701 and act of Westminster 1931 pretty much codifies it into being Parliament (and constituent countries) that decides who comes next if there is an abdication

But even before that it's pretty much the person abdicating is being forced to and is told who they are abdicating for (e.g Mary Queen of Scots, Richard 2). But a voluntary abdication is a first here


Thing is even without those acts, the problem here is the "scandal" of divorce and how it interacts with the crown and being head of state/church, will still be an issue for any kids from the marriage (Wallis will still be the mum after all)

Also there will be no children for Edward to abdicate in favour of? No way is the state going to hold the crown waiting for a child to be born especially as Wallis is what 41 when they marry.

Sorry I just realised the above isn't very clear, They won't let him marry Wallis without abdicating first, so he would have to abdicate prior to marrying Wallis in favour of a child of that marriage that wasn't born yet
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 169412

I don't know how true this is but I'm pretty sure the British Union of Fascists offered to support Edward VIII?

If that happened I could see Britain sliding into dictatorship pretty quickly.
 

Finbarr the Fair

Louis IX said:
I don't know how true this is but I'm pretty sure the British Union of Fascists offered to support Edward VIII?

If that happened I could see Britain sliding into dictatorship pretty quickly.
Click to expand...
No

The BUF gets crushed if it tries anything more than street protests and the leaders end up being tried for subversion and treason. Street protests get heavy, very oppressive, policing and are prevented from causing any significant problems to traffic, commerce or lives. Indignant 'Letters to the Editor' get ignored or if seen as threatening passed on to Special Branch.
 
ordinarylittleme

ordinarylittleme

TDM said:
Well it kind of is impossible

The act of Settlement 1701 and act of Westminster 1931 pretty much codifies it into being Parliament (and constituent countries) that decides who comes next if there is an abdication

But even before that it's pretty much the person abdicating is being forced to and is told who they are abdicating for (e.g Mary Queen of Scots, Richard 2). But a voluntary abdication is a first here


Thing is even without those acts, the problem here is the "scandal" of divorce and how it interacts with the crown and being head of state/church, will still be an issue for any kids from the marriage (Wallis will still be the mum after all)

Also there will be no children for Edward to abdicate in favour of? No way is the state going to hold the crown waiting for a child to be born especially as Wallis is what 41 when they marry.

Sorry I just realised the above isn't very clear, They won't let him marry Wallis without abdicating first, so he would have to abdicate prior to marrying Wallis in favour of a child of that marriage that wasn't born yet
Click to expand...
Which tbh is why Edward should have married Wallis BEFORE being king if he had a brain in his head...
 

TDM

Kicked
ordinarylittleme said:
Which tbh is why Edward should have married Wallis BEFORE being king if he had a brain in his head...
Click to expand...
Doesn't solve the problem because he is the heir to the throne so whoever he marries is going to be wife of the crown at some point, so same problem.
 
Last edited:
ordinarylittleme

ordinarylittleme

TDM said:
Doesn't solve the problem because he is the heir to the throne so whoever he marries is going to be wife of the crown at some point, so same problem.
Click to expand...
Yes but then Parliament can't do shit because he's already married. Or can they force a divorce? I don't know
 

oberdada

Would a morganatic marriage been legally possible in the UK?

It might not be enough in itself.


What if they had just run of to Scotland and got married there? Or Reno? ( Las Vegas wasn't a thing in 1936)
 
ordinarylittleme

ordinarylittleme

oberdada said:
Would a morganatic marriage been legally possible in the UK?

It might not be enough in itself.


What if they had just run of to Scotland and got married there? Or Reno? ( Las Vegas wasn't a thing in 1936)
Click to expand...
Yeah. God knows why Edward didn't put on a disguise, flee to USA, marry there, then return
 

TDM

Kicked
ordinarylittleme said:
Yes but then Parliament can't do shit because he's already married. Or can they force a divorce? I don't know
Click to expand...
No they just won't let him get married to her in the first place (or if he insists and it's easier they will take him out of the line of succession)
 
Last edited:

TDM

Kicked
ordinarylittleme said:
Yeah. God knows why Edward didn't put on a disguise, flee to USA, marry there, then return
Click to expand...
Not sure if serious, but just in case seriously you need to understand that the question of who the crown marries or who does any likely future crown marry has been a big deal in British/English history for hundreds of years. They have thought of stuff like this, there is no cunning plan like the ones you have mentioned in this thread that will square this circle.

So once again I don't know why there is this particular obsession with Edward and Mrs Simpson, but it is not going to happen not without the kind of changes mentioned earlier
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top