WI King Edward VIII never abdicated?

samurai388

I was just reading the novel "In Secret Service" and in that book King Edward VIII is made out to be a Nazi sympathizer. Obviously it's somewhat exaggerated in the book. I thought. Then I started researching it and he did actually get removed from france in WWII for being suspected of such a thing. Anyway assuming he was a Nazi sympathizer what would have changed if he hadn't abdicated? I'm writing a timeline for this situation and I want to know also what people think of this POD. Is it plausible at least?
 
Last edited:

Wolf

It would have caused a constitutional crisis and an election. Wallis Simpson never would have been accepted as Queen by the people.

And of course there are the allegations that he held pro-Nazi views. At the very least he favored appeasement a la' Neville Chamberlain. To quote Albert Speer, "I am certain through him permanent friendly relations could have been achieved. If he had stayed, everything would have been different. His abdication was a severe loss for us."

Assuming no other butterflies. Elizabeth would have become Queen in 1972.
 

samurai388

Wolf said:
It would have caused a constitutional crisis and an election. Wallis Simpson never would have been accepted as Queen by the people.

And of course there are the allegations that he held pro-Nazi views. At the very least he favored appeasement a la' Neville Chamberlain. To quote Albert Speer, "I am certain through him permanent friendly relations could have been achieved. If he had stayed, everything would have been different. His abdication was a severe loss for us."

Assuming no other butterflies. Elizabeth would have become Queen in 1972.
Click to expand...

Well in my TL the reason he never abdicated was because Wallis Simpson died when she was in china so therefore there would have been no crisis over that. Also assume he held pro-Nazi views to the point that he allied him self with the Germans in WWII. Do you think that the Nazis would have beaten the Soviets with no D-Day and the british on their side instead of against them.
 

Wolf

samurai388 said:
Well in my TL the reason he never abdicated was because Wallis Simpson died when she was in china so therefore there would have been no crisis over that. Also assume he held pro-Nazi views to the point that he allied him self with the Germans in WWII. Do you think that the Nazis would have beaten the Soviets with no D-Day and the british on their side instead of against them.
Click to expand...

But what about Parliament and the people. I don't see them supporting the Nazis. Unless of course the Depression is much worse over there and you have a group like the British Union Fascists taking over, then it becomes more plausible. I think the Nazis might have taken Moscow. Whether or not they could have held on is the question. Remember Napoleon took Moscow, but had to withdraw. If the Siberian counterattacks are fierce enough they might be able to starve the Nazis out.

But at the same time the Germans could always convince Japan to jump on the Soviets. Which would cause them to divert troops there to keep Vladivostok and Magdan in Soviet hands.

I could also see the Americans staying neutral in Europe (because the Germans (and Brits I guess) are only fighting the Soviets and there is no way FDR could convince Congress to declare war on the Germans and send American boys to fight for Stalin). My guess is that we'd fight Japan beating them in '46 after landing on the Home Islands. We and the Germans get the bomb in say '46. I figure we join with Canada, Japan, and any anti-British members of the Commonwealth and have a nasty Cold War with the UK/Germany.
 

Sol Invictus

samurai388 said:
I was just reading the novel "In Secret Service" and in that book King Edward VIII is made out to be a Nazi sympathizer. Obviously it's somewhat exaggerated in the book. I thought. Then I started researching it and he did actually get removed from france in WWII for being suspected of such a thing. Anyway assuming he was a Nazi sympathizer what would have changed if he hadn't abdicated? I'm writing a timeline for this situation and I want to know also what people think of this POD. Is it plausible at least?
Click to expand...

He was a Nazi sympathiser, after his abdication he visits Hitler, during the war he undermines British moral by calling for peace. Its often suggested now that the real reason behind his abdication was his Nazi sympathies.

But anyway, if he doesn't abdicate and marries Wallis then the Government is forced to resign (well I read that is what happens), this would spark a general election no idea who would get into power but in actual fact it might have repercussions against Germany, the new PM might make rearmament a top priority.

The thing is though even back then the monarch was very much a figurehead, so its not certain that a pro-nazi monarch would have any real effect on Britains entry to the war or the way it was conducted.

The problem being though is that the exact relationship between the crown and parliament, and the powers of the monarch are not based on a nice neat precisely worded constitution, but on three seperate obselete partial constitutions, a couple of laws and a mass of 'conventions' and customs.

So if he did try to assert his rule over his ministers no one would really know what to do!
 

Sol Invictus

samurai388 said:
Also assume he held pro-Nazi views to the point that he allied him self with the Germans in WWII.
Click to expand...

But a British monarch has not had that power since... God knows when. However there was a lot of German sympathy (apparently) in the House of Lords, but even back then their power was limited.
 

Blue Max

Sol Invictus said:
He was a Nazi sympathiser, after his abdication he visits Hitler, during the war he undermines British moral by calling for peace. Its often suggested now that the real reason behind his abdication was his Nazi sympathies.

But anyway, if he doesn't abdicate and marries Wallis then the Government is forced to resign (well I read that is what happens), this would spark a general election no idea who would get into power but in actual fact it might have repercussions against Germany, the new PM might make rearmament a top priority.

The thing is though even back then the monarch was very much a figurehead, so its not certain that a pro-nazi monarch would have any real effect on Britains entry to the war or the way it was conducted.

The problem being though is that the exact relationship between the crown and parliament, and the powers of the monarch are not based on a nice neat precisely worded constitution, but on three seperate obselete partial constitutions, a couple of laws and a mass of 'conventions' and customs.

So if he did try to assert his rule over his ministers no one would really know what to do!
Click to expand...

Lets not forget that Edward's Abdication came well before Appeasement of Hitler stopped as a policy, so I really think the blame is that Wallis Simpson essentially got a divorce to get married to Edward VIII. Don't forget, either, that Wallis Simpson is one of several married women Edward has been mucking around with.

I think, although being supportive of a Fascist system might have been a consideration, it really was the scandal and dishonor that this would cause the British government that forced Edward to resign. PM Baldwin could have proposed a Morganic marriage that meant that Wallis Simpson would not be queen and Edward's children would not be in the line of succession for the crown.

I think that Edward remaining on the throne after 1938 would cause serious problems--although its possible, maybe even likely, that Edward reluctantly denounces Hitler and the Third Reich and supports the war as OTL.
 

Sol Invictus

Blue Max said:
Lets not forget that Edward's Abdication came well before Appeasement of Hitler stopped as a policy, so I really think the blame is that Wallis Simpson essentially got a divorce to get married to Edward VIII. Don't forget, either, that Wallis Simpson is one of several married women Edward has been mucking around with.

I think, although being supportive of a Fascist system might have been a consideration, it really was the scandal and dishonor that this would cause the British government that forced Edward to resign. PM Baldwin could have proposed a Morganic marriage that meant that Wallis Simpson would not be queen and Edward's children would not be in the line of succession for the crown.

I think that Edward remaining on the throne after 1938 would cause serious problems--although its possible, maybe even likely, that Edward reluctantly denounces Hitler and the Third Reich and supports the war as OTL.
Click to expand...

I've one for you, Edward does not abdicate and most likely has a morganic marriage with Wallis, everyone is very unhappy. However when war looms Edward can not bring himself to approve of it. This delays the decleration of war, (perhaps he is then forced to abdicate), but the by the time Britian resolves its governmental crisis France has surrendered.
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
Sol Invictus said:
I've one for you, Edward does not abdicate and most likely has a morganic marriage with Wallis, everyone is very unhappy. However when war looms Edward can not bring himself to approve of it. This delays the decleration of war, (perhaps he is then forced to abdicate), but the by the time Britian resolves its governmental crisis France has surrendered.
Click to expand...

Edward can drag his feet as much as he wants - with or without a wife - the Government can move without him. The Cabinet did not consult with King George V before declaring war against Germany in 1914.
 

Wolf

I think my scenario has some merit. With a worse Depression in the UK and the BUF taking over.
 

samurai388

Sol Invictus said:
But a British monarch has not had that power since... God knows when. However there was a lot of German sympathy (apparently) in the House of Lords, but even back then their power was limited.
Click to expand...

Anaxagoras said:
You're crediting the monarch with political power it did not have.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that if he was enough of a pro-Nazi he might not care about that. He might just go do what ever he wants. Many people liked him and would have prefered to have him over the PM at the time (Stanley Baldwin). Of course they were not so many as to have a majority by a longshot, but you only need a small amount of people really willing to do something to make it happen. The BUF could do something wacko then Edward could get martial law somehow (like how hitler took power). There is also no denying that he had connections to powerfull people. With Winston Churchill, BUF, and the Communists supporting him (like they all did OTL) it's viable that he could have taken power.
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
Sol Invictus said:
I am pretty certain that the monarch would have been consulted.
Click to expand...

After the fact - sure they would have told him that war had been declared. Besides, how many days are we talking about in regards to the False War between the Invasion of Poland and the Battle of France? Nearly a year between September 3, 1939 and May 10, 1940.

Or are you suggesting that the British never sign the Mutual Assistance Treaty with Poland.
 

samurai388

David S Poepoe said:
Or are you suggesting that the British never sign the Mutual Assistance Treaty with Poland.
Click to expand...

Treaties can and have been broken in the past. Germany broke the Treaty of Versailles, how far fetched is it that a Facist Britain would break the Mutual Assistance Treaty with Poland?
 

Sol Invictus

samurai388 said:
Treaties can and have been broken in the past. Germany broke the Treaty of Versailles, how far fetched is it that a Facist Britain would break the Mutual Assistance Treaty with Poland?
Click to expand...

The British Union of Facists was formed in 1932, you are only giving them a few years to take power.
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
samurai388 said:
Treaties can and have been broken in the past. Germany broke the Treaty of Versailles, how far fetched is it that a Facist Britain would break the Mutual Assistance Treaty with Poland?
Click to expand...

Germany did break the Treaty of Versailles, but the other powers were also feeling guilty and allowed them to do so. If Britain and France had decided to intervene, then things would have been different.

I think it far more likely, in the unlikely event of a Facist Britain, that no Mutual Assistance Treaty would have been issued to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top