British Monarchy - Edward Windsor's Abdiction

Gloomtastic!

Just watching The Crown on Netflix. Excellent series that portrays all the politics that accompanies the monarchy.

In my understanding of what went on. Edward had to abdicate because he wanted to marry a double-divorcee (and an american at that!). But, after marrying, Edward and Wallis had no children so even if he was allowed to keep the crown, would it not have passed to his brother anyway and then eventually to Elizabeth, the current monarch?

The programme shows the bitterness held by the Queen's mother towards Edward because of his early abdiction and passing the baton to her husband but was she just denying the inevitable?

Manach

My understanding was that the abdication crisis also effected the daily politics. The government of the day was split on how to deal with this unprecedented event and this was a distraction (as was felt at the time) from the problems of the Totalitarian threats on the continent.

pedroeibar1

The politics of the day were the real reason as Manach has said. There would have been a constitutional crises had he proceeded as King with the plans to marry, because the government would have resigned, thus implicating the monarchy in an event from which it should remain removed. Add to his sympathetic outlook to the fascists, virulently anti-Semitic and openly racist views , so not ideal to lead the Dominions, those countries that would eventually post WW2 become the Commonwealth..

As for the succession/views of the Queen Mother, for starters there was only a year between the birth dates of the two princes, 1894 & 5, so who would die first was a toss of a coin. Edward died in 1972, his younger brother George in 1952, so if Edward had not abdicated, George would never have reigned and the crown would have passed to Elizabeth in ’72.

There were several other issues behind the abdication, among them the fact that the monarch is the ‘Supreme Governor of the Church of England’ and the C of E bishops were not best pleased with the behavior of either Ed or Wallis; the marital status of Wallis S was also an issue, while her first divorce had happened she technically was still married and awaiting the second one when Ed proposed. She was seen as a social climbing gold digger with no respect for convention/decorum and had pi$$ed off the entire “Establishment” so had few friends at court.

Later, in the early stages of the War there were allegations of him being close to several Nazis and leaking information hence eventually banging him off out of the way to the Bahamas, with a close eye being kept on him.

I suggest the American citizen status of Wallis would not have been much of a barrier – dating back to the second half of the 1800’s there were dozens of American females married into the senior aristocracy/establishment in England, Ireland and the Continent e.g. Vanderbilts, Work, Yznaga, Leiter, Astor, Hauks, the Jerome sisters, one of whom was WS Churchill’s mother, etc. The vicereine Lady Curzon was a yank, the list is very long……. Susan Kehoe’s “To Marry an English Lord” is a good book about these American brides and an entertaining read.

Gloomtastic!

Thanks Pedro, a pet subject of yours obviously. So Lizzie was destined for the top job regardless.

tabbey

The principal impediment to Edward being king was that the king or queen was head of the Church of England, and other branches of the Anglican communion. The church did not recognise divorce, so it would have been impossible for a king to marry a double divorcee and be head of the church.

The government considered a morganatic marriage as a potential solution, this would mean that Wallis Simpson would be wife of the king, but would not be queen. Even this was not considered acceptable, so abdication was necessary if Edward persisted with his intention to marry.

Given her history, it is amazing that Wallis remained married to Edward for nearly four decades, it shows how devoted Edward was to her.

Peregrinus

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Just watching The Crown on Netflix. Excellent series that portrays all the politics that accompanies the monarchy.

In my understanding of what went on. Edward had to abdicate because he wanted to marry a double-divorcee (and an american at that!). But, after marrying, Edward and Wallis had no children so even if he was allowed to keep the crown, would it not have passed to his brother anyway and then eventually to Elizabeth, the current monarch?

The programme shows the bitterness held by the Queen's mother towards Edward because of his early abdiction and passing the baton to her husband but was she just denying the inevitable?

As pedroeibar1 points out, George VI died at the age of 56 in 1952, more than 20 years earlier than Windsor, so if Windsor had not abdicated and all other events had unfolded as they did then, yes, the crown would have passed from Windsor to Elizabeth II.

But George's wife always believed that George died young because of the stress he had to endure becoming king when he had not expected to, and when he considered himself inadequate to the role. Had Windsor not abdicated, she reckoned, her husband would certainly have been a happier man, and probably a more long-lived one.

(George VI, a lifelong heavy smoker, died of lung cancer, so we might think that there was more than occupational stress involved. Still, that's what she thought.)

The other point, of course, is that the only way Windsor could have stayed on the throne was by not marrying Warfield, and if he hadn't married Warfield he would have married someone else, and he might then have begotten children of his own, so George and his descendants would all have been spared coming to the throne.

Gloomtastic!

Peregrinus wrote: »

As pedroeibar1 points out, George VI died at the age of 56 in 1952, more than 20 years earlier than Windsor, so if Windsor had not abdicated and all other events had unfolded as they did then, yes, the crown would have passed from Windsor to Elizabeth II.

But George's wife always believed that George died young because of the stress he had to endure becoming king when he had not expected to, and when he considered himself inadequate to the role. Had Windsor not abdicated, she reckoned, her husband would certainly have been a happier man, and probably a more long-lived one.

(George VI, a lifelong heavy smoker, died of lung cancer, so we might think that there was more than occupational stress involved. Still, that's what she thought.)

The other point, of course, is that the only way Windsor could have stayed on the throne was by not marrying Warfield, and if he hadn't married Warfield he would have married someone else, and he might then have begotten children of his own, so George and his descendants would all have been spared coming to the throne.

If you can watch the programme, you'll see them chop out one of his lungs due to lung disease (they brought the operating theatre to the palace!). You also see him smoking again soon after the operation. The viewers are left in no doubt why he died.....

riffmongous

Peregrinus wrote: »

As pedroeibar1 points out, George VI died at the age of 56 in 1952, more than 20 years earlier than Windsor, so if Windsor had not abdicated and all other events had unfolded as they did then, yes, the crown would have passed from Windsor to Elizabeth II.

But George's wife always believed that George died young because of the stress he had to endure becoming king when he had not expected to, and when he considered himself inadequate to the role. Had Windsor not abdicated, she reckoned, her husband would certainly have been a happier man, and probably a more long-lived one.

(George VI, a lifelong heavy smoker, died of lung cancer, so we might think that there was more than occupational stress involved. Still, that's what she thought.)

The other point, of course, is that the only way Windsor could have stayed on the throne was by not marrying Warfield, and if he hadn't married Warfield he would have married someone else, and he might then have begotten children of his own, so George and his descendants would all have been spared coming to the throne.

Why do you refer to Edward as Windsor? Aren't they all Windsor?

pinkypinky

And they were known as David and Bertie amongst the family. Edward and George were regnal names. Elizabeth II is relatively unusual in having her own name, although not amongst the other female monarchs.

pedroeibar1

riffmongous wrote: »

Why do you refer to Edward as Windsor? Aren't they all Windsor?

Yes, but.... Ed was given the title 'Duke of Windsor', hence I'd guess P's comment. Also, there was fuss over the Windsor name, as the current monarch did not take the Mountbatten name on marrying Philip and it was only much later that they style themselves Mountbatten-Windsor (or perhaps the other way around?) Not really my area, Gloomtastic, but I did some research way back on the American brides.

Peregrinus

Yup. David, or Wales, became Edward VIII when he succeeded to the throne, and then became Windsor after his abdication. The present Queen is married to Edinburgh, and her sons are Wales, York and Wessex. Wales's eldest son is Cambridge; he and his wife are "the Cambridges".

That's how we do it at court, you know.;)

pinkypinky

Descendants of Philip & Elizabeth are supposed to use Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname (when they have to pretend to be commoners...)

Itssoeasy

I find the British royal family fascinating for some reason. I mean I know this thread is about Edward VIII but when you read back about Victoria, and George III it's a wonder how she became queen at all and the recent history would have very different.

Fratton Fred

pinkypinky wrote: »

Descendants of Philip & Elizabeth are supposed to use Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname (when they have to pretend to be commoners...)

Harry (who is actually Henry) and Wills used the surname Wales during their military careers.

Itssoeasy

I know the situation is different but could Charles face similar backlash over what camilla will be known as when Charles does become king(and yes Charles will become king, he just might not be crowned king)And despite what some people think William will not to become king next. Charles will.

Itssoeasy

Just going on what Wikipedia says it's appears the queen, the government, and the Church of England gave their approval for the weeding of Charles and Camilla to take place.

I find that a sign of how similiar Charles and Edward VIII are yet changing attitudes to divorce and allow one to happen and the other in the 1930s to force an abdication.

Del.Monte

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I know the situation is different but could Charles face similar backlash over what camilla will be known as when Charles does become king(and yes Charles will become king, he just might not be crowned king)And despite what some people think William will not to become king next. Charles will.

How do you know all this, is it in the Barry's tea leaves?

Itssoeasy

Del.Monte wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I know the situation is different but could Charles face similar backlash over what camilla will be known as when Charles does become king(and yes Charles will become king, he just might not be crowned king)And despite what some people think William will not to become king next. Charles will.

How do you know all this, is it in the Barry's tea leaves?

No I just read a lot in my spare time and read things on everything and anything and watch documentaries on it.

Yes I know it's probably boring but my grandmother has always said that "if you know a little about everything,you'll never be stuck for something to talk about in a conversation."

tabbey

Itssoeasy wrote: »

No I just read a lot in my spare time and read things on everything and anything and watch documentaries on it.

Yes I know it's probably boring but my grandmother has always said that "if you know a little about everything,you'll never be stuck for something to talk about in a conversation."

None of us can predict the future. We can only speculate.

Peregrinus

When the present Queen dies, Charles will become king (unless he has died first).

Even if, for whatever reason, he decides that he doesn't want the gig he can't just not be king. UK law provides for the crown to pass to him on his mother's death. It's automatic; it doesn't require his consent or agreement. If he doesn't want the gig, he'll have to get Parliament to pass an Act to facilitate his abdication (just as was done for Edward VIII). And, until that Act is passed, he'll be king.

And his wife will be queen. Whether in practice she uses the title "HM the Queen" or continues to use "Duchess of Cornwall" is a decision that Charles will make when the time comes. (Presumably, he'll consult her in the matter but it will be his decision, to be taken on the advice of his Ministers.) But whether she uses the title or not won't change the legal situation, which is that as long as her husband is king, she is queen.

You can renounce a hereditary peerage in the UK because the Peerages Act 1963 allows this. But there is no similar law allowing you to renounce succession to the throne. If you're in the line of succession to the throne, unless you can persuade Parliament to change the law the only escape is (a) become a Catholic, or (b), if you're in the first six places in the line of succession (currently Wales, Cambridge, George, Charlotte, Harry, York) marry without the sovereign's consent. Either of these will disqualify you.

tabbey

Since 1969, when Charles was invested as Prince of Wales at the age of 21, he has served an apprenticeship of almost half a century.

Of course he wants the job.
It is unfortunate that QE2 has not retired already, I had thought that she would have gone after the jubilee celebrations, four years ago. I accept that she is still highly competent, but she has earned her retirement, and at 95, Prince Philip even more so. In 2012, standing to attention for an hour on a boat, in the rain, nearly killed him.

Nobody else is expected to perform a busy schedule every day in their nineties.

Peregrinus

She has withdrawn from a good deal of the day-to-day, and at public functions is more and more often represented by other members of the firm. And she no longer travels internationally.

But she won't abdicate. The whole culture in which she was raised is that, if this job falls to you, it's your duty to do it, as well as you can, even if that's not very well. The monarchy will survive periods where a monarch can't get about much; it's less clear it will survive a culture in which monarchs feel that if they don't want the job they don't need to do it.

With hindsight it was probably good for Britain that Windsor abdicated when he did, but as far as his family concerned that doesn't matter; he failed in his duty, and that was unforgiveable. The duty then fell to George VI, who did it as best he could, even though it killed him. Now it's Elizabeth's duty, and she'll do it 'til she dies. With that kind of heritage, it would be next to impossible for Charles not to take on the role when his time comes, however unpopular he might be, or however glum he might feel about that. In the royal family view of things, this is what he was put on earth to do, basically.

Del.Monte

Dying on the job is what sets the British monarchy apart from other surviving monarchies. Abdication and the institution is devalued as you might as well elect the monarch - no thanks!

Itssoeasy

Del.Monte wrote: »

Dying on the job is what sets the British monarchy apart from other surviving monarchies. Abdication and the institution is devalued as you might as well elect the monarch - no thanks!

Yeah the few monarchies besides the British one seem to regularly abdicate and I think the Dutch monarchy sounds like a normal job.

Powerhouse

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I know the situation is different but could Charles face similar backlash over what camilla will be known as when Charles does become king(and yes Charles will become king, he just might not be crowned king)And despite what some people think William will not to become king next. Charles will.

I wasn't aware the notion that Charles might not be King and it would pass to William was out there at all. Why do you say he might not be crowned King? Obviously it's neither here nor there - it's only a ceremony which to the best of my knowledge does not impact in his constitutional position of King. For example, the subject of this thread Edward VIII never had a coronation ceremony. But I was just wondering why you think there might not be a coronation ceremony for Charles?

Fratton Fred

Powerhouse wrote: »

I wasn't aware the notion that Charles might not be King and it would pass to William was out there at all. Why do you say he might not be crowned King? Obviously it's neither here nor there - it's only a ceremony which to the best of my knowledge does not impact in his constitutional position of King. For example, the subject of this thread Edward VIII never had a coronation ceremony. But I was just wondering why you think there might not be a coronation ceremony for Charles?

mainly because he's a bit of a dick and people want a young trendy king and queen.

pedroeibar1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

mainly because he's a bit of a dick and people want a young trendy king and queen.

Charles might repeat Sir Myles na gCopaleen's advice to the princeling and say "K.M.R.I.A."