Fate of Edward VIII if Wallis Simpson never existed

[Booster Gold]

So, this has been discussed before but in the context of a nazi victory (because of course), but having been reminded of the whole thing by the lingering bitterness that a few insist on feeling about the Princess Diana tragedy, I find myself wondering:

What if Wallis Simpson was never born? What happens to Edward VIII? A cursory investigation into the situation leaves the impression that the British establishment wanted rid of Edward regardless. Do they find another way? Do they leave well enough alone? Does a constitutional crisis come about at some point?

 

[Lalli]

Government can keep Edward VIII under their control and during the war even away from BBC channels. So he is not such big problem anyway altough might cause some scandals. So things would go still quiet similarly as in OTL and queen Elizabeth would has only 20 years shorter reign since Edward would be king until his death.

Another thing is whom the future queen will marry. Would she still end to Philip or would it be someone else?

 

[Opo]

There was always going to be a Wallis. Just before she came on the scene, the Prince's mistress was Thelma Furness - a twice divorced American. So if he didn't abdicate for Wallis, it could just as easily have been for Thelma.

But it's important to note that Wallis was exactly what the Baldwin government needed in 1936 because for the first time, the King had put himself into a constitutional crisis where the government had the authority (some might say the responsibility) to push back and force his abdication. Long before that however, the establishment had dreaded Edward VIII's succession because he was simply too ambitious and too modern. They couldn't very well oust him because he ended the custom of presenting young debs at court or because he liked club sandwiches and cocktails - then Wallis came along.

So I think essentially all you have to do is wait for a constitutional crisis, maybe a clash on policy, a refusal of royal assent, and you have another mechanism for abdication. Certainly I could never see David lasting until 1972 as King.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

Another thing is whom the future queen will marry. Would she still end to Philip or would it be someone else?

Barring something unfortunate happening to Phil at Matapan, nothing would have stopped Elizabeth from marrying him. By all accounts, they were smitten with one another.

 

[Chernabog90]

But it's important to note that Wallis was exactly what the Baldwin government needed in 1936 because for the first time, the King had put himself into a constitutional crisis where the government had the authority (some might say the responsibility) to push back and force his abdication. Long before that however, the establishment had dreaded Edward VIII's succession because he was simply too ambitious and too modern. They couldn't very well oust him because he ended the custom of presenting young debs at court or because he liked club sandwiches and cocktails - then Wallis came along.

not to mention that edward viii is quite popular with the people, so his force abdication could cause a public backlash

Government can keep Edward VIII under their control and during the war even away from BBC channels. So he is not such big problem anyway altough might cause some scandals. So things would go still quiet similarly as in OTL and queen Elizabeth would has only 20 years shorter reign since Edward would be king until his death.

Another thing is whom the future queen will marry. Would she still end to Philip or would it be someone else?

is he really sterile ?

 

[Lalli]

is he really sterile ?

We probably can't ever know surely. But of course him should marry firstly anyway. Unmarried children are not accepted to line of succession. So if EVIII dies without any legimite children, Elizabeth will become queen after her uncle.

 

[BlueTrousers]

Barring something unfortunate happening to Phil at Matapan, nothing would have stopped Elizabeth from marrying him. By all accounts, they were smitten with one another.

Assuming - and it's a big assumption - that Edward VIII lasts until 1972, and that he doesn't produce an heir, it's likely that Philip gets at least another decade of active naval service.

In OTL, his naval career ended when George VI's health markedly deteriorated in 1951 and Princess Elizabeth had to take on more royal duties. The Duke of Windsor remained in pretty good health until the early-middle 1960s. Whilst Princess Elizabeth would be the heir presumptive until the King's death, the couple might not take on a full suite of royal duties until that time, giving Philip the chance to pursue his naval career. Looking at his contemporaries, and allowing for the fact that you don't want to snub the future Prince Consort, he'd make Captain in the mid-1950s, and might make Rear-Admiral by the mid-1960s, but almost certainly not Vice-Admiral.

I think he'd be created a duke when he and Princess Elizabeth married, but not necessarily: there isn't much precedent to go on. Prince Albert was created Duke of Edinburgh, but Victoria was already Queen when they married. The nearest precedent is probably the creation of Prince George as Duke of Cumberland after the Glorious Revolution. It's also open to speculation whether he'd necessarily have been created a prince; there's even less precedent, although it did happen in OTL of course!

 

[colonel]

Government can keep Edward VIII under their control and during the war even away from BBC channels. So he is not such big problem anyway altough might cause some scandals. So things would go still quiet similarly as in OTL and queen Elizabeth would has only 20 years shorter reign since Edward would be king until his death.

Another thing is whom the future queen will marry. Would she still end to Philip or would it be someone else?

Assuming Edward VIII dies without issue I don’t think Elizabeth would be Queen. Her father would have predeceased the King. Then wouldn’t one of the surviving brothers take the throne?

 

[Lalli]

Assuming Edward VIII dies without issue I don’t think Elizabeth would be Queen. Her father would have predeceased the King. Then wouldn’t one of the surviving brothers take the throne?

If EVIII would had died without children, EII would had still inherited since she is before her father's younger brother. Same way Victoria too inherited crown despite that William IV's younger brother was still alive. Britain hadn't agnatic or even semi-agnatic succession.

 

[Locke01]

Assuming Edward VIII dies without issue I don’t think Elizabeth would be Queen. Her father would have predeceased the King. Then wouldn’t one of the surviving brothers take the throne?

Doesn't work like that. Her father was heir presumptive to Edward. When he dies, his children are next in line. Didn't have sons, so the oldest daughter becomes heir presumptive. Before any surviving brother gets the nod, all of the Duke of York's issue needs to die first.

 

[ahmedali]

Make him marry a Swedish princess (Swedish Astrid, wife of OTL Leopold III)


Or one of the Tsar's daughters (Olga Romanov or Tatiana)
Or one of the daughters of the British nobles


I thought he would be an unpopular king His marriage was just an excuse to get rid of him because Edward VIII tried to control the government and criticized its work


Philip and Elizabeth's marriage will continue to happen, but she may become the queen of another country, especially if her uncle rules until 1972



(She and her husband may become kings of Greece if King Paul did not have sons and was limited to daughters, and if he died of tuberculosis in 1947 and George II's death continued, as in the OTL, Philip would be King of Greece)



Her father may die while he is still Prince of Wales (Edward VIII was sterile so he could not produce an heir)



(George VI was a smoker of its evil even if World War II and his duties as king accelerated his death, but he would not become king even if he lived)



So their younger brother Henry, Duke of Gloucester, may become King Henry IX, but his reign will be very short (only two years since he died in 1974).



So his son, the current Duke of Gloucester Richard, becomes King Richard IV of the kingdom

 

[Opo]

Christopher Wilson (who wrote excellent biographies of Princess Margaret and the Duke and Duchess of Kent) discovered a fascinating document in the National Archives which was written by Sir Horace Wilson, a pretty big deal in the Civil Service in the late 1930s. Lord Woolton said he had more power than the Cabinet and almost as much as the Prime Minister. It appears Horace Wilson noted down a plan of his own to deal with the aftermath of the abdication. He proposed that Queen Mary should be declared Regent and that a new Succession Act should be introduced bypassing the Yorks and Gloucesters entirely to create the Duke of Kent King George VI instead of his elder brother.

Interestingly, Wilson says that he proposed this in Cabinet so it was given an official hearing, though obviously it was never adopted. He seems to have been a keen supporter of the Kents over the Yorks, suggesting that the Duke of York was too shy, his wife too ambitious (and low-born) and that they had no sons which would see the succession "reduced" to the two little Princesses. By contrast, the Duke of Kent was outgoing, a sparkling personality, his wife was a Greek Princess and they had a son potentially with another one on the way (it turned out the Duchess' 2nd child was a girl).

I can see why it was never taken seriously but it's quite amazing that it was even given a hearing at such an official level.

 

[Lalli]

Philip and Elizabeth's marriage will continue to happen, but she may become the queen of another country, especially if her uncle rules until 1972



(She and her husband may become kings of Greece if King Paul did not have sons and was limited to daughters, and if he died of tuberculosis in 1947 and George II's death continued, as in the OTL, Philip would be King of Greece)



Her father may die while he is still Prince of Wales (Edward VIII was sterile so he could not produce an heir)



(George VI was a smoker of its evil even if World War II and his duties as king accelerated his death, but he would not become king even if he lived)



So their younger brother Henry, Duke of Gloucester, may become King Henry IX, but his reign will be very short (only two years since he died in 1974).

Elizabeth had younger sister Margaret. She would be heir of Edward VIII. But it quiet possible that she causes such situation that parliament is enforced to pass law which would remove her from line of succession.

So his son, the current Duke of Gloucester Richard, becomes King Richard IV of the kingdom

Henry, duke of Gloucester had older son William who died in 1971 in OTL on airplane crash. That probably would be butterflied away so we would have king William V.

 

[ahmedali]

Elizabeth had younger sister Margaret. She would be heir of Edward VIII. But it quiet possible that she causes such situation that parliament is enforced to pass law which would remove her from line of succession.



Henry, duke of Gloucester had older son William who died in 1971 in OTL on airplane crash. That probably would be butterflied away so we would have king William V.

We may also see William V but Richard IV has a nice context


Margaret did not want to be queen, nor did Parliament want her


Instead of Elizabeth, Princess of Wales, we will have Princess Elizabeth of Greece and Denmark, and she will become Queen of Greece in 1947 (if tuberculosis leads to the death of Paul, King of Greece) or 1964 (Paul's death as OTL).

 

[Nivek]

He will be there doing nothing.

 

[mattep74]

Assuming Edward VIII dies without issue I don’t think Elizabeth would be Queen. Her father would have predeceased the King. Then wouldn’t one of the surviving brothers take the throne?

Are you sure about that? Was it not so that her fathers health problems arose when he became king. If he stays second in line and not have to deal with WW2 he could get a long life and perhaps live as long as his brother or maybe longer. Thus Elizabeth do not get to be queen until the late 1970s.

And if Elizabeth is not queen then Charles and Anne get a different life. Will Elizabeth and Phillip have the urge to have two more children? If Edward live without an heir, will Charles be pressed into a marriage in the early 70s to keep the line going? Charles and Anne will get more attention from their parents.

 

[Lascaris]

We may also see William V but Richard IV has a nice context


Margaret did not want to be queen, nor did Parliament want her


Instead of Elizabeth, Princess of Wales, we will have Princess Elizabeth of Greece and Denmark, and she will become Queen of Greece in 1947 (if tuberculosis leads to the death of Paul, King of Greece) or 1964 (Paul's death as OTL).

No we don't. The line of succession in 1947 is:

Paul I
Constantine II
Prince George
Prince Peter
Prince Philip

 

[ahmedali]

No we don't. The line of succession in 1947 is:

Paul I
Constantine II
Prince George
Prince Peter
Prince Philip

King Paul was constantly ill and his health was fragile (he nearly died in 1947 during the wedding of Elizabeth and Philip and did not attend their wedding because of his illness)


Constantine II was born in 1940 with Pod during the early thirties to keep Edward VIII could make him stillborn or be born a girl


Prince Peter had no children and his father was not interested in ruling


But Philip and Elizabeth could be brought in as guardians of the child Constantine II as a plan by the Greek government to expel his mother Frederica of Hanover from Greece


This may spare Greece the events that led to the end of the Greek monarchy in 1973 and which were caused by Frederica

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

By contrast, the Duke of Kent was outgoing, a sparkling personality...

And reputedly a promiscuous bisexual drug user.

 

[ahmedali]

Are you sure about that? Was it not so that her fathers health problems arose when he became king. If he stays second in line and not have to deal with WW2 he could get a long life and perhaps live as long as his brother or maybe longer. Thus Elizabeth do not get to be queen until the late 1970s.

And if Elizabeth is not queen then Charles and Anne get a different life. Will Elizabeth and Phillip have the urge to have two more children? If Edward live without an heir, will Charles be pressed into a marriage in the early 70s to keep the line going? Charles and Anne will get more attention from their parents.

Yes, their lives will be different, but with the fact that they are heirs to another kingdom


(Greece) and not Britain, I think that their upbringing will be different, but close to OTL.


Princess Diana's life would be completely different