What if he never abdicated an instead of marrying Wallis Simpson he married his old love Thelma Furness, Viscountess Furness? Would he have become Hitler's puppet in England? Would he have joined the Axis?
What if Edward VIII never abdicated?
- Thread starter Paul Simmons
- Start date
He might have wanted to cozy up to the Axis, as he was something of a fan of Hitler and the Nazis, but the UK isn't an absolute monarchy. He can't just snap his fingers and make an alliance happen.
That being said . . . Were things tweaked so that he was able to hold onto the monarchy . . . Could he have had any hope at all of convincing the government to stay out of the conflict? Maybe stay neutral or try to establish favorable relations with the Germans, even if they never fight side by side?
I honestly don't know what kind of influence he would have had without that Simpson thing prompting a forced abdication. (But it doesn't sound like he was popular with the government even before then.)
That being said . . . Were things tweaked so that he was able to hold onto the monarchy . . . Could he have had any hope at all of convincing the government to stay out of the conflict? Maybe stay neutral or try to establish favorable relations with the Germans, even if they never fight side by side?
I honestly don't know what kind of influence he would have had without that Simpson thing prompting a forced abdication. (But it doesn't sound like he was popular with the government even before then.)
Cook
Banned
The accusations of Edward being pro-Nazi stem from his visit in 1937 to Germany where he said complimentary things about his host (Hitler) and because he was said to favour Appeasement. That he favoured appeasement is hardly surprising; it was the Government policy of the day.
Edward was a self centred irresponsible playboy with no great intelligence who enjoyed being flattered, and the Nazis were prepared to flatter him a great deal. They were also prepared to receive Wallace Simpson in social functions while the British treated her as a leper. That Edward would say complimentary things about the Germans in return is therefore understandable.
Neither of these things makes him a traitor; stupid yes, traitor no. As to what he would have done as king; he’d have done as he was told. In the Twentieth Century British Kings do what their Prime Minister’s tell them, not the other way around.
With regard to his character and the level of influence Simpson had on his behaviour; when the Germans invaded France Edward was a liaison officer attached to the French High Command, he deserted his post and fled with Wallace to the South of France, then over the border into Spain. The difference in his behaviour then compared to it in the First World War when he’d tried to get to the Western Front as often as possible, is significant.
Right on there. An idea that came up (maybe it was mine...) in an earlier thread was David falling for a well-off German woman (not a divorcee...) and ascending the throne on schedule. When Hitler hits, Edward VIII does nothing. Hitler woos him and he adores Hitler. Maybe not a military alliance, but appeasement certainly.
Now, if somebody on the side of the Allies messes up and pisses England off... Who knows?
A King doing nothing is significant. Go back and review Edward's successor during the war and tell me that a king doing something was insignificant. The British need and respond to inspiration during crisis probably more than any other nation of Europeans. Had the king been content to keep quiet or even support Hitler, the people would largely have supported him.
Cook
Banned
Edward’s successor, George VI celebrated Chamberlain’s success at Munich and the Prime Minister accompanied the King onto the balcony at Buckingham Palace to wave to the crowds. A year later the King signed the Prime Minister’s declaration of war. Kings do as they are told.
From what I've read about him, he wasn't that bad a guy, he just said a lot of stupid things when he should have kept his mouth shut. That's one of the reasons they stuck him on an island in the middle of nowhere during most of the war.
I imagine if he was king, he'd probably say some damaging things during the war. I'd guess he would say some negative things about the Soviet Union or non-white subjects fighting for the British Empire like Indians or Africans.
I imagine if he was king, he'd probably say some damaging things during the war. I'd guess he would say some negative things about the Soviet Union or non-white subjects fighting for the British Empire like Indians or Africans.
This is something that would cause Churchill to repeat, "Up with which I will not put!"
It does seem that many non-Brits have an odd view of the power of the British monarch. Parliament is supreme and would have no hesitation in swifly manifesting its supremacy were a monarch to get uppity during times of war etc.
It's no surpise that outside the Houses of Parliament a statue of Cromwell was erected towards the end of the 19th Century. It just so happens that the statue's gaze is in the direction of Buckingham Palace.
I'm rather curious, how would Parliament proceed legally in the 30' and/or 40' were it to come in conflict with a relatively popular king that would try to assert his authority in this or that matter and would rather be hanged then abdicate ?
EDIT: not that this was the case with Edward. I'm just trying to reduce my ignorance on this matter
EDIT: not that this was the case with Edward. I'm just trying to reduce my ignorance on this matter
Giysqun Wilde
Banned
The war showed various levels of what the monarchs could do, with the King of Denmark staying around as a failsafe with his people, the king of Norway taking the entire government while retreating, the Belgian King sticking around for as long as he could, then of course the King of Italy... The monarch needed to be the symbol that united everyone, and if they were shown to be fawning to invaders or not staying with their people in times of danger, then they were deemed to have outlived their usefulness. Having the loyalty of the colonies, merchant marines, and populace as a whole invested in them was a big deal. Having Germans invading and abolishing the monarchies was a sign for all that they had lost every vestige of independence and had no future.
Cook
Banned
Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty also proposed Cromwell as the name for one of the new Battleships before World War One, George V objected to the suggestion. When you think about it, His Majesty’s Ship Cromwell does sound slightly confused.
Of course he was in a bit of a no-win situation.
Suppose he had dutifully waited for orders, these had been a bit too long in coming, and as a result he had been captured by the Germans. Given how the establishment felt about him, there would have been nbo lack of voices to insinuate that he had willingly defected to the enemy.
Last edited:
Cook
Banned
He deserted his post in May 1940 prior to the ‘Second Dunkirk’, when Britain still had some 200,000 troops in France. He made no attempt to reach the British formations, instead fleeing south to the holiday resort town of Biarritz where he’d spent summers before the war. This was not an escape and evasion, it was pure desertion; had it been done by anyone else charges would have been laid. As it was it was probably one of the reasons Churchill wanted him well out of sight in the Bahamas.
Cook
Banned
No. Churchill wanted a Battleship named after Oliver Cromwell, I think it would have been one of the Queen Elizabeth class.
George V objected saying that he was not going to name one of His Majesty’s Ships after a Regicide. This was prior to 1914; George V reigned until 1936.
And if they don't they accidently fall down a flight of stairs and break their necks.