Yuelang
Banned
Especially with Fascist Britain who maintain alliance with Imperial Japan and go to non-aggresion pact with Nazi Germany.
The horror!
WI: Edward VIII refuses to abdicate and still marries Wallis?
- Thread starter Admiral Halsey
- Start date
Especially with Fascist Britain who maintain alliance with Imperial Japan and go to non-aggresion pact with Nazi Germany.
The horror!
No, the opposite was in fact true. Swathes of the government - including the PM - were on the cusp of resigning if Edward tried to stay. Parliament would win, just like last time. If needs be, Edward would have a riding accident. Or a flying one - he was fond of those air machines, and they are so terribly dangerous.
Ian McKellen approves of this TL idea.
for those who not understand
Ian McKellen play in 1995 in movie RICHARD III (a excellent movie)
the Shakespeare's play is transform into 1930s storyline
and Richard the III embrace fascism dictatorship
One truly genius thing about that movie - it gives the Woodvilles American accents.
They can still pass another Act declaring his occupancy of the throne to be null and void, and recognizing his brother as the King. After which, he's just a pretender. Faced with what amounts to a bill of attainder, Edward is sure to throw in the towel at that point before all of his personal property is seized, and he's politely escorted off the premises.
I went to see the Film when it came out in 1995, also had the script/making of the movie book . Always meant to do a Timeline based on the events of the movie, but never got around to it.for those who not understand
Ian McKellen play in 1995 in movie RICHARD III (a excellent movie)
the Shakespeare's play is transform into 1930s storyline
and Richard the III embrace fascism dictatorship
For the Bill to actually become law, it needs to be signed by the sovereign. Edward would just refuse to sign it.
(Yes, that hasn't been done since the early eighteenth century, but we're into full-scale constitutional crisis territory here anyway).
There was actually a lot more to the abdication crisis than just public morality. A large section of the National Government were sick to death of Edward constantly interfering and making them look bad (primarily by saying their unemployment policy was crap). There were also concerns about his links to the fascist states in Europe and the British Union of Fascists. Had Edward refused to abdicate, it would not surprise me if an "accident" occurred and George took the throne, except he would be succeeding a dead king rather than a disgraced one. Had the assassination not been handled well, or had rumors that the king had been bumped off gained traction (and they likely would), I could imagine a very poisonous atmosphere going into the Second World War...
teg
teg
Or they could just pass a law stating that marriage to Simpson is legally an act of abdication. Much better if he resigns, but if push comes to shove . . .
No, they WOULD depose him. It's not because she was declassé, although that was part of the problem. No, it was because she was divorced (multiple times). The King of England is the Head of the Church of England, which absolutely did not recognize divorce at that time. He could not hold that position if his wife was a bigamist (legally).
Besides, several of the Dominions were massively up in arms. Given a choice between the Empire collapsing, and a Royal totally neglecting his duty (which is what Edward was doing by insisting on marrying Wallis), who do YOU think Parliament is going to side with.
There is good reason why he abdicated.
Wasn't Winston Churchill threatening to break away from the Conservative Party to run a "Pro-King" party if this event happened?
Admiral Halsey
Banned
What would the public reaction be if Parliament did try to depose him? Doing a bit of my own research Edward seems to have been quite popular with the working class and did have the support of some intriguing people. Anyone think Churchill might try do a fireside chat on the radio talking about how idiotic Parliament is being over the whole mess?
David Lloyd George backed him. He was out of the country at the time of the crisis though. Had the government simply resigned en masse I could see him trying to form a government with Churchill. The notion that Edward could be executed is utter nonsense. If they tried that it could spark civil war. The dominions wouldn't back regicides, neither would Cosmo Lang who was half the reason Edward abdicated in the first place.
You think the government would MURDER the king? That is going too far, if it were tried I could see a military coup to get rid of Baldwin and save the nation from the madmen. In that case someone like Churchill or Lloyd George may end up as caretaker PM.
Would Albert accept a throne so tainted however? If it came down to this I think simply ensuring this Simpson is a Princess Consort and no issue of hers will have a claim is probable.
If it came down to this he would. More importantly Lord Beaverbrooke had a lot of money and newspapers and was a staunch Edwardian, in a crisis like this he would go all out.
I have been planning to write one for a while, "The Return of the Welsh Wizard" or something. I just need to look into the details about how I can get Mosley to have a small caucus after the 1935 election and generally weaken Baldwin's position to the point that I think it would be likely to happen.
Last edited:
hmmmmmm....how about eddie thumbs his nose at parliament........followed buy a general election......and Winston wins with his new party..........so the military response of the UK to hitler's aggressive attitude is..wel.....some what more forceful....to say the least.....
interesting time line.
interesting time line.
Admiral Halsey
Banned
Most likely outcome it seems after reading up on the whole thing. The effects this would have in regards to the international scene would be interesting to see. If Churchill is the one in charge you'll see a harder stance taken on Hitlers aggression. Might cause WW2 to blow up early even.
To elaborate:
Nothing can become law without the approval of the monarch (or a legally-appointed regent). By convention, the monarch assents to whatever Parliament sends him, but he retains the theoretical power to "withhold the royal assent" to anything he wants.
Parliament could pass a law deposing Edward VIII, but Edward could simply withhold his consent. He could also, as you point out, dissolve Parliament completely and call new elections. Theoretically, he could try to resume personal rule, but that would be rather difficult even if the military backed him because legally he needs the approval of Parliament to collect taxes, borrow money, or spend money from any source other than the Crown Estates, feudal dues, criminal fines, and the sale of government offices and honors.
Possible workarounds for Parliament, assuming that when push comes to shove the military and the civil service would back them up:
- Withholding supply. Either refuse to approve any government revenue until Edward abdicates or keep passing budgets with the "depose Edward" provision tacked on. This would shut down the government until either Edward or Parliament chickens out.
- Pass a law declaring that Edward VIII had rendered himself ineligible for the crown under the provisions of the Act of Settlement by leaving communion with the Church of England, and recognizing the ascension of George VI to the throne. Give the law to George for the Royal Assent. This would mirror the process of recognizing the lawful successor if the king dies or voluntarily abdicates.
- Adopt the legal fiction that Edward is insane, pass a law providing for a regency, and have the Lord Chancellor affix the seal indicating royal assent to the law in Edward's place, according to the precedent set by the Regency Bill of 1789. There's a more official formal procedure for declaring incapacity now, but I don't think it was put in place until after the abdication crisis.
- Denounce the monarch's reserve powers, officially transforming Britain from a constitutional monarchy to a crowned republic.
- Be deeply saddened to discover that Edward has died in a tragic shaving accident.
I think anything other than withholding supply is unrealistic here. For starters, George would never participate in a coup against his brother, and I have a very hard time seeing anyone resort to murder: imagine if it were ever discovered!
No, you would have the Government running out of money until either Edward or Parliament backs down. If this requires multiple elections, and the disestablishment of the Church of England along the way, then so be it.
No, you would have the Government running out of money until either Edward or Parliament backs down. If this requires multiple elections, and the disestablishment of the Church of England along the way, then so be it.
Seeing as Edward was head of the Church of England, why couldn't he simply alter Church doctrine to remove the prohibitions on divorce?