The Abdication, 11 December 1936

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by branchg

As the eldest son and future King, Edward had inherited Balmoral and Sandringham, which are the private property of The Sovereign, upon the death of George V. Legally, these remained his personal property despite the Abdication, therefore, George VI had to buy them from The Duke to keep them with the Crown.

This interests me greatly. David made a personal profit by selling something he was only supposed to own as King. I would have thought there would be a strong argument along the lines that the inheritance of these properties was contingent upon the devisee remaining Sovereign and not abdicating. I'd love to know what advice was given to George VI in this regard.

[Elspeth]

Since the notion of abdication would probably not have occurred to anyone at the time the properties were purchased, it might not have been set down in writing. These two homes were personal property, and so they might have been inherited by Edward the person rather than by Edward the King.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Since the notion of abdication would probably not have occurred to anyone at the time the properties were purchased, it might not have been set down in writing. These two homes were personal property, and so they might have been inherited by Edward the person rather than by Edward the King.

They could have been warned by the example of Austrian emperor Ferdinand I. and his nephew Franz Joseph I. When Ferdinand abdicated he accepted that there could not be two emperors in Vienna and moved to Prague but he kept the complete private possessions of the Head of the House of Habsburg, as he had inherited it personally from his father on emperor Franz's death.
So for the first years of his reign Franz Joseph was rather poor and had really difficulties fulfilling his wife Sisi's wishes for horses, estates and jewellery. When his uncle died (but he lived long!), the dire straits ended because Ferdinand left the wealth to Franz Joseph.

On his death in 1916, Franz Joseph left part of this wealth to his two daughters and to his granddaughter by crown prince Rudolf. Archduchess Elisabeth had left the Imperial House on her marriage to a mere prince, her aunt Archduchess Gisela had married a Bavarian prince and her other aunt Archduchess Valerie signed the resignation from the Imperial House in 1920, so all three could keep their estates in Austria (including the Kaiservilla in Ischl). While the new reigning branch of Karl and Otto started rather poor and lost the rest of it after WWI....

So I wonder if the queen could leave Sandringham to Edward or Anne if she wanted to?

[iowabelle]

Originally Posted by branchg

I think it's clear he was determined not to do anything in defiance of the Government, which marrying Wallis would certainly have been. Legally, he did not need permission of his Ministers to marry and was free to marry whomever he wished. However, a precedent would have been created making the Crown an independent source of political power that was contrary to a constitutional monarchy (assuming the Government promptly resigned in protest).

I'm not convinced that Edward VIII was so concerned about the Government or his people. He certainly wasn't concerned about the turmoil he inflicted on the people, or even his own family. IMO had he been a caring monarch, he would have sacrificed Wallis.

[PrincessofEurope]

King George VII? Palace plotters' plan would have kept the Queen from the throne | Mail Online

if this article has any truth then why would Lord Freddie be in line to become the next king - of course i understand that both the Earl of St Andrews and Lord Nicholas could not be in the line of succession because they are Catholic but has the Daliy Mail forgotten about the presence of Lady Helen Taylor???

[Royal Fan]

Interesting Artilcle could Gabriellla have come to the throne sooner than expected?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Royal Fan

Interesting Artilcle could Gabriellla have come to the throne sooner than expected?

Does your question mean 'would Gabriella be closer to the throne than she is currently' then yes as Prince Michael's children would follow him and he would follow the Duke's children.

One thing though is would the Act of Settlement have been changed due to Prince Michael's and then the Duke's children marrying or converting to Roman Catholicism or would they have decided to either marry someone else or still be barred as they are now? Interesting 'What if's' of course.

[Elspeth]

They're talking about this story (passing over the Dukes of York and Gloucester in favour of the Duke of Kent) as though it's something new. This has been mentioned (and usually discounted) in numerous books and articles dealing with the abdication and its aftermath.

The whole idea of the monarchy being too stressful for a woman, within living memory of Queen Victoria's reign, is ridiculous. If that was their reason for wanting to pass over the Duke of York, because he only had daughters, they must have had very short memories.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Does your question mean 'would Gabriella be closer to the throne than she is currently' then yes as Prince Michael's children would follow him and he would follow the Duke's children.

She'd still be in the queue well behind Lady Helen Taylor, her two sons and two daughters (and assuming the Act of Settlement disbarred Prince Michael), her brother Lord Frederik. That would put her in about 7th position.

A more interesting though fanciful scenario would be if the Yorks (Edinburghs) and Gloucesters weren't too happy with this "ursurpation" of the Throne by the ambitious Kents and took steps to actively undermine and overthrow the King. The dynastic lines are extended enough to allow the Wars of the Roses round 2 to run for a few generations, including the inevitable shifting alliances and enmities between the Mountbattens (aka Schleswig-Holsteins/Oldenburgs) and the other branches of the Windsors (aka Saxe-Coburgs).

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

They're talking about this story (passing over the Dukes of York and Gloucester in favour of the Duke of Kent) as though it's something new. This has been mentioned (and usually discounted) in numerous books and articles dealing with the abdication and its aftermath.

The whole idea of the monarchy being too stressful for a woman, within living memory of Queen Victoria's reign, is ridiculous. If that was their reason for wanting to pass over the Duke of York, because he only had daughters, they must have had very short memories.

I was taught this at uni in the 70s with letters having been passed between the various royals and politicians concerned being used for study.

From my memory it was more along the lines of a suggestion rather than a serious idea with the excuse about the Yorks having only daughters being a viable excuse to give the public rather than worries about the ability of the new king to actually do the job. In other words the official line was concern about female inheritance rather than the real reason being concerns about 'Bertie' to be a king (just as they were using the excuse of a divorced woman being unable to become Queen to get rid of a King they felt was unsuitable in Edward VIII. NB As far as I am aware there was no law that said that the wife of the King couldn't be a divorcee and if such a law existed then I would like to know when it was repealed to allow Camilla to be the wife of the next king).

[Warren]

I think the argument was more along the lines that the governments/parliaments of the Dominions and the Britsh PM himself wouldn't accept Mrs Simpson as Queen.
There is/was no statutory impediment to the Sovereign marrying a divorced person.

[branchg]

The Sovereign is free to marry a divorcee and requires no approval from the Government. Indeed, Henry VIII established the Church of England and broke from Rome in order to recognize his own divorce from Catherine of Aragon.

What happened in 1936 with Edward VIII established for the first time the precedent of the Government having the right to "advise" the Crown on the choice.

[QUEENECE29]

This is very interesting and complikated. Have official explanation?
I think not possible...

[MARG]

I think the only way to try to understand is to examine it "in it's own time and place".

So often we look at something that happened decades ago and pontificate at length on the rights and wrongs of the case. Unfortunately we tend to forget that we are viewing it with the benefit of history, the internet, declassified papers and 20 20 hindsight.

[Skydragon]

If you consider it was 1928 before women received the full right to vote, 1958 when the Life Peerages Act allowed women to sit in the House of Lords for the first time, yes times have changed!

[Jeniann]

My grandmother's aunt knew that Duke of Kent (or at least she said she did; she was a small-time stage actress in London but we do know she knew some famous people) and apparently he wasn't the sort of person you would want as a king. He was a nice guy, very bright and charming, but he had a drug problem and would often show up at parties drunk or high and make people rather uncomfortable. Apparently he was able to get off it for a while, but he always found other things to keep himself occupied including a lot of unsavory men and women who would make Wallis Simpson look suitable.

I mean, he did get married and have children, but even after his marriage he was hardly a saint and always up to something. I really don't see why politicians and courtiers (who were obviously a bit prudish, considering how they reacted to the whole Mrs. Simpson situation) would have wanted that guy over Bertie, who wasn't as charming but much more settled down and didn't like to party.

[iowabelle]

Rather interesting that the Gloucesters were not "in the running" for accession if the Yorks were omitted, although their children were not born until much later than the Kent children (even though the D. of Gloucester was older than the D. of Kent).

Alice would have been a glorious queen too, IMO. Maybe there was something special about the Scottish ladies of that era.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

If you consider it was 1928 before women received the full right to vote, 1958 when the Life Peerages Act allowed women to sit in the House of Lords for the first time, yes times have changed!

In short, "light 'em up ladies, you've come a long way babe"! (Smoke, choke, croak! 20 20 hindsight!)

The second glorious Golden Age: Queen Elizabeth II. She rocks!

[isayoldboy]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

The whole idea of the monarchy being too stressful for a woman, within living memory of Queen Victoria's reign, is ridiculous. If that was their reason for wanting to pass over the Duke of York, because he only had daughters, they must have had very short memories.

George V made a statement to the effect of "I hope nothing gets between Bertie and Lillibet [the Queen] and the throne." The article sounds a bit fantastic to me. I'm sure all sorts of crazy schemes were considered momentarily but it was most logical for the second son to take the throne.

Also -- wasn't Prince George more or less openly gay (by the standards of the time)? I can't imagine that his numerous affairs with both teams, as it were, would have made him a viable alternative (in the eyes of the church) to a monarch who was forced to abdicate because he wanted to marry a divorced woman.

[Vasillisos Markos]

George had his share of problems, including an addiction to drugs which he overcame, and although he was rumored to be bi-sexual, I really don't think any of this would have kept him from the throne . . . when his time would have come, which it did not. It would have upset the normal order of succession to pass over Bertie and I agree that it is nonsensical to be worried that he had only daughters to whom he could pass the crown. This would NOT have been a concern in that realm.