The Abdication: December 11, 1936


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Hello Constance59 and welcome. Read through the previous posts and you'll discover diverse feeling regarding Wallis. My own are that she hadn't a clue what she was getting into, other than it seemed like a good idea at the time. Sharp, she probably was, intellectual, she certainly wasn't and British politics and the "rules" of aristocracy and Monarchy were way beyond her. I believe she became jammed into a corner from which there was no exit so she either had to marry him or shoulder the full responsibility for the abdication and the subsequent fate of the rejected ex King. In her favour, she stayed the course, something a more intelligent woman might had had trouble doing. I imagine it to have been a life of stultifyibg boredom but at least there was enough money to ease the boredom with appropriate baubles.
 
Thanks for welcome, and I agree, the life they ended up leading could not have been much fun, no matter how much money they had access to. The shock to both of them at not being allowed in England and never being accepted by the Royals must have been very great, and we all know how much the Duke resented his wife's lack of the Royal title designation...they had each other, but became a pair of wandering socialites. I am glad, at least, that they stayed together through it all. I hope in the end they both felt it had been worthwhile, and again, I feel it was for the best that Edward did not remain as King...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My dear Constance59,

Welcome to the Forums! I quite agree with your last observation -- Edward VIII would have made a dreadful wartime monarch and probably would have mucked up the job even in peacetime. I don't mean to sound harsh but I do believe he was unsuited for the demands of the job, namely that he owed a duty to the crown and to his people and this was a price he was unwilling to pay. There was probably some relief in abdicating, although he said that he did miss the pomp which went with the job.
 
I am sure Wallis would have loved redecorating all the palaces as well as Balmoral & Sandringham, but other than that I think she would have been a lousy Queen Consort. Probably would have been sipping martinis while the east end was being bombed and thought the whole war a great bother because it interfered with getting new clothes from Paris.
 
Let's be realistic here - they would probably have left England - she definitely would have done so because they wouldn't have wanted to be put at risk.

The government did the right thing in forcing the abdication and were grateful that Wallis was a good excuse but I wonder how they would have done it without her - for get rid of him they most certainly would have done.
 
My dear Constance59,

Welcome to the Forums! I quite agree with your last observation -- Edward VIII would have made a dreadful wartime monarch and probably would have mucked up the job even in peacetime. I don't mean to sound harsh but I do believe he was unsuited for the demands of the job, namely that he owed a duty to the crown and to his people and this was a price he was unwilling to pay. There was probably some relief in abdicating, although he said that he did miss the pomp which went with the job.

Thank you for the welcome...
 
I think Prince George's bisexuality is fairly well established, as is his drug habit.
Which George is meant here, the grandfather of Queen Elizabeth II.?

I saw a documentary on tv about Edward VIII. supporting the Nazis, I think the was the true reason he had to go.
 
Which George is meant here, the grandfather of Queen Elizabeth II.?

I saw a documentary on tv about Edward VIII. supporting the Nazis, I think the was the true reason he had to go.

Prince George, Duke of Kent the brother of Edward VIII.
 
Which George is meant here, the grandfather of Queen Elizabeth II.?

I saw a documentary on tv about Edward VIII. supporting the Nazis, I think the was the true reason he had to go.


In 1936, when he abdicated, there were many people in Britain who supported the Nazis - many prominant people. At that time he was highly respected around the world, because the worst excesses of the regime were still in the years ahead. Churchill was speaking out against Hitler but the majority of people didn't do so - in fact the government wasn't all that concerned at that time.

Edward VIII pro-Nazi tendencies weren't a real factor in 1936 - had the abdication happened in say 1938 or 1939 it would have been but not in 1936 when the Nazis were only just getting going on their military build-up.
 
In 1936, when he abdicated, there were many people in Britain who supported the Nazis - many prominant people. At that time he was highly respected around the world, because the worst excesses of the regime were still in the years ahead. Churchill was speaking out against Hitler but the majority of people didn't do so - in fact the government wasn't all that concerned at that time.

Edward VIII pro-Nazi tendencies weren't a real factor in 1936 - had the abdication happened in say 1938 or 1939 it would have been but not in 1936 when the Nazis were only just getting going on their military build-up.
But during the war, he regularly gave valuable information to the Germans on parties, when he had too many drinks.
Churchill was furious.
 
The King does not need permission of the Government to marry nor does he need the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

True.

As The Sovereign, he is above the law.

Well that's putting it a bit strongly! The Sovereign is certainly subject to the law: King John was forced to acknowledge as much in a fairly famous document...

We don't get to rerun the experiment of what would have happened had he not abdicated. Maybe Parliament would not in fact have resigned if he married Wallis: it's a huge step.
 
But during the war, he regularly gave valuable information to the Germans on parties, when he had too many drinks.
Churchill was furious.


I wasn't talking about during the war but in 1936 - when he abdicated Hitler was only just really starting his build-up and many many people liked his approach to things - including many in the British parliament and even George VI liked many of his ideas - in the early to mid-30s. They changed their minds later.

It is easy to judge someone based on events later in their timeline but it isn't fair to put later events and attitudes onto an earlier event and what he may or may not have done during the war with regard to the Nazis had no bearing on the reasons why the government were determined to get rid of him in 1936. It was still a couple of years before Time named Hitler Man of the Year (1938)
 
On this day, 10 Dec 1936, King Edward VIII signed the Instrument of Abdication, witnessed by his three younger brothers: Prince Albert, Duke of York; Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester; and Prince George, Duke of Kent.

The following day, 11 Dec 1936 it was given legislative form by a special Act of Parliament: His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936
 
Last edited:
Revealed: The Machiavellian 1930s Cabinet plot that would have DENIED the Queen the throne, left her the lowly Duchess of Edinburgh and made William and Harry COMMONERS


  • Never-seen-before Cabinet note reveals plot for Queen Mary to take throne
  • Proposals for Mary to become regent after King Edward VIII's abdication
  • Handwritten document written by parliamentary counsel Sir Maurice Gwyer
  • Suggested Prince George, Duke of Kent, could be in line to become king
  • If plan had gone ahead Queen Elizabeth II would be on royal fringes today
  • See more news on the Queen at www.dailymail.co.uk/thequeen
By Emma Glanfield for MailOnline
Published: 23:52 EST, 20 April 2016 | Updated: 07:42 EST, 21 April 2016
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There were a number of suggestions - Mary, George, and Henry all named as potential successors to Edward rather than Albert due to a belief that he wasn't up to the job.

This really isn't anything new as it has been in many books etc over the years. All this is doing is showing the documents that anyone who has studied this time already new existed.
 
Plot? A bit overwrought! There were worries about Prince Albert's stammering, nerves and physical delicacy so a few alternatives were discussed. It never went any further.
 
At the time leading up to the abdication, it was unexplored territory and understandably generated a "What do we do now?" kind of a mindset. Everything was considered, weighed and dissected as it was setting a precedent that they wanted to assure was done right and proper and legal. How to create a smooth transition out of pure chaos with the continuity of the monarchy.

The more I read and the more I come to understand this period of British history, the more I admire King George VI and just how much personal growth and stamina and the sense of duty that this man found in himself with the help of his "rock and stay", Elizabeth. Looking at the influence of this chaotic picture and knowing there was one little girl that grew up watching it all unfold, to me it is no surprise to find those remarkable qualities that her mother and father had present in the remarkably long and dutiful reign of service to the people that we've seen of Queen Elizabeth II.

Children learn from what they experience.
 
On this day, 10 Dec 1936, King Edward VIII signed the Instrument of Abdication, witnessed by his three younger brothers: Prince Albert, Duke of York; Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester; and Prince George, Duke of Kent.

The following day, 11 Dec 1936 it was given legislative form by a special Act of Parliament: His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936

Was there a requirement that Princess Mary, the Countess of Harewood also witness the signing of the Abdication?
 
Can't really see Queen Mary allowing the crown being given to George the Duke of Kent passing over 2 older son and 2 granddaughters who were all ahead of George.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Was there a requirement that Princess Mary, the Countess of Harewood also witness the signing of the Abdication?

No as she was so far down the line of succession and not a peer of the realm it was thought enough for the three dukes to sign as witnesses.

At the time of the abdication Mary was 7th in the line of succession and a new baby only weeks away from moving her down to 8th (Princess Alexandra was born on Christmas Day that year). Of course the abdication meant everyone moved up one so that Alexandra was born 6th and is now down to 50th.

Ahead of Princess Mary were: The Duke of York, Princess Elizabeth, Princess Margaret, The Duke of Gloucester, The Duke of Kent and Prince Edward - then came Princess Mary and her sons.

Can't really see Queen Mary allowing the crown being given to George the Duke of Kent passing over 2 older son and 2 granddaughters who were all ahead of George.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

The argument for the Duke of Kent was that he already has a son so there could be a Prince of Wales but even he didn't feel that was a good enough reason.

In the end the right line was followed. Anything else would have been wrong for the British Monarchy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a pretty weak argument since Elizabeth and Margaret were already born too, so Bertie had 2 heirs and Henry was older than George could also have kids too. There just was a Queen for almost most of previous century so the ideal of Queen Regent wasn't a foreign concept.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
If a future monarch married today a twice divorced woman,people would praise him for being open-minded and brave despite social standards (the near case of Haakon of Norway when he married a single mother).Then the things were very different and the couple was in a way punished for their forbidden love.
That is a matter of opinion. I dont believe that everyone was happy with P Haakons's marriage and I dont beleieve that everyone woudl praise a royal who married a twice divorced woman.
They were't punished for their forbidden love, there were other issues besides Wallis that made the RF feel unhappy about the DOW's conduct.
 
I've always wondered what, if anything, Queen Victoria's Surviving children had to say or his surviving Aunts
 
From what I've read everyone in the Royal family was shell shocked, and couldn't believe what was happening. They probably expressed their feelings in private letters to each other that haven't been published.

There seems to have been a general feeling in the family, shared no doubt by its more elderly members, that the King had been caught in the snares of a wicked woman, an adventuress, and that he had fallen for her wiles, hook, line and sinker. There was probably huge disappointment too, that Edward had no thought of doing his duty by the country and Empire.
 
Of Queen Victoria's children, Louise, Arthur, and Beatrice were alive during the abdication. There is a surviving letter that Louise wrote to PM Baldwin sympathizing with him.

Of Edward VII's children, only Maud was alive. I don't think we have her thoughts on record, but she did attend George VI's coronation.
 
Yes, there were a lot of little "Kingmakers" scurrying around trying to change the succession. The interesting thing is that the biggest problem in the eyes of the establishment was that Bertie's heir was a woman, not that he was delicate, or stammered.

Good grief, there were even machinations to bring back good old Uncle David as Regent when George VI died as certain "gentlemen of government" sought to delay the "heavy load on such a young woman's shoulders".

Honestly, it makes me wonder however we ever ended up with an Elizabethan and Victorian Age. It would seem that back then they had more respect for the succession so they either thought they could manipulate the monarch or arranged their death or that of the heir, etc.
 
Yes, there were a lot of little "Kingmakers" scurrying around trying to change the succession. The interesting thing is that the biggest problem in the eyes of the establishment was that Bertie's heir was a woman, not that he was delicate, or stammered.

Good grief, there were even machinations to bring back good old Uncle David as Regent when George VI died as certain "gentlemen of government" sought to delay the "heavy load on such a young woman's shoulders".

Honestly, it makes me wonder however we ever ended up with an Elizabethan and Victorian Age. It would seem that back then they had more respect for the succession so they either thought they could manipulate the monarch or arranged their death or that of the heir, etc.


I'm not sure I'd agree - I think it's actually surprising that we did end up with an Elizabethan and a Victorian Age. The respect for the succession was no more existent then than it was during the abdication crisis.

At the death of Henry I, the lords had so much respect for the succession that they ignored Henry's heir, Mathilda, and put her cousin, Stephen, on the throne causing a lengthy civil war.

At the death of Edward VI they had so much respect for the succession (as dictated by the will of Henry VIII) that they tried to bypass Edward's half-sisters, Mary and Elizabeth, in favour of his cousin Jane (the will itself bypassed the descendants of Henry VIII's elder sister, Margaret, in favour of those of his younger sister, Mary).

During the reign of William IV it was suggested that heir presumptive Victoria be passed over on the grounds of her age and gender; it was even rumoured that William's brother, Ernest Augustus, was plotting to murder Victoria. Even those that accepted Victoria as future Queen were concerned about her age and possible regent.

Pretty much every time the heir has been young, female, or both, there have been succession debates.
 
Back
Top Bottom