If Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, who would be monarch today?

[HRHHermione]

I have read in a few books, that at the time of the abdication a deal was struck re: David having a vasectomy (who knows if it's true). Had he remained on the throne, assuming normal sexual function and fertility, he might have had children. Perhaps not by Wallis, but fate has proven itself capricious. What if Wallis had died, for example in a car wreck in Paris, and David remarried? Perhaps the second wife would have had a child. In that case, it would be the heir. If not, certainly we would stil have QEII.

One the abdication was complete, David and his children were out of the line of succession entirely. Any child he had would never have replaced Elizabeth as the heir.

 

[auntie]

Even if Edward viii would have ascended the throne and Wallis become queen consort, In the case that they wouldn't have had children EII would have reigned, but it would have been a different monarchy, the jewels would have been plundered, the private assets completely depleted, and the nation wouldnt have had respect for the whole institution

 

[Jacknch]

Even if Edward viii would have ascended the throne and Wallis become queen consort, In the case that they wouldn't have had children EII would have reigned, but it would have been a different monarchy, the jewels would have been plundered, the private assets completely depleted, and the nation wouldnt have had respect for the whole institution

I agree, it would have been a different monarchy and the issue of the jewels and private assets is an interesting one! It would certainly have been a different royal family and one wonders how it would all have turned out - would Elizabeth still have married Philip and would they still have had four children with the ten year gap between the second and third children?
Elizabeth would still have been a wonderful queen, but there is something about the fact that she came to the throne an apparently vulnerable/quite shy young woman who has now reigned for decades but who was at the beginning thrown in at the deep end on the sudden death of her father. Would the circumstances of coming to the throne later in life have changed her style of reigning I wonder?

 

[NGalitzine]

As for the jewels, would Queen Mary have left anything to Queen Wallis or would she have bypassed her and left the bulks of her jewels to the Duchess of York and her eldest daughter?

 

[MichelleQ2]

As for the jewels, would Queen Mary have left anything to Queen Wallis or would she have bypassed her and left the bulks of her jewels to the Duchess of York and her eldest daughter?

I wonder how much of Mary leaving the jewels to QE2 was the tax laws whereby the sovereign is exempt from paying inheritance tax

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Elizabeth would have become Queen and potentially her father a King, if Edward never had any children. Simple.

Quite a likely scenario, one of the things that I cant really imagine is Wallis as a mother.

 

[auntie]

As for the jewels, would Queen Mary have left anything to Queen Wallis or would she have bypassed her and left the bulks of her jewels to the Duchess of York and her eldest daughter?

George V did pass a law that any presents received by the monarch or consort during their reign belonged to the state and could not go to anyone else, thus preventing major peices from getting lost along the line (Kokoshnik tiara comes to mind) b/c of a favorite daughter. As of private pieces, Queen Mary could have bequeathed it in her lifetime. But haveing Princess Lilian of Belgium on mind, she did sell major pieces, perhaps to spite the fact that her children were not part of the succesion. I do recall reading that Edward VIII was so desperate to keep the throne and Wallis, he suggested that maybe if Parliament was in agreement, he would marry her, she would never be crowned queen, and any children would never succeed, parliament (and maybe Wallis) never agreed

 

[Roslyn]

This looks like a good spot to put this.

Any Australians who read this, there's a doco on SBS at 8.30 tonight called "Edward and George: Two Brothers, One Throne".

Synopsis: "Beginning with the constitutional crisis caused by King Edward VIII's abdication in 1936, this program looks back to the childhood of brothers David (Edward VIII) and Bertie (George VI), as they were called back then. Growing up in the quiet of the countryside, strong woman have had their influence on them from early on: from great-grandmother Queen Victoria down to malicious nannies. Archive material, including extracts from George's key speeches, take you deep into the family story that not only shook the British monarchy but made headlines the world over."

Could be interesting.

 

[royal-blue]

An interesting scenario would have been if the Duke of Windsor had had a son who had gone on to marry his first cousin who was to become Queen Elizabeth. If they had a child together, although they would be the rightful future monarch, they would be a decendent of the Duke of Windsor and therefore illegible to be monarch. Unlikely scenario, but how would this have played out?

 

[Iluvbertie]

It wouldn't have reached that point - for a number of reasons - but largely because of the age gap - The Queen would have been at least 11 years older than any possible child of the DoW and in her day marriage in early to mid-20s was expected.

Had the scenario actually arisen the law would have been changed to allow for the child's rights through Elizabeth to trump the lack of rights from Edward.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I also ponder if Edward would still marry Wallis but still was king.I think George VI would still be king since they did'nt have children.

Not quite - Edward died in 1972 and George VI in 1952 so Elizabeth would have just celebrated her ruby jubilee rather than her diamond one.

 

[teia]

just a reminder to some of the threads: artificial insemination is in use since 1700 and the early succesful ones in humans are from 1884

 

[Lumutqueen]

just a reminder to some of the threads: artificial insemination is in use since 1700 and the early succesful ones in humans are from 1884

Have I missed something?

 

[NGalitzine]

Had the scenario actually arisen the law would have been changed to allow for the child's rights through Elizabeth to trump the lack of rights from Edward.

Why would any change have been required at all? Elizabeth would still have been heiress presumptive as the elder daughter of GVI. Marriage to a son of the DoW, with no succession rights of his own, would not have prevented Elizabeths children from having succession rights of their own through her. As descendents of the DoW they would have no succession rights but as descendents of GVI and QEII they would have.

 

[Kotroman]

That is correct. It does not take two parents with succession rights to make a baby with succession rights.

If it did, the only legitimate heir apparent in the world (or in Europe, at least) would be the Prince of Wales, since the Duke of Edinburgh is also in the line of succession.

In fact, being descended from a person specifically barred from succession does not nullify one's right to the crown if one is in the line through someone else. I believe the King of Spain's maternal ancestor, the Count of Caserta, was barred from succession to the Spanish throne due to fighting with the Carlists.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It would be necessary to ensure no possibility of a challenge.

The DoW's descendents were specifically barred so making it clear that any descendent from a line that wasn't barred would make the situation clear.

How other countries deal with matters is not the same way that the UK would do things in that situation.

 

[Kotroman]

Illegitimate children and their descendants are also specifically and permanently barred from succession. If a monarch marries his or her predecessor's illegitimate child, are the couple's children in the line or barred from succession? If a person who is in the line marries a person descended from an illegitimate child of a monarch, are their children in the line?

I wonder if this sort of thing has ever happened in the UK. The fact that Prince William asked for permission to marry despite being descended from several princess who married into foreign families appears to answer the question. Descendants of such princesses do not need to ask for permission, but William did because he was also a male-line descendant of a British monarch.

 

[Ish]

Illegitimate children and their descendants are also specifically and permanently barred from succession. If a monarch marries his or her predecessor's illegitimate child, are the couple's children in the line or barred from succession? If a person who is in the line marries a person descended from an illegitimate child of a monarch, are their children in the line?

If a monarch marries his or her predecessor's illegitimate children, I would call into question the closeness of the relationship of the two before worrying about the succession...

But, okay, let's role with this. Say Queen Victoria married one of her FitzClarence cousins (or a child of a Clarence cousin) instead of Albert. The FitzClarence's were the illegitimate children of William IV, and thus barred from the line of succession, thus making Victoria her uncle's heir. Would the children of Victoria and Fitz have been eligible to succeed?

The short, yes. They wouldn't have been in the line of succession through their father, but they would have through their mother. It's the same as if Victoria had married any other individual not in the line of succession; her children gain their place through her rights, not their father's lack o rights.

Now, say there had been a child of Edward VIII who for whatever reason (illegitimacy, being born to Wallis, etc) was barred from the line of succession. If that child then married Elizabeth II then their children would have had succession rights through their mother, just not their father. The whole "no descendants of Edward VIII an Wallis can inherit" thing refers to the idea that they cannot inherit through their relation to Edward.

I wonder if this sort of thing has ever happened in the UK. The fact that Prince William asked for permission to marry despite being descended from several princess who married into foreign families appears to answer the question. Descendants of such princesses do not need to ask for permission, but William did because he was also a male-line descendant of a British monarch.

William asked because while he was descended from individuals who had married into foreign royal families, his claim to the throne comes first from his father (and grandmother), whose claim comes from other individuals who do not descend from people who are not married into foreign royalty (they may have married foreign royals, but they didn't marry into that family; the DoE became a British royal, while Elizabeth II did not become a Greek one).

This goes back to the same kind of argument I made with the illegitimate children. If William's place in the succession was owing to his relationship to the (originally) Greek DoE, then he wouldn't have had to ask for permission to marry because his descent was through foreign royals. But because his place in the succession is owing to his relationship to the British Queen, his descent is through British royals, so he has to ask for permission.

It'd be the same with the Phillips, who are not male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Their claim comes through their British relations, so they have to ask permission.

 

[nascarlucy]

If Edward had married someone who was royal and then had children, his oldest son would be the King of England. If he had no sons, then his daughter. If he had no children, King George still would have become King

This I think everyone can agree on.

 

[Roslyn]

I agree, subject to the qualification that George would have had to survive Edward, which he did not, but maybe only because he did in fact become king.

 

[Ish]

If Edward had married someone who was royal and then had children, his oldest son would be the King of England. If he had no sons, then his daughter. If he had no children, King George still would have become King

This I think everyone can agree on.

I do agree, with one correction. Edward's son would have been King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not England. There is no separate English kingdom, and there has not been one since 1707 when England and Scotland were officially merged.

 

[NGalitzine]

...Say Queen Victoria married one of her FitzClarence cousins...

Well the 1st Duke of Fife was a Fitzclarence descendent and although he had no succession rights he was allowed to marry HRH Princess Louise, the Princess Royal and their descendents have succession rights through Princess Louise. Edward VII even styled their daughters as HH Princess instead of just as the daughters of a duke.
.

 

[Iluvbertie]

William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie are all descendents of the illegitimate off-spring of a King - coming from one of the many children of Charles II.

 

[Ish]

Well the 1st Duke of Fife was a Fitzclarence descendent and although he had no succession rights he was allowed to marry HRH Princess Louise, the Princess Royal and their descendents have succession rights through Princess Louise. Edward VII even styled their daughters as HH Princess instead of just as the daughters of a duke.

Thanks! I knew there was an example of individuals with succession rights despite illegitimate lineage through someone recent, but I couldn't remember the who and when, and didn't have the time to look it up earlier.

As Bertie has also pointed out, there's also the issue of the Wales boys and York girls all being descended from Charles II as well. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other examples as well; royal bastards who were acknowledged were often given noble titles if their fathers were king, and many families with noble titles married descendants of Sophie of Hanover, putting them somewhere in the line of succession.

 

[MARG]

If Edward had married someone who was royal and then had children, his oldest son would be the King of England. If he had no sons, then his daughter. If he had no children, King George still would have become King

This I think everyone can agree on.

I agree, subject to the qualification that George would have had to survive Edward, which he did not, but maybe only because he did in fact become king.

Good point, but either way Elizabeth would still have become the next monarch and consequently the current monarch. So it is just a matter of how long she would have been on the throne by 2013.

But that presupposes that Edward did not utterly disgrace the UK with his political stance, that is to say, pro Hitler which would have led to a division between the Monarchy and the Government which, while pro peace was decidedly anti-Nazi, possibly leading to the abolition of the Monarchy itself!

 

[Iluvbertie]

Let's remember that in the 1930s many aristocratic Brits and elsewhere were supporters of Hitler but they changed their minds in 1939 or early 1940 - once the war had begun.

Edward didn't appear to change his mind that early but was that because he had been forced to abdicate and then was cut off from his family or would he have delayed in becoming anti-Nazi as king (personally I believe it was his political views rather than his desire to marry Wallis that caused the abdication - the government seized on Wallis as an excuse the public would accept without them having to be given the real reasons).

 

[Tsaritsa]

It has been suggested by one of Edward's biographers that George and Mary had been told that Edward my be sterile because of orchitis caused by mumps. I'm inclined to think that at some point during puberty, for whatever reason, his physical, emotional and mental development became retarded, perhaps explaining why he was given to speaking without weighing up the consequences his words would have. Despite Edward vii's friendship with Jews, most of the aristocracy were anti and would probably have applauded what Hitler was doing, albeit, covertly, something Edward vii never learned the meaning of. We have him, as an adult, displaying supreme ignorance at a dinner party by asking fellow guests if they'd ever heard of the "Bronts." We have his letters in which the standard never reaches higher that that of a twelve year old. I think he'd long been seen as being a loose cannon and reasons had long been sought to ease him from a throne which he'd probably never wanted to sit on and Wallis served everybody's purpose.
.

 

[Queen Camilla]

In bio written in 1970s, there is no mention of him being pro-Hitler.

Isn't this more of the movie's slant? And now everyone repeating it.

He was impressed with Germany's manufacturing. He met the leader of the nation. I don't think he supported Hitler as much as he was impressed with being seen with a leader after being sidelined.

 

[NGalitzine]

Edwards cause is not helped by the views he expressed after abdication. Even after visiting Hitler and even during WWII while serving as Governor in the Bahamas he did not condemn Hitler or the Nazis. He did not seem to learn the lessons of history. His abdication was the best thing that could have happened to the Windsors and the UK. As someone once said we should have erected statues to Wallis Warfield Spencer Simpson and thanked her for taking him away.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Edward didn't appear to change his mind that early...

At what point did he publicly appear to become anti-Nazi? Was there an event or a comment? Or is it assumed? I'm asking because I have never heard about that.
.