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

[Iluvbertie]

If I may add an example to explain why Elizabeth would still have succeeded ahead of her Uncle Henry.


George III had a number of sons. The first five in order:


George, Frederick, William, Edward and Ernest.


George IV died in 1820, Frederick in 1828, William IV in 1837, Edward in 1819 so Ernest was the eldest living brother when William IV died but he didn't inherit the throne. Edward's daughter Victoria inherited because she was the daughter of the 4th son while Ernest was the 5th son.


The same thing would have happened in the case of Edward VIII remaining King and childless and the Duke of York dying in 1952. As he was the second son, his children and grandchildren would have inherited before the third son and his descendants.


Just as today - if Charles predeceases his mother - the next in line is William as Charles' son not Andrew as the next brother.


The line goes through each successive child in order so ALL of Charles' descendants are ahead of any of Andrew's who are ahead of any of Edward's etc.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

She was not even in the line of succession! Her father would not have been King. Edvard's brother Henry was a direct descendent of a King.

As was Princess Elizabeth. She was the daughter of George V next surviving son Albert.

I don't get why you having such a hard time understanding this. Britain does not have the same succession law like Saudi.

May I ask how old you are?

 

[Tilia C.]

When Edward was King the line of succession looked like this:
1. the Duke of York (Bertie)
2. Princess Elizabeth
3. Princess Margaret Rose
4. the Duke of Gloucester
5. ...

If the no. 1 dies, everybody else climbs up in the line of succession: Princess Elizabeth becomes the heir, no matter how many living uncles there are. Children don't drop out of the succession when their parent dies.

I would have been similar as withQueen Victoria: her father, the Duke of Kent, was already dead when her uncle King William IV died. Victoria succeeded to the British throne, although there were still living younger brothers of her father. The succession to the Hannoverian throne went differently, because the Kingdom of Hannover did not allow for women to inherit. But the British throne could not be taken away from Victoria.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She was not even in the line of succession! Her father would not have been King. Edvard's brother Henry was a direct descendent of a King.

The moment Elizabeth was born she was 3rd in the line of succession - ahead of her Uncle Henry. When Margaret was born Henry was pushed down the line even further to 5th. When her grandfather died in January 1936 she went up to 2nd in line behind her father. She remained 2nd throughout her uncle's reign and had he not abdicated would have remained 2nd unless he married and had his own children. If he remained childless she would have moved up to heiress presumptive when her father died in 1952.

In the UK women have been in the line of succession for centuries, with only the case of younger brothers replacing them - and that it about to change anyway.

Elizabeth was even touted as a future monarch by the media at the time of her birth - in the Guardian I think it was.

The present line of succession is:

Charles - William - George - Henry - Andrew - Beatrice - Eugenie - Edward - James - Louise - Anne - Peter - Savannah - Isla - Zara - Mia and then to Margaret's children and grandchildren, then Henry's son and his children and grandchildren etc. Those in bold are all the children of a monarch. Those in italics are the great-grandchildren of The Queen.

The line is set and if someone dies the rest move up e.g. when Princess Margaret died her children and grandchildren moved up a place and then have moved down places with the births of Edward's children and now the Queen's great-grandchildren.

The line goes down ONE child's descendants in their entirety before returning to the next child.

In the UK the line of succession is set with people moving up and down depending on the births and deaths of others ahead of them but once in the line a person lower in the line can't move ahead e.g. Harry can't move ahead of George because George is William's child and William is older than Harry. Andrew can't move ahead of Harry because Harry is Charles' child and Charles is older than Andrew.

 

[Donald P]

Thank you. I really misunderstood and appreciate your clarity on the matter. I am sorry.

Regards,
Don

 

[Rudolph]

A day doesn't go by that I don't learn something new of this forum. No apologies needed

 

[Lumutqueen]

But that didn't happen and it is only supposition. The date of death for all of them is fact.

Well Edward abdicated, so this entire thread is supposition because none of it actually happened.

It's all a guess, and I guess that Edward may have died earlier because of the stress of being King and his younger brother would have died later because he hadn't had the stress of being King.

 

[Donald P]

This is all heresay nonsense. History can't decide that. Maybe Edward would have thrived as kind and maybe George would have died of boredom. Your arguments are useless.

 

[Lumutqueen]

As are yours now but there's no need to be rude.

 

[PrinceHarrysWife]

iowabelle, if that happened, I think Diana would've been still alive today.

 

[Mbruno]

If he had not abdicated, Elizabeth II would be queen today as Edward VIII had no children of his own and princess Elizabeth survived his father. The only difference is that she would have become queen 20 years or so later.

 

[Lee-Z]

Maybe if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated *and* still married Wallis, then marriage to a divorcee had been acceptable from then on and P.Charles would have married Camilla a lot sooner and we would not have known Diana Spencer?

 

[Ish]

Maybe if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated *and* still married Wallis, then marriage to a divorcee had been acceptable from then on and P.Charles would have married Camilla a lot sooner and we would not have known Diana Spencer?

Charles' decision not to marry Camilla sooner was extremely complicated, but even if the attitude had been different sooner we still would have seen Diana in the picture, or at least a wife for Charles who wasn't Camilla - Camilla wasn't a divorced woman until 1995.

If Edward had been allowed to marry Wallis without an abdication, it would have changed Princess Margaret's marriage. She wanted to marry a divorced man and was forced to give him up, leading to her marriage to Anthony.

 

[Osipi]

From what I've gleaned from the postings so far, basically we would have ended up at today with Queen Elizabeth II and things pretty much as they are now. Perhaps Bertie would have lived a longer life and we'd not have the beloved Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother but the Duchess of York who was the mother of the Queen. Maybe Andrew would then have become a Duke but a different Duke than of York.

Now I've got a question that perhaps those that know far more than I can answer. Supposing that Albert as the Duke of York was already deceased in this scenario I've painted when Andrew went to be married. With a widow such as Elizabeth, The Duchess of York, and her husband being deceased with his title The Duke of York merging once again with the crown, is the title itself open for a recreation even though there is a widow in the picture able to use the widowed form of the title? Dowager Duchess of York? Perhaps this part of my post belongs in the Questions about British titles and styles so feel free to move if it pleases the moderators.

One think I do think we need to keep remembering as far as Charles marrying Camilla back then is that it was totally taken out of Charles' hands no matter what anyone else thought. Camilla made a choice back then and it was her choice to marry Andrew Parker-Bowles.

 

[Skippyboo]

You had dowagers Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester with new Duke and Duchess. The only difference is the dowager is the Duke's grandmother instead of mother. Philip could have a different title in this scenario too. He is not marrying the direct heir like he was in real life so maybe no Dukedom for him but a less title from Uncle David.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Ish]

Now I've got a question that perhaps those that know far more than I can answer. Supposing that Albert as the Duke of York was already deceased in this scenario I've painted when Andrew went to be married. With a widow such as Elizabeth, The Duchess of York, and her husband being deceased with his title The Duke of York merging once again with the crown, is the title itself open for a recreation even though there is a widow in the picture able to use the widowed form of the title? Dowager Duchess of York? Perhaps this part of my post belongs in the Questions about British titles and styles so feel free to move if it pleases the moderators.

Typically, British titles aren't recreated when anyone still alive is associated with it - so, when Andrew dies and his title becomes extinct, there won't likely be another "Duke of York" until after Beatrice and Eugenie also pass as they'll still technically be "of York", even if they've married and ceased using the designation.

Now, in the case of Andrew and the title things might have been treated a bit differently given as he was the grandson of the last Duke of York, instead of a more distant relative or someone not connected at all. But, I think more likely when he married he would have been given a different title owing to the fact that by the time he did marry Charles already had two sons and his grandmother was still alive and doing fairly well. I think the title would have been saved for Harry and Andrew would have gotten something else.

You had dowagers Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester with new Duke and Duchess. The only difference is the dowager is the Duke's grandmother instead of mother. Philip could have a different title in this scenario too. He is not marrying the direct heir like he was in real life so maybe no Dukedom for him but a less title from Uncle David.

There is a huge difference actually. The titles Duke of Kent and Gloucester both passed naturally from father to son. Neither title went extinct, so it was natural for there to be a Dowager Duchess, a Duke, and a Duchess (although, actually neither Princesses Marina nor Princess Alice used the title "Dowager Duchess"; on her son's marriage Marina requested to be known as Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent which was granted, then upon her husband's passing Alice requested that she be known similarly, as Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester). Had George VI not become King then when he died, without sons, his title would have gone extinct and would have to have been recreated in order to be used. Typically titles aren't recreated while others are still alive and associated with a title - at the time of Andrew's marriage there would have still been the Dowager Duchess of York (the Queen Mum) and Princess Margaret of York. Furthermore, by that time (if the births and deaths remained the same) the heir apparent, Charles, would have already had 2 sons, so they may have chosen to just save the title for Harry.

As for the DoE's title... he may have still been created a Duke, although perhaps not of Edinburgh, on his marriage. He might not have been marrying the King's daughter, but by the time he got married it would have been pretty obvious that Princess Elizabeth of York would one day become Queen.

 

[Iluvbertie]

With regards to the Camilla question: If Edward had married Wallis and remained King the idea that Camilla was unsuitable would probably not have been suggested to Charles and so he may have fought harder for her in the early 70s.


I doubt that he would have ended up with Diana though as the example of a special type of lady only would have gone out the window generations earlier and his choice would have widened so that girls with a past weren't out of the question and thus he could easily have married earlier and thus never have had Diana in his life.

 

[yvr girl]

I think Charles let Camilla slip through his fingers. He wasn't ready to settle down. She tired of waiting.

 

[JessRulz]

Before this goes any further, if you want to discuss Charles and Camilla's relationship, please do so in one of the many threads in their own forum.

 

[Osipi]

A big hearty thank you to all who responded to my question about the "what ifs" around the Duke of York title. If there's anywhere I could go to ask that type of a question, TRF is *the* place to do it.

 

[Esclarmonde1]

Edward, Prince of Wales as a result of mumps was sterile and so the Duke and Duchess of York would have succeeded to the throne and Princess Elizabeth would have become Queen even if the abdication had not happened.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Edward, Prince of Wales as a result of mumps was sterile and so the Duke and Duchess of York would have succeeded to the throne and Princess Elizabeth would have become Queen even if the abdication had not happened.

What is the source and the backing for that? Wallis was 42 when she married Edward and for sure back the in the 1930's this was a very advanced age for a pregnancy. In none of her three marriages Wallis has given birth to a child. So it is interesting to know what your fundament is for the claim that the King was sterile?

 

[Queen Claude]

The same argument applies to Edward, while not married he was sexually active and yet no children resulted from his numerous liaisons leading some to theorize that he was left sterile after contracting mumps when he was a teenager.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The same argument applies to Edward, while not married he was sexually active and yet no children resulted from his numerous liaisons leading some to theorize that he was left sterile after contracting mumps when he was a teenager.

Is there proof for the sexual activity of the then Prince of Wales?

 

[Queen Claude]

I wasn't there and as far as I know Edward was not filmed or photographed in flagrante delicto, however when words like mistress, lover, seduction and promiscuity are used in books, articles and documentaries I tend to think sexual activity has occurred.

 

[Countessmeout]

He had several high profile affairs AFAIR including with a married textile heiress who later went on to be tried for killing her husband. I believe his father was quoted as saying his son would bring himself down in 12 months, when he died, due to his affairs with married women. He ha an affair with Lady Furness who was the one who introduced him to Wallis.

 

[Osipi]

He had several high profile affairs AFAIR including with a married textile heiress who later went on to be tried for killing her husband. I believe his father was quoted as saying his son would bring himself down in 12 months, when he died, due to his affairs with married women. He ha an affair with Lady Furness who was the one who introduced him to Wallis.

Interesting tidbit of trivia regarding Lady Thelma Furness. She is the great aunt of CNN's Anderson "The Silver Fox" Cooper.

 

[Curryong]

^ Edward's Private Secretary became enraged when the Prince was on a trip to Africa but refused to rush back to Britain on receiving the news that his father was quite ill. The reason, as his Secretary noted in his diary, was Edward's fling with the young wife of a colonial official. He was reluctant to leave her and finally was persuaded to go back with a very bad grace.

 

[Countessmeout]

Interesting tidbit of trivia regarding Lady Thelma Furness. She is the great aunt of CNN's Anderson "The Silver Fox" Cooper.

Yep. I have always been interested in Anderson and his family since seeing him on Oprah. Lady Furness was not only the sister of his maternal grandmother, they were identical twins.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is very well possible that the Prince of Wales had deep but platonic friendships, precisely because he was the Prince of Wales and always and ever had the prying eyes of his parents and their spies (the Household) in his back. I can not believe the Prince of Wales lying between the legs of Lady A and the Lady B. He never had the reputation of a womanizer and was a far cry from his grandfather King Edward VII, in that aspect.