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

[Odette]

Originally Posted by EmpressRouge

Wallis was in her early forties when she married the Duke of Windsor, so it was still possible (though very unlikely) to have a child, age-wise. However, she didn't have any children with any of her other husbands so it was unlikely that she would with the Duke. Speculation has it that she wasn't able to conceive because of a botched abortion in the 1920s. Similar speculation surrounds why Empress Josephine wasn't able to conceive with Napoleon.

I had read I believe in "The woman he loved" that she was unable to have children.

[Avicenna]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

I was thinking that some of the Diana mania might not have happened if Elizabeth had succeeded in the 1970s. There would have been interest in Elizabeth still in 1981 and Diana might have seemed less intriguing to the public. Too bad, Diana might have found it an easier road.

Plus it might have been a more private life for all of the children of QEII. They probably wouldn't have been so much in the spotlight from early on.

[Odette]

Or she could devote more time to them since she would not have the heavy duty of the Queen to tend to.

[iowabelle]

Yes, I agree with you, Odette. Or perhaps the Queen might have completed her family earlier in the 1950s, rather than waiting so long to have Andrew and Edward. And the Duke of E. could have continued his naval career as he had hoped. I imagine that would have contributed to greater stability in that marriage. (And we wouldn't have had the DoE's comment about being a "bloody amoeba.")

[PrinceOfCanada]

I think that 'stability' is the one thing the marriage of EIIR and the DoE is not lacking. Hello.. 60th anniversary last year?

[Elspeth]

Well, there were rumours of rifts in the marriage back in the 1950s and early 1960s, I assume at least partly because the Queen had such a high profile. But she would have been heir presumptive from the time of her father's death (assuming he died before his elder brother, which might not have been the case had he not had to endure the pressures of being head of state during World War II), so she would always have been of interest to the media.

[EmpressRouge]

Philip is a real "man's man." Likes to be in control, dominant which was not really possible once Elizabeth became sovereign and him consort. He's kind of the opposite of Charles who is much more comfortable around female friends. Elizabeth let Philip make all decisions regarding children's education to "compensate" for his inability to have a career/official role as consort.
Then again, if Edward VIII had continued to rule, Elizabeth might not have had a throne to inherit. Given Edward's pro-German tendencies and Wallis's pro-Nazi sympathies, I cannot imagine what Britain might look like if Edward VIII had been king and fully cooperated with Hitler.

[Avicenna]

Originally Posted by EmpressRouge

Then again, if Edward VIII had continued to rule, Elizabeth might not have had a throne to inherit. Given Edward's pro-German tendencies and Wallis's pro-Nazi sympathies, I cannot imagine what Britain might look like if Edward VIII had been king and fully cooperated with Hitler.

Excellent point to be raised. Worth to think about it.

Though I do not think Hitler would have made it even in case of a British cooperation. His goal was from the very beginning the Lebensraum in the East, namely Russia. And similar to Napoleon, I believe he would have failed. It helped Stalin of course that the Japanese were not attacking Siberia. Consequently he could transfer some of the forces stationed there to the European part of Russia. Big advantage for the Russian leader.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by hiromaso

If Edward VIII didn't marry a non-Anglican in 1936 and stayed on his throne till 1972 (when he died), who would be the UK monarch today assuming nothing else change other than the fact that he didn't abdicate?

I dont believe being non anglican was the sticking point about Wallis, rather the divorced issue. However, this is a moot point as far as this premise. Whether non anglican or non divorced, I assume that your point is if he had not married Wallis. It's quite possible he would have married another lady and had children, rendering the current BRF HRH duke and duchess of X. ALthough I have read that Edward as POW had had mumps, which could have rendered him sterile. But, unless I am having a senior moment, I believe that the then Duke of York contracted the mumps at the same time, and he managed to sire 2 daughters.

[PrinceOfCanada]

Looks like a few things need to be corrected...

assuming he died before his elder brother, which might not have been the case had he not had to endure the pressures of being head of state during World War II

He died of lung cancer due to smoking. While it is potentially (though baselessly) arguable that he may have smoked more during WWII, he still would have predeceased Edward.

Then again, if Edward VIII had continued to rule, Elizabeth might not have had a throne to inherit. Given Edward's pro-German tendencies and Wallis's pro-Nazi sympathies, I cannot imagine what Britain might look like if Edward VIII had been king and fully cooperated with Hitler.

"The monarch reigns but does not rule." To put it another way, the monarch lends their power to the government of the day to use as it rules the country. Churchill would never have even appeased Hitler, much less cooperated. Hitler's goal was to rule as much of the world as he could get his hands on--this included the UK.

I dont believe being non anglican was the sticking point about Wallis, rather the divorced issue.

Bingo. Not just divorced, but not exactly, how shall I put this? Not quite a lady. Also American.

I assume that your point is if he had not married Wallis. It's quite possible he would have married another lady and had children, rendering the current BRF HRH duke and duchess of X

Highly unlikely. The man gave up a throne to be with her. For the sake of argument, though, if he had had children with another woman, EIIR would still currently be Duchess of Edinburgh, Charles would be Earl Merioneth, etc.

But, unless I am having a senior moment, I believe that the then Duke of York contracted the mumps at the same time, and he managed to sire 2 daughters.

It's the age at which you contract mumps that is the issue. If memory serves, it's when it's right at the beginning of puberty that sterility can result.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

Looks like a few things need to be corrected...



He died of lung cancer due to smoking. While it is potentially (though baselessly) arguable that he may have smoked more during WWII, he still would have predeceased Edward.

Not necessarily. They both smoked, they both died of smoking-related cancers, but a very significant difference was that the Duke of Windsor led a far more stress-free life than George VI. It's quite possible that George VI would have lived a decade or two longer if he'd had the easy life that the Duke of Windsor had, and it's quite possible that the Duke of Windsor would have lived a shorter life if he'd had the stresses of kingship to contend with. Since we don't know one way or the other, this isn't a factual matter that requires correction, Mr. Know-it-all.

[Empress]

I assume that your point is if he had not married Wallis. It's quite possible he would have married another lady and had children, rendering the current BRF HRH duke and duchess of X Highly unlikely.

Not likely, given that the Duke of Edinburgh was created because he married the future Queen. If he were to marry just the daughter of a royal prince, as Elizabeth would have been if her uncle had not abdicated, it is unlikely that Philip would have given up his title of Prince of Greece and Denmark, and Elizabeth would now be Princess Philip of Greece and Denmark, and perhaps some other title that her uncle MIGHT have granted. As it stands Philip was only created the Duke of Edinburgh because at that time he no longer had a title of his own, and to marry the future Queen, he needed a preferably British title.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by EmpressRouge

Then again, if Edward VIII had continued to rule, Elizabeth might not have had a throne to inherit. Given Edward's pro-German tendencies and Wallis's pro-Nazi sympathies, I cannot imagine what Britain might look like if Edward VIII had been king and fully cooperated with Hitler.

I wonder if those pro-German tendencies might have been less pronounced in a reigning Edward VIII. I think it's a possibility that some of it was just defiance towards the government that wouldn't let him reign. Although, it's not like George VI and Elizabeth were exactly bastions of anti-Nazi fervor before 1939 (when, of course, they had to become so if they weren't, at least publicly).

[PrinceOfCanada]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Since we don't know one way or the other, this isn't a factual matter that requires correction, Mr. Know-it-all.

I thought insults weren't allowed here?

Hmm, I guess it's okay when an admin does it!

[PrinceOfCanada]

Although, it's not like George VI and Elizabeth were exactly bastions of anti-Nazi fervor before 1939 (when, of course, they had to become so if they weren't, at least publicly).

Well, except for things like calling Philip "the Hun" and quotes like "Germans, don't ever trust them".

[wbenson]

That was after the war.

[Menarue]

I think one of the main objections to Edward marrying Wallis (I am saying one of them) was the fact that when he first approached his Prime Minister and others with the idea of marrying Wallis was that at that very time she was still married to Mr Simpson.
It may not be seen as anything special in these times but it was considered very bad behaviour back then. Wallis was ambitious, she had Edward under a steel thumb without him really noticing, she didn´t have any real idea of what being a King meant and she was one who should have been corrected and had the difference between reign and rule explained to her.
If he had stayed, what would HM be? A very happy country gentlewoman with lots of horses and dogs as she told her governess very early on.

[Sister Morphine]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

I thought insults weren't allowed here?

Hmm, I guess it's okay when an admin does it!

You were not insulted. However, when you make a post that appears to some to be condescending, you should expect someone to make a comment about that. Admin included.


I don't think any of the admin here would knowingly break one of their own rules, seeing as it would be hypocritical of them to do so, all the while warning others for doing the same. Unlike other forums I belong to, the admin/moderators here don't play like that. For that I'm grateful, and you should be too.


/end off-topic

[Jeniann]

I think Elizabeth II would still be Queen. Wallis couldn't have children and I don't think Edward would've married and had kids with someone else as long as he was still in love with her. Only if she ran off with Guy Trundle or her car crashed into a tunnel in Paris or something, maybe then he might get involved with another woman, but as someone said before he may not have been able to have kids either. Besides, it always seemed to me he wasn't interested in suitable virgins of marriageable age, not his type really so there may have been another Wallis later on.

[Menarue]

Originally Posted by Jeniann

I think Elizabeth II would still be Queen. Wallis couldn't have children and I don't think Edward would've married and had kids with someone else as long as he was still in love with her. Only if she ran off with Guy Trundle or her car crashed into a tunnel in Paris or something, maybe then he might get involved with another woman, but as someone said before he may not have been able to have kids either. Besides, it always seemed to me he wasn't interested in suitable virgins of marriageable age, not his type really so there may have been another Wallis later on.

Another Wallis ?