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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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).
 
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!
 
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".
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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 :ermm:?
 
It's impossible to imagine "another Wallis" but haha I think I know what Jeniann meant to say, just that David was likely to be attracted to someone "like" her if she ran off with someone else. At any rate, it's also really hard to even imagine David with someone else besides Wallis. The image of them is so vivid. I don't doubt that he could have fallen for someone else if circumstances had been different, but it's just really hard to separate those two in the imagination. I just always feel so sad for them. They made mistakes and had frailties of mind and character, but the consequence of all this was such a sad life. Their story breaks my heart.
 
Freda Ward was a Wallis predecessor and for many many years. Edward was quite cruel to her, he just cut her off. I have read that the telephonist was just told not to put her through.... I think he was absolutely obsessed with Wallis, if that was love then he was in love with her. As they say, one loves and the other is loved.
One thing for sure was that he preferred brunettes. Freda, Thelma Furness and Wallis were not that unlike each other. Of the three Wallis was, in my opinion, the least attractive but she certainly knew how to captivate her Prince and then King.
 
I have always heard that mumps only sterilize boys haha when they go down.

David would have found another motive to abdicate had he dumped Wallis. They were habitués at the Maxim´s in Paris where to dance with the "playboy ex-king" was a great honor for any of the ladies present that night, I read.
He loved to dance even he was not a good dancer.

Stress precipitates the episodes of illness, so maybe George VI could have lived longer without WWII.
 
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.

i don't think so - if Elizabeth wasn't the Heiress Presumptive, her husband would not have been elevated to a Royal duke. So she would be HRH Princess Elizabeth of York, Princess Philip of Greece and Denmark. Or HRH Princess Elizabeth of York, Mrs. Philip Mountbatten and Charles plain Mr. Charles Mountbatten
 
I think that 'stability' is the one thing the marriage of EIIR and the DoE is not lacking. Hello.. 60th anniversary last year?

I'm referring to the period in the 1950s when Philip took off on long tours alone and there were rumors of philandering (and even some rumors about the Queen finding companionship elsewhere prior to Andrew's birth). Of course, I don't know the truth about the rumors of infidelity (nobody would, unless they were participants), but it must have been difficult for Philip not to have a clearly defined role and perhaps that accounts for his long absences.

In retrospect, whatever happened in the marriage, they have made it last for 60+ years so they must have worked through it.
 
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.

Philip would still have been granted a title since he was marrying the female heir to the throne. It is generally accepted that Edward was sterile and could not have had children anyway. Given that point, Elizabeth would still have become Queen.
 
I'm referring to the period in the 1950s when Philip took off on long tours alone and there were rumors of philandering (and even some rumors about the Queen finding companionship elsewhere prior to Andrew's birth). Of course, I don't know the truth about the rumors of infidelity (nobody would, unless they were participants), but it must have been difficult for Philip not to have a clearly defined role and perhaps that accounts for his long absences.

In retrospect, whatever happened in the marriage, they have made it last for 60+ years so they must have worked through it.

No one has ever proven Philip ever had an affair. In fact, most reliable accounts said he would never have betrayed The Queen since she could not retaliate.

He certainly had no sympathy for Charles and Diana's extramarital adventures and made his disapproval quite clear. The same was true for Sarah, Duchess of York.
 
I know that Edward VIII WAS STERIL BECAUSE I READ A BOOK OF DONALD SPOTO. HE WROTE THAT WHEN ALBERT, THE FUTURE GEORGE VI AND EDWARD TO ENTER TO THE ROYAL NAVY, BOTH FELL ILL WITH GOITERS, And, BEING YOUNG MEN, IT LEAVES THE TEEN MALES THIS DISEASE STERIL. OF FACT, JORGE VI WAS IMPOTENT, ACCORDING TO KITTY KELLY IN THE ROYALS. SHE SAID THAT THE DAUGHTERS WERE CONCEIVED BY INSEMINATION
 
Since this is a thread of "what if".........I am re reading "Nicholas & Alexandra" and came across last night the paragraph that in 1889 Alix of Hesse Darmstadt rejected the marriage proposal of Prince Albert Victor, the oldest son of the then Prince of Wales.
Prince Albert Victor (Eddy) died in 1892 and Robert Massey goes on to imagine, If Eddy's proposal was accepted and had he lived, Alix and not Mary would have become Queen of England and Alix's descendants would be sitting on the British throne.
Strange isn't it, how life turns out some times?
 
Marian, I do not think insemination was used for the time being. And they did not look like a couple with that problem, George VI and Queen Elizabeth, which can cause several degrees of separation. She never left him alone in London during WWII, and in general they looked like a good couple.
 
No one has ever proven Philip ever had an affair. In fact, most reliable accounts said he would never have betrayed The Queen since she could not retaliate.

He certainly had no sympathy for Charles and Diana's extramarital adventures and made his disapproval quite clear. The same was true for Sarah, Duchess of York.

I do agree with you, branchg. I've never seen any definitive proof of the DoE's infidelity ... and he was high-profile enough that if any journalist had stumbled across it that it would have been front page news (didn't the press splash the news of his friend Mike Parker's marital issues all over?).

Aside from the deep respect he must have for the Queen, he would probably take royal marital infidelity as an attack on the institution for which he has worked so hard. IMO, of course!
 
There were a lot of rumours about the D o E. There have been stretches of time when he spent away from the Queen and he also was a young man who besides being extremely attractive, he belonged to a group of friends who were very active socially.
Of course there are no proofs. The difference between back then and now is that ladies who socialised with married men, did not go on interviews to discuss their private affairs. There was some sense of decorum, even with all the whispering campaigns going on.
Oh the good old days!!!!!!!!!
 
The long periods Philip was away from the Queen, in the 1950s, was on Commonwealth and Empire tours in places where no royal had been before due to the difficulty of getting there.

The press picked up on the fact that instead of flying home, when he returned to some place from which he could get a flight home he continued using the Royal Yacht to travel.

This then fuelled rumours that the reason he wasn't flying home was that he and the Queen were having difficulties and so he was in no hurry to return. They simply ignored the fact that these were the original plans and that is what he did - had a relaxing time on the way home before the full summer and the attendent royal duties he would need to do. He was away over Christmas when the RF usually holidays but he was working so he moved his holiday time to later in the year so that he was fully refreshed when he returned to continue the work associated with being the Consort of the Monarch.
 
Here is something interesting through. Round about 1967 the legal firm where my uncle was working in London was requested by Buckingham Palace to look into the legal implications of a divorce between the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, especially in regard to where the children go. So even if they weren't thinking about it, someone at Buckingham Palace was crossing their t and dotting their I.
 
Claire, I do not argue that it may have happenned, however do you believe this would have trickled outside the attorney's offices?
Did your uncle have first hand knowledge on this matter?:eek:
 
Here is something interesting through. Round about 1967 the legal firm where my uncle was working in London was requested by Buckingham Palace to look into the legal implications of a divorce between the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, especially in regard to where the children go. So even if they weren't thinking about it, someone at Buckingham Palace was crossing their t and dotting their I.

That's an interesting revelation, Claire. Probably grounds for a whole new "what if" thread. But I'm surprised they'd be so concerned about the child custody issue ... my assumption would be that the monarch would control child custody, and even more in this case since the monarch was also the mother. (I'd think property and support would have been the real issue.)
 
The law firm speciallized in constitutional legislation, much of what they did is now on the law books at Westminister. My uncle mentioned it years ago, and I doubt it was the only sensitive legal issue they looked into for parliament. I doubt he believes still today they there report would ever be needed, so he saw no need.

But lets go back to the thread topic. I often work in the realm of speculative history, we sit and discuss what would have happened it Stalin joined Hitler in WWII or if America mantained their isolation - stuff like that. And if there is anything you learn in a chat room full of historians is that there are too many variables to ever be certain of a exact outcome. In history, ever concidence can be a climatic turning point in the future. This especially holds true for the abdication of Edward VIII.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom