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

[Queen Camilla]

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.

Edward VII did not have as many women as people are lead to believe.

Relationships with married women was deemed more suitable than with single women. A single woman's reputation could tarnish her chances of a suitable marriage. An illegitimate child would destroy a woman's life, whereas a married woman could pass the child as her husband's.

Edward VIII had a difficult relationship with both of his parents from the time he was a child.

When the war broke out Edward wanted to join but was forbidden.
He was extremely embarrassed when he was forced to present medals to the men that had actually served in the war.

His relationship with his father deteriorated because of this. Edward was sent to America where he was warmly received and where he enjoyed his time with the Americans.

IMO, Edward's choice of women was both because of the practice of having married women as intimates and Edward deliberately choosing the women that would upset his parents the most.

Wallis was a twice divorce American.

 

[Ish]

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.

Edward VIII has a reputation of having been a womanizer, and it's not hard to believe that he was engaged in relations with Ladies A and B.

More famous affairs include that of Parisian courtesan Marguerite Alibert, Freda Dudley Ward (wife of William Dudley Ward), Lady Furness (wife of the Viscount Furness), and of course Wallis.

I've seen a few different suggestions as to why neither Wallis nor Edward had children (with each other or other lovers).

One is that the mumps Edward had as a teen made him infertile, which is a possibility. I've also seen it suggested that Edward didn't (or couldn't) engage in forms of intercourse that would lead to procreation (this was in Anne Sebba's biography of him). For Wallis it has been suggested that she may have had an abortion in China during the 20s (or thereabouts), which left her unable to have children. Or that she was actually a hermaphrodite, and therefore unable to conceive.

That's all just pure speculation of course. It's known fact that Wallis married 3 times and that Edward had a number of lovers prior to his marriage (I've also seen it said that Wallis had lovers other than her husbands as well), but any explanation as to why neither have any acknowledged children (and in Wallis' case it's probably safe to assume she had no children at all), is pure speculation. I tend to think it's likely that neither wanted children (or at least not with the partners they were with when children were likely), and used some form of birth control (which would have been available).

 

[Dman]

I think he would've went on to do the job, with Wallis by his side.

 

[Curryong]

According to letters that are still extant, in the very early 1920's Freda Dudley Ward thought for a short while that she was pregnant and Edward was very excited at the prospect.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

I think he would have continued, had there been a more liberal cabinet, with Wallis as Princess Consort and with no children (if they had any) in the line of succession. Then QEII would have been Queen today anyway, although not from 1952.

 

[Curryong]

I think he would have continued, had there been a more liberal cabinet, with Wallis as Princess Consort and with no children (if they had any) in the line of succession. Then QEII would have been Queen today anyway, although not from 1952.

Yes, I agree that Elizabeth II would still have been monarch today. However, the question of a King wanting to marry a twice-divorced woman would raise eyebrows even today and the question went far beyond whether the Cabinet was liberal or not.

Social mores were very different in the 1930's and the British public (when they found out) were not impressed. Besides British public opinion the Prime Ministers of the realms in the Empire were consulted. From memory none of them wanted a Queen Wallis. Since the War the opinions of Canada, New Zealand, Australia etc had become important, in a crisis of this magnitude especially so.

 

[Countessmeout]

If Edward died on the same time line, Elizabeth would have been queen in 1974, celebrating her 42nd anniversary on the throne this year. She would have had four children at her coronation. Her children would have been Charles 26, Anne 24, Andrew 14 and Edward 10. All of her grandchildren would still have had Granny the queen, Peter born 3 years later.

The royal Dukes would have changed at the coronation. The current Duke of Gloucester would have been Duke at the time likely (his father died six months after Edward).

Watching the tribute, with Charles and Anne at the coronation so small and playing with their mother's train, it's hard to imagine her coronation being years later. Even Edward would have been too old for that mischief. Watching the home videos, I am sure the queen would have loved more time. She had many years of her childhood with her parents as Duke and Duchess, spending holidays with her grandparents in Scotland (maternal). Even Charles got very little of his mother pre-queen, anne as well, the other two were born to a queen.

 

[Skippyboo]

If Edward died on the same time line, Elizabeth would have been queen in 1974, celebrating her 42nd anniversary on the throne this year. She would have had four children at her coronation. Her children would have been Charles 26, Anne 24, Andrew 14 and Edward 10. All of her grandchildren would still have had Granny the queen, Peter born 3 years later.



The royal Dukes would have changed at the coronation. The current Duke of Gloucester would have been Duke at the time likely (his father died six months after Edward).



Watching the tribute, with Charles and Anne at the coronation so small and playing with their mother's train, it's hard to imagine her coronation being years later. Even Edward would have been too old for that mischief. Watching the home videos, I am sure the queen would have loved more time. She had many years of her childhood with her parents as Duke and Duchess, spending holidays with her grandparents in Scotland (maternal). Even Charles got very little of his mother pre-queen, anne as well, the other two were born to a queen.

If the Queen isn't Queen until 1974, there probably wouldn't be such a large gap between Anne and Andrew. Her becoming Queen in 1952 played a big part in why there is a 10 year age difference between Anne and Andrew. Any additional children after Anne are probably born sooner than when Andrew and Edward are in 1960 & 1964.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[CyrilVladisla]

If Edward VIII had remained King and was sovereign in the 1950s, might Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip have had more children during the 50s? Princess Anne was born in 1950 with no other brothers or sisters born in the decade of the 50s.

 

[Roslyn]

I suspect that is so, since becoming Queen so suddenly, and so young, placed demands on her time that would not have meshed well with being pregnant and giving birth and raising young children.

Elizabeth was a young woman of her time, with a not particularly independent nature, who was used to doing what she was told by men, and was pressured by the older men who surrounded her who no doubt metaphorically patted her on the back and told her to be a good girl and do what was expected of her, which meant performing as monarch in the way her father had, and not revealing any feminine "weaknesses". She could not be seen to give priority to family. I don't fully understand why, since what would they do? Replace her? I don't think that was really likely to happen; they just wanted to keep the little woman in her place. As she grew into the job, she took some power back for herself.

That's my assessment, anyway.

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that a number of posts and responses have been deleted as they were off-topic. This thread is to discuss theoretically who would been monarch today had Edward VIII not abdicated. It is not for promoting speculative publications or to speculate on the mental or physical health of members of the Royal Family.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

If Edward VIII had been the monarch until 1974 and his brother Prince Albert The Duke of York would have been living, he, Albert, would have been the King. However, do you think he, Albert, would have reigned with the name of George VI?

 

[Curryong]

Yes I think so. He was christened Albert Frederick Arthur George, and none of Bertie's other names had ever been used by any (non mythic) English or British kings. In theory British monarchs can choose any regnal name they like (within reason) but Bertie was very much a traditionalist and if he had succeeded his brother in 1972 I'm sure he would still have been King George.

Strange to think that if Bertie had remained in good health Charles and his siblings would probably have led a much more private life up to the 1970's as children of the heir to the heir to the throne than did in fact happen.

 

[Ish]

I disagree. There really isn't a trend of British monarchs having chosen a name other than their given name as the name they reigned under, nor even the consorts, particularly if they were already known by their given name in the public.

Edward VII changed his name despite being known as Albert Edward publicly (and Bertie in private) before hand, but I think that was more due to his relationship than anything else. Queens Victoria and Mary both went by their second names as Queens (both using their second names), but Victoria had long used her second name, and Mary (who had gone by the double barrelled Victoria Mary) had been told she needed to drop a name and didn't want to use her husband's grandmother's name.

The first two George's I believe had double barrelled names, dropping their second names when they came onto the throne.

And there was a Robert of Scotland (I can't remember if it was II or III) who was born John but deliberately changed his name to emphasize a link with Robert the Bruce instead of John Balliol.

But other than that, there really weren't any other British monarchs who reigned under a name other than their given name. Which is big - there's some 85 English/Scottish/British monarchs since William the First and Kenneth MacAlpin. And of the English and British monarchs, the only one to be born heir apparent was Edward I (who may be a First, but who wasn't the first English monarch so named). I think similar can be said of the Scottish monarchs once they started using primogeniture, but they didn't use primogeniture for the first 200 years or so.

 

[Curryong]

The main reason for that is though that in Britain medieval and later Kings right down to the 18th century weren't usually given a string of names, just one, by which they were known.

So you think Bertie would have reigned as King Albert I, even though he was a traditionalist to his backbone? Edward VII didn't reign as King Albert Edward and it has been said that George of York refused to rename himself Albert at his grandmother's request.

The only reason Bertie was named Albert was because he was born on the anniversary of the Prince Consort's death, and his parents wanted to appease Queen Victoria, as they thought she might be upset that he had the temerity to do so. There's some evidence that King George V grew weary of the dynastic requirement laid down by Victoria that all male descendants should have Albert in their names and all female ones Victoria.

Bertie was close to his father and I think that he would have wished to honour him. Albert wasn't really an English name. It became popular because of the Prince Consort, a man Bertie had never met. George was a Hanovarian name, it's true, but it also reaches right back into English history and myth, with the tale of St George and the Dragon, the national Saint.

 

[Ish]

I do think he would have reigned as Albert I under different circumstances. It's not an issue of tradition. There is no tradition of changing your name to use an existing one, not in British culture (it would be different if we were taking about Danish royals; had Bertie been in line to the Danish throne I'm certain he would have gone with Christian or Frederick).

Bertie may have gotten the name Albert because of his birthday, but it was still his name up until he became King - it was the name he was known publicly by, and it was the name that his nickname came from. The reason he chose to rule as George wasn't because of tradition - there was no tradition of British monarchs ruling under different names - or specifically honour his father (who he didn't have the best relationship with), but to soothe the public in a period of crisis.

There wouldn't have been reason for Bertie to change his name had he come to the throne under other circumstances. There wasn't a long standing tradition of British monarchs being George, or alternating between Georges and Edwards, nor a tradition of taking a different name upon coming to the throne, nor was he known by the public by any other name (and what he was known by privately was a nickname based on his first name). Nor was there even really negative connotations with his first name - sure it didn't have the most English of origins, but it was a popular name in Britain following Victoria and Albert's marriage (even today, it's the 84th most popular name in the UK).

 

[Curryong]

Victoria was Alexandrina Victoria though, wasn't she, and was known as Drina as a child to her family. She chose to drop the Alexandrina as Queen because it really wasn't English. Albert too had the first name of Franz, which he never used, so there was a tradition in the royal family of dropping certain names.

The future King Edward VII was known as 'Bertie' to his family and as 'Prince Bertie' in London Society for most of his life. It didn't stop him from dropping the Albert when he came to the throne, and that wasn't in a time of crisis.

Prince Bertie of York was somewhat afraid of his father as all King George V's sons were, but the relationship between his father and himself was 110% better than his brother Edward had. King George recognised Bertie's better qualities as he matured as well, paid him compliments and hoped that he would inherit the throne.

Albert may be a popular name but so is George, and even before Prince George's birth this was so. There is a tradition in England however of a few names predominating over the centuries, Henries, Edwards, Georges, and I believe that Bertie would have decided to honour his father and his Hanovarian heritage had he come to the throne.

Let's not forget that Albert was very much the second son for much of his life. Had his parents had the gift of seeing into the future then no doubt he would would have been christened Albert George instead of having the George tacked on to the end. Then, like his grandfather, he would quietly have dropped the Albert, as Edward did.

I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I just can't see Bertie planning to reign as Albert I, at any age or in any circumstances.

 

[Countessmeout]

Victoria didn't chose to reign as Victoria because Alexandrina was not English. Neither name was in fact, and that was intentional. Her Uncle the regent refused to allow the baby to have any traditional British royal names, vetoing any of the ones common in their family. He was the one who chose Alexandrine for her, in honor of her godfather Tsar Alexander. Victoria's parents always called her Victoria, and it was her preferred name, no surprise she chose to use it. Victoria was no more a British name, coming to the Uk through her German mother. Alexandrine in fairness had more British routes, at least in Scotland.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The main reason for that is though that in Britain medieval and later Kings right down to the 18th century weren't usually given a string of names, just one, by which they were known.

So you think Bertie would have reigned as King Albert I, even though he was a traditionalist to his backbone? Edward VII didn't reign as King Albert Edward and it has been said that George of York refused to rename himself Albert at his grandmother's request.

In what year did Queen Victoria request that Prince George of York rename himself Albert?

 

[Curryong]

Don't know. Knowledge of it comes through a story of Jimmy Thomas, a Minister in the Ramsay Macdonald government of the 1920's. Thomas was a Labour man, born in poor circumstances, but he became a great friend of King George V's. He would tell the King dirty jokes which King George, as a bluff ex navy man, enjoyed. He and the King enjoyed their chats and this story of Victoria trying to persuade her grandson to change his name (presumably to Albert) is one Thomas later told.

It's known that Victoria wasn't happy with the name 'George' for a British prince. She protested when the Prince of Wales informed her of his son's names that it had only come in with the Hanovarians.

 

[Denville]

Victoria's parents always called her Victoria, and it was her preferred name, no surprise she chose to use it. Victoria was no more a British name, coming to the Uk through her German mother. Alexandrine in fairness had more British routes, at least in Scotland.

That's true, She was called Vickie or Vickelchen.. or pet names. I dont beleive she was ever called Alexandrina...or Drina.

In what year did Queen Victoria request that Prince George of York rename himself Albert?

I've never heard of this. And I think that (if i recall correclty) QV wanted Bertie to be known as King Albert Edward and he did not like the idea of a double name.. and that he chose Edward as a traditional English name. I think that he probably was not that fond of using his father's name as his regnal name.. albeit he spoke respectfuly of him in public.

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



Three were four sons. Edward VIII who died in 1972. Albert died in 1952, John died 1919 and Henry died in 1974. Assuming that Edward did not marry Wallis and had no children, upon his death in 1972, Henry would have succeeded until his death two years later. His son Richard born in 1944 would be King today. Unfortunately, Elizabeth would not have reigned.

No, if Albert Duke of York had died before his brother Ed VIII, (assuming Ed was still the king and he did not have chldren) the succession would have passed to Alberts elder Daughter Princess Elizabeth,not to the Duke of Gloucester

 

[CyrilVladisla]

If Prince Albert, Duke of York, had outlived Edward VIII and reigned as George VI, do you think the Peter Townsend/Princess Margaret incident would have occurred?

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Victoria didn't chose to reign as Victoria because Alexandrina was not English. Neither name was in fact, and that was intentional. Her Uncle the regent refused to allow the baby to have any traditional British royal names, vetoing any of the ones common in their family. He was the one who chose Alexandrine for her, in honor of her godfather Tsar Alexander. Victoria's parents always called her Victoria, and it was her preferred name, no surprise she chose to use it. Victoria was no more a British name, coming to the Uk through her German mother. Alexandrine in fairness had more British routes, at least in Scotland.

As a very young child Victoria was known as Drina, and later it changed to Victoria, a name she far preferred.

Both were outlandish names for a British princess, Victoria probably more so.

That's true, She was called Vickie or Vickelchen.. or pet names. I dont beleive she was ever called Alexandrina...or Drina.

You're thinking of Victoria's daughter, also named Victoria - she was Vicky or Vickelchen.

 

[miss whirley]

CyrilVladisla

Despite QEQM allegedly believing that Bertie would have lived longer if he wasn't King, with his unhealthy lifestyle I don't see him outlasting David.

That would be like saying, "If only Margaret were Queen she would have outlived Elizabeth!" Kind of silly when you consider Margaret's unhealthy lifestyle.

Now for the second part. They said that Bertie could refuse Margaret nothing. So I imagine he would have wanted her to be happy. I don't think he was all that domineering when it came to his family's choices. For example, when Earl Harewood wanted to marry, Bertie deferred the approval to Queen Mary, as she made those decisions in the family, and when she initially said no, apparently Bertie was afraid to ask her again, even though he felt sympathy for his nephew. So unless he deferred to QEQM over the Townsend issue, I think he would have said "yes".

But if David hadn't abdicated that would also change the Townsend picture. David might not have used Townsend as a equerry and therefore the couple would have never met. Or David would have been more lenient to the idea of falling in love with a divorcee and therefore would have given Margaret his approval without hassle. Allegedly he wanted his sister Mary to marry for love and was angry that she had to settle.

 

[Countessmeout]

As a very young child Victoria was known as Drina, and later it changed to Victoria, a name she far preferred.

Both were outlandish names for a British princess, Victoria probably more so.

And that is exactly how her Uncle intended it. The Regent was an angry man who resented his brother's new child. He refused to allow any of the traditional British royal names to be chosen. When the priest asked for a name, he was the one to choose Alexandrina, in honor of her godfather.


I agree Victoria would have been the more outlandish. Alexandrina, as a feminine form of Alexander, at least has a connection to Scotland. Victoria was totally German.

 

[Skippyboo]

Who's to say that the Allies win WWII if David is on the throne? Townsend could have died in the war. George VI and Queen Elizabeth went to the US prior to the war and forged a relationship with FDR. Without that trip, maybe no Lend Lease program and Britain gets wiped out along with France during the early stages of the war. The US sinks into their isolationism. Japan doesn't attack Pearl Harbor and the US doesn't join the fighting at all.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Denville]

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

Any LEGITIMATE children...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The line of succession to King George V was quite clear, when he died in 1936:

1 - HRH The Prince of Wales (later King Edward VIII)
2 - HRH The Duke of York (later King George VI)
3 - HRH Princess Elizabeth of York (later Queen Elizabeth II)
4 - HRH Princess Margaret of York
5 - HRH The Duke of Gloucester
6 - HRH The Duke of Kent
7 - HRH Prince Edward of Kent

Queen Elizabeth II would not have been Queen had she a younger brother, or had her uncle Edward VIII remained King and got offspring in that legal marriage.

 

[Curryong]

Wasn't the Duke of Kent of those days named George, Duc? I know the present Duke, George's son Edward, has seemingly been around for ever, but it hasn't been quite that long!

 

[Lumutqueen]

Wasn't the Duke of Kent of those days named George, Duc? I know the present Duke, George's son Edward, has seemingly been around for ever, but it hasn't been quite that long!

I think The Duke of Kent is George, and Prince Edward is the present Duke who was born in 1935.

This may help;

Prince Albert, Duke of York (b. 1895), brother of the king
Princess Elizabeth of York (b. 1926), elder daughter of the Duke of York
Princess Margaret of York (b. 1930), younger daughter of the Duke of York
Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (b. 1900), brother of the king
Prince George, Duke of Kent (b. 1902), brother of the king
Prince Edward of Kent (b. 1935), son of the Duke of Kent
Unborn child of the Duke of Kent (the Duchess was eight months pregnant at the time of Edward's abdication)
Princess Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood (b. 1897), sister of the king
Viscount Lascelles (b. 1923), elder son of the Princess Royal
Gerald Lascelles (b. 1924), younger son of the Princess Royal