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

[Jo of Palatine]

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.

In 1967 the marriage of Princess Margaret had seriously hit the rocks, according to biographies. If she contemplated divorce back then (she finally divorced in 1978), it could have been the case that Buckingham Palace looked into the problems of a divorce of a marriage legalized under the Royal Marriages Act. Probably they were not sure if a new Act was required dealing with a divorce. Of course in that case all avenues would be checked before any new Act could become law, including the divorce of the monarch. IMHO, of course.

 

[Roslyn]

I'm wandering off on a tangent here, but this seems to be the most appropriate place to post a bit of trivia I think gives an interesting insight into the Australian mindset at the time of The Abdication.

Our local paper reports today that two of five fig trees planted by local schoolchildren in 1935 to commemorate the Silver Jubilee of George V have been cut down because they were in a dangerous condition due to disease. The two remaining trees are healthy. Why are only two left? Well........each tree was planted in honour of a Royal visit to Australia. The one planted in honour of the 1920 visit of the Prince of Wales (as he then was) was removed in 1936 following the abdication!!! The locals obviously had strong feelings about the subject.

 

[chaz]

I believe(may be wrong) Edward was childless. If so wouldnt it still be ElizabethII? Chaz

 

[kimebear]

Yes, assuming he still married Wallis, remained king and childless, Elizabeth II would still have become queen.

 

[Elspeth]

I'm wandering off on a tangent here, but this seems to be the most appropriate place to post a bit of trivia I think gives an interesting insight into the Australian mindset at the time of The Abdication.

Our local paper reports today that two of five fig trees planted by local schoolchildren in 1935 to commemorate the Silver Jubilee of George V have been cut down because they were in a dangerous condition due to disease. The two remaining trees are healthy. Why are only two left? Well........each tree was planted in honour of a Royal visit to Australia. The one planted in honour of the 1920 visit of the Prince of Wales (as he then was) was removed in 1936 following the abdication!!! The locals obviously had strong feelings about the subject.

That's pretty sad; it wasn't the tree's fault. That's a bit like British people going around kicking dachshunds during the war.

 

[Iluvbertie]

That's pretty sad; it wasn't the tree's fault. That's a bit like British people going around kicking dachshunds during the war.

Aussies did that as well, and changed place names etc.

My grandmother actually meet the Duke on his 1920 trip and helped him plant a tree as she was the youngest child at the school to lose a father in the Great War. She was just 7 when her father died and no one else at her school was younger than that when, or if, their father was killed.

 

[Warren]

My grandmother had a souvenir book of the Prince of Wales's 1920 visit to Australia. I remember being surprised at the pictures of the huge and adoring crowds he attracted; he was very much the "Prince Superstar" of his time as Diana was the "Princess Superstar" of hers.

 

[prince nathan]

If Edward VIII had remained as king, it means Wallis Simpson would have to have been given up. He probably would have married and had children and maybe kept Wallis as a mistress - much more acceptable than marrying her. The queen would probably have married some horsey aristocrat like herself, as Prince Philip and his uncle would not have been interested in her if she wasnt heiress presumptive. Just my thoughts on the scenario.

 

[sneeuwklokje]

Are you suggesting that Philip married Elisabeth because she was to be the Queen?? Hardly something to be looking forward to for the sort of man Philip is. He has had to play second fiddle all his life, if he didn't love her he would never have done that.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The only way that Elizabeth wasn't going to marry Philip was if she never met him. She has clearly only ever loved one man in her life and that is Philip. He is also not so shallow as to have given up his own chance for a fulfilling career to marry a woman he didn't love - he loves her as well.

This is my opinion of course, based on years of reading and watching these two together, including some very telling body language.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If Edward VIII had remained as king, it means Wallis Simpson would have to have been given up. He probably would have married and had children and maybe kept Wallis as a mistress - much more acceptable than marrying her. The queen would probably have married some horsey aristocrat like herself, as Prince Philip and his uncle would not have been interested in her if she wasnt heiress presumptive. Just my thoughts on the scenario.

I don't think Edward would have married anyone. If he was going to marry to have children he would have done so in his 20s not wait until he was over 49.

He would have kept Wallis as his mistress and simply never married allowing his brother to be his heir, until George VI died.

 

[branchg]

If Edward VIII had remained as king, it means Wallis Simpson would have to have been given up. He probably would have married and had children and maybe kept Wallis as a mistress - much more acceptable than marrying her. The queen would probably have married some horsey aristocrat like herself, as Prince Philip and his uncle would not have been interested in her if she wasnt heiress presumptive. Just my thoughts on the scenario.

I doubt Edward would have been willing to give her up for long. More likely, he would have accepted the advice of his supporters, including Churchill, to allow his Coronation to take place first, then slowly pursue the marriage option over time. He was too afraid of losing her, so he refused that course of action.

Philip has always said his relationship with Lord Mountbatten was overstated and exaggerated, while ackowledging that Charles and The Queen were actually closer to Mountbatten than he was. I don't think he married her for any other reason than he recognized her good character and saw a role in providing strength to her future duty as Queen.

The Queen Mother was not enthusiastic about Philip because his family was essentially Teutonic and Russian, an affront to her strong feelings about both because of World War I. She would have preferred Elizabeth marrying a Scottish or English aristocrat.

 

[pinkie40]

Had Lord Mountbatten not been such a driving force or nature, I would somehow like to believe HMTQ would have married Lord Porchester. One cannot discount Lord Louis' meddling the Duke of Windsor, HMTQ and Prince Charles. One can endlessly speculate how the last century would have been different if Lord Louis had minded his own affairs.

 

[Elspeth]

I doubt Edward would have been willing to give her up for long. More likely, he would have accepted the advice of his supporters, including Churchill, to allow his Coronation to take place first, then slowly pursue the marriage option over time. He was too afraid of losing her, so he refused that course of action.

He also said that he didn't want to be crowned under false pretences, which is what that would have amounted to. Unfortunately, that sort of honourable behaviour didn't fit the narrative that Baldwin, the Archbishop, and Queen Elizabeth were trying to construct so it doesn't seem to have been emphasised.

 

[spratsmum]

I don't think Edward would have married Wallis Simpson if he had not been about to be crowned King.

He knew her "unsuitability" and he been involved in relationships before with married women and obviously marriage wasn't something on his mind.

Regarding the children question, I have read that Wallis was born neither male nor female and the decision was taken to surgically make her a female. She then had female characteristics but did not have a womb or ovaries.

I believe also that Edward thought that the will of the people and his popularity would enable him to marry Mrs Simpson when it became inevitable.

It is interesting to wonder how history would have been altered if Edward had of assumed his birthright. He was a known Nazi sympathizer and in many ways is portrayed as a "weak" individual. You wonder if he could have worked with Churchill and held England together during the blitz.

Sandra

 

[IloveCP]

It would be interesting to see him marry Ingrid of Sweden.She was of course fertile and would have gave him children.Let's say she would have given birth to Margrethe and her two other children with him.Margrethe would have become queen of Britian.Frederik and Mary would be Prince and Princess of Wales.And Elizabeth and her children would be minor roles in the royal family and live more simple lives.

And plus,no one would make a big deal of the recent royal wedding!

Oh,what would history change...

 

[KittyAtlanta]

I don't think Edward would have married Wallis Simpson if he had not been about to be crowned King.

He knew her "unsuitability" and he been involved in relationships before with married women and obviously marriage wasn't something on his mind.

Regarding the children question, I have read that Wallis was born neither male nor female and the decision was taken to surgically make her a female. She then had female characteristics but did not have a womb or ovaries.

I believe also that Edward thought that the will of the people and his popularity would enable him to marry Mrs Simpson when it became inevitable.

It is interesting to wonder how history would have been altered if Edward had of assumed his birthright. He was a known Nazi sympathizer and in many ways is portrayed as a "weak" individual. You wonder if he could have worked with Churchill and held England together during the blitz.

Sandra

Do you have a source for the "neither male nor female" statement. From what I understand, Edward's equipment never matured. I can't remember where I read that, so take it with a couple grains of salt.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

This may be more appropriate for the Duke and Duchess of Windsor thread, but I believe Edward suffered an illness in childhood which could have arrested his sexual development. Although the information is not first hand, obviously, this theory was raised by observers who pointed to his slight figure, lack of body hair, etc.

The only thing I have ever heard or read about Wallis was her large hands. There have been cases of hermaphroditism, where one is born with both sex organs, but I don't know that this applies to her, although it may have been bandied about by others.

 

[yvr girl]

Given the times and the lack of reliable birth control, it can be assumed that Wallis was barren. She didn't have children in any of her marriages.

 

[COUNTESS]

This may be more appropriate for the Duke and Duchess of Windsor thread, but I believe Edward suffered an illness in childhood which could have arrested his sexual development. Although the information is not first hand, obviously, this theory was raised by observers who pointed to his slight figure, lack of body hair, etc.

The only thing I have ever heard or read about Wallis was her large hands. There have been cases of hermaphroditism, where one is born with both sex organs, but I don't know that this applies to her, although it may have been bandied about by others.

I can't say I am an expert on either of these theories, but they are eye catching.

 

[IloveCP]

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.

 

[dpjgen]

Would Elizabeth have become Queen anyway?

QE II is Queen because her father, George VI, was King and died; she was the oldest of only two daughters. So, if her Uncle, Edward VIII, say he never had abdicated and whether or not he ever married, but also never had any children, wouldn't QE II still have eventually become Queen? Let's assume Edward VIII died while he was King without any children. Wouldn't George VI have still become King? Then, wouldn't Elizabeth still have become Queen? All this of course would have presumably happened many years later. And it would also have assumed that George VI hadn't died before Edward VIII. In that case, I would guess that the crown would have gone to one of their brothers - Prince Henry, William or John and then to one of their children.

 

[HRHHermione]

No, it would have gone to Elizabeth anyway. She was third in line at birth behind her father and Edward VIII. But, as Edward was young, it was assumed that he would have children which would have made it unlikely that Elizabeth would ever ascend the throne.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Interesting question dpjgen. Of course, Edward the VIII never had any children, so if he had been allowed to marry Wallis Simpson and remain King, Elizabeth would have eventually ascended the throne, although not until 1972, when Edward died.

 

[VictoriaB]

QE II is Queen because her father, George VI, was King and died; she was the oldest of only two daughters. So, if her Uncle, Edward VIII, say he never had abdicated and whether or not he ever married, but also never had any children, wouldn't QE II still have eventually become Queen? Let's assume Edward VIII died while he was King without any children. Wouldn't George VI have still become King? Then, wouldn't Elizabeth still have become Queen? All this of course would have presumably happened many years later. And it would also have assumed that George VI hadn't died before Edward VIII. In that case, I would guess that the crown would have gone to one of their brothers - Prince Henry, William or John and then to one of their children.

If Edward had not abdicated but the Queen's father had died before him the crown would still have passed to Elizabeth when Edward died. It would never have gone to one of the King's younger brothers because Elizabeth was always higher than them in the order of succession.

 

[Jacknch]

It's a question I've often pondered over the years.
Imagine that if Edward had been allowed to marry Wallis Simpson, they still never had children, Bertie had still died before Edward and Edward still died in 1972, Queen Elizabeth II would have been celebrating her Ruby Jubilee - 40 years - and not her Diamond Jubilee! Maybe a double celebration with Queen Margrethe II!!

 

[fandesacs2003]

On December 27th, into the thread about Duc and Duchess of Windsor, I had post a similar question about QEII and I received some very interesting explanations. It is post no 1003 and onwars.
Have a look, if i posted correctly.
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...972-and-1895-1986-a-10245-51.html#post1351033

 

[Lumutqueen]

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

 

[RoyalistRiley]

It's a question I've often pondered over the years.
Imagine that if Edward had been allowed to marry Wallis Simpson, they still never had children, Bertie had still died before Edward and Edward still died in 1972, Queen Elizabeth II would have been celebrating her Ruby Jubilee - 40 years - and not her Diamond Jubilee! Maybe a double celebration with Queen Margrethe II!!

I wonder if George VI would have lived a much longer life if he didn't have to face the strains of war as King and had a decent (for lack of a better word) post 1945? Elizabeth II may have been like Prince Charles in this alternate history - waiting for something (accession to the throne) that may or may not come.

 

[scooter]

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

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.