• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Queen Elizabeth's Golden Jubilee, 2022

J

JesterBL

Gastronaut
Location
Flyover Country, USA
Pronouns
he/him
As we approach Queen Elizabeth's Platinum Jubilee, it could be interesting to consider what could be a very different reign for her- one in which her father's predecessor Edward VIII reigned till 1972, passed without (legitimate) issue* and she ascended the throne nearly twenty years after OTL. This would be a rather delayed culmination of the wish of George V.

How plausible was it for Edward VIII to avoid the abdication? Was it a simple matter of removing Wallis Simpson from his life- or did his string of affairs before her mean that he was bound to run into the same issue with a different American divorcee? (Wallis Simpson was his second to fit exactly that description). If Wallis Simpson does not find a place in his life, does the same sequence of events play out in 1936 with Thelma Furness nee Morgan or some different dalliance? Was there any possibility of him coming to accept a legitimate marriage to an acceptable candidate for Queen Consort, or alternately, was there any possibility for a Morganatic marriage with someone less objectionable than Wallis Simpson?

*given his habits it is rather surprising we don't have a couple of Fitzroys running around, although there are rumors that he was sterile from mumps
 
EDT’s A Greater Britain said it was plausible, so I’d buy it.

Anyhow, if we ignore fanciful scenarios such as Edward stealing a plane and parachuting over Bertchesgaden or Churchill having him killed, I remember someone suggesting him becoming increasingly isolated due to blunders when trying to meddle in government affairs (say, criticizing the cabinet due to not doing enough about the economy, making embarrassing declarations to the press with no regard to protocol) or even failing to properly implement inspire the people during WWII/The Blitz, and so he fades out of the public consciousness except for the occasional scandal or kind word for South Africa. By the 1970s the Republican movement in countries like Australia is just waiting for his death.

Not sure who suggested the above scenario, though it stuck to me.
 
Yokai Man said:
Speaking of,

podcasts.google.com

Red Box Politics Podcast - Edward VIII

Patrick Maguire explores what might've happened if Edward VIII had remained king. He hears from royal historian Andrew Lownie and political historian Sir Anthony Seldon. PLUS Melanie Reid and James Forsyth discuss Tory party woes and the future of the monarchy. See acast.com/privacy for...
podcasts.google.com podcasts.google.com
.
Click to expand...

I'm always fascinated by treatments of alternate history in more mainstream sources- I think it is a stretch that a Nazi-sympathetic monarch results in a successful Nazi invasion of the UK, although that is a common popular AH trope (see: the name of this forum).

What is especially surprising to me is how utterly unsympathetic the biographers interviewed here are. I can't tell if it is because they aren't good biographers (most biographers in my experience find some sympathies with their subjects, just as a natural part of that process, even where their work is itself critical) or if Edward VIII was truly that unsympathetic.
 
JesterBL said:
As we approach Queen Elizabeth's Platinum Jubilee, it could be interesting to consider what could be a very different reign for her- one in which her father's predecessor Edward VIII reigned till 1972, passed without (legitimate) issue* and she ascended the throne nearly twenty years after OTL. This would be a rather delayed culmination of the wish of George V.

How plausible was it for Edward VIII to avoid the abdication? Was it a simple matter of removing Wallis Simpson from his life- or did his string of affairs before her mean that he was bound to run into the same issue with a different American divorcee? (Wallis Simpson was his second to fit exactly that description). If Wallis Simpson does not find a place in his life, does the same sequence of events play out in 1936 with Thelma Furness nee Morgan or some different dalliance? Was there any possibility of him coming to accept a legitimate marriage to an acceptable candidate for Queen Consort, or alternately, was there any possibility for a Morganatic marriage with someone less objectionable than Wallis Simpson?

*given his habits it is rather surprising we don't have a couple of Fitzroys running around, although there are rumors that he was sterile from mumps
Click to expand...

I think the chances of Edward VIII avoiding abdication are reasonable - I think the OTL circumstances were rather specific. Wallis wasn't just a divorcee, she was still married when the yet-to-be-crowned King was mulling marriage. However, I think there are consequences to a 'Second Edwardian Age'.

We are still in the age of relatively politically active monarchs - and Edward would be no exception. I believe he was influenced in some regard toward a pro-German political stance by his relationship with Wallis, but I doubt that he came to those opinions entirely because of her. As the 1930s go on, Edward would rub up against increasing disquiet in the halls of power at the re-emergent Nazi Germany.

I think some sort of confrontation over the constitutional role of the monarch is inevitable, whether its over foreign policy or something else - the King openly expressed concern at the government's austere economic policy and the impact it had on working class communities. And once we get to that point, I think the question is whether Edward lasts long enough to get to 1972.

If he does, I think it's because he comes out on top in whatever power struggle he has with Parliament. Depending on what happens this may be because he is able to parley popular affection into softly pro-worker and isolationist policies. However as the decades go on, I can only imagine an activist King growing wearisome especially as he grows reactionary with age. By the time Elizabeth stands to inherit, the British may have had their fill of Kings and Queens.
 
It’s difficult to say how much influence Edward would have had, as Germany would have been growing in power and would have become a resurgent threat even if Edward thought Hitler was the greatest thing since sliced bread. How sympathetic he would have been if he’d remained on the throne is an open question, but it’s also unclear how much he could have done about it. The king had relatively little formal power at the time – I doubt he could have overruled Chamberlain. Maybe he supports Munich and then gets a moment of clarity after it becomes clear that Hitler isn’t going to stop.

OR … what if he keeps pressing for peace at any price?

One option – he provides political cover for Chamberlain not offering any guarantees to Poland in 1939. The Germans take Poland in 1939 anyway and continue going east (on the assumption neither Britain nor France wanted to fight), which would suit a lot of people in Britain just fine. A few years of German-Soviet fighting would give Britain and France all the time they needed to rebuild their forces and prepare for war, perhaps even financing the Germans in the hopes fascism and communism will destroy each other.

A second option – Edward refuses to shut up after Munich and sparks a constitutional crisis. I don’t think there’s any legal means to impeach and remove an unfit monarch, so this could easily get very nasty. Edward could make one hell of a fuss and the PM would have problems dealing with it. Could he be removed by Act of Parliament? I don’t know – technically, James II was removed and replaced by William and Mary, but James had already fled the country by that point.

Thoughts?

Chris
 
Given Chamberlain becomes PM after Edward's accession to the throne, I think there's questions whether he would even be PM ITTL. I disagree with the characterisation of how little influence the monarchy had at this point in time. George V's intervention was critical in the formation of the National Government in 1931. Its equally possible that King Edward could break it, especially if he openly disagrees with the economic policies of the Chancellor during the years before his coronation.

I think one thing that might be interesting is if Labour was under a different leadership. The circumstances of Attlee becoming leader were rather unusual - and he refused to exploit the marital crisis to divide the National Government. This may be because of his own upper middle class distaste for Simpson as a prospective Queen. If Labour had a less scrupulous leader, or if a different Mrs is on the horizon, perhaps Labour could assist in bringing down the National Government.
 
I think this is all ignoring the immediate reason why the queen has reigned 70 years instead of 55 or 60 years: her father, George VI, died at the age of 56. Compare this to his father, George V, who died at the age of 70, his grandfathers, Edward VII (68) and Francis, Duke of Teck (62), and his brothers Edward (77) and Henry (74), and it becomes apparent he was robbed of a good decade or so of lifespan. Most biographies I have seen blame this on the stress of the abdication crisis and the war, which then begs several questions: What happens if he lives as long as his brothers? What happens if Edward VIII is the one unnaturally aged? What happens if the reign of Albert I/George VI is not between 1936-1952 but say 1960-1970?
 
Mumby said:
Me and @Japhy did a lot of notes on a 'King Edward VIII brazens it out' TL a while ago
Click to expand...
We did and then I dropped the ball big time.

But yeah I think the fundimental problem with the monarchy in an Edward holds on scenario is that by the time Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor gets the throne there's probably even odds The UK becomes a Republic instead.
 
Japhy said:
We did and then I dropped the ball big time.

But yeah I think the fundimental problem with the monarchy in an Edward holds on scenario is that by the time Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor gets the throne there's probably even odds The UK becomes a Republic instead.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I feel like 'King Edward VIII dies in office' is probably comparable to Franco dying.
 
The longer Eddie lasts, the less pro-monarchy people will be, yeah - if he has kids it could carry on but Liz in line is the excuse to drop it, "why are we appointing a niece?" If he dies early and George gets a few years in the 60s to be inoffensive like @Md139115 said, that would be the best bet at keeping it going
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top