Not as Queen but certainly as a consort with a limited public role.
I see.
Wallis' problem actually was Ernest caving so easily (I assume) to David's demands (oh to be a fly on the wall during that meeting) though maybe he was (like the 'official' story claims) in love with someone else. My question will always be: would Ernest have thrown Wallis over like that had he not been called into a meeting with David? For all these decades it has looked like Ernest just decided to divorce because he was 'fed up' with his wife's dalliance with David and had met someone new (official story) yet we now know it was not that clear-cut. Did Ernest 'fall in love'
after the meeting with David? Was that the sum of it? David showed Ernest another path?
What is the kicker is that Ernest made the deal with David without ever checking with Wallis. It appears that while maybe they were not 'in love' they were a 'good fit' as Wallis wrote, they were good friends. So the question stands: is that any way to treat a good friend? I really feel for Wallis on this score. The magnitude of that 'betrayal' of friendship. Had he checked with Wallis, maybe she would have asked him not to do the divorce as her protection (she was clearly fine with his 'on the side'). But she needed the marriage to be genuinely free, able to say yea or nay to David. Simpson doing that deal was really Wallis' undoing. So what was the pressure (or inducement) that David supplied in that meeting with Ernest?
The biggest alternative history scenario is if Wallis never got the divorce.
Indulge me for a minute as I wander into alternative history. It's 1950. David has survived his issues with Baldwin, he's relied heavily on Churchill's advice and has gotten through the Second World War as a popular and unifying figure. Britain has just seen huge reforms and everybody is talking about a modern new era. They all know that David has been having a relationship with the long since divorced Wallis Warfield and that one day, he may wish to marry her. The Duke and Duchess of York and their daughters are hugely popular and there is no reason to suggest that the Duke of York and Princess Elizabeth won't follow Edward VIII.
Interesting, because the 'spin' now is how bad a guy the man was and how he needed to be removed. The story about his politics and all that are the rationales for having his abdication 'sit right'. Britain was 'saved'.
If David never pressed Ernest to divorce, if David remained discreet regarding his mistresses, and if David followed Churchill's advice/instructions (in the end), he would have remained on the throne. Any other scenario would have been treason, not so?
This is marginally off topic, but I have wondered about the Charles/Camilla tapes and the Squidgy tapes in the late 1980's. They are so peculiar. It occurs to me that Charles was already by then clearly a man with his own political views and progressive economic outlook. He could not have been a supporter of Margaret Thatcher's 'austerity' policies. Were those tapes the first salvo in a long game of removing the monarchy altogether? Treason of course, but it had been done before: back room treason to depose a king (1688).
The government accepts that the King has served his country well and agree to a morganatic marriage. Wallis is known as HRH The Duchess of Lancaster. David was crowned in 1937, there'll be no ceremony to crown or anoint his wife as Queen and a clear distinction is made that whilst she is the legal wife and consort of the monarch, she is not his Queen. She takes on a few patronages, she acts as a private hostess for the King as any other consort would. She greets visitors at garden parties, she welcomes visiting heads of state, she lives with the King, she accompanies him on a few royal engagements and makes appearances at a handful of national events. She says nothing publicly and lives a quiet life.
IF Wallis gets the divorce.
My hunch is Wallis did not want that life, she was not in love that way with David. She would have preferred marriage to Ernest.
It's impossible for me to say 100% that this would have been popular or possible. The British public are fickle and can switch on people in a flash. But had Wallis been allowed to have that limited role as a royal consort? She entertained well and everybody complimented her on the way she cared for guests to her home. She was articulate and could hold a conversation. She was intelligent and had her own passions and interests but could always appreciate those of other people. That I could see as a possibility. Naturally she would never be able to accompany the King to church events and there would be other duties that wouldn't be suitable for her to carry out.
Agree with the bolded. Wallis seems to have been doomed to be judged by her photographs, and at an exceptionally stressful time for her. She was not a happy woman at her wedding to David. But from all reports she was socially adept at least and shone as a hostess.
But that role in itself would have both suited Wallis and avoided the abdication entirely. By 1950, the resentment from the old guard may have softened, the public may have been more amenable. Unfortunately, David spoiled any chance of that by being impatient, insensitive and incompetent. You catch flies with honey, not vinegar. He learned that all too late.
Interesting scenario, but key to it all is Wallis' real will in the matter., which we have every reason to believe was quite 'other'. Having a fling with the Prince of Wales, and maybe even the King, is one thing, but to marry? I think it's clear she had no intention of going that far with him. She was forced into that chute, by David, no less, via Ernest caving.