The Abdication: December 11, 1936

[Warren]

I think the argument was more along the lines that the governments/parliaments of the Dominions and the Britsh PM himself wouldn't accept Mrs Simpson as Queen.
There is/was no statutory impediment to the Sovereign marrying a divorced person.

 

[branchg]

The Sovereign is free to marry a divorcee and requires no approval from the Government. Indeed, Henry VIII established the Church of England and broke from Rome in order to recognize his own divorce from Catherine of Aragon.

What happened in 1936 with Edward VIII established for the first time the precedent of the Government having the right to "advise" the Crown on the choice.

 

[QUEENECE29]

This is very interesting and complikated. Have official explanation?
I think not possible...

 

[MARG]

I think the only way to try to understand is to examine it "in it's own time and place".

So often we look at something that happened decades ago and pontificate at length on the rights and wrongs of the case. Unfortunately we tend to forget that we are viewing it with the benefit of history, the internet, declassified papers and 20 20 hindsight.

 

[Skydragon]

If you consider it was 1928 before women received the full right to vote, 1958 when the Life Peerages Act allowed women to sit in the House of Lords for the first time, yes times have changed!

 

[Jeniann]

My grandmother's aunt knew that Duke of Kent (or at least she said she did; she was a small-time stage actress in London but we do know she knew some famous people) and apparently he wasn't the sort of person you would want as a king. He was a nice guy, very bright and charming, but he had a drug problem and would often show up at parties drunk or high and make people rather uncomfortable. Apparently he was able to get off it for a while, but he always found other things to keep himself occupied including a lot of unsavory men and women who would make Wallis Simpson look suitable.

I mean, he did get married and have children, but even after his marriage he was hardly a saint and always up to something. I really don't see why politicians and courtiers (who were obviously a bit prudish, considering how they reacted to the whole Mrs. Simpson situation) would have wanted that guy over Bertie, who wasn't as charming but much more settled down and didn't like to party.

 

[iowabelle]

Rather interesting that the Gloucesters were not "in the running" for accession if the Yorks were omitted, although their children were not born until much later than the Kent children (even though the D. of Gloucester was older than the D. of Kent).

Alice would have been a glorious queen too, IMO. Maybe there was something special about the Scottish ladies of that era.

 

[MARG]

If you consider it was 1928 before women received the full right to vote, 1958 when the Life Peerages Act allowed women to sit in the House of Lords for the first time, yes times have changed!

In short, "light 'em up ladies, you've come a long way babe"! (Smoke, choke, croak! 20 20 hindsight!)

The second glorious Golden Age: Queen Elizabeth II. She rocks!

 

[isayoldboy]

The whole idea of the monarchy being too stressful for a woman, within living memory of Queen Victoria's reign, is ridiculous. If that was their reason for wanting to pass over the Duke of York, because he only had daughters, they must have had very short memories.

George V made a statement to the effect of "I hope nothing gets between Bertie and Lillibet [the Queen] and the throne." The article sounds a bit fantastic to me. I'm sure all sorts of crazy schemes were considered momentarily but it was most logical for the second son to take the throne.

Also -- wasn't Prince George more or less openly gay (by the standards of the time)? I can't imagine that his numerous affairs with both teams, as it were, would have made him a viable alternative (in the eyes of the church) to a monarch who was forced to abdicate because he wanted to marry a divorced woman.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

George had his share of problems, including an addiction to drugs which he overcame, and although he was rumored to be bi-sexual, I really don't think any of this would have kept him from the throne . . . when his time would have come, which it did not. It would have upset the normal order of succession to pass over Bertie and I agree that it is nonsensical to be worried that he had only daughters to whom he could pass the crown. This would NOT have been a concern in that realm.

 

[Zonk]

I have read that there were some concerns about the Duke of York. His stammer and the fact that he was considered "boring." Their concerns not mine. But supposedly they weighed his boringness with the fact that he had a stable marriage and happy family as compared to Kent (his past life i.e. drugs and sex) and Gloucester (also boring and developing a fondess for drink).

But really as Vasillos suggested, it would have been crazy to just disregard the line of succession. Especially since the abdication had/is already putting the monarchy in a tither.

But like his father, George V (another 2nd son who didn't plan on being King) he rose to the occassion.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Well said, Zonk.

 

[isayoldboy]

I think Prince George's bisexuality is fairly well established, as is his drug habit. I'm not saying he was unsuitable as a king, but since Edward had just abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson it sounds like a completely oddball choice.

Besides, as Zonk said, skipping the Duke of York in the line of succession would have caused all kinds of problems -- at a time when the monarchy had been brought to its knees and a decisive show of leadership was needed.

I have read that there were some concerns about the Duke of York. His stammer and the fact that he was considered "boring." Their concerns not mine.

Poor old Bertie. I think he lived his whole life being assumed to be dreadfully boring, or stupid, or weak and timid, when he was really just a cripplingly shy man who'd been overshadowed by his brother. I don't think he was any more or less boring than any other member of his family, unless you count the fact that he didn't have the tumultuous sex life that some of his siblings did. I'd like to challenge this, since I know a few dedicated party animals who are incredibly stultifying to talk to.

As for the Duke of Windsor, Gore Vidal (who has made many such trenchant remarks) said that he had something of "riveting stupidity" to say on any subject. I don't think being "not boring" is a requirement for royalty.

I think there would have been concerns about the fact that the Duke of York was so quiet and retiring. But he stepped up to the plate and arguably performed better than his brother did as King. If anything the lack of scandal in his personal life made him better King material at a time when Edward VIII's indiscretion had made their personal lives so much more public.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think Prince George's bisexuality is fairly well established, as is his drug habit. I'm not saying he was unsuitable as a king, but since Edward had just abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson it sounds like a completely oddball choice.

Besides, as Zonk said, skipping the Duke of York in the line of succession would have caused all kinds of problems -- at a time when the monarchy had been brought to its knees and a decisive show of leadership was needed.

Of course they wouldn't be just skipping one person but four to get to the Duke of Kent - Bertie, Elizabeth, Margaret and The Duke of Gloucester.

 

[Royal Fan]

What he did was selfish and stupid plain and simple

 

[Zonk]

I think calling him stupid is a bit over the top IMO. He was selfish but certainly not stupid.

Wallis did the short end of the stick so to speak. She is the primary person who gets blamed for the Abdication (well at least a large percentage of the blame) and really, I think she would have been content to be the "power behind the throne" and just continue as David's mistress. He (David) certainly took a lot upon himself to have a conversation with her husband about her marriage. If Wallis wanted out of the Simpson marriage, than that was a conversation that she should have had with her husband. I do think she cared for him, but he certainly latched on to her. He was definitely looking for a love that he didnt get from his parents.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

And I think the Duke did love her, so he should be given credit for that as well. The Greeks have an expression which I will try to spell phonetically: "Oothen kakon amayes kaloo" which roughly means, "Out of something bad comes something good." So the Duke falling in love with a woman who could not become his Queen forced him to choose between her and his duty; he chose her, which was bad for royals but the good came out of George VI taking the throne.

 

[Zonk]

Well it was good and bad for the royals. Good in the since that Edward left since he really wasn't interested in doing his duty and bad that everyone who had a bad marriage after him can lay the groundwork of that marriage to the past of Edward VIII (i.e. Margaret, Charles, etc.)

But I do think he loved her but again in a selfish way (i.e. the discussion with Ernest). And I think she was content (and loved him too).

But back to the Abdication. I mentioned this in another thread...does anyone know why all the brothers (George VI, Edward VIII, DoG, and the DoK) signed the Instrument of Abdication but Mary didn't? That seems kinds of sexist...but I am thinking 2011 Zonk and not 1936 Zonk?

 

[Betsypaige]

I still can't get over the fact that if Queen Elizabeth had had a brother, he would have jumped over her and been heir presumptive.........Now that's sexist (I hope they abolish this outlandish law).

The abdication was bad, but it could have been far worse had George VI not been the man he was. He and Queen Elizabeth really limited the damage done by Edward VIII. I used to think Edward VIII and Wallis were this great romantic story, but now when I think of them, all I think of is "selfish".

The Duke loved Wallis, but he appears to have been completely dependent on her - it's not healthy to "love" someone that much. I can't feel sorry for him though given the pest he became to his brother and how he tried to usurp Princess Elizabeth's right to the throne (as his brother was ill, in 1949, I believe).

 

[Mermaid1962]

And, if Elizabeth had a brother to take the throne, she and her children would have enjoyed having each other's company a lot more and Prince Philip would have been able to keep on with his naval career. That's not a bad outcome at all. I'm not one to get "up-in-arms" about the male primogeniture issue, primarily because I think that Prince Charles in particular has suffered from not having a lot of his mother's time during his formative years. Although there have been wonderful queens regnant, I think that children need to spend time with their mothers.

I still can't get over the fact that if Queen Elizabeth had had a brother, he would have jumped over her and been heir presumptive.........Now that's sexist (I hope they abolish this outlandish law).

 

[Iluvbertie]

...does anyone know why all the brothers (George VI, Edward VIII, DoG, and the DoK) signed the Instrument of Abdication but Mary didn't?

There are two valid reasons I can think of:

1. They only wanted/needed the next three adults in line to the throne and Mary was the 4th adult and already down to 7th in line and within a couple of weeks went down to 8th with Princess Alexandra being born on 25th December that year. At that time the line of succession was Duke of York, Elizabeth of York, Margaret of York, Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent, Edward of Kent and then The Princess Royal. I say adults as the younger royals - who we now describe as the older royals were all children and so couldn't sign the Abdication document.

2. Another reason may very well be that Mary didn't agree with the decision and so refused to sign it. As for being sexist, I don't think it was that so much as just not necessary to have more than three additional signatures.

 

[Betsypaige]

And, if Elizabeth had a brother to take the throne, she and her children would have enjoyed having each other's company a lot more and Prince Philip would have been able to keep on with his naval career. That's not a bad outcome at all. I'm not one to get "up-in-arms" about the male primogeniture issue, primarily because I think that Prince Charles in particular has suffered from not having a lot of his mother's time during his formative years. Although there have been wonderful queens regnant, I think that children need to spend time with their mothers.

No doubt it's not a good thing for children of Queens, but they also need to spend time with their fathers, so having their dad on the throne is not ideal either. I'm bothered by the whole idea that primogeniture still exists, but it's not because of Queen Elizabeth only (who I adore). I'm no feminist, but the law is antiquated and just makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Zonk]

Please note that posts regarding the Duke and Duchess of Windsor have been moved to http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ndsor-1894-1972-and-1895-1986-a-10245-31.html .

Let's try to keep this thread focused on the actual Abdication Day: Decemberr 11, 1936.

Thanks!

Zonk
British Forums Moderator

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Strange world we live in. Falling in love is hardly a matter of choice, and I feel badly for people who have never experienced - or think they are in charge of it. Choices can be made about what to do about love, but true love is not a decision.

I'm surprised to learn that Wallis tried to encourage him to stay on the throne, although I understand why, completely. I hope they have her book on Kindle, as I'd love to read it!

 

[pacomartin]

Simplest Answer

But back to the Abdication. I mentioned this in another thread...does anyone know why all the brothers (George VI, Edward VIII, DoG, and the DoK) signed the Instrument of Abdication but Mary didn't? That seems kinds of sexist...but I am thinking 2011 Zonk and not 1936 Zonk?

I would opt for the simplest answer. It didn't affect her standing in any way. There was no discussion of modifying the gender rule.

 

[spratsmum]

I am imaging that the reason the brothers signed the Instrument of Abdication was that were all in line of succession - the abdication changed those rankings.

 

[spratsmum]

I feel that Edward was a spoilt and selfish person. I don't think he believed that the he would allowed to abdicate, he thought he was so loved and popular that he would be able to do as he wished and have the throne as well.

He had an interest in married women only it seemed, playing it safe with no pressure, but Bessiewallis was a different category. She too had an exalted opinion of herself and was out to show the world and the British establishment that she was modern and American and ready to rule the world.

The best outcome was the one that occurred - the life of decadency and wealthy enjoyed by the PoW and his set where so far removed from the reality of most o his subjects. It is interesting to wonder what England's fate would have been under the reign of Edward.

 

[Tsaritsa]

Spratsmum, you may find interesting my posts on the psychology of David which are on the Duke and Duchess of Windsor thread. I have serious doubts as to whether he ever truly wanted to be king. I believe he was able to use the Wallis situation to worm his way out. The actions of his later life certainly show him as being more dedicated to cafe society than commonwealth duties and the only red boxes in which he showed interest were the ones that held another piece of jewellery for Wallis, for whom I may just have a little more sympathy than you have. She most surely learned that there's no such thing as a free lunch!!!

 

[spratsmum]

Thank you Tsarista I went and read your articles and we think alike on this subject. I have read many books on them over the years and they are stating to annoy me more and more.

Wallis Simpson is reported on one page of the other thread to have had lovers other than the PoW during her marriage to Edward Simpson. The next page she is quoted as saying she had never had sexual relations with first and second husband. Quite bizarre really.

As I have said I believe that both of them wanted to go along with the status quo, leading a privileged and fantasy life. I think the fuss that was caused by the lack of HRH before the Duchesses name is a case in point - she certainly was no highness, lowness might have been closer to the truth.
When you look at the current PoW there seem to me to increasing similarities with his great uncle, Charles is away in a rarified world, where others wait on his every need and perceived want, and truly his life has been wasted in so many ways, and that is very sad for him. I know that we unaware of how long the Queen would live, but surely it would have been better for Prince Charles to had a career and real job, rather that just wait around.

I quite like the British Royal Family, in particular I feel the Queen has had a difficult role and has carried it out with dignity and grace. Prince Philip and Princess Ann seem also to have found a way around royal roadblocks and made some life for themselves, but as for the rest of the immediate family in earlier days I would have sent them to the Tower.

Thank you again for your link I enjoyed it and look forward to meeting with you again on the boards.

Sandra

 

[Russophile]

Wallis Simpson is reported on one page of the other thread to have had lovers other than the PoW during her marriage to Edward Simpson. The next page she is quoted as saying she had never had sexual relations with first and second husband. Quite bizarre really.

Just curious, can you tell which books have said this? I don't remember Wallis not having relations with her first two husbands--of course it's been a few years since Russo read Wallis bios as well. Thanks!