What if Edward the VIII Had been allowed to Marry Wallis Simpson And Remain King

As far as I know he had a pretty awful life.
All I'm saying is that while I understood why my grandfather felt the way he did, I also understand why Edward did what he did.

He was born a king and found that he wanted to be a human being.
If he'd had a friend who was a vampire and another who was a ghost, the BBC would have made a television series about him.
(Oh. wait a minute. I think they did. )

BAYLOR said:

As an ex-king what did he really have ? Nothing and no purpose in life. He lost everything.

Click to expand...

He could have made his life one of service, as his niece did. Even allowing for his having to maintain some position of dignity as a former king, he could have undertaken charitable work of some kind. He might not have been acceptable to British charities even post-war, his Nazi sympathies as well as the abdication would have been too great an obstacle, but French organisations would doubtless have welcomed him, and I dare say American charities would have been delighted had he involved himself.

The Judge said:

He could have made his life one of service, as his niece did. Even allowing for his having to maintain some position of dignity as a former king, he could have undertaken charitable work of some kind. He might not have been acceptable to British charities even post-war, his Nazi sympathies as well as the abdication would have been too great an obstacle, but French organisations would doubtless have welcomed him, and I dare say American charities would have been delighted had he involved himself.

Click to expand...

He would won back alot of the good will that he lost.

farntfar said:

As far as I know he had a pretty awful life.
All I'm saying is that while I understood why my grandfather felt the way he did, I also understand why Edward did what he did.

He was born a king and found that he wanted to be a human being.
If he'd had a friend who was a vampire and another who was a ghost, the BBC would have made a television series about him.
(Oh. wait a minute. I think they did. )

Click to expand...

Wallace Simpson probably would have been happy to have stayed behind the scenes as a lover rather then as a wife to Edward. Im thinking she didn't expect him to give up everything for her.

BAYLOR said:

Wallace Simpson probably would have been happy to have stayed behind the scenes as a lover rather then as a wife to Edward. Im thinking she didn't expect him to give up everything for her.

Click to expand...

You may well be right there Baylor. And I suspect that Grandpa would have been quite happy with that. It was the traditional way after all.
However, I suspect that my mother's generation would not have accepted it, certainly after the war which changed people's expectations of so many things.
And that's assuming that the people's relationship to Edward after the war were the same as it was with George.
Most people thought that George and Elizabeth (the queen mum) had an entirely different approach to their subjects than Edward (and, therefore, his presumably "puppet queen") would have had, largely because George had never really expected to have to do it.

farntfar said:

You may well be right there Baylor. And I suspect that Grandpa would have been quite happy with that. It was the traditional way after all.
However, I suspect that my mother's generation would not have accepted it, certainly after the war which changed people's expectations of so many things.
And that's assuming that the people's relationship to Edward after the war were the same as it was with George.
Most people thought that George and Elizabeth (the queen mum) had an entirely different approach to their subjects than Edward (and, therefore, his presumably "puppet queen") would have had, largely because George had never really expected to have to do it.

Click to expand...

Part of Edwards problem was his parents. Everything ive read his father George V gives me the impression that he was not loving father. He not was particular nice to Edward, didn't give him much in the way of respect didn't make any effort to relate him. His mother May didn't help matters either, she was distant at best. I think had they taken different tact with him( had they been able to )Edward maybe becomes a better man then he did. Ends up wiser, doesn't give up the throne and doesn't Marry Wallace Simpson , distances himself from Hitler and the Nazis. It's a stretch, but maybe those simple things make a difference.

Ultimately we have to take responsibility for our actions (or lack) and not blame others. Lots of people "rise above" their background or parenting.

Ruddy parents! (that's what my kids say.)

Ray McCarthy said:

Ultimately we have to take responsibility for our actions (or lack) and not blame others. Lots of people "rise above" their background or parenting.

Click to expand...

I agree ultimately we are responsible. But parents do play a role .

Yep - the nature of parents can help explain children but not excuse them - makes things harder or easier but not impossible or inevitable.

I read and appreciated the comments, especially of The Ace, The Judge, and Ray McCarthy responding directly to my questions but somehow never replied. Thanks - I didn't realize the monarch had such residual power even in theory (though, yeah, I did realize whatever they had was pretty much on condition that they not use it).

J-Sun said:

Yep - the nature of parents can help explain children but not excuse them - makes things harder or easier but not impossible or inevitable.

I read and appreciated the comments, especially of The Ace, The Judge, and Ray McCarthy responding directly to my questions but somehow never replied. Thanks - I didn't realize the monarch had such residual power even in theory (though, yeah, I did realize whatever they had was pretty much on condition that they not use it).

Click to expand...

Edward wasn't allowed to be himself , he chaffed at the role he was expected to play.

His brother George certainly turned out to be a very good king.

In the movie Fatherland Edward and Wallace occupy the throne.

BAYLOR said:

In the movie Fatherland Edward and Wallace occupy the throne.

Click to expand...

There was indeed a loosely contrived plot to offer him the throne should Germany win the war.

Christine Wheelwright said:

There was indeed a loosely contrived plot to offer him the throne should Germany win the war.

Click to expand...

If Germany had won , that could well have happened. Since he had had no children one wonders who the throne would have passed too in such a alt history scenario .

The Judge said:

I don't think you can avoid the problem of her divorces, CC. Divorce still involved great stigma in the 1930s, and, to paraphrase Wilde, to lose one husband may be considered a misfortune but to lose two looks like something a good deal worse than carelessness. In addition the King had to be Supreme Governor of the C of E, which at that time didn't permit remarriage of divorced people, which makes things difficult to say the least, and would have caused no end of ructions with the church which would have continued -- she wouldn't have been welcomed by the church and those who took the lead from the church. Governments across the Empire were no happier with the situation, either, and I can't believe she'd have been welcomed there.

Of course, it's possible Wallis might have been grudgingly accepted, especially when we were facing war, but I doubt she'd ever have been liked, let alone loved. As Teresa says, compared to the image of respectability and family values the Yorks gave, there was no contest.

Click to expand...

Interesting discussion of whether a son/daughter is a preferred successor over a brother/sister. And of the impact of divorce on the suitability of a monarch. But don't forget that there were other factors at play. George had none of Edward's supposed confidence or swagger. Also, he had a speech impediment that was quite serious at the time (although he later mastered it).

Christine Wheelwright said:

Interesting discussion of whether a son/daughter is a preferred successor over a brother/sister. And of the impact of divorce on the suitability of a monarch. But don't forget that there were other factors at play. George had none of Edward's supposed confidence or swagger. Also, he had a speech impediment that was quite serious at the time (although he later mastered it).

Click to expand...

It is said that when George found out he was to become king, he wept and not for joy because he didn't want the job. He turned out to be a pretty good King, way better than his bother Edward could have ever been.

If Edward had become King [and under the influence of Hitler] I think he might have been a lot like Franco trying to groom Elizabeth and Margaret to take over from him. A marriage to a nice handsome German Duke [there are bound to be a few knocking around] and not Phil the Greek and Hitler has his own dynasty in the UK.

CupofJoe said:

A marriage to a nice handsome German Duke [there are bound to be a few knocking around] and not Phil the Greek and Hitler has his own dynasty in the UK.

Click to expand...

House Of Hitler...surely there's a book and a movie deal in there somewhere

CupofJoe said:

A marriage to a nice handsome German Duke [there are bound to be a few knocking around] and not Phil the Greek and Hitler has his own dynasty in the UK.

Click to expand...

That is assuming that the girls would be easily manipulated and amenable to such marriages. Margaret, in particular, had a tendency to go her own way to the extent that it was possible, and if the family were divided on the subject of such German alliances (as one assumes the Duke and Duchess of York would be resistant) it's likely the more dutiful Elizabeth would side with her own parents rather than with her uncle, even if he was the King.

Actually, with a family divided in its allegiances, and Margaret moved lower in the succession (with the potential at that point in time of being moved lower still if either the King or the Duke fathered a son) Margaret might have found a way to go ahead and marry her first love, Peter Townsend. Which would almost certainly have been a happier situation for her than the marriage she did make with Antony Armstrong-Jones.

As for the idea suggested earlier in the thread, that Wallis Simpson might have grown into the role of Queen, had Edward not abdicated and their marriage still happened, I think that a pretty fanciful notion, since it was not in her character to behave with fidelity, self-sacrifice, or responsibility. She'd have been happy (as someone else suggested) as royal mistress, and would have continued to accept that role had Edward not been so adamant about marrying her. It's not like it would have cost her a pristine reputation, since she had no such thing, being twice divorced and her adulterous relationship with the Prince hardly a secret, and since she would not be bound to Edward in marriage, probably could have influenced him/coaxed a lot more out of him because he knew she would walk away at any time.

Not that I mean to paint her as the villainess of the piece. She and Edward were both selfish, irresponsible, and amoral, well-matched indeed! The only difference being that he was probably much more in love than she was.