King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson (Duke and Duchess of Windsor)

[Kalafrana]

HM's Declaration of Abdication Act was drafted and rushed through Parliament in a great hurry at the time of the abdication, and my view is that nobody was actually thinking about titles for Mrs Simpson at that point, so the issue wasn't dealt with.

I am also of the view that precedent is all very well, but that the fact that something has never been done before doesn't mean that it can't be done now, especially with something as vague as the prerogative. It is interesting to note that noone in 1936-37 seems to have thought of the Titles Deprivation Act 1917.

The reason why Edward VIII could not marry Wallis Simpson and remain king was not the issue of 'equality' but her personal suitability. The sticking point was that she was twice divorced. Marriage between British aristocrats and American heiresses was commonplace from the 1860s. Wallis came from a good Baltimore family; had she been unmarried, or perhaps even a widow, I think she would have been accepted.

Ann

[Eddie_uk]

As Queen Mary pointed out "two husbands still living" 

I'm sorry but one look at Wallis just shows she was totally unsuitable for the position of Queen of England!

[Robert_Hall]

Eddie, shame on you- you know there is no titles  "Queen of England", although  I agree with you as well, she would have been a bow-wow as queen of anything.  Just plopping a tiara on does not a regal make.  So to speak.
 And Ann, do you really think so ? I mean. I find the woman totally unsuitable. IF she had money, LOTS of it, like an Astor or Rockefeller and even at that it would be a stretch, making the throne sort of  "up for bidding" like the end of the Roman Empire.
 

[Vecchiolarry]

Dear Robert,

"Bow wow of a queen"!!!
"Plopping a tiara on"!!!

Great expressions - you've made my day - I'm still laughing....

Larry

[Alixz]

From what I can tell, and it is confusing even with Greg writing it, the King was not subject to the Marriage Act and could marry anyone he chose.

In theory, David was free to marry whomever he wished.  He was regulated, not by written law but solely by tradition and accepted custom.  Because England had no written constitution, may laws were only situational; a certain amount of government flexibility existed in the definition of what could or could not be done.  This somewhat ambiguous allowance would not only serve the King, but would work against him throughout the fall of 1936.

Members of the British Royal Family as well as those indirect line of succession to the throne were governed by two different legal statutes.  The first, the act of Settlement, had regulated the passage of the British Crown to the German House of Hanover and stipulated the passage of the British Crown to the German House of Hanover and stipulated that potential heirs and successors could only marry a Roman Catholic on forfeiture of dynastic rights.  The second statute was the Royal Marriages Act, which decreed that all members of the British Royal Family as well as potential heirs in the line of succession were required to obtain the sovereign's consent before contracting a marriage.  Although the King, as sovereign, was obliged to follow the dictates of the Act of Settlement, he was himself exempt from the provisions of the Royal Marriages Act.

The ruling government of Great Britain had no legal authority to impose restrictions on the marriage of a king or regnant queen.  Not was there any constitutional requirement that the sovereign seek the permission of the prime minister or his cabinet.  In short, there was nothing which allowed the government of the day to raise any objections to the marriage of the King.

[Alixz]

Legally, the King was also perfectly free to marry a divorcee.  Once the British courts of justice had ruled in her case, as writer Stephen Birmingham has pointed out, Wallis was technically clear of any social of moral impediment to remarriage.

Morally, however, the King was treading in dangerous waters where divorce was concerned.  It was ironic that the traditions which defined the King's role as defender of the faith in the Church of England, which conflicted with his desire to marry Wallis - had been born out of another king's determination to divorce and remarry.

Here Greg is talking about Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn.

[Alixz]

On the other hand ...

Technically, David was free to marry whenever and whomever he wished.  It would be unconstitutional, however, as Sir Donald Somervell, the attorney general, informed Baldwin that October, for the King to marry against the advice of his ministers.

[grandduchessella]

That was what I was pointing out, Eddie.. Her version of "morganatic" was different than the Gotha, it seems  And you are quite correct- she allowed marriages   that would have then been seen as  "unequal" but disapproved of others  [but did not forbid, as far as I know] . I forget which book specifically quoted her comment,  but I have read it more than once.
 Who knows what she would have thought of the Windsor's and their  marriage !  That  could have bean a circus indeed !!!

I think she just had a personal bias against the Romanovs based on the instability of the country, the history of the Romanovs being unfaithful and the treatment of her own Aunt Juliana who had married and divorced a Romanov. I think she was one of the least snobbish when it came to marriages.

[Eddie_uk]

Eddie, shame on you- you know there is no titles  "Queen of England", although  I agree with you as well, she would have been a bow-wow as queen of anything.  Just plopping a tiara on does not a regal make.  So to speak.
 And Ann, do you really think so ? I mean. I find the woman totally unsuitable. IF she had money, LOTS of it, like an Astor or Rockefeller and even at that it would be a stretch, making the throne sort of  "up for bidding" like the end of the Roman Empire.
 

Oh thank you for correcting me Robert!!! 

[Robert_Hall]

Glad you had a giggle. Larry. And Eddie, we are are on the same page with this one !

[Kalafrana]

There is some argument about whether a monarch is actually subject to the Royal Marriages Act. Of course, you have the problem that the monarch would be giving consent to marry to himself but the law does in other ways make a distinction between the Sovereign and the person holding the office of Sovereign. There is also a very interesting article on the Royal Marriages Act - reference in my article, since I don't have it to hand.

By constitutional convention the Sovereign is expected to follow the advice of his Prime Minister. Occasionally the Prime Minister feels unable to give unambiguous advice and the monarch is left to make a decision at his own discretion - hence George V's role in the creation of the 1931 National Government. Stanley Baldwin, however, clearly advised Edward VIII that he could not marry Wallis Simpson and remain king. The advice might be somewhat questionable, nevertheless it was clear.

Ann

[Robert_Hall]

Perhaps you are  right,  Jehan.  There was instability in the Russian  "scheme", however there was also tremendous wealth [at the time]]. Royalty is a business, after all.
 I really doubt that  Queen Victoria  was very much concerned about the political  situation in Russia though.  {ready for rebuttal].

[Selencia]

The constant badgering for the HRH must have been insufferable as the war raged and George VI (who truly had no designs or ambition to the wear a crown) did his brother's job.  He did it well.

I have read that Queen Elizabeth II has never forgiven the Duke of Windsor for what she considered her father's "early" death from the stress the Duke caused by his abdication and the additional stress of being king.

That was her mother. Elizabeth apparently continued to like her Uncle and Aunt. I read in one book that she was very sad at the Duchess' funeral.
Going through this thread it is sick but expected to see the hatred towards Wallis and/or Edward; the hermaphrodite rumor...good gawd, its just an updated version of Anne Boleyn. I was never a fan of Charles and Camilla, but perhaps Wallis and Edward are smiling that finally a member of the BRF was able to marry the person they loved despite the fact that they were viewed as unsuitable.

[Eric_Lowe]

I think David never really wanted to become king in the back of his mind and so Wallis became a godsend to him. That is the reason I am more sympathetic towards Wallis than David. She grew up dirt poor (just visited her home in Biddle Street in Baltimore where she lived in 1913, that was no Windsor Castle !) and once for love (Win Spencer) and another for convenience (Ernst Simpson). Wallis was more worldly than the naive and demanding David, so she got into a joy ride that she could not come down. During the abdication crisis, she repeatedly told anybody who would listen that she wanted to "do the right thing" and even offered to stall her own divorce from Ernst Simpson, but she was too late. David already made the decision for BOTH of them already. Yet even though David was the one who "abdicated" his duty to his country & family, it was she who got the blame. It was she who got denied the HRH, not received by the family and treated as a pariah (the Duke did visited his family alone from time to time). I believe it was a raw deal for her.

[Gerta]

Let's change the scenario here.  Say that when the Duke received the letter from his brother the day or two before the wedding regarding the HRH for Wallis that he did indeed give her permission to use the title.  Do you think that would have changed their future together?  Would they have returned to England after the wedding?  I dont' think so.  The royal family and the cabinet were so upset, angry and hateful to this couple that I think they would have stayed in France for some time.  Would the Duke have still made his trip to Germany?  Of course. He still wanted to do something useful and show off his new wife.  Would they still be sent into "exile" to a remote area like the Bahamas?  Yes.  The Duke was definitely a thorn in the side with the war starting and his german sympathies would not have been appreciated.  After the war and into the 1950's and 60's, the Queen may have let them come back but I think the Queen Mother would have seen that this would never happen.