MovieChat Forums > Wallis & Edward (2005) Discussion > Three Questions That Demand Unambiguous ...

Three Questions That Demand Unambiguous Answers

posted 11 years ago by HijodelCid
8 replies | jump to latest

Let's forget the academic question of whether Edward was really sympathetic to Hitler; as King he would undoubtedly have had better knowledge of H and company than as an expatriate member of the House Windsor who was out of the loop.
Instead let us consider the following:
Was abdication really necessary?
Was there no room for compromise, such as a morganatic marriage?
Why did everybody involved in this farce that made the entire British Empire look ridiculous behave in such an obstinate unreasoning manner? It really seems that, instead of behaving like responsible adults working for a constructive resolution, everybody was throwing tantrums and behaving like undisciplined brats.

God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)

[–] CakesAndAle 11 years ago

Was abdication really necessary?
It was if Edward was determined to marry Simpson. The citizens of England and the dominions were scandalized and were not going to accept her as Queen, or as the wife of their king. There was no possible compromise. There was a lot at stake for the House of Windsor: in the early 20th century, royal houses all over Europe were crumbling. People didn't believe in monarchy anymore and the Simpson scandal and constitutional crisis nearly brought down the British monarchy.

Was there no room for compromise, such as a morganatic marriage?
As stated above, citizens of England and the dominions were scandalized and were not going to accept her as queen, or as the wife of their king. More significant, though, is that morganatic marriage was merely a strategy for Edward and Wallis, not really a solution. They were being disingenuous in suggesting it, as they viewed it only as a way to buy time-- they had no intention of keeping their marriage a morganatic one. Their intention was to seek full queen status for Wallis later on, after the marriage was a done deal.

Why did everybody involved in this farce that made the entire British Empire look ridiculous behave in such an obstinate unreasoning manner? It really seems that, instead of behaving like responsible adults working for a constructive resolution, everybody was throwing tantrums and behaving like undisciplined brats.

Because the citizens were against it-- because more was at stake than Edward's reign, than his marriage to Wallis. Monarchy itself was under fire.

[–] HijodelCid 11 years ago

Now that is something nobody has ever mentioned: that the British Empire--the mightiest in the history of the world--was also infected by the vile spirit of the low dishonest decade of WH Auden!
David Low made a cartoon in 1931 of Alfonso XIII of Spain, George II of Greece, Michael II of Portugal and Wilhelm II of Germany saluting their crowns, which are being taken away by the garbage collector; did he ever consider a similar one about Edward VIII and the House Windsor?

God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)

[–] CakesAndAle 11 years ago

Another point to consider: divorce was still a big issue 17 years later, preventing a marriage between Princess Margaret and Group Captain Peter Townsend.

[–] randommovies2002 9 years ago

Good point. That event is well portrayed in Margaret (2009).

Queen Elizabeth II was really caught between a rock and a hard place on that one. Emilia Fox portrays her dilemma so well. I think it was much better than the way it was portrayed in The Queen's Sister (2005).

[–] SaliceMcD 7 years ago

I would add that, as she couldn't (?) remarry in the CoE after her divorce, Anne, Princess Royal, had to go to Scotland to marry her second husband - in 1992!

I don't recall there being an uproar or any fuss about this, perhaps because of her being pretty far down on the line of succession, but could very well be wrong.

(If Diana, POW, were still alive, could Charles have married Camilla, under any conditions? I've also wondered why she didn't become POW, and if she'd be "accepted" as Queen; by Parliament, the people, and the CoE, if in fact the latter has a role/say in such matters.)

[–] whoanelly (1558) 3 years ago

But Camilla’s ex is still alive, isn’t he?

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

morganatic marriage would have been a sensible solution, but for some reason parliament rejected the idea. Divroce was considered. Disgraceful thing in those days, And the idea that a king could marry a twice divorced woman shocked most people in the establishment. Divorcees weren't even received at exclusive court functions. The songwriter Hubert Gregg (most famous for maybe it's because I'm a Londoner), did an hilarious song about being a divorcee in which he described how being a divorcee (even an innocoent party) he couldn't go inside the royal enclosure at Ascot, although all his family could (he describes the various terrible things the members of his family had done). This hangup about divorce persisted long after the 30s, they were still making a tremendous fuss about it when Princess margaret wanted to marry a divorcee in the 50s.

[–] randommovies2002 8 years ago

There was no allowance for a morganatic marriage in the constitution, so it would have required changing the constitution. That would have necessitated days of debates during which the private lives of Simpson and Edward would have been discussed. Not a good option, plus the dominions all rejected the idea when Baldwin asked them to weigh in. (Not to mention that Edward and Wallis were both being disingenuous about their intentions; Edward had every intention to seek full "queen status" for Wallis after his coronation.)

And they still would have had to get around the Church of England. CoE did not approve of divorce, and I'm not clear on when marriage of divorced persons began to be performed in the Church. Were they happening in the 1930s? But even if they were, it is extremely doubtful that any CoE clergyman would have agreed to marry them, Wallis having two living husbands already. To this day, clergyman in the CoE have the right to decline performing marriage rites for divorced persons on the grounds of their conscience.

Marriage of the King of England outside the CoE, such as in another church, or a registry office, was unconstitutional.