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



## BAYLOR (Nov 8, 2014)

What if Stanley Baldwin and the Government had allowed Edward to Marry Wallace Simpson ?  He stays on the throne and Baldwin says on as Prime minister .  What effect does this have on history timeline going forward?


----------



## The Ace (Nov 8, 2014)

Elizabeth II becomes Queen in 1972 on the death of her uncle, rather than 1952 on the death of her father.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 8, 2014)

Or they are both killed by a bomb / V1 / V2  during WWII and we are back to current time line
Or he decides he hates Kinging ("Reigning" is a bit too strong) and abdicates
Or an enraged subject / Bishop etc assassinates him.

Many things are possible. Real life is often more unlikely than we can imagine.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Nov 8, 2014)

The Ace said:


> Elizabeth II becomes Queen


Isn't she your Lizzie I?


----------



## Harpo (Nov 8, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Isn't she your Lizzie I?


----------



## The Ace (Nov 8, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Isn't she your Lizzie I?


 
Only if you still accept James I and II ruled in the 17th Century, rather than the 15th.

The idea is that the highest number is used, and we'll start sticking to it as soon as our Southern neighbours do.


----------



## Dinosaur (Nov 8, 2014)

The complete irrelevance of the royal family continues slightly ahead of schedule but without the quite so photogenic blitz pictures or of a cute queen to be in uniform.

The current reinvention would be interesting if the heirs were a few steps removed.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 8, 2014)

Okay , this was not the best idea for a thread.


----------



## AnyaKimlin (Nov 8, 2014)

Hitler would have had more support during the war? Or is that just malicious gossip.  Also my grandfather on my dad's side would have had a far tougher war instead of protecting the Duke of Windsor on a Carribean Island.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 8, 2014)

AnyaKimlin said:


> Hitler would have had more support during the war? Or is that just malicious gossip.  Also my grandfather on my dad's side would have had a far tougher war instead of protecting the Duke of Windsor on a Carribean Island.



As King,  Edward  would have been an even bigger headache for Churchill and his government. There is also the possibility that Baldwin not resigning might have meant Churchill never becomes Primes Minister.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 8, 2014)

The Ace said:


> Elizabeth II becomes Queen in 1972 on the death of her uncle, rather than 1952 on the death of her father.



Unless Edward and Wallace Simpson had somehow produced an heir of their own.


----------



## The Ace (Nov 8, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> Unless Edward and Wallace Simpson somehow produced an heir of their own.



While History points out that they didn't.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 8, 2014)

The Ace said:


> While History points out that they didn't.




This is a what if thread.

When they got married Simpson was about 37 years old, so it might have been a possibility.

From a historical standpoint Edward's abdication in favor of his younger brother George was a good thing for Britain.


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 8, 2014)

I can't help thinking that a more interesting possibility would be that Edward VIII didn't abdicate and didn't marry Wallis Simpson. There'd be all the possibilities of subtle (and not so subtle) changes in the run up to and duration of the War, with a cherry on top: a bitter monarch blaming the political establishment for forcing him to dump the love of his life.


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 9, 2014)

It would have been a bit awkward having a bitter monarch on the throne. I think a possible scenario would be a bitter monarch unwilling to go out and show his face to boost morale during the war, a British public turning against a monarch who is more or less absent in a time of need, and a growing resentment towards the whole idea of monarchy. Edward VIII may have been the last British king.


----------



## Cat's Cradle (Nov 9, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> Unless Edward and Wallace Simpson had somehow produced an heir of their own.





The Ace said:


> While History points out that they didn't.



As an exercise in the grand old game of "What if?" I think Baylor's was a valid and interesting suggestion when he mentioned the historical changes that would have occurred if the pair had had children (with the assumption of course that Edward and Wallis were physically able to have a child).  There would have been a lot of pressure on them to produce an heir if they were the King and Queen; they were under no such pressure as Duke and Duchess. My 2cents, CC


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Nov 9, 2014)

Cat's Cradle said:


> There would have been a lot of pressure on them to produce an heir if they were the King and Queen



Would there have been, though?  He had no shortage of heirs; he had three brothers.


----------



## Cat's Cradle (Nov 9, 2014)

Hello Teresa...my (admittedly limited) understanding of the succession in royal families has always been that it can be an untidy, messy thing when the line of succession changes from the nuclear family of the ruling king/queen to another family that is more distantly related to that currently-ruling nuclear family. It seems--especially in more modern times--that the preference is for the line of succession to stay true...parent to child, rather than parent to sibling, or cousin, etc.

From what I understand of this line of succession, there has been pressure on the oldest child-in-waiting to have children, or for that oldest child to produce an heir once they ascend to the throne. I believe there have been many instances in history where countries have had a fair bit of turmoil when a ruling monarch did not produce children, and when other family members fought to then acquire the throne for themselves or their children; this was usually avoided (though not always avoided) by the then currently ruling royal producing an heir, so the line of succession was true, and clear.

I think we accept that there were options in this particular case because we know what happened, and how well it turned out. I believe at the time that this all occurred it was a tremendous source of difficulty for the nation, that the line of succession was being broken, and for the reasons it all happened.

All of that said, it's possible my understanding of these things has been greatly influenced by the way movies portray these sorts of issues! Really though I was just trying to say that in "What if?" games, most suggestions/queries are valid ones. CC


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 9, 2014)

The question of succession is probably why royal couples are usually expected to have at least two children (heir and spare).


----------



## The Ace (Nov 9, 2014)

Foxbat said:


> The question of succession is probably why royal couples are usually expected to have at least two children (heir and spare).



Yup.

When the line descended from Charles I died out with his grand-daughter, Queen Anne (Her brother James Edward was disbarred from the succession due to his Catholic faith - a conflict of interest in the Head of the Church of England), the line of his sister, Elizabeth, took over in the person of her grandson, George I.

There were other claimants, all of whom refused to renounce Catholicism, and therefore couldn't claim the English crown, but the Act of Settlement (by which the monarch could neither be, nor marry, a Catholic) did not apply in Scotland, and the Scottish Parliament would be perfectly entitled to choose its own candidate as King of Scots, and dissolve the Union - that's why the Scottish Parliament was suspended in 1707 (it didn't reconvene until 1999).

I need hardly remind anyone of the Jacobite attempts to reclaim the crown.  Although the House of Stuart is virtually extinct, the King of Bavaria (stripped of his titles, but still very much alive) is the present holder.  He's about as interested in the British crown as he is in his great-grandfather's Bavarian one but.....


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 9, 2014)

The Ace said:


> Yup.
> 
> When the line descended from Charles I died out with his grand-daughter, Queen Anne (Her brother James Edward was disbarred from the succession due to his Catholic faith - a conflict of interest in the Head of the Church of England), the line of his sister, Elizabeth, took over in the person of her grandson, George I.



If I recall my history correctly, Parliament offered a compromise where James could rule as a Catholic but could only practice that faith in secret. There might still be a Stuart on the throne today if James had not been so adamant about it (not that it makes much difference to we commoners but it creates another interesting 'what if').


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Nov 9, 2014)

Cat's Cradle said:


> I believe there have been many instances in history where countries have had a fair bit of turmoil when a ruling monarch did not produce children, and when other family members fought to then acquire the throne for themselves or their children; this was usually avoided (though not always avoided) by the then currently ruling royal producing an heir, so the line of succession was true, and clear.



But it wouldn't have been clear, would it?  Even though the marriage would have been legal, there would be plenty of people who would have felt that it wasn't a_ true_ marriage because of the divorce issue, and be thinking that their children weren't quite legitimate somehow.

And while Edward renouncing the throne for the woman he loved made the whole thing so romantic (and brought a tear to many eyes), if he had married her while still the king and made her his queen, people would have _hated_ her for being forced on them.  Her checkered past would have been discussed in every house, and people would have wondered if she did have a child would it even be his.  I'd say that rather than pressuring her to have a child, everyone would have been praying that she _didn't_ conceive because then things would have become really messy.

On the other hand, there were his brothers, whose place(s) in the succession _were_ quite clear.

Given the choice between children of King Edward and _that woman _(as I am sure people would think of her) and the Duke and Duchess of York with their wholesome family life and their lovely little girls, which would people have been hoping for, do you think?


----------



## The Judge (Nov 9, 2014)

Cat's Cradle said:


> Hello Teresa...my (admittedly limited) understanding of the succession in royal families has always been that it can be an untidy, messy thing when the line of succession changes from the nuclear family of the ruling king/queen to another family that is more distantly related to that currently-ruling nuclear family. It seems--especially in more modern times--that the preference is for the line of succession to stay true...parent to child, rather than parent to sibling, or cousin, etc.


I think this was certainly true in the past but I don't think it would have been quite as important here in the 20th century when the King is not a ruler as such, only a figurehead.

As to pressure, I wonder who would have done the pressuring?  Certainly not Queen Mary!  I can, though, imagine the Duchess of York needling them, in an effort to avoid her husband/daughters having to carry the burden of being heirs presumptive.  I can also see Wallis herself being anxious to have her child being monarch, and since she never did conceive in real life, one wonders whether she might have tried other means to get a baby, which would be interesting once DNA tests came about.

The Duke of York would almost certainly have lived longer without the burden of the throne, which is one variable, though since he wouldn't have been King during the War he might well have played a more active part in the armed forces as his brothers did.  The Duke of Kent died on active service, of course.  And perhaps Edward would have died sooner, with the burdens of office (though frankly nothing in his early life suggests he was particularly burdened by work).

It may well be Edward as King would have approved appeasement, in which case there's a real possibility we would have stayed out of the war, at least unless and until we were directly threatened. I know the proximate cause of the US entering the war in 1941 was Pearl Harbor, but I wonder whether that might have changed, too.


EDIT: just realised spelled Wallis wrong!


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 9, 2014)

The Judge said:


> It may well be Edward as King would have approved appeasement, in which case there's a real possibility we would have stayed out of the war, at least unless and until we were directly threatened. I know the proximate cause of the US entering the war in 1941 was Pearl Harbor, but I wonder whether that might have changed, too.




In that scenario Stanley Baldwin stayed on office bit 1936 . That could have an effect on things, Like Halifax ending up Prime Minster instead of Churchill?


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 9, 2014)

The Ace said:


> Yup.
> 
> When the line descended from Charles I died out with his grand-daughter, Queen Anne (Her brother James Edward was disbarred from the succession due to his Catholic faith - a conflict of interest in the Head of the Church of England), the line of his sister, Elizabeth, took over in the person of her grandson, George I.
> 
> ...



Of topic for a second , so there are no modern day Stuart descendants in Britain? at all?


----------



## Cat's Cradle (Nov 9, 2014)

Well, it's nice seeing these 'What if?' scenarios being discussed in reference to the original question about E & W having a child.  I wonder though, is it impossible that the people of Great Britain could have 'forgiven' Wallis for being who and what she was? Was she capable I wonder--once she recognized the gravity of her position as queen, and accepted it--of becoming a compassionate and caring Queen for the people her husband ruled? And once things got ugly in Europe, and things got ugly at home, if she and Edward had produced an heir--a healthy, photogenic heir--is it not possible that the people of England could have rallied around the royal couple and their new child (their future ruler) as a distraction from the horrors of the world that were so close to their shores? I mean these as honest questions--are there no circumstances under which Edward and Wallis could have been accepted? Thank you!  CC


----------



## The Judge (Nov 9, 2014)

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.


----------



## The Ace (Nov 9, 2014)

There are plenty of Stuarts, but little to link them to the royal line.  Charles Edward had a nephew, but no sons.

Many Stewarts changed the spelling, but neither form is all that uncommon in Scotland.


----------



## J Riff (Nov 9, 2014)

And here I thot it was all a soap opera


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2014)

Edward had a very difficult relationship with his father  George V and his mother Mary. Had they  taken a different approach with him, perhaps  he becomes a different person then he ended up becoming ?


----------



## Aquilonian (Dec 12, 2014)

It would have been the end of the monarchy. History has been retrospectively airbrushed on this topic, by modern comentators who don't realise how much popular morality has changed, and who assume that the British monarchy has always been as popular as it is now. 

The monarchy's present popularity is entirely down to the performance of the present Queen and her father George VI. QEII has been around so long that she's entirely identified with the monarchy in most peoples' eyes. George V had to work hard to restore his popularity- changed his name, and dumped his cousin the Tsar. Edward VII was quite unpopular- an obese elderly playboy. 

My parents- my mum's family in particular- regarded Edward and Mrs Simpson with the utmost contempt. This was pretty usual among intelligent working class people in our town. Maybe different in London. Bear in mind that no working class people ever got divorced in those days- they couldn;t afford it. Even for the upper classes it was very unusual- a trashy foreign American habit. America was much more of a foreign country then, as American culture hadn't yet taken over via the movies etc. The UK Armed Forces still updated contingency plans for a war with the USA as late as the 1920s. But that was all the icing on the cake. Edward VIII was a Nazi sympathiser- absolutely no question about that- with sleazy friends. He was also seen as utterly selfish. People didn;t mind the royals having great privilege so long as they paid for it with a strong sense of public duty. Edward VIII tried to have his cake and eat it.


----------



## AnyaKimlin (Dec 12, 2014)

Aquilonian said:


> My parents- my mum's family in particular- regarded Edward and Mrs Simpson with the utmost contempt. This was pretty usual among intelligent working class people in our town. Maybe different in London. Bear in mind that no working class people ever got divorced in those days- they couldn;t afford it..



My grandparents did about the same time.


----------



## J-Sun (Dec 19, 2014)

Aquilonian said:


> America was much more of a foreign country then, as American culture hadn't yet taken over via the movies etc. The UK Armed Forces still updated contingency plans for a war with the USA as late as the 1920s.



I wonder how much there was of this and if it would have been any different if he'd tried to marry her in 19*4*6. The divorce thing is probably sufficient but I still wonder about the proportions.

Anyway - the succession and impact on monarchy is much less interesting to me than the idea of a Nazi-leaning (irrefutably illiberal) King who favored appeasement. The passage of time has mostly erased consciousness of just how many people thought Hitler was just another politician whom one might be able to do business with and was a good defense against communism and so on. Appeals to Anglo-Saxon heritage and plenty of Americans of English (obviously) and directly German ancestry. Even as much in the doghouse as they were they may have managed to leak many secrets before being shipped off to the Bahamas. Imagine if he were actually King.

Though, obviously, that's not the same thing as being PM or a real General or anything but, still.

Speaking of that - how do Isles-folks see the Kingship/Parliament-PM relation in terms of power? I'm kind of vague on what royal decrees are still left and various dismissals and summonings and whatnot. It seems George III was the last who really tried to be King in the way the Stuarts tried (and mostly failed) whereas the Tudors were the last "real" monarchs. But even Victoria exercised substantial influence. Not trying to derail the thread but merely put Edward VIII in this context. I figure Edward couldn't have said, "I demand we ally with Germany!" but could have certainly shaped pro- or anti-German feeling and done some (if not total) security damage.


----------



## The Ace (Dec 20, 2014)

J-Sun said:


> I wonder how much there was of this and if it would have been any different if he'd tried to marry her in 19*4*6. The divorce thing is probably sufficient but I still wonder about the proportions.
> 
> Anyway - the succession and impact on monarchy is much less interesting to me than the idea of a Nazi-leaning (irrefutably illiberal) King who favored appeasement. The passage of time has mostly erased consciousness of just how many people thought Hitler was just another politician whom one might be able to do business with and was a good defense against communism and so on. Appeals to Anglo-Saxon heritage and plenty of Americans of English (obviously) and directly German ancestry. Even as much in the doghouse as they were they may have managed to leak many secrets before being shipped off to the Bahamas. Imagine if he were actually King.
> 
> ...




For generations, a Monarch's coronation has been an elaborate way of us promising to do what we're told, and the new ruler promising that he/she won't tell us to do anything.

Elizabeth II is commander-in-chief of the UK armed forces (work done by various admirals, generals, and air vice-marshalls), head of the Church of England (delegated to the Archbishop of Canterbury), Head of State (Parliament and the foreign office), Highest Judge (the Judiciary do this) Chief of Police (that's what the various commissioners are for), the Post Office (Post-Masters) etc, etc.....  If a vacancy occurs, the relevant people suggest a suitable candidate, and the Queen usually approves him.

The Queen generally doesn't express her opinions in public, and while her word is technically law, she's very careful not to say anything that would violate her Coronation Oath as a Constitutional Monarch.

In short, while the Queen can do or say just about anything she wants, she seldom does so.  She holds absolute power, on the promise that she will never exercise it.


----------



## The Judge (Dec 20, 2014)

Re the divorce aspect, certainly by 1946 divorce was becoming more common -- there was a big increase post-war not least because of the war itself, with people having entered hasty marriages, with increased potential and motivation for adultery, and fractured mental health causing marriage breakdown.  And since it was more common, it was therefore somewhat more accepted in all classes.  Also there was more acceptance of Americans and American things, thanks to the movies and to troops being stationed in the UK during the war. (Though the latter wasn't without its own problems of course -- the famous "overpaid, oversexed and over here" -- and we're back to the spectre of increased potential for adultery!) So if Wallis had played her cards right during the war, ie displaying frugality and visiting hospitals and bomb scenes and the like, she may well have been more accepted.  But the problems with Edward being Supreme Governor of the C of E would still have held good.


Re the Constitution, the Queen's real role nowadays is limited to giving advice per Bagehot's three rights -- "to be consulted ... to encourage ... [and] to warn" .  However, she does have certain residual rights/prerogatives, such as asking the leader of a political party to form a government eg in the event of a hung parliament.  She could also refuse to give the Royal Assent to a bill, thus preventing it becoming law, and I think she could even require the dissolution of parliament.  A play in the West End, _Charles III_, actually looks at the implications of Charles doing just this on a matter of principle.  (Terrible play, but interesting questions raised.)


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 20, 2014)

Security isn't an issue. The various agencies won't even tell P.M. stuff they think (s)He can't be trusted with. A dodgy King would only have been told stuff safe to give away. That's been done too I think.  The present Queen is actually rather untypical.


----------



## farntfar (Dec 21, 2014)

Aquilonian said:


> My parents- my mum's family in particular- regarded Edward and Mrs Simpson with the utmost contempt. This was pretty usual among intelligent working class people in our town. Maybe different in London.



My grandfather (from east London) despised him as the most appalling traitor, who selfishly let down the whole country. And he never forgave him.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 1, 2015)

farntfar said:


> My grandfather (from east London) despised him as the most appalling traitor, who selfishly let down the whole country. And he never forgave him.



Being king is probably not a bed of roses , but as King, he was important and influential. Edward as King was someone of consequence. He  had the good will of the public.  Giving up all that for one woman ? It just didn't seem to be worth it.  As an ex-king what did he really have ? Nothing and no purpose in life.  He lost everything.


----------



## farntfar (Feb 1, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Nothing and no purpose in life.



I'm not sure I myself can lay claim to having much more purpose in life  than my family.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 1, 2015)

farntfar said:


> I'm not sure I myself can lay claim to having much more purpose in life  than my family.



What could Edward do as an Ex King other then dinner parties and be the occasional Photo op for the Paparazzi's ? His life after the throne was just one long unending holiday.


----------



## farntfar (Feb 1, 2015)

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. )


----------



## The Judge (Feb 1, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


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


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.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 1, 2015)

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.




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


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 1, 2015)

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.
> ...



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.


----------



## farntfar (Feb 1, 2015)

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.



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.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 1, 2015)

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.




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.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Feb 1, 2015)

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


----------



## farntfar (Feb 1, 2015)

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


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 1, 2015)

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.



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


----------



## J-Sun (Feb 5, 2015)

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).


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 9, 2015)

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).




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


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 22, 2015)

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


----------

