If Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor gave up the throne of the United Kingdom?

Question

If King Edward VIII abdicated his throne in order to marry divorcee' Wallis Simpson, how is it possible that Prince Charles (divorced) could ever become King of Great Britain? Worse yet, how could Camilla (former adulteress, also divorced) ever be Queen?

Answer 1

Times have moved on. In 1936, the Church of England was still totally against divorce. It would have been unthinkable to have a King married to a divorced Queen when the British monarch is also always Supreme Governor of the Church of England. But the real reason behind it is that Edward VIII was not really interested in the official paperwork side of the job, tended to leave secret papers lying around, and was pro-Nazi. The "Establishment" wanted him out, and the position of the Church of England on divorce was a convenient excuse.



The Church of England now permits its priests to conduct remarriage of divorced people, though it's still not entirely accepting of it. Being married to a divorced person is no longer the barrier it used to be. This ambiguous position is why Charles and Camilla married in a register office and not a church, though the Archbishop of Canterbury conducted a service of blessing afterwards.

Answer 2

The biggest difference is the time period. Camilla has agreed to never become queen she like Prince Philip will only be a princess, if Charles is ever crowned King.. There is no reason legally that Charles cannot be King, or that Edward couldn't have continues to be king, it was the time and what was socially accepted people of royal status from the time of Queen Victoria didn't divorce and didn't associate with divorced people. Also Simpson was not only a commoner, but an American.I believe that the British people would never have accepted an American as Queen or even as a princess. There were several scandals attached to Mrs. Simpson, including several well known adulteress affairs.

.

Answer 3

With the death of the Duke, the the title reverted to the Crown. As such, the monarch always has the prerogative of creating a new individual as Duke or Duchess of Windsor. King George VI created the former King Edward VII as Duke of Windsor, but took no separate action to grant the Duke's wife a title. She was entitled to use the style "Duchess of Windsor" upon marrying the Duke. King George VI was pretty harsh in the document which made the former King a Duke...he expressly provided that while the Duke was a Royal Highness, any wife would not be. The Crown cannot create one person as Duke of Windsor and another as Duchess. If someone is created Duke, his wife becomes Duchess. If someone is created Duchess, her husband doesn't acquire any title as a result (male chauvinism is alive and well in the peerage). Will it be used again? Time will tell. Given the difficult history associated with the title, I can only imagine it being used for another abdicated monarch.

Answer 4

Wyn,



It is simple, times have changed. The Monarchy is constantly evolving and adapting to times of change. In the 1930's, divorce was a scandal. In fact it practically required an Act of Parliament to disolve marriages. If Edward VIII had intended to marry a black woman, that too would have created a constitutional crisis and would most certainly have ended with his abdication. Similarly, if Edward VIII had been gay, he would still have had to have abdicated. As Stanley Baldwin once said "You are not a man sir, you are the King. In the choice of a Queen the voice of the people MUST and WILL be heard".



The official stance on the matter is that Camilla will not be Queen. However this is unlikely ever to actually take place. The reason being, it would require an Act of Parliament to change her official postion from Queen to Princess Consort and this could only take place after Charles becomes King as no Queen Consort currently exists. Therefore when the Queen dies, she will automatically be Queen and she would automatically become Queen in the sixteen other realms and territories beyond the seas. It would require an Act of Parliament in all of those countries to deprive her of the title of Queen. It would be a bit silly to announce the couple as TM The King of the UK and the Queen of Canada. Rediculous!



I was a little struck by your reference to Camilla being a former adulteress and divorcee, it did seem rather harsh. The reason I say this is because there is nothing wrong with being divorced, if the marriage simply didn't work out. Okay.. I concede that Charles and Camilla did a bit of a dirty trick on Diana and she shouldn't have been used in that way, but Diana was just as bad, its just because she was pretty and nicey nice that everyone feels that they can forgive her.



Let's not forget Diana's involvement in the Carling marriage. Diana herself had an affair with Will Carling. Julia Carling thought that her marriage was very happy and idolized her husband, in fact she worshipped the ground that he walked on. Next thing you know Diana comes on the scene and she and Will are having an affair. Julia's world was shattered and she filed for a divorce (good for her!). Diana destroyed the Carling marriage and it was she who was the "other woman" in that marriage. It doesn't matter that she was unhappy in her own marriage, she should have known better, because she knew what it was like to have someone else sleeping with her spouse.



Hypothetically, if Charles and Diana had managed to save their marriage, Diana herself would have been a former adulteress (the destruction of the Carling marriage!) and she too would have become Queen.

Answer 5

Mainly times have changed, the fact that Charles is also divorced himself is a factor. Wallis Simpson was the first wife of the Duke of Windsor, if he hadn't given up the throne then their children (if they'd had any) would have been in direct line for the throne, this was unthinkable in the 1930's.



Camilla can be Queen Consort (although at her marriage it was stated her title would be Princess Consort not Queen) but her children cannot inherit the throne.

Answer 6

Because there was no law then, nor is there a law now, barring the king from marrying a divorcee. Parliament simply ruled it would not accept such a marriage. Times have changed. It would be fairly bizarre for the Parliament to make an issue out of it now.



Also, for the record, Charles is a widower. Yes, he did get a divorce, but since his wife is dead, the issue is moot.

Answer 7

Charles and Camilla won't be King and Queen of England because Queen Elizabeth has proclaimed that Prince William will be King after her. She is going by the old rule that you cannot marry someone that has been divorced and still be King or Queen. Prince Charles has abdicated in order to marry Camilla.

Answer 8

Edward VIII did not resign because of any particular law, but because people were afraid he would destabilize the monarchy. He had been talking about abdicating for more than 10 years anyway. People in power did not want him to be king, nor did he want the position. He was considered unsuited to the job. Wallis was only the tipping point.

Answer 9

you are quite correct many queens were lets just say weren't liked by there people because they had committed adultery, and i will agree with this notion i believe a queen is a noble figure to be looked upon, a queen to inspire many. This idea is remarkable, remarkable that somebody actually remembered this. i wish there were such a person like queen elizabeth. Alas i have not seen any kind nobles or politicians in my life. But remember they have alot of lot of stuff on there plate. And Camilla i do not agree with what she did but it is charles decision to make not ours remember if he is the king you most follow his order.

Answer 10

Read the whole story.



He was completely unfit and disinterested by the post. His marriage (to a divorcee WHO WAS COMPLETELY UNFIT TO BE QUEEN and who would never have given him heirs) was just the last in a long line of activities he participated in to piss off the Parliament.



You have to do a little research on these things...or you might try looking at the exact same question asked two days ago, rather than wasting your points.

Answer 11

It is also to do with the succession. Charles already has an heir and a spare and is unlikely to produce any more so the succession is guaranteed and the second marriage makes no difference unlike the circumstances in 1936.



If every adulterous monarch was disbarred we would have been a republic for ever.

Answer 12

Solara 437 is correct. Sadly, times have changed.



Also - there was their famous "act of contrition" as part of C.of E. service of blessing. And, there is no impediment to Charles re-marrying in the Church of England since his ex-wife's death back in 1997 had made him a widower according to Church law.



And of course, there is the slop to the general public that Camilla does not want any royal titles (thus her use of Duchess of Cornwall instead of POW). And it was announced that she will be known as HRH The Princess Consort as opposed to HM Queen Camilla. It is a tiny consolation.

Answer 13

I have wondered that, but like others have said times have changed. I would rather, not because of divorce, but because I like William better, William was the next monarch after his Grandmother. But being American, and since we won the Revolutionary War, I don't have much say in the matter.



If his son were to challenge him, like in some medieval way, maybe he would become King first, but I don't think they do that anymore.

Answer 14

Times change. The Queen's three older children have all divorced, and two of them have remarried. Like it or not, divorce is commonplace nowadays, and to continue to demand that royalty not be allowed to divorce, or remarry, without being disinherited, is simply unreasonable in this day and age.

Answer 15

Times have changed since the 1900's.