Where would Edward VIII's kids be in the line of succession?

Question

If former King Edward VIII, later Edward Duke of Windsor, had children with Wallis Warfield, where would they have ended up in the line of succession to the British Throne?

Their father abdicated yes, so would that make them ineligible for the throne as well? Would it make them lower than George VI/Eliabeth II (if they were born after she was coronated) children? Or would they be higher since their father was the original Prince of Wales and King of Great Britain?

If anyone is curious, this is for a possible idea for Alternate History.

Answer 1

Nowhere. The Abdication Act of 1936 stipulated that the throne would pass to Prince Albert, Duke of York, and his descendants and that descendants of Edward VIII, if any, would have no claim to the throne. Nor would the Royal Marriages Act 1772 apply to them.



If there had been a male child he would inherit the ducal title but would not be a prince, since he would not be the child of a king. A daughter would have no title.

Answer 2

Obviously immediately after him. But if you're going to keep them IN the line of succession, it's going to get complicated when the throne has already passed to his brother. What happens if Edward and Wallis DID have kids? Does George VI get kicked off the throne to make way for their first child, who would then be monarch from birth and require a Regent? (Remember that this is the year before the Regency Act 1937 was passed so there was no established provision for what to do in the case of an underage monarch.) What if their first child is a girl - as sons come first, do we wait to see if they have any sons? Or do we wait until George VI dies and then move the line of succession back sideways to Edward's children? But as he might still be alive (as in fact he was) there might be more of them. What if Edward and Wallis had only girls, George VI dies, the eldest of those becomes Queen, and then Edward and Wallis have a son? And in any case, do we actually want a monarch who is the product of a marriage that was the visible cause of the abdication crisis in the first place? The common law of succession just doesn't provide for any of this. Certainly there would have to have been further Acts of Parliament to specify who will be king or queen next.



The simplest way was for him to abdicate for himself AND all his descendants, which his Instrument of Abdication did, and the Abdication Act says that. It just solves all the problems.



This rather reminds me of the other thing that English common law doesn't provide for - what if the king dies leaving a wife pregnant with their first child? If the child had been born BEFORE he died, obviously it is the next in line. Sounds rather unlikely but it did happen with Alfonso XIII of Spain. What Spain did was have a regency until the widowed Queen gave birth to Alfonso, and he became king immediately. But if this happened in the British monarchy, the law doesn't say what should happen - should the throne be left vacant for the unborn child, or should it pass immediately to the existing next in line?

Answer 3

IF (!) Edward VIII had NOT renounced the Throne "for Myself and for My descendants" but only for himself, then I suppose his descendants would have ranked after the children of his brother George, Duke of Kent and their descendants.



After the abdication, in terms of precedence, Edward had the status of the youngest brother. He was still the son of a king. Since he was a male, his children and their descendants would have ranked before those of his sister, Mary.

Answer 4

They wouldn't be in it. The instrument of abdication specifically restricted any issue The Duke and Duchess of Windsor might have from the succession. As for their rank - they certainly wouldn't be higher than the children of the King! They would rank below both Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret.

Answer 5

they wouldn't have been in the line of succession at all, since edward abdicAted.

Answer 6

They would not be anywhere,when he signed the instrument of abidcation he renounced the throne " for himself and any descendants" so even if he had children they would not have a claim on the throne,i doubt if wallis could have children, she was 41 when they married and had been married twice before without having any children.

Answer 7

When Edward abdicated the throne, he also gave up succession rights of any of his children. They could have royal titles and styles only, but they could never be heirs to throne and be in the line of succession. George VI and Elizabeth were still the heirs because Edward renounced rights for himself and his children:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Edward_abdication.png



"....My irrevocable determination to renounce the Throne for Myself and My descendants...."

Answer 8

King Edward Viii abdicated for himself and his heirs, he gave it all up for the he loved and if his great nephew, Charles, had any balls, he would have done the same but no, he wanted his cake and eat it too and did precisely that, proving what a selfish, destructive and arrogant piece of effluent he is.