Cite?
Not that I doubt it at all, I’ve heard it before, but I’ve never seen the first hand accounts and quick googling finds me nothing. I’d love to read some 80 year old gossip.
Churchill was not opposed to rearmament before the war. Certainly not from around 1933 onwards.
A whole 15 years before the war began, and long before Hitler was even a minor politician in Germany. Your point?
Are you saying he ought to have advocated standing up to the Nazis before anyone outside of Germany even knew what a Nazi was?
Wikipedia, but I’ve seen it cited elsewhere: Edward VIII’s own father, George V, “had severe reservations about Prince Edward, saying, ‘I pray God that my eldest son will never marry and that nothing will come between Bertie and Lilibet and the throne.’” Bertie and Lilibet of course being George VI and Brenda.
Agreed. Why Churchill like this fool was beyond me. And I completely discount the Simpson matter. David was just not a nice guy and other than being true to his love and a good designer of jewelry, he had no redeeming qualities.
I never thought Edward was a closet Nazi, but he certainly was impressed by what (he thought) they’d done to bring Germany out of the Great Depression. After WWII broke out, I don’t think he would’ve been as stalwart a bulwark for the British spirit as his brother was.
Some previous threads about the Abdication and other related issues that may be of interest:
Was Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor a traitor to his own country? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board (see my post 2)
What if King Edward VIII had insisted on marrying Wallis Simpson? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
What if Edward VIII had never met Wallis Simpson? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
King Edward VIII Question - In My Humble Opinion - Straight Dope Message Board
Why would British PM resign over a scandal with the King? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board
What if Edward VIII had managed to stay on the throne? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
Edward and Mrs Simpson - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
Brits: If Edward VIII had not abdicated . . . - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board
Why did Edward VIII abdicate? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board
My point was that many people took the view that reduction in armaments was the way to go, many of them who later were hawks. That taking such views was not indicative of a pro Nazi viewpoint. Nor was expressing admiration, Churchill himself included Hitler in “Great Contemporaries.”
I’ve also heard that Edward generally didn’t want to be king – and even if he hadn’t had Nazi sympathies, he was suited to it. He had also had a number of royal brides to choose from prior to WWI, but he was never interested. Supposedly, he was also sterile. He was also an irresponsible, whiny moron. The abdication was probably the best thing he ever did for his country.
Sorry, I should’ve specified – no offspring born from his second marriage, or rather, post-overthrow. (Bonnie Prince Charlie, I believe, was one of his descendents)
I don’t know what would happen if one of them converted to Protestantism, but they’d probably have to then go and overthrow the present monarch, since I doubt he or she would just politely step aside.
Still ineligible, as Parliament didn’t trust a conversion for the sake of ruling and thought such a monarch would have Catholic sympathies.
Oh I know that … I was looking more for outright “Edward was an idiot” quotes/anecdotes.
Thought so, but I wasn’t sure. So basically, any Stewarts born after Anne were disinherited?
Sorry, the editing time limit ran out!!!
So basically, any kids James had after Anne, would be disinherited, along with the descendents? (No matter what their religion?)
Churchill was, for a man who was brilliant in many respect, a remarkably erratic judge of character.
I suppose if Mary of Modena had a child who had married a Protestant and converted to Protestantism that their children MIGHT have made a case. But honestly, there was somewhat of a shortage of direct line, legitimate descendants of the Stuarts at that point, so its rather moot. The Tudors and the Stuarts were not terribly good at producing legitimate heirs. The Hanovarians - they produced like rabbitts - right up until George III was looking for legitimate grandchildren (but that might have had something to do with his sons disliking their wives).
Except I never claimed opposing rearmament was indicative of pro-nazism. I was lamenting the truculence of otherwise decent folk to rearm in the face of an obvious threat, out of a blinkered view of how to deal with the Nazis.
Mary of Tech’s father lived in England from the time of his marriage to an English bride, and Mary was born and raised in England, speaking English.
Not really. Charlotte, Princess of Wales, was the only legitimate child of George IV to live to maturity. But she died in childbirth, creating a crisis, as none of George IV’s many brothers had a legitimate marriage with legitimate children. The death of Princess Charlotte, who would have become Queen if she had lived, caused the Hanovers to rush around looking for heirs. George IV was succeeded by his brother, William IV, who died without legitimate issue. William was succeeded by his niece Victoria, who had not even been born at the time of Charlotte’s death.
Interestingly, Charlotte’s husband was Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. Leopold’s sister was Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, Queen Victoria’s mother. Leopold was also uncle of Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, who married Queen Victoria. Having lost the chance to become Prince Consort of the United Kingdom upon the death of his wife Princess Charlotte, Leopold was later chosen to become King of the Belgians.
Plus, the desire for penny pinching spending decisions. Both political parties were largely in favour of the admittedly noble desire to spend money on the British electorate rather than spend it on “wasteful” rearmament. Its harder to get re-elected when you are spending money on bombs rather than “butter”. Never underestimate a politicians desire to be hoodwinked into an economic or political self serving act. If your political radar tells you to spend money on the electorate then you can easily convince yourself of appeasement. An awful lot of that blinkering was due to short term electoral decisions than any strategic foreign policy judgement. Appeasement was a wonderful mixture of noble ideals and sordid self interest. Exactly where the line was drawn between these two pressures only those who practised Appeasement truly know.
Not quite.
Between 1689 and 1701, the law excluded Catholics from succeeding to the throne, but it didn’t - or, at least, didn’t clearly - exclude former Catholics from succeeding. Parliament might not have trusted conversions, but it didn’t legislate clearly to exclude them. The situation then was that, if William, Mary and Anne all died without issue, Sophia looked like the senior Protestant heir, but there were between 50 and 100 Catholics ahead of her, any of whom might convert before Anne died, and almost any of whom might beget a child who could be raised as a Protestant, and so wouldn’t have to convert. In either event, that person (and their issue) would have a strong claim to inherit on Anne’s death, ahead of Sophia.
What the 1701 Act did was to skip straight to Sophia and her issue, regardless of what religion any intervening heir might adopt or be raised in. This excluded all the descendants of James II, but it also excluded all the descendants of Charles II and Charles I. Sophia’s claim was through James I, but by the time she came to the throne there had been six intervening monarchs since James I; the issue or potential issue of all of them had to fail or be excluded before she could inherit.
I saw the 50 people ahead of Sophia, but I’m trying to figure out who they were. Other than James the Pretender and Bonnie Price Charlie - there weren’t a hell of a lot of decendants of James I - who WAS ahead of Sophia and her issue?