I was reading the Wiki on Edward VIII, and a summary paragraph of sorts was this:
Edward informed [Prime Minister] Baldwin that he would abdicate if he could not marry Simpson. Baldwin then presented Edward with three choices: give up the idea of marriage; marry against his ministers’ wishes; or abdicate.[60] It was clear that Edward was not prepared to give up Simpson, and he knew that if he married against the advice of his ministers, he would cause the government to resign, prompting a constitutional crisis.[61] He chose to abdicate.[62]Edward VIII - Wikipedia
Primarily because I don’t know which/what a “constitutional crisis” is, I’m wondering why Edward didn’t choose Door 2, and let them all go crisis and see where the chips fall. Hadn’t the government resigned before? (And I really don’t understand the implications of that so well, either.)
My only political understanding of the idea is American, obviously a different thing, with the Nixon resignation, in advance of an Impeachment hearing/trial in Congress. But Nixon knew what the outcome would be–I don’t know even what foreseeable, let alone unforseeable, novel, “constitutional” issues are in Britain.
ETA: Ignore OP hed part on morganatic marriage. Hit post too early
Considering how many monarchies had been toppled in Europe in recent years, it would have been VERY unwise for Edward to do anything that would have made him so unpopular. And the last time a monarch tried to challenge the government like that was his great-grandmother when she first came to throne, with the Bedchamber Crisis. And THAT was over her servants.
More seriously, back in the 17th century, Parliament had executed one monarch in 1649, and sent another into exile in 1688. In theory, in the United Kingdom all governmental power comes from the monarch; but in practice it all comes from the House of Commons, because only the Commons can authorise taxes or government expenditure. If Edward VIII had allowed Baldwin to resign as PM, he would have had no ministers to carry on the government, because the Opposition agreed with the Government on the question of the King marrying a twice-divorced woman.
Approximately how far back would one have to go in the history of the British Monarchy to reach a time when the Monarch absolutely did not have to care about anybody’s opinion concerning his prospective spouse, let alone ask for permission to marry?
Pretty much never. While the king might not have to worry about Parliament, he would have to be concerned about the opinions of his nobles. Marriages were political alliances, and marrying the wrong spouse could alienate powerful families.
Back to the reign of Henry VIII (1509-1547), though it’s a little hard to be sure, because since then most monarchs have have been reasonably careful in the choice of spouse (or choice of celibacy in the case of Good Queen Bess).
I agree with the OP, but also acknowledge that I don’t understand this whole “unwritten constitution” nonsense from our elders across the pond. Yeah, let the government resign and we will have new elections. I’m just marrying the woman I love, and I know she is divorced, and so fucking what? I am king by birthright and am making a new policy on this as head of the Church of England: people may marry those previously divorced. P.S. You can all kiss my ass.
Why is this not proper under the “unwritten constitution” of the U.K.?
Maybe Edward IV marrying Elizabeth Woodville, who was not especially well-born and the widow of a Lanasttran soldier.
Having cabinet members resign in protest is a pretty serious crisis, especially when a king’s job rests solely on not getting the population and political powers mad at him. I suppose the closest thing in recent history was Nixon firing two Attorney Generals because they wouldn’t fire the Special Prosecutor. Or the “Petticoat Affair” of 1829-31 where Andrew Jackson and his bachelor Secretary of State Van Buren feuded with Vice President Calhoun, other cabinet members and all their wives over whether Peggy Eaton, wife of the Secretary of War, was a “loose woman” or not.
Because, ultimately in reality the people are sovereign through their elected representatives in the Commons.
(In the US it’s different, because the people are represented by the elected President, Senate and House. Popular election gives each part of the government legitimacy. However, in the UK, the monarch and the House of Lords are not popularly elected, and so don’t have the legitimacy that confers.)
If it had gone to a general election, Baldwin’s Conservative Party would have probably won, but only after an election campaign in which all of Edward’s and Wallis’s dirty linen would have been publicly debated. Even if the Labour Party had won the election, they were also opposed to the marriage.
A lot of the “unwritten constitution” is based on the reality that, in the end, the people rule, through general elections and votes in the House of Commons. The monarch cannot ignore public opinion, as conveyed to her through her Prime Minister with a majority in the Commons.
By the middle of the 20th century, the King did not rule, he reigned. The government had to have support in the House of Commons, and the King then appointed them to the government posts.
If the government resigns in protest, then the King no longer has a government that has the confidence of the Commons. Baldwin and company would move to the Opposition benches, and the King would not have anyone he could appoint as Prime Minister, because there would not be anyone with the confidence of the Commons.
William IV had tried this with Prime Minister Grey, the last time a government resigned because of a conflict with the wishes of the monarch. Once Grey was in Opposition, William quickly discovered that there was no-one he could call to form a government, because Grey had the support of the majority of the Commons. William had to climb down, and re-summon Grey to be sworn in again as PM.
As for calling elections, for the King to call elections on his own motion, rather than being advised to do so by the Prime Minister, would be inserting himself into politics. The election would likely have turned into Baldwin and Co. campaigning against the King, who is supposed to be above politics, not actively participating. If Baldwin won the election, the King would have been in an even worse situation, not just risking personal abdication, but putting the monarchy itself into jeopardy.
And, the King is the secular governor of the Church of England, but does not make church doctrine. That is a function for the Church, not the monarch. If he tried to impose his own view of doctrine on the Church, it would have cemented the opposition of the Church to him, because the King is to leave matters of doctrine to the Church, just as he leaves matters of politics to the duly elected officials.
Short summary: Britain is a constitutional monarchy, with a democratic form of government, and for the King to meddle in politics and religion on his own is contrary to those democratic principles and would jeopardise the monarchy.
Not exactly. The US Federal Gov’t has three parts. The Executive (President), the Legislative (Senate and House) and the Judicial (Supreme Court). The SC is not elected. They serve for life (or retirement). They are selected by the President but must be approved by the Senate.
Northern Piper has it. It’s important to note, though, that
is the ultimate backstop of UK democracy against an overweening or oppressive Prime Minister and government. King Edward VIII could have dissolved Parliament and called an election, but the mores of the time would have meant that he would have lost, and he realised that.
It’s amusing to note that the current Prince of Wales has managed to marry a divorced woman, with a living ex-husband. What a difference a generation or two can make.
When I said “part of the government”, I didn’t intend to confuse with the three main branches. Technically, I meant parts of the legislature, which does include the President, and which like the UK Parliament authorises taxation and government expenditure. Without collecting and spending money, no part of a government can do very much at all.
Mind you, Charles and Camilla’s wedding was a civil ceremony. There was a Church of England blessing afterwards, but the wedding itself wasn’t under the auspices of the Church he’s going to be Supreme Governor of.
Charles apparently wanted to marry Camilla, but the Palace wonks knew she’d boinked other guys and was not as pure as the driven snow. (Imagine the consternation in 1980 if the papers published stories like “I slept with the future queen!”) The “it’s just not done!” types wouldn’t think of the future king marrying a loose woman.
It’s amazing how much of a difference 30 years makes.
The problem is, if the King refused to do what ALL the ministers and more than half the parliament wanted him to do, the solution would be to eliminate the king from the governing equation - either write him off, or write off the institution of royalty. Considering some labour types were borderline communist, and as others mentioned, the history of the previous few decades saw a lot of monarchies terminated… with prejudice … then disregarding the advice of ministers would be a bad idea. This is the downside of the position - you can’t have your cake and marry it too.
Charles married a divorced woman who was very much a part of the British establishment, with longstanding personal and familial ties to the movers and shakers of Britain. Wallis Simpson was an outsider, generally regarded with horror by the British establishment on a purely personal level, quite aside from her relationship with Edward. That made at least as much difference as the generation gap.
Others have already said it - the King doing something like this against the advice of His Ministers would inevitably lead to his defeat, deposition, and possibly the end of the monarchy. The choice before Edward VIII was basically, did he want his bride, his throne, or his dynasty.