# Edward VIII: why didn't he let "the government resign?"/Also: "morganatic marriage" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 7, 2015, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933 "2015-11-07T18:49:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/21 "2015-11-07T23:29:10Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I’m just marrying the woman I love, and I know she is divorced, and so fucking what? Besides legal issues, this is a quite modern way of thinking. The average American Joe at the time would probably have thought long and hard before marrying a divorced woman. You wouldn’t have said “my love life is nobody’s business, go fuck yourself if you don’t like it” and expected to face no consequence whatsoever wrt a relationship that your family, neighbours, fellow church members, boss, etc… disaproved of. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/22 "2015-11-08T01:05:23Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > The average American Joe at the time would probably have thought long and hard before marrying a divorced woman. Especially a married woman with whom he had been openly cavorting during her marriage. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/23 "2015-11-08T01:06:34Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Besides legal issues, this is a quite modern way of thinking. The average American Joe at the time would probably have thought long and hard before marrying a divorced woman. You wouldn’t have said “my love life is nobody’s business, go fuck yourself if you don’t like it” and expected to face no consequence whatsoever wrt a relationship that your family, neighbours, fellow church members, boss, etc… disaproved of. I’ve read your response and those other excellent responses above. I am really not trying to be a smartass in dismissing this confusing way the Brits look at their monarch. I agree that my comments are a modern way of looking at things, and not how the public viewed things in 1936. But if King George was saying it, its not some random idiot _Ultravires_ posting on the internet, it’s the King of England! Do the British still believe in the “divine right of Kings”? If so, or if that doctrine ever had validity, then the statement from the king that he may marry a divorcee must at least have some relevance. Further, the unwritten constitution seems to place almost absolute power in the monarch so long as he or she never has the temerity to use any of it. For example, why the need for royal assent to all laws, but if the monarch would ever withhold assent it would be a constitutional crisis? If the people are sovereign, why is there a monarch to begin with? Again, I am an ignorant American, but find your “unwritten constitution” contradictory and confusing. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/24 "2015-11-08T01:41:57Z")
OP here. I’m summarizing from some of the above, and I’m sorry for not pulling the quotes–and for misrepresenting them if I do. I’m staying clear of the “P.S. Kiss my ass” issue, which is a different thing than my question, certainly for the moment. (BTW, the “P.S” is brilliant.) What you’re telling me (one by one) is: 1. ”Baldwin & Co." as well as the opposition would sit on their hands, and no one would be there to carry on the government at all–even to initiate proceedings to depose/dethrone/whatever you call that… Then that was followed by a couple of people saying that it would bring out the dirty laundry (bad for the King, bad for Britain, generally) and a) that it _could_ happen–not without precedent, sort of, except for the little matter of Dutch invading with little resistance, but more important for me to understand, why “the end of the monarchy?” One posted up thread (damn, I’m sorry) mentioned the truly radical anti-monarchical, hell, anti-democracy communistic elements, with recent violent overthrows of other monarchies. That’s a good reason. But as **Malden** put it, could lead to his defeat, deposition (I don’t know the difference) and the possible end of the monarchy. Again, the US isn’t into screwing with the elected President, but if and when, we just follow the rules. I’m not saying "Go Constitution! (Any Constitution!)–but of all places Britain has experience with wild and smooth transitions. And as usual, maybe not just for an American, the reign/rule border as political governmen is different than the emotional/significant border, and it is hard to understand the ferment of upheaval between the wars. So, if I re-ask, bearing in mind the note about one of the possible outcomes from a restive Commons: barring everyone getting together and chucking the whole King thing, what provisions for an orderly “defeat/dethrone” are there in Britain? You know, if, say, Queen Elizabeth does something Very Very Bad. Not to terribly drift from Edward, but always bearing it in mind. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/25 "2015-11-08T02:27:09Z")
Don’t forget that Edward wasn’t just the King of England, he was the King of Canada, Australia, and a bunch of other places, the Emperor of India, etc. According to the Statute of Westminster – which had been enacted just five years earlier – all those countries had a say, as well. And most of the governments in the other countries (particularly Australia and Canada) were also opposed to the marriage, for whatever reasons. So now, we’re talking about a crisis that affected not just the U.K., but other Commonwealth nations, and which could tear apart the British Empire (which was already pretty torn up!) Edward has not been judged kindly by history. But it would have taken someone with a lot more failings than he, who had literally been raised from birth to be the King of England, to say “screw you, I’m doing what I want, even if it means blowing up the entire British Empire!” ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/26 "2015-11-08T03:26:45Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 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.? Ultimately, you’re only king if other people agree that you’re king. In Britain, it’s been pretty well established by the precedents of Charles I and James II that if the king says he’s king and Parliament says he isn’t king, then the country will side with Parliament. ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/27 "2015-11-08T03:34:33Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Do the British still believe in the “divine right of Kings”? Not for several hundred years, if they ever did. Just ask Charles I. Or James II. > [@](#): > > Further, the unwritten constitution seems to place almost absolute power in the monarch so long as he or she never has the temerity to use any of it. For example, why the need for royal assent to all laws, but if the monarch would ever withhold assent it would be a constitutional crisis? If the monarch refuses to consent to legislation, they are effectively saying “This law goes against everything I stand for. I don’t want to rule a country where it’s a law.” So it’d have to be something really extreme. It would precipitate a constitutional crisis, of course, and I would expect it to be resolved by an election which would be essentially a referendum between the monarch and PM. If the monarch loses, they would have no choice but to abdicate. > [@](#): > > If the people are sovereign, why is there a monarch to begin with? Don’t ask me. I’m an American. They should have abolished the monarchy long ago. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/28 "2015-11-08T03:47:38Z")
> [@Sarabellum1976](#): > > 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. But she’s above the age of childbearing, so there is no danger of her bearing a child who could be put into the Line of Succession. It’s sort of morganatic. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/29 "2015-11-08T04:12:22Z")
The other issue I haven’t seen raised in this thread yet, is that most likely Edward VIII didn’t particularly want to be the King so abdicating was no big deal. After abdicating he was still rich enough to never have to worry about anything but had more or less no responsibilities and a lot less public spotlight on him. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/30 "2015-11-08T05:29:16Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Further, the unwritten constitution seems to place almost absolute power in the monarch so long as he or she never has the temerity to use any of it. No, the unwritten constitution limits the legal powers of the monarch. The monarch does not have almost absolute powers, even on paper, and the unwritten constitution limits those powers which are unacceptably broad in a democracy. ---
**Author:** ![Sarabellum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarabellum/32/3492_2.png) [@Sarabellum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarabellum)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/31 "2015-11-08T05:30:42Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > But she’s above the age of childbearing, so there is no danger of her bearing a child who could be put into the Line of Succession. It’s sort of morganatic. Wallis was considered a pretty big long shot to have kids at her age as well, wasn’t she past 40 when they married? And even if Camilla had been young enough that children were possible, they’d have still been pretty far down the line, they’d come after William and Harry and all of their heirs, at least 4 and maybe many more possible heirs that would have to drop dead for any third child of Charles to have a go at the throne. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/32 "2015-11-08T05:52:27Z")
[QUOTE=Leo Bloom] what provisions for an orderly “defeat/dethrone” are there in Britain? [/QUOTE] There are no specific provisions for either (say, the equivalent the written provisions for impeachment in the US Constitution). Instead, there’s the basic principle that the Parliament (essentially, the democratically elected House of Commons) is the source of political power in Britain. If it came to a political fight between the Commons and the Queen, the Commons would normally win. Then there are the historical precedents: William IV’s discovery that he in practice could not fire a PM with a majority in the Commons, which speaks to the "defeat option, and the “abdication” of James II, where the Parliament voted him out of office, is the precedent for dethrone. Either of those precedents would come into play if the Queen started to try to play politics. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/33 "2015-11-08T06:24:56Z")
Well we have one recent precedent going the other way. The Governor General of Australia dissolved Parliament in 1975 against the wishes of the elected Prime Minister. It’s thought that the Queen gave her assent to this: > **[Whitlam dismissal a decision of the highest order](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-31/benson-whitlam-dismissal/4236150)** > > A newly released biography of Gough Whitlam suggests it was the Queen who gave Sir John Kerr the confidence to sack the prime minister. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/34 "2015-11-08T06:26:49Z")
But, the Australian Gov Gen did so on the advice of the new Prime Minister, whom he had appointed after dismissing the previous Prime Minister. He did so on the basis that the previous Prime Minister had (a) failed to pass a budget and (b) failed to advise elections to resolve the dispute between the House of Representatives and the Senate. It’s a complicated example. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/35 "2015-11-08T06:41:44Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > But, the Australian Gov Gen did so on the advice of the new Prime Minister, whom he had appointed after dismissing the previous Prime Minister. He did so on the basis that the previous Prime Minister had (a) failed to pass a budget and (b) failed to advise elections to resolve the dispute between the House of Representatives and the Senate. > > It’s a complicated example. It’s complicated because it involved a conflict between the democratically elected House of Representatives, where the Whitlam government had a majority, and the democratically elected Senate, where it did not. Hence, the government could not get a supply bill through the Parliament. A similar situation is unlikely in Canada or the U.K., because in those countries the upper house is not democratically elected. (And it couldn’t happen in New Zealand, because NZ has a unicameral parliament.) ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/36 "2015-11-08T06:42:33Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > But, the Australian Gov Gen did so on the advice of the new Prime Minister, whom he had appointed after dismissing the previous Prime Minister. Yes the dissolution of parliament happened with the new Prime Minister’s assent, but the dismissal of Whitlam was very much against Whitlam’s wishes, and he was at the time the elected Prime Minister of Australia. This is very much an example of the Queen’s representative (and most likely the Queen) interfering in politics of one of her realms. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/37 "2015-11-08T07:06:14Z")
> [@Sarabellum1976](#): > > Wallis was considered a pretty big long shot to have kids at her age as well, wasn’t she past 40 when they married? There’s also the belief that Edward was sterile due to having the mumps as a child. As for him not wanting to be king, that’s also a pretty good theory. He had always been more of a playboy – his brother George VI was more serious. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/38 "2015-11-08T07:17:58Z")
Fucking server error! Double post! ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/39 "2015-11-08T07:45:43Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > As for him not wanting to be king, that’s also a pretty good theory. He had always been more of a playboy – his brother George VI was more serious. It’s possible he even deliberately chose an unsuitable wife in order to have an excuse to abdicate, he could have had his pick of almost any woman he wanted at the time: "In 1929, Time magazine reported that Edward teased his sister-in-law, Elizabeth, the wife of his younger brother Albert, by calling her “Queen Elizabeth”. The magazine asked if “she did not sometimes wonder how much truth there is in the story that he once said he would renounce his rights upon the death of George V – which would make her nickname come true”.[35] " From wikipedia. ---
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/40 "2015-11-08T11:18:44Z")
My view is that he never wanted to have the responsibility. He took a somewhat easy way out by marrying that hag. That speech he gave when he abdicated wasn’t written by a monarch. He was a weak prick and he also ripped off his brother who became king by saying he was skint. He was a low life. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933.md?page=3)