# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/41 "2015-11-08T13:06:50Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > 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. Nitpick: Australian Prime Ministers aren’t elected. They are invited to become PM by the Governor-General on the basis that they can command the confidence of the House of Representatives, and can get their legislation through Parliament. Whitlam’s problem was that he couldn’t get essential legislation - the budget - through Parliament. Hence, the Governor General dismissed him and invited the leader of the opposition to take the job, on the basis that the leader would immediately advise a dissolution of Parliament and would seek a mandate in the ensuing election. Which is what happened. ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/42 "2015-11-08T13:50:54Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > 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. Ok, but what does the Commons “winning” entail with regard to Edward? The Commons can’t stop the marriage, can it? > [@](#): > > 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. I don’t see how the precedents of William IV or James II affect anything with Edward. If Baldwin resigns, then wins a new election, ok–he’s PM. Edward’s still king. Baldwin refuses to form a gov’t so Edward asks someone else. Big whoop. Is your argument that NO ONE would form a gov’t for Edward? And James II fled to France. Parliament didn’t dethrone him as much as he dethroned himself. I can’t imagine Edward facing a similar fate–Wallis was not Catholic, nor was she in a position to produce Carholic heirs to the throne. I’ve always thought if Edward had let the “Constitutional Crisis” play out, he would’ve kept his girl and his throne. ---
**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, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/43 "2015-11-08T13:56:52Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > If Baldwin resigns, then wins a new election, ok–he’s PM. Edward’s still king. Baldwin refuses to form a gov’t so Edward asks someone else. Big whoop. Is your argument that NO ONE would form a gov’t for Edward? If Baldwin wins the election with a majority, there’s nobody else _able_ to form a government without convincing some of his MPs to join. But why would Baldwin’s MPs defect and join a pro-marriage government when they’d just fought and won an election on the issue of opposing the King’s marriage? ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/44 "2015-11-08T14:05:16Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > If Baldwin wins the election with a majority, there’s nobody else _able_ to form a government without convincing some of his MPs to join. But why would Baldwin’s MPs defect and join a pro-marriage government when they’d just fought and won an election on the issue of opposing the King’s marriage? To avoid an opposition or coalition government headed by the opposition. ---
**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, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/45 "2015-11-08T14:06:42Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > To avoid an opposition or coalition government headed by the opposition. Why would they have to defect to avoid that? The opposition, in this scenario, doesn’t have the votes to actually _govern_. If Baldwin is returned with a majority, he can keep any other government from governing so long as he keeps his majority in line. ---
**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, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/46 "2015-11-08T14:12:29Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > Ok, but what does the Commons “winning” entail with regard to Edward? The Commons can’t stop the marriage, can it? If the Commons passes a resolution (not a law) by a large majority, in which they “regret” the suggestion that HM may contemplate marrying a twice divorced foreigner and states that it would not be good for the nation, then Edward is staring right down the cliff of acting against the express wishes of the democratically elected House. If he were to go ahead and marry in that situation, he would be putting his throne in jeopardy, because the basic duty of the monarch is to respect the wishes of the popularly elected House. > [@Grotonian](#): > > I don’t see how the precedents of William IV or James II affect anything with Edward. If Baldwin resigns, then wins a new election, ok–he’s PM. Edward’s still king. Baldwin refuses to form a gov’t so Edward asks someone else. Big whoop. Is your argument that NO ONE would form a gov’t for Edward? Baldwin would not be PM. Winning a majority in the Commons doesn’t make him PM. The King has to appoint him. And the King can’t force him to become PM. If Baldwin has a majority in the Commons, but refuses to become PM if the King won’t take his advice on the marriage issue, then no-one else can realistically form a government. If the King appointed someone else as PM who had a minority in the Commons, but who is willing to agree to the marriage, and Baldwin moves non-confidence in the government because of the marriage issue, then the government is defeated, and there have to be new elections. > [@Grotonian](#): > > And James II fled to France. Parliament didn’t dethrone him as much as he dethroned himself. I can’t imagine Edward facing a similar fate–Wallis was not Catholic, nor was she in a position to produce Carholic heirs to the throne. Neither James II, nor his heirs, ever agreed that he had abdicated. The Convention declared the throne vacant and offered it to William and Mary, on the condition they agree to the Bill of Rights. They did, and Parliament’s declaration that the throne was vacant became law. That precedent establishes that Parliament, not the monarch, decides who will be the monarch. ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/47 "2015-11-08T14:13:36Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Why would they have to do anything to avoid that? The opposition, in this scenario, doesn’t have the votes to actually _govern_. It could as a coalition. Or fine, Parliament refuses to pass laws. How does that force the king to do anything? Have ANOTHER election. If the electorate continues to return to office a party that refuses to act, then no laws are passed. The people’s will prevails–no functioning Parliament. I still don’t see how the king loses the throne. ---
**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, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/48 "2015-11-08T14:17:06Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > Ok, but what does the Commons “winning” entail with regard to Edward? The Commons can’t stop the marriage, can it? If he goes ahead and marries Wallis when the divorce is final in April 1937, which would probably have come after express advice from both government and parliament not to do so, they pass a resolution regretting that the King, by his flagrant disregard for the church’s teachings on the indissolubility of Christian marriage, has fallen out of communion with the Church of England and has therefore ceased to be King. Baldwin convenes a council, summons the Duke of York, and has him proclaimed King. Edward can try to raise an army willing to fight his former Parliament and his own brother, or he can get on the boat to France and sulk. This was in a climate where people were reluctant to go to war against _Adolf Hitler_ who was carving up Europe at his pleasure. Why would they fight Stanley Baldwin over a divorced woman? ---
**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, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/49 "2015-11-08T14:18:30Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > 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. > [@Cicero](#): > > My view is that he never wanted to have the responsibility. He took a somewhat easy way out by marrying that hag. > [@coremelt](#): > > It’s possible he even deliberately chose an unsuitable wife in order to have an excuse to abdicate > [@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. From what I’ve heard, the opposite was true. Edward was very eager to be King and felt that he should have real power. In fact, I think it’s possible that this was the real unspoken issue behind the abdication. Edward wanted to exercise more power than Parliament wanted to grant him. And Edward had political views that were not in agreement with Parliament. So there was the basis for a major domestic crisis, which nobody wanted to deal with in 1936 when there were major international crises on the horizon. The solution was to push Edward out for a non-political reason. That way Parliament could get rid of the individual monarch who was a problem without having to rock the boat on the institution of the monarchy. ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/50 "2015-11-08T14:21:22Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Neither James II, nor his heirs, ever agreed that he had abdicated. The Convention declared the throne vacant and offered it to William and Mary, on the condition they agree to the Bill of Rights. They did, and Parliament’s declaration that the throne was vacant became law. That precedent establishes that Parliament, not the monarch, decides who will be the monarch. I realize that. But the situation with James II did NOT set a precedent that Parliament can remove the monarch and pick a new one, which seemed to be what you were suggesting. ---
**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, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/51 "2015-11-08T14:24:02Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > It could as a coalition. To form a coalition, you need a majority of the votes. If Baldwin has a majority in the Commons, the coalition fails as soon as he moves non-confidence. The government has to have the control of the Commons. > [@Grotonian](#): > > Or fine, Parliament refuses to pass laws. How does that force the king to do anything? Have ANOTHER election. If the electorate continues to return to office a party that refuses to act, then no laws are passed. The people’s will prevails–no functioning Parliament. > > I still don’t see how the king loses the throne. If the King triggers two separate elections, both fought on the issue of whether he should marry Wallace, and the people vote for the anti-Wallace party both times, and the King still insists on marrying Wallace, then he is declaring himself above Parliament and above the democratic will of the people. He loses his throne, because the British monarchy has to respect the democratic process. ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/52 "2015-11-08T14:25:29Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > If he goes ahead and marries Wallis when the divorce is final in April 1937, which would probably have come after express advice from both government and parliament not to do so, they pass a resolution regretting that the King, by his flagrant disregard for the church’s teachings on the indissolubility of Christian marriage, has fallen out of communion with the Church of England and has therefore ceased to be King. Baldwin convenes a council, summons the Duke of York, and has him proclaimed King. Edward can try to raise an army willing to fight his former Parliament and his own brother, or he can get on the boat to France and sulk. This was in a climate where people were reluctant to go to war against _Adolf Hitler_ who was carving up Europe at his pleasure. Why would they fight Stanley Baldwin over a divorced woman? I don’t know what a “resolution” is, but Parliament can’t make laws without the Royal Assent. So no “resolution” would be binding on the King. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/53 "2015-11-08T14:27:29Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 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. There is a pretty good BBC miniseries called “Monarchy” available on Netflix that starts with the earliest days of Britian (with Aethelbert), getting you through the Norman conquest, the Lancesters and Yorks, the Tudors, Cromwell, and up to the Hanoverians (when the series ends). Britian’s monarchy was always rather tribal and feudal - until Cromwell and then it really became much more ceremonial. By tribal and feudal I mean that it was John’s barons who made him sign the Magna Carta - it sure wasn’t his idea, it wasn’t unusual to get overthrown by your second cousin if he could get enough nobles with armies behind him, and so making sure that you ruled in such a way as to not piss off enough of your own nobility with an army has always been a thing - or was until Cromwell made it sort of moot. In Britain, you simply didn’t rule without consent. Or you’d find yourself fielding an army and buried under a car park in Leicester. ---
**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, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/54 "2015-11-08T14:31:15Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > I realize that. But the situation with James II did NOT set a precedent that Parliament can remove the monarch and pick a new one, which seemed to be what you were suggesting. So they make a new precedent. When George III went mad the first time, there was no law allowing for a regency, and passing such a law would require his assent which he was in no condition to give. So they decided that if they needed to, they’d basically just forge it, by having the Lord Chancellor affix the great seal to an instrument assenting to the bill even though the King never approved such an action. That wasn’t really legal, but they needed to figure _something_ out, because things were going to grind to a halt with no regent. (When George III suddenly recovered, the bill was abandoned as unnecessary, but he agreed that their plan would have been correct had he remained ill.) ETA: Come to think of it, they could try this on an abdication act, I suppose. ---
**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, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/55 "2015-11-08T14:33:03Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > I don’t know what a “resolution” is, but Parliament can’t make laws without the Royal Assent. So no “resolution” would be binding on the King. Okay, so what does he do about it? If he doesn’t have the support of anyone willing to _force_ others to recognize his authority, his belief that the law says he’s king ultimately matters no more than the views of American tax protesters who are dead certain that the 16th Amendment was never ratified. There is ultimately no magic force that compels society to continue obeying inconvenient laws, if that’s what you’re looking for. ---
**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, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/56 "2015-11-08T14:34:15Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > I realize that. But the situation with James II did NOT set a precedent that Parliament can remove the monarch and pick a new one, which seemed to be what you were suggesting. Sure it did. By the law prior to 1688 and the Convention, James was the King. After the passage of the Bill of Rights by the Parliament, with the assent of William and Mary, James was not the King. He never agreed to that, but it didn’t matter: Parliament had decided he was no longer king. ---
**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, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/57 "2015-11-08T14:40:14Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > I don’t know what a “resolution” is, but Parliament can’t make laws without the Royal Assent. So no “resolution” would be binding on the King. There’s legally binding, and politically binding. If the King is defying Parliament and the people, Parliament and the people will find a way to get rid of the King, just as they did with James II. None of the steps which resulted in James getting the boot were legal, in the sense that they followed the established law: 1. A convention was summoned, consisting of the Commons and the Lords. However, it was not Parliament, because the King, James, had not summoned it. 2. The Convention passed the Bill of Rights, declaring the throne vacant, and presented the Bill to William and Mary, offering them the throne if they would accept the terms of the Bill of Rights. That was not a law, because the Convention was not Parliament and King James did not assent to it. 3. William and Mary accepted the terms of the Bill of Rights. 4. The Convention declared them to be joint monarchs. 5. As joint monarchs, they retroactively declared the Convention to be a Parliament and the Bill of Rights to be a law. It was an extraordinary process, not according to the established legal norms, but the end result was that James ceased to be King of England, against his will. ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/58 "2015-11-08T14:42:06Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > If the King triggers two separate elections, both fought on the issue of whether he should marry Wallace, and the people vote for the anti-Wallace party both times, and the King still insists on marrying Wallace, then he is declaring himself above Parliament and above the democratic will of the people. > > He loses his throne, because the British monarchy has to respect the democratic process. Where you lose me is at “He loses his throne.” I get that he has made himself wildly unpopular, perhaps even hated, but I don’t understand the process for his removal, against his wishes. LF’s claim that a group of ministers can declare the Supreme Governor of the C of E out of communion with the Church seems unlikely to me. Where’d they get THAT authority? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/59 "2015-11-08T14:45:07Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > If the Commons passes a resolution (not a law) by a large majority, in which they “regret” the suggestion that HM may contemplate marrying a twice divorced foreigner and states that it would not be good for the nation, then Edward is staring right down the cliff of acting against the express wishes of the democratically elected House. If he were to go ahead and marry in that situation, he would be putting his throne in jeopardy, because the basic duty of the monarch is to respect the wishes of the popularly elected House. The problem is ULTIMATELY it is up to the British people and not the Commons. What if the people believe that as distasteful the marriage was that it was not worth removing the Monarch over? ---
**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, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933/60 "2015-11-08T14:48:33Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > LF’s claim that a group of ministers can declare the Supreme Governor of the C of E out of communion with the Church seems unlikely to me. Where’d they get THAT authority? I was just speculating as to how it might go down. It could happen other ways too. But the point is that it could happen, even if there’s some strict legalism that says it’s impossible. Call it a coup if you want. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-viii-why-didnt-he-let-the-government-resign-also-morganatic-marriage/736933.md?page=4)