Edward VIII: why didn't he let "the government resign?"/Also: "morganatic marriage"

Factual Questions
81

The thing about Britain and England before it, is the structure of the relationship between Parliament and the Monarch isn’t subject to the legalistic “gotcha” games you guys are speculating on. In reality when the conflicts between the two have reached “certain points” of irreconcilability in the past, they’ve been settled by force. Typically in Britain and England before her, the monarch lost. This is all the way back to some rebellions by the barons that resulted in a King signing Magna Carta.

By saying it’s “settled by force” in the past this meant actual armed force. Most likely by the time of the 19th century and later, it wouldn’t be so dramatic. Parliament would simply assume powers it hadn’t assumed before, pass laws removing a distasteful monarch (as it had basically done before) and that’d be the end of it. It isn’t too different from how James II’s reign ended, excepting he physically ran from London (throwing the Great Seal of the Realm into the Thames) probably in fear of ending up on trial and short a head ala Charles I. That gave Parliament the legal path of saying he had forfeited the throne. It’d have to use a slightly different legal rationale to remove Edward VIII.

If it happened today, I think Britain would probably establish some alternative to the monarchy. I think they’d create a new figure head, non-hereditary Head of State position. If it happened back with Edward VIII my opinion based on politics and public sentiment of the time they’d have simply removed Edward and put his brother George on the throne.

Now, if a PM tried to tell the Queen that she couldn’t wear hats, then this isn’t how it would go down. Instead there would be widespread political outrage over the PM behaving basically like an imbecile and a crazy person, and he’d likely be voted out of office by the Commons and new elections would be held. But aside from some bizarre ministerial overreach the public and the commons would side with the PM. The Westminster system has some nice features when it comes to dealing with stupidity. Namely a PM that goes off reservation can be made not-PM pretty damn quickly. He wields a ton of power while he’s PM, but unlike say the American President who is nigh-impossible to remove from office for misbehavior a PM can be done in a few hours.

Historically there were a few situations where Parliament and the King couldn’t reconcile their differences, but it never reached a situation where the King was removed. During the reign of Charles II he eventually lost support in Parliament and could no longer form a government to his liking, he dissolved Parliament (they continued operating while conducting impeachment proceedings against a crown favorite, but otherwise assented to the dissolution) and the next Parliament to be seated was even more hostile to him. There were long stretches where the King couldn’t finance wars or other things he was interested in due to lack of support in Parliament, and in a sense there was a 17th century version of gridlock. The King actually had some revenue independent of Parliament, in the form of long standing rights to collect certain levies or tolls on certain economic activities, and his personal holdings generated income as well. Charles was able to keep some of his Kingdom running off of that, but it wasn’t enough to cover everything he wanted.

He was the last King with sufficient income independent of Parliament to operate at all, by the time of George III (who had multiple conflicts with Parliament himself) the monarchy was totally dependent on Parliament even for the maintenance of their personal household. Funding even a small part of the government would’ve been impossible by that point in time. George III actually essentially blocked Prime Ministers that he would’ve found distasteful during his reign, and he had stretches where his chosen PM was largely powerless in Parliament.

82

Or the voters/MPs/members of the PM’s party think he’s being an idiot and fire him. The whole system is based on everyone being at least somewhat sensible and not needlessly threatening to bring the whole thing crashing down.

83

Well, Parliament can’t pass a “law,” but it can pass a “bill.” It doesn’t become a law until it receives Royal Assent. Then the courts get involved and Parliament loses.

Same as if Congress passes a bill saying, “This bill is not subject to Presidential Veto.” Um, yes, it is; because that’s how it works.

84

That’s not historically how it’s worked in Britain though, Parliament has certainly established it can do things without royal permission. It ordinarily always gets royal assent, but history shows this is not necessary. Charles I certainly never gave assent for being placed under arrest, put on trial, and then executed by Parliament. In fact throughout the trial he repeatedly noted that the trial itself was a sham, with no legal authority to try the King. He continued with his theory that it was all illegal and the King is not subject to the law in the way Parliament said–right up until his head was separated from his body.

85

Not since the Civil War. The last monarch that did was probably James VII and II,and even then he tried to claim that all he wanted to do was ensure toleration of all religion, rather than that God entitled him to do whatever he liked.

The monarch is, at least since 1689, understood as the “Crown-in-Parliament”, not just the person who happens to be king or queen. That only works as long as the monarch puts their ceremonial imprimatur on whatever it’s told to by Parliament, in those areas commonly understood as Parliament’s business, on the understanding that Parliament’s decisions have the support, or at least, the acquiescence, of the people as demonstrated in election results. Or in other words, for it to work, Parliament has to be sure it can get away with its decisions in the eyes of the public (hence the implausibility of the PM thinking he could make the royal wearing of hats an issue for “advice” - nothing makes a PM’s position more untenable than the perception among his/her parliamentary supporters that they’ll lose their seats if they don’t get rid of him/her, hence the defenestration of Thatcher). Likewise, there’s a lot of ceremonial business for the king or queen that doesn’t involve Parliament or legislation, but is dependent on their judging the public mood as to what’s proper for them to honour/celebrate/commemorate or whatever. It all works on the principle that whatever else, we don’t want embarrassing scenes and fusses from the disgruntled. And, in the end, the perception of what public opinion will tolerate is, empirically if not legally, the only block on the absolute power of the “Crown-in-Parliament” - which in practice means whoever can command a sufficient majority in the House of Commons amd be confident that they can retain it.

As for whether there would be an orderly procedure for the removal of a monarch nowadays, nothing is written down or prescribed in law, but following precedent it would have to involve collecting opinions from the opposition at Westminster, possibly also the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and certainly the governments of the other realms that still have the Queen as head of state, in the hope of getting a consensus that would persuade the errant monarch to go quietly of their own accord. They’d try to keep as much as possible of that behind the scenes until quite a late stage in the process, but whether they could nowadays, I don’t know. Chances are that the kind of situation that might give rise to such a development would have been discussed in public for quite some time before it came to a head, so everyone likely to be involved would have a sense of how public opinion is moving.

86

That’s the way it works in the U.S because the U.S has a Constitution. The UK does not have a constitution. The UK has de facto parliamentary absolutism.

87

No, I think that the fact that every single law passed in the past 200 years has received the Royal Assent demonstrates Parliament’s acknowledgement that bills require Royal Assent to become law.

Right. And when his son returned to the throne, wasn’t it well-established that Parliament had acted illegally, or did Charles II, and all monarchs since, concede that Parliament may separate a monarch’s head from his body?

88

I don’t want to appear to be making the stupid argument, “There is no way a British Monarch can ever be removed because …the law.” But in light of the OP, I will make the argument that Edward VII could have eaten his cake and had it, too, because it seems to me to be a fight with Parliament he could’ve survived.

His abdication perhaps argues against my position, but none of the historical precedents seem to fit the accusation against Edward VII: essentially, extreme tackiness.

89

Right, and that meant that Parliament changed its mind, since it welcomed Charles II back to England. However, 28 years later, Parliament exiled Charles I’s second son: it found that there are other ways to get rid of a king than by executing him.

90

No, he could not have survived becase he wouldn’t be able to find a Prime Minister who could survive a vote of confidence in the Commons.

If, say, he appointed Winston Churchill as PM (because Churchill wasn’t so opposed to the marriage), and Churchill was unwise enough to accept, then as soon as the House of Commons met it would start debating “That this House has no confidence in His Majesty’s Government.” The debate would partly turn on the merits of the PM, but it would be mostly about the scandalous conduct of Wallis Simpson and her suitabilty to be Queen, and the motion woud be overwhelmingly passed. So Churchill would resign. Then what are te King’s options? How can he rule without a PM, and in the longer term without any money to run the government?

91

“Exiled” is debatable, but even if that is conceded, was it because he was about to marry an unsuitable woman or because the heir apparent was now a Romanist and the Established Church could now be seen as being under threat, presumably for generations?

Wallis Simpson may have been a floozy and a harlot, but she was no Catholic. So I think the comparison fails.

92

Well of course your argument wins if you beg the question. But what if Churchill forms a gov’t, they declare no title for Wallis and no recognition of legitimacy for any of her issue. The king agrees because he knows he’s sterile. The Tories are content that they’ve gotten their pound of flesh from the whore. No vote of confidence is ever taken.

And Churchill outmaneuvers Hitler at Munich and WWII never happens.

I like my scenario better.

93

You’re conflating two issues. One is whether or not the political ramifications of Edward’s marriage were enough to end his reign as King, and the other is whether Parliament has certain powers.

You are simply incorrect that Parliament cannot remove a King, my cite is history. There’s nothing fundamentally different in the laws of the United Kingdom versus the laws of England in the 17th century that would make it so Parliament couldn’t repeat its actions.

You have to keep in mind in the United Kingdom, unlike say, the United States, their constitution is not a single written document. That’s important because you speak as though you think there is some place where, chiseled in stone, it says “Parliament can do this” or “Parliament can’t do that.” That just simply isn’t the case. It’s not correct to say that there is an unwritten constitution in the United Kingdom. It is written, but it’s made up of a vast number of previous acts of government that have formed a legal framework that continues through mutual consent. But unlike in the United States, where changing things “in the constitution” requires an elaborate process involving supermajorities, Parliament can change things by simple acts of Parliament. That’s how it ended most of the hereditary peers having seats in the House of Lords, for example. Clearly a constitutional change, there was no express place saying the House of Commons had such power, but it essentially assumed such power when it passed the legislation. Likewise it would be assuming such powers in regard to the monarch “at will”, as it has done the other two times Parliament has removed a monarch from power.

There is no legal argument that Parliament couldn’t have removed Edward, they certainly could have. All it would’ve taken is a majority in Parliament, nothing more.

Your political assertion that Edward VIII’s marriage wouldn’t cause enough opposition to him personally to result in this is certainly a valid opinion. However I defer to the thoughts on this matter of British politicians of the day, who were, presumably, experts on the politics of their time. Both major parties in Parliament were deeply opposed to the marriage, and most of the higher ranking ministers felt that the marriage would have to result in Edward’s losing the throne. My opinion, (and you’re entitled to your own) is that if Edward had married Wallis and Baldwin had resigned in protest it would’ve resulted in Edward’s removal from the throne. The legalities of it aren’t even really an interesting debate, it’s settled law that Parliament can remove a monarch and has done so in the past.

94

From God, one assumes.

95

You’re now in the realm of pure fantasy. Churchill simply had nowhere near the political support required to become Prime Minister at that date, you’re viewing him through the lens of history. It was simply not possible for Churchill to be Prime Minister, and certainly not with a majority in the House supporting his move to shore up support for Edward. I mean seriously, Churchill was never personally intending to form a faction to support Edward in Parliament, but the rumor that he was gravely damaged his political reputation. The idea that if he actually tried it, he would have succeeded, defies everything we know about politics in the the 1930s Parliament, the reality is such an attempt would’ve ended Churchill’s political career completely.

Further, it’s fantasy to assume a Prime Minister Churchill could’ve easily stopped WWII. Churchill’s hawkish views were simply far out of the mainstream, and the only thing that would’ve stopped WWII would’ve been an invasion of Germany in response to their open violations of Versailles (by building the army back and etc), and neither France or Britain were willing to do that. Churchill had no shot at being PM to save the King, and certainly would never have had enough support in Parliament to conduct preemptive war against Hitler. It required the tough lessons that Hitler taught in the early days of WWII for Chamberlain to fall and Churchill’s views to gain acceptance.

96

James II and VII was exiled because he was a Roman Catholic married to a Roman Catholic. That’s still a bar to being monarch of the UK.

Wallis Simpson was a problem because she was divorced from Earl Spencer (who was not an earl, and not related to the father of the late Princess of Wales), and she was still married to Ernest Simpson. So to marry the king, she would need to get a second divorce. Divorce may not be such a big thing these days, but it was contrary to Church of England doctrine back then.

King Edward VII had a mistress, but he maintained the appearance of a happy marriage. They might have grumbled behind his back, but they really couldn’t have done much about Edward VIII having mistresses too. They couldn’t force Edward VII to marry some respectable princess either, but his marrying a divorced woman and remaining head of the Church of England did go too far.

97

The courts are generally a bit more malleable than you are claiming, especially with regard to unusual circumstances. Witness, for example, the admission of West Virginia as a state during the Civil War.

98

Grotonian is claiming that Edward VIII had all the cards because he could block any law and Parliament cannot remove a monarch without his consent. That’s a view, but the thing about the UK’s uncodified constitution is that it doesn’t rely on what’s written down but on the series of conventions and precedents the govern institutional relationships.

Actor A behaves in such a way as long as Actor B behaves in such a way, and if it deviates from that behaviour, then things change.

Parliament’s done it before. Parliament can’t enact legislation without the King? No problem: declare Parliamentary laws ‘ordinances’. Someone disagrees with that? Remove them from office and fine them. No means to enforce that? Raise an army. How to raise an army? Use the time-honoured fact that all taxation in England is a ‘gift’ from the Commons to the King, but direct the expense yourself.

The King refuses to bend to your will? Kill him and declare a republic. Or, chase him out of the country with a foreign army. Or, simply refuse to co-operate with him in an early modern equivalent of a Government shut-down.

And these are all examples from a time when monarchs were still all-but worshipped and considered pretty much essential for society to function. By the 1930s, with democracy, socialism, and a huge number of other social movements undermining deference and reinterpreting the role of the monarch in the UK, there’s absolutely no doubt that the cards are all in Parliament’s hands.

If Edward refused ministerial advice, and politicises the monarchy, it’s not as simple as finding someone else to form a government. Even MPs and Lords who might agree with Edward’s right to marry would flatly be horrified and outraged at his flouting of the constitution, and the entire House of Commons, beyond some outsiders like that has-been crank Churchill, would refuse to do business with the King.

Unlike the US, a Government shut-down can go only one way. The Commons wins. Every damn time.

Eventually another election would take place, and if Edward weren’t careful, the people could return a party or coalition explicitly hostile either to himself personally or to monarchy entirely, and the strength of feeling would be such that constitutional norms would be lifted and Parliament would simply declare a republic, seize control of the armed forces (as they pay the Army’s salary) and have Edward arrested as having contravened the 1689 Bill of Rights in some way, probably. There’s no way Edward keeps his crown and the UK remains a liberal democracy.

99

Why? The guy was an idiot who had Nazi sympathies.

100

Nope – in the climate of the time, it would have almost certainly been the whole thing. Don’t forget – the past twenty years had seen the end of the monarchies in:
-Austria-Hungary
-Germany
-Russia
-Spain
As well as the throne of Greece going back and forth between various members of the royal family. There were also major problems going on in Ireland, that didn’t help either.