Succession didn’t really come into it. Giving up the family business meant giving up the position and the nice houses. He wasn’t without means or capabilities, but couldn’t possibly have maintained the same sort of lifestyle either materially or in terms of social entrée. They wouldn’t be totally ostracised, but an awful lot of Christmases would have had to be spent abroad, I suspect. Plus one has to assume she was sincere in respecting the Church’s position.
IIRC she could have stayed on the Civil list, her presence in that was due to her status as the daughter of a King.
The thing is, under the Royal Marriages Act Margaret required the Queen’s consent to her marriage; otherwise it would be legally void. And this was at a time when a divorced person - peer, commoner or otherwise - wouldn’t be received into the Royal Enclosure at Ascot. Margaret was putting the Queen in a very embarrassing position by asking her to consent to a marriage to a divorced man. The convention up to this point had been that a royal contemplating marriage to an unacceptable spouse would simply marry without consent. The marriage would be legally void, but (assuming the bride were not utterly beyond the pale) discreetly socially acceptable. For example"
-
In 1847 Prince George of Cambridge, a first cousin to Queen Victoria, married an actress who already had four children (two of which were George’s) and who at the time of the wedding was in advanced state of fertility with a fifth (also George’s). He did not seek the Queen’s consent. His wife was never acknowledged at court.
-
In 1831 Prince Augustus, Duke of Sussex, a brother of King William IV and an uncle of the soon-to-be Queen Victoria, married Lady Cecilia Buggin. She was the daughter of an earl and the widow of a knight, but apparently that wasn’t good enough, so the marriage was celebrated without consent. The happy couple lived together in Kensington Palace, but for some years she had a very restricted presence at court and could not accompany her husband officially. In 1840 Queen Victoria created her Duchess of Inverness so that her rank would be closer to that of her husband, and this would ease the couple’s position at court. She outlived her husband by thirty years, and continued living in Kensington Palace
It may have been that Margaret was simply too close to the Queen for a marriage-without-consent to be acceptable, or that in the twentieth century such a strategem was considered unacceptable.
Sorry I think you’ll have to cite where you saw that, as I just looked back at the past two pages and can’t see any reference to the UK being an illiberal democracy as a republic. I don’t think anyone’s claimed that…have they?
I’m not quite sure what you are referring to…primary legislation in the UK are called ‘Acts of Parliament’ when they have Royal Assent and therefore the force of law, and when still under consideration by Parliament they are Bills…but there hasn’t been a case of Parliament registering a formal discontent with the behaviour of the monarch since Charles I and James VII/II. Any grumbling nowadays are directed to the Cabinet/Prime Minister, where responsibility lies.
Sorry, I am sure you have a valid observation, but I think your information gaps on the UK monarchy and constitution are hampering mutual understanding 
Who?
OK, OK, I’ll leave.
The “advice” thing relates to ministers’ advice, i.e, an indication by the Prime Minister that X is what the king or queen should or should not do; which is dependent on all parties having good reason to assume that the PM would be backed up by Parliament if necessary. If it’s a contentious issue, there might have been all sorts of preliminary behind-the-scenes discussion. I’ve seen it reported that, in response to a suggestion through the Prime MInister’s private secretary , on a suggested royal visit to demonstrate a point, the Queen’s private secretary wrote that of course the Queen would be happy to do it, if the PM would make the request in writing as a matter of advice. The sub-text was that, on that particular issue, she was well aware it would raise a public row, and she wanted to make sure the PM’s fingerprints were on it, to protect her neutrality. And in that particular case, no more was heard of the idea.
Acts of Parliament are enforceable, justiciable legislation. A resolution “regretting” something the monarch had done would be a simple political statement, in effect, a vote of no confidence, or in other words the nuclear option.
One further point as to why Edward VIII didn’t force the issue: within elite Establishment circles, it had been clear for some time, possibly even before his father died, that there was concern about Edward’s capabilities, sense of duty and so on, not just in terms of pleasure-seeking with other men’s wives, but in terms of general presentation and style, and the handling of government business. Some of this must have got back to him - I believe some senior court officials made a point of trying to get the message through to him quite early on. The writing was on the wall well before the issue was formally on Baldwin’s desk, and even in his flibbertigibbet vanity he must have recognised this - might even at some level have been glad of a way out.
And yet people claim that if push came to shove, Parliament would have no problem abolishing the monarchy.
Where are people claiming the British Republic would’ve been an illiberal state? I am not sure what you’re responding to here.
British Republic? Who you calling “we”, Kemosabe?
I cannot imagine the people of the British Isles would be obliging enough to all fall in line behind a single Republic, any more than the Isle of Man would be part of any such thing, regardless of the state of the monarchy. Frankly, you’re missing at least three layers of misdirection, indirection, blind adherence to tradition, and distinctions without a difference, and that’s before you figure out where the Church of England fits in to all this.
And that’s why there can never be an end to the monarchy. Whether it will end in the future is a completely different question, of course, and not one talked about here.
Um, I’m responding to Leo’s claim that people in this thread were saying a hypothetical British Republic would be an illiberal fascist state or something. I’ve not offered an opinion on the likelihood of a British Republic, we’re dealing in hypotheticals, and in this case speculation that Leo asserts happened that I’ve not seen in the thread.
I think perhaps it would be clearer to say that having a ceremonial Head of State, be it monarch or president, is constitutionally important. The attitude of the British is that we’re content to let the monarchy play that role so long as it behaves and doesn’t give us a reason to get up off our butts and abolish it.
The monarchy does the job at public pleasure, basically.
I think he’s responding to this, from post #98:
I believe Malden Capell meant that it would be impossible for both Edward to keep his crown and the UK to remain a liberal democracy, but I must admit that at first sight, I read it as Leo seems to have, as meaning that neither option was possible.
Malden Capell has it, I think. Most people in Britain at the moment would rather not abolish the monarchy. It works well enough at the moment. Within our present constitutional system, the monarch is required, but obviously there are other ways the country could be organised, if people decided that monarchy no longer served our best interests.
Ah, I see now. Yes, that’s what I mean - Edward acting against the wishes of Parliament and winning makes the UK an undemocratic state.
Princess Diana was not very much older than I am, and there were news reports that she was forced to endure a “medical inspection” and present a “certificate of virginity” before she could be approved to marry Charles. One must assume that Kate Middleton was not subjected to this indignity, as she’d been living with William unchaperoned for some time. 
And honestly, I can see why it mattered before the advent of DNA paternity tests. Any child born within a year of the marriage was a succession crisis waiting to happen.
She was not just a divorced woman, she was also still married. She was a serial adulterer, who cheated on, then divorced, her first husband. She went on to cheat on her second husband, (with several people before she took up with Edward) but refused to divorce him until she was sure of being well provided for. Thus Edward’s proposal while she was still married to #2.
Edward, therefore, was also an adulterer. Adultery in a royal line was the worst possible complication, and could easily lead to civil war because it raised questions about the legitimacy of offspring.
Again, without genetic paternity tests, and in the context of inherited succession, marital integrity was of paramount importance. Not to mention the extremity of their behavior as seen through the social mores of the time. Despite the ease with which we can argue that “other Royals have done it” the sheer revulsion their behavior induced in the populace can not be overstated.
What’s this about ripping off his brother? It seems as though he handed him the kingdom on a silver platter (however tarnished.) There’s a story here I haven’t heard?
His subservience to Wallis was legend while they lived in New York. And he was definitely more interested in physical sensation than in any deeper approach to life.
All that said, the glaring omission in this discussion is the opinion of the Church of England. Carving out an area of leadership and legitimacy for the monarchy in the face of Democratic legislation had been a long and difficult process. Edward’s father, George V, was the very one who accomplished it - by establishing the monarch as the head of the Church of England. Now THIS is the person who will follow him in that position?
The Archbishop of Canterbury was rabidly opposed to Edward as monarch, and seemingly willing to go to any lengths to avoid it. Which is really quite interesting, as if the King had performed abominably as expected in the role, the A of C might again have reigned supreme over the Church. He (or his successor) might have gained immeasurably by Edward’s failure, but he chose to support a ruler who would make a better job of it. Presumably he feared control might go to the House of Lords, instead of returning to the Church.
(for a more reliable cite see “Cosmo Lang: Archbishop in War and Crisis”)
If the head of state is not a monarch, it is typically an elected ceremonial president. Consider that Italy and Israel have in recent history had presidents with legal entanglements, consider that most such presidents are recycled politicians past their best-before dates… At least the monarchy is a bit more divorced (sorry?) from this sort of thing. The monarch is unlikely to be a partisan politician with connections and need to enrich themselves, hence less likely to be implicated in improper graft (although Andy’s wife tried).
This is the best answer. If it can’t be done with precedent, the act of pushing out David would have been done in a way that three-quarters or more of parliament agreed with; and probably an equal number of lords.
Don’t forget, too, that the general respect for the monarch personally is a relatively recent thing that Elizabeth has spent a lot of effort earning. From what I’ve read, and the previous comments, the general feeling of the population toward the monarch was probably better characterized as being like the attitude now to Charles; and the attitude to Edward/David in particular, like the feelings toward Prince Charles at his lowest point, or worse. Even Queen Victoria, toward the end of her reign, was suffering from public disenchantment. (One of her advisors, Mr. Brown, was considered too close and wags were calling the widowed queen “Mrs. Brown”)
So if parliament had said “this King has sat (or whatever) long enough” and declared him out - most of the realm would have gone along. Absent a legal process, they would have made up something like what happened as Piper relates here - they would have made a resolution with important sounding words, passed it formally, and invited the rest of the government movers and shakers to agree, and the church, to agree to it. If the top brass say something and no large movement violently disagrees, then it’s the new reality. This is one advantage of having a flexible set of rules.
They may have invested George (Albert) as the next best, and a relatively blameless choice. There did not seem to be a groundswell of public or parliament opinion to dump the monarchy as a whole, but in future it could happen.
Derleth, also said it earlier, with the greatest conviction, saying
and then defied/mocked his own/the common wisdom of that certainty:
Or else, like Alice, he is perfectly happy accepting two mutually exclusive things before breakfast, which anyhow/anyway I suspect he’s perfectly fine with.
It was already illegal for Edward & Wallis to marry; at least in England. The Marriage Act, 1836 (which legalized civil marriage) did not apply to members of the Royal Family thus Edward had to marry in the Church of England, or go to Scotland (or even abroad like he ended up doing). The canon law of the Church of England strictly prohibited a divorced person from remarrying while their ex-spouse was still alive. The monarch cannot unitarily change canon law so even if he found a priest willing to conduct the ceremony it would’ve been void due to bigamy.
Apparently the Queen Mother hated Edward like poison. She blamed him for her husband dying so young, attributing it to the stress of being king. She wasn’t too fond of Wallis either.
Yeah, I’m guessing if he hadn’t been married previously (or was a widower), she’d have had no problem getting permission to marry him.
TruCelt – the whole thing about Diana having a “virginity test” was an urban legend. The important thing was that she didn’t have any scandals in her past.
Yes. A few years later consent was given to her marriage to Anthony Amstrong-Jones, also a commoner, and without Townsend’s war record or his long experience as a courtier. Plus, he was well-known as a party boy of, um, uncertain sexual inclination. But he’d never been married, so that was OK.