What you’ve described was the background to the last time when a British monarch is known to have seriously contemplated refusing assent. George V considered refusing assent in 1914 to the 3rd Home Rule Bill, and would probably have carried the opposition Conservatives/Unionists with him had he done so, and quite possibly a significant chunk of opinion within the UK.
In the end he used his influence instead to try and broker a compromise deal between the main parties.
Slight nitpick:
An “unsolicited” election would be impossible without sacking the Government first, as the necessary formalities involve Cabinet ministers.
I don’t think you can get away with calling the Nazis “progressive”!!
Anyway, Edward VIII’s political sympathies weren’t really relevant. This brings us back to the film, since it irritatingly applies a degree of hindsight/foreshadowing; this is presumably why Churchill’s role is made more prominent than it was, why that role is heavily distorted, and why Chamberlain is seen only briefly.
A sympathy for what the Nazis were generally perceived to be doing in Germany c. 1936 was not considered extraordinary in mainstream British society. It certainly wasn’t atypical for a member of the upper classes. And I doubt it was considered particularly noteworthy by the working classes, other than the radicalised fringe. Remember that at the time, the UK had a centre-right broad-based “National” government which was dominated by Conservatives, and which the year before had won a general election by a huge margin.
The vast majority of the British working people of the time weren’t Communists.
You are quite incorrect. There is opposition to many elements of Canada’s constitution inside Quebec, and probably even more rancour about how it was promulgated, without Quebec ever assenting to it. But not the majority of Quebecers are sovereigntists. So there are significant numbers of federalists who disapprove in some way of the Canadian constitution.
Slightly related to the monarchy / government relation is that New Zealand has the Rugby World Cup in September and October and an election in November.
Unrelated you might think but… Prince William wants to visit for the World Cup. I don’t know the details but there is some rule or law about members of the royal family not visiting close to an election. I guess if it’s a smiling feel good state visit then it might be seen to give the incumbent government a boost. That was “solved” when it was announced that William would be coming on a private visit.
Not to be left out, now his Grandma, the Queen, is talking about coming too :). I guess it would be stretching things to say the Queen is having a private visit so … last I read was that the government said they’d need the cooperation of the opposition to allow her to visit.
Wasn’t it still illegal for a member of the royal family to marry outside the Church of England in the 1930s? If so then Edward VIII would not have been able to have a register office wedding with Mrs Simpson; he would’ve had to go to Scotland (& what was the Church of Scotland’s position on remarriage after divorce then?).
I don’t think there was ever a restriction requiring members of the royal family to marry only another member of the Church of England. The restriction was only that a Catholic or someone married to a Catholic could not become the monarch. It doesn’t say anything about other protestant sects, or, indeed, anything about non-Christians. Only no Catholics. And this rule still holds today.
I believe that the movie also glossed over the fact that Logue was a Christian Scientist, which puts his disdain for modern medicine in a different light.
Not “illegal”, but there is a legal oddity that is relevant.
When the law for England (and Wales) was changed to allow “civil” marriages, the legislation specifically excepted any application to the royal family. In theory, the pre-1754 legal position would appear to apply! This was the cause of some discussion in the media at the time of Charles’s second marriage, with the government even having to formally comment upon it. I’ve never discovered what their reasoning was exactly that led to their belief that the marriage would be valid, but I would guess that it has something to do with the Human Rights Act… which of course was not in force in Edward VIII’s day.
I think it was still possible in 1936 to conduct an “irregular” marriage in Scotland, so that could have been an outlandish possibility. Maybe Edward should’ve suggested getting married in a Scottish pub!
