# Why did Edward VIII abdicate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 22, 2004, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516 "2004-05-22T13:25:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/41 "2004-05-24T04:45:42Z")
What you’re probably thinking of is that after Diana and Charles divorced, Diana was still a Princess, but she was to be no longer referred to as “her royal highness.” ---
**Author:** ![curly\_chick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@curly\_chick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curly_chick)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/42 "2004-05-24T08:11:53Z")
Interesting. I have 2 questions, then Under the Royal Marriages act of 1752, the heir apparent or the heir presumptive may not marry a Roman Catholic and succeed the throne, I had heard that before. Are Roman Cathjolics the only Christians who are precluded? Is there any mention of other, non-Christian religions? Is it expressly stated that marriage to a non-Christian will remove the heir from his/her accession position? ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/43 "2004-05-24T16:07:29Z")
> [@yabob](#): > > I’ve generally had the impression that if the government hadn’t very largely seen HRH Edward VIII as a very large pain in the posterior who was to be tactfully kept from gumming up the works, they would have figured out some way to accomodate his wishes regarding his marriage. Perhaps via some sort of Morganatic marriage, although Edward himself wasn’t too keen on that idea, apparently. There is little doubt that Baldwin didn’t have a high opinion of Edward VIII and, come the crunch, he was ruthless in forcing Edward’s hand, but the morganatic idea was always a non-starter. The problem was more political than religious. Archbishop Lang was opposed to the idea, but, unlike on some of the other issues, his objections to this were not the decisive ones. The assumption was that the 1931 Statute of Westminster would require that the necessary change to the consort’s title was approved by the Dominions (whether it actually did require this is another matter, but at the time everyone thought that it did), and the Dominion PMs all made it clear that they were against the idea. Several had large Catholic populations and did not want to be seen to be condoning divorce. As the Irish Free State was still technically a Dominion, de Valera’s Fianna Fail government would actually have been able to veto such a plan and he was certainly not going to help the British government out of its embarassment. The status of the Irish Free State was controversial enough as it was without this complicating it. The specifically religious issues have changed since 1936 as the Church of England does now allow divorcees to be married, at the discretion of the officiating clergyman. It is therefore perfectly possible that permission could be given for Charles to marry Camillia in an Anglican ceremony. The rather more delicate question is whether the CoE (in practice, the Archbishop of Canterbury) is going to be willing to give that permission in this particular case. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Edward was sympathetic to Hitler, not just that he was widely considered a ninny. That would have been disastrous during the war that was already widely expected. The Simpson marriage was certainly convenient for the rest of the family and for the government, as it provided a good pretext to get him out of the way. The supposed evidence for Edward’s sympathies with Hitler almost all dates from after the Abdication and, even then, is open to other interpretations. All he had done before abdicating was make a few platitudinous remarks about the need to improve relations between the two countries, which, in the context of the mid-1930s, were relatively uncontroversial and not obviously at odds with the official policy of the British government. **curly chick** , as **Northern Piper** has already pointed out, the crucial piece of legislation is the 1701 Act of Settlement. That also requires that the monarch be a member of the Church of England. However there is a difference made between Catholics and other non-Anglicans. For Catholics, the bar is absolute and includes former Catholics; for non-Anglicans, there is the option of converting after succeeding. Remember that the Act was passed to benefit Sophia of Hanover who was not an Anglican but a Lutheran. There is therefore nothing to stop Prince William marrying a non-Catholic Japanese woman. There would be an issue about whether she would have to convert, but the fact that she was not already a Protestant would not in itself be a problem. She would in due course become Queen, just as Wallis Simpson would have done had Edward VIII remained king and married her in a civil ceremony. > [@Polycarp](#): > > However, I’m curious as to whether anyone is aware of whether nomenclature has been agreed to if Prince Philip outlives his wife, whereupon he would be in what I believe is the historically unique role of father of the King. Any clue what he would be formally styled? Unless Charles decides to give him another title, he’ll just remain as Duke of Edinburgh (which he holds in his own right, although obviously the only reason he got the title in the first place was because he was marrying the heiress presumptive). And my guess is that he won’t be given another title, partly because it is difficult to see what that title would be and partly because the widowers of peeresses in their own right don’t get special titles either. What presumably will happened however is that Charles will confirm that his father continues to take precedence over everyone except the new king (and the queen consort, if there is one). ---
**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:** [May 24, 2004, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/44 "2004-05-24T16:23:11Z")
> [@curly chick](#): > > Under the Royal Marriages act of 1752, the heir apparent or the heir presumptive may not marry a Roman Catholic and succeed the throne, I had heard that before. \ I don’t know why I bother posting if people aren’t going to read the damn things. **curly chick** , as stated earlier: - the [Royal Marriages Act](http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/rma1772.html) was passed in **1772** , not 1752; - the _Royal Marriages Act_ does not say anything about marrying Roman Catholics. It is the [Act of Settlement, 1701](http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/parliament/settlement.htm) which deals with marriages to Roman Catholics by individuals who are in the line of succession to the Crown. Article II of the _Act_ confirms the restrictions originally set out in the [Bill of Rights, 1688](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/england.htm). The full text of the provision from the _Bill of Rights_ reads: > [@](#): > > And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead… Article III of the _Act of Settlement_ then provides: > [@](#): > > That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established. So, to answer your question, it is only Roman Catholics who are referred to in the _Act of Settlement_ and the _Bill of Rights_. Other Christians (and supporters of other religions entirely) are not barred from the succession, but they must immediately enter into communion with the Church of England to succeed to the Crown. ---
**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:** [May 24, 2004, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/45 "2004-05-24T16:31:32Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > And for that matter, there was a several-months period in 1952-3 when England had three Queens – one regnant, Elizabeth II, and two former consorts, Elizabeth the Queen Mother and the Queen’s grandmother Queen Mary. Was there ever anything formally stated as to what she should be styled? I believe that the formal title for the relict of a deceased king is “Dowager Queen.” So presumably they would have been formally referred to as “Dowager Queen Mary” and “Dowager Queen Elizabeth.” “Queen Mother” was pretty much Queen Elizabeth’s own invention, and a nice, sensible title it was. It distinguished her from Dowager Queen Mary, so she wouldn’t be seen as trespassing on her mother-in-law’s position. It was also a much more accessible title. She was a very smart lady, who understood how to make the monarchy connect with the people. Queen Mary, on the other hand, was probably quite comfortable with “Dowager Queen.” ---
**Author:** ![curly\_chick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@curly\_chick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curly_chick)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/46 "2004-05-24T16:38:16Z")
**Northern Piper** , thanks for the information. I’ll try not to make you sigh in the future. 🙂 ---
**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:** [May 24, 2004, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/47 "2004-05-24T16:47:57Z")
no probs. 🆒 Oh, and I see I forgot to respond to one point you mentioned: the restrictions on marrying Roman Catholics don’t just apply to the heir apparent or the heir presumptive: it’s anyone who is in the line of succession. So if Prince William were to marry a Roman Catholic, he’d be out, even though he’s neither the heir apparent nor the heir presumptive. (And now that I’m thinking about it, isn’t the Duke of Kent excluded? I seem to recall that Princess Michael of Kent is a Roman Catholic. Of course, he’s so far down the line that it likely doesn’t matter.) ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/48 "2004-05-24T17:06:34Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > (And now that I’m thinking about it, isn’t the Duke of Kent excluded? I seem to recall that Princess Michael of Kent is a Roman Catholic. Of course, he’s so far down the line that it likely doesn’t matter.) Princess Michael of Kent isn’t married to the Duke. She’s married to Prince Michael of Kent, who is the Duke of Kent’s younger brother. ---
**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:** [May 24, 2004, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/49 "2004-05-24T17:10:33Z")
right you are - my mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/50 "2004-05-24T17:12:35Z")
According to [Prince Michael’s official Web site](http://www.princemichael.org.uk/faqs/)" > [@](#): > > **Was Prince Michael forced to renounce his place in the succession to the throne for marrying a Catholic?** > In marrying a Catholic, Prince Michael lost his place in the succession as an automatic consequence of the 1701 Act of Settlement, which states that a member of the Royal Family can not remain in the line of succession if he marries or becomes a Catholic. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/51 "2004-05-24T17:14:39Z")
by marrying, Prince Michael of Kent renounced his rights of succession, not that they were worth much anyway. There are some other (very) minor members of the Royal Family who have done the same. ---
**Author:** ![BiblioCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed8c4c/32.png) [@BiblioCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BiblioCat)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/52 "2004-05-24T17:26:10Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > So if Prince William were to marry a Roman Catholic, he’d be out, even though he’s neither the heir apparent nor the heir presumptive. Forgive an ignorant Yank… what’s the difference between heir apparent and heir presumptive? And why is William not either of those? I assume Charles is one; wouldn’t Willam be the other? He’s second in line after Charles, right? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/53 "2004-05-24T17:42:17Z")
There can be only one heir to the throne at any one time. An heir apparent is a person who will be in line to take the throne if the current monarch dies and his or her claim is not open to defeat. An heir presumptive’s claim is open to defeat upon the birth of someone else. For example, say that Charles is king and through some freak accident his only living relatives are his two sons, William and Harry. William is the heir apparent because when Charles dies, no matter what happens in the meantime, William will be first in line. Once William takes the throne upon Charles’s death, Harry is first in line. However, Harry is not a heir apparent, because if William has a son, then Harry gets shifted to second in line. Thus, he is merely an heir presumptive. ---
**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:** [May 24, 2004, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/54 "2004-05-24T17:48:10Z")
The heir apparent is the person who will inherit the throne when the current occupant dies (unless the heir dies first, or there’s a revolution or similar cataclysmic event). Charles is thus the heir apparent, since the only thing that will keep him from becoming king would be his own premature death. An heir presumptive is a person who is currently next in line to the throne, but who could be excluded by the birth of someone else. The eldest female daughters and brothers/sisters of the monarch are typical heirs presumptive. If the monarch dies tomorrow, they will inherit, but if the monarch has a child they may lose their status. So Princess Elizabeth was the heir presumptive to King George VI. She was the eldest daughter, but if King George ever had a son, she would no longer be heir presumptive, since male children automatically take precedence over female children, regardless of birth order. Similarly, James, Duke of York, was the heir presumptive to King Charles II, who did not have any children. If Charles’ wife had given birth to either a son or daughter, James would have ceased to be the heir presumptive. There can never be more than one heir apparent or presumptive at any one time. It’s the term used to identify the person immediately next in line. Since William is not next in line (Charles is between him and the Queen) he is neither the heir apparent nor the heir presumptive. The moment the Queen dies or abdicates and Charles becomes king, William would be the heir apparent. And if the Queen and Charles both die before William has any children, William would be king and Harry would be heir presumptive. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/55 "2004-05-24T17:49:41Z")
> [@BiblioCat](#): > > I assume Charles is one; wouldn’t Willam be the other? He’s second in line after Charles, right? To elaborate a bit on this point. First of all, speaking in strict legal terms, a living person cannot have an heir. An heir may be created only upon a person’s death. Thus, Charles is not Elizabeth’s heir. He is the heir apparent, because once Elizabeth dies, he will then become the heir. Second, a person’s heir is the person who succeeds to all the rights of the decedent. In the case of the British monarchy, only one person will succeed to the rights of the monarch upon her death. Thus, when Elizabeth dies, only Charles will be her heir. William, might, in turn, be Charles’s heir apparent, but since Charles is not now a monarch, William is not heir to the throne. If Charles dies now, _Charles_’s property descends to William, but that does not include the monarchy. To sum up, neither Charles, nor anyone else, is Elizabeth’s heir (so long as she is living). Only Charles is Elizabeth’s heir apparent. ---
**Author:** ![BiblioCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed8c4c/32.png) [@BiblioCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BiblioCat)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/56 "2004-05-24T17:52:44Z")
Thank you! ---
**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:** [May 24, 2004, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/57 "2004-05-24T18:34:33Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > First of all, speaking in strict legal terms, a living person cannot have an heir. An heir may be created only upon a person’s death. This isn’t quite accurate, at least in the context of the descent of the Crown. At common law in the medieval period, an individual did have an heir-at-law for real estate: the eldest son. The owner of the land did not have the power to leave the real estate to anyone else by a will; it passed automatically to the eldest son on the owner’s death. This was eventually changed by statute, to allow an individual to dispose of real estate by a will, but there are still a few exceptional cases where there is an heir-at-law. The English Crown is one of them - Charles is the Queen’s heir, for the Crown and all its associated baggage, and there is nothing she can do about it. (She also owns real estate in her personal right, and that she can dispose of as she wishes in her will.) ---
**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:** [May 24, 2004, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/58 "2004-05-24T18:49:17Z")
whoops - my bad. That should be “British Crown”! (I was thinking of the English common law, but I should know better! ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/59 "2004-05-24T18:51:35Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > At common law in the medieval period, an individual did have an heir-at-law for real estate: the eldest son. The owner of the land did not have the power to leave the real estate to anyone else by a will; it passed automatically to the eldest son on the owner’s death. This was eventually changed by statute, to allow an individual to dispose of real estate by a will, but there are still a few exceptional cases where there is an heir-at-law. I agree that a person could not choose his or her heir, but I still believe that it was not strictly correct to refer to the heir(-at-law) as an heir until the person in question had died. The definition of the word has loosened considerably, especially in colloquial English. But even today, property lawyers when speaking carefully and precisely, will not refer to a living person as having an “heir.” Even in modern common law, a person who inherits by being named in a will is properly an _assignee_, not an heir. In careful usage, heirs exist only when a person has died with no will (_intestate_). And, of course, the law cannot determine if a person is intestate, and, therefore, whether there is an heir, until the person in question has died. That’s the reason for the existence of terms such as “heir apparent” and “heir presumptive.” They are shorthand for the concepts: “It is apparent that when X dies, that Y will be his heir” and “We presume that when X dies, Y will be his heir.” Because, speaking precisely, a person doesn’t have any heirs until he or she has died. ---
**Author:** ![kelly5078](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/6f9a4e/32.png) [@kelly5078](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kelly5078)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516/60 "2004-05-24T19:25:37Z")
In these dark days for our republic, this thread makes me glad I’m an American. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-edward-viii-abdicate/246516.md?page=4)