HERMANN1.HTM

HAVING THE CROWN AND MARRYING TOO:
ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EDWARD VIII
DURING THE ABDICATION CRISIS

By
DONALD H.J. HERMANN

delivered to
THE CHICAGO LITERARY CLUB
October 14, 2001

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the Abdication Crisis of 1936 resulting from King Edward VIII's decision to marry Wallis Simpson. The paper argues that instead of requesting the passage of legislation authorizing a morganatic marriage between the King and Mrs. Simpson, the monarch could have sought public support for his marriage with favorable press coverage from sympathetic newspaper owners such as Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermore. Instead of capitulating to the threat of the Baldwin government's resignation if the King persisted in his plan to marry Mrs. Simpson, the King could have engaged such supporters as Lloyd George and Winston Churchill to serve as advocates and possible leaders of a coalition government willing to acquiesce in the King's proposed marriage to Mrs. Simpson. Ultimately, the thesis of this paper is that there was no legal impediment to a marriage between King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson; rather the issue raised by the King's desire to marry Mrs. Simpson was political, and the abdication could have been avoided if political options had been pursued.

====================================================

At five minutes before midnight on January 20, 1936, King George the V was declared dead. England had a new king, Edward VIII. As prince of Wales, Edward had achieved broad popularity among the general population as an attractive, energetic and socially committed heir to the throne. His own father, however, expressed concern about the prince's friends whom King George viewed as "fast" and as part of the "smart set". Of special concern to King George was the prince's choice of female companions who generally were older married women. Four years before his death, King George had an intimate conversation with his son in which the King acknowledged the public acclaim of the prince, but warned that the prince's liaisons with married women such as Freda Dudly Ward and Lady Thelma Furness would bring public condemnation. Shortly before his death, lamenting to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cosmo Gordon Lang, the King questioned the value of his own contributions to the popular support of the monarchy: "What use is it when, I know my son is going to let it down." More pointedly, King George confided to Stanley Baldwin, the Prime Minister, "After I am dead, the boy will ruin himself within twelve months." By the way, the boy was forty years old.

What brought the prince to "ruin", if that is how one should judge King Edward's abdication in December 1936, is his decision to marry Mrs. Wallis Warfield Spencer Simpson, a twice married American born woman. In his abdication speech, King Edward declared: "[Y]ou must believe me when I tell you that I have found it impossible to carry the heavy burden of responsibility and to discharge my duties as King as I would wish to do without the help and support of the women I love." The question this paper will address is whether King Edward need to have abdicated in order to marry Mrs. Simpson, the woman the King loved.

This paper will consider various strategies and different decisional options available to Edward Windsor that he could have been pursued in an effort to retain his kingship while also marrying Wallis Simpson. The discussion will not involve a contra-factual historical speculation such as involved in questions like, "What if Hitler had been victorious in World War II," or, "How would history be different if Richard Nixon had completed his second presidential term." Rather the paper will identify specific decisions and courses of action open to King Edward that may have permitted him to achieve the dual objectives of keeping the throne and achieving his matrimonial desires. Thus, the paper will attempt to identify options of the type open to Hitler when faced with surrender demands by the Allies in 1945; or perhaps more comparable the options available to President Nixon such as destroying the White House tapes and taping system when their existence was made public invoking a need to protect the confidentiality of foreign relations discussion that were taped, or refusing to comply with the subpoena of the tapes which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, transforming the impeachment proceedings from a question of criminal conspiracy to one of separation of powers.

The Prince of Wales met his first love Mrs. Dudly Ward at a dance when she was still single. Despite her marriage, this romance was the prince's principal obsession for 15 years. In 1931, he transferred his affection to the married Lady Thelma Furness, a daughter of an American counsel whose other daughter, Gloria, married Reginald Vanderbilt. It was Lady Furness who first introduced the Prince of Wales to Mrs. Simpson in 1931. Mrs. Simpson and her husband had become part of the Prince's social set by 1934. However, it was Thelma Furness's trip to the United States in 1934 that opened up the opportunity for the development of an intimate relationship between the Prince and Mrs. Simpson.

Wallis Warfield was born in 1895 into a shabby genteel family in Baltimore. Her cousin Upton Sinclair insisted she was a descendant of the legendary Indian princess Pocahontas. In 1916, Wallis married a naval officer Commander Earl Winfield Spencer; ultimately the marriage faltered and Wallis obtained a divorce claiming emotional abuse resulting from her husband's alcoholism. Wallis's second marriage in 1928 was to an American ex-patriot living in London, Ernest Simpson, who shared with his wife aspirations to move into London society.

Initially the Simpson couple entertained the Prince, and was entertained by him. Increasingly the social encounters excluded Mr. Simpson. For example, in 1935, the Prince invited Mrs. Simpson to join him on a cruise on a luxury yacht down the Dalmatian Coast and to Greece. By September 1936, the Court Circular was reporting Mrs. Simpson was a guest at Balmoral, one of the royal residences in Scotland.

Not surprisingly, Wallis Simpson's intimate relationship with King Edward led to the mutual desire of the Simpson couple to divorce. The divorce was heard on October 27, 1936. As a result of the Simpson divorce case, King Edward was forced to deal with the question of his relationship with Mrs. Simpson. The divorce case at Ipswich Assize resulted in a decree nisi. A decree nisi is a preliminary order in a divorce proceeding; the divorce becomes final or "absolute" after six months if not altered by the court. The divorce case, along with extensive reporting in the foreign press of the intimate relationship between the King and Mrs. Simpson, fueled concern that the relationship would become publicly reported in the English press, result in scandal, and consequently compromise the monarchy. Beginning what was largely a reactive response, rather then an affirmative strategy, the King acceded to a request by Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin for a meeting on October 20 at the King's residence at Fort Belvedore to discuss the King's response to rumors of his relationship with, and his intentions regarding, Mrs. Simpson. Baldwin reported that he had received letters criticizing the King's relationship along with sensational newspaper clippings from abroad. The Prime Minister asked if the affair could not be conducted more discreetly? The King responded: "The lady is my friend and I do not wish to let her in by the back door." The Prime Minister next pleaded that the divorce be put off for the time being. The King responded, perhaps disingenuously: "That is the lady's private business." Finally, the Prime Minister inquired whether it was possible for Mrs. Simpson to leave the country for six months. This question produced no reply from the King. In a conversation with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Prime Minister reported that he had told the King that he sympathized with the King's need for domestic happiness but insisted that "if Mrs. Simpson was to supply his need, she must be kept in the background." The obvious suggestion was that Mrs. Simpson could be accepted as a royal mistress but not as a royal consort.

Although somewhat guarded in his initial encounter with the Prime Minister about his relationship with Mrs. Simpson, the King began what was largely a reactive response to the government's effort to become involved in and determine any royal marriage or, at least, to control the nature of the King's relationship with Mrs. Simpson. Instead, the King had the option of taking the initiative in defining his relationship with the lady and procuring acceptance of his desired marriage by the public and the government. The King had potential allies in helping him mold public opinion; ultimately, the King sought assistance from these individuals. However, the King's delay and his somewhat naīve entrusting of his future to the Prime Minister ultimately sealed his fate.

In assessing the alternatives open to the King, it is important to understand that the King was legally free to marry anyone he liked except a Roman Catholic. The Royal Marriage Act of 1772 gave the King the power to prohibit the marriage of any royal family member under the age of twenty-five. However, notwithstanding a monarch's objection, any royal over twenty-five can marry after twelve months by giving notice to the Privy Council, unless within that period both Houses of Parliament expressly disapprove of the marriage. The Royal Marriage Act was enacted at the urgency of George III after the tragic marriage of his sister Caroline Matilda to the degenerate King of Denmark Christian VII which resulted in Caroline's being deprived custody of her daughter and ultimately being forced into exile. The Royal Marriage Act provides: "That no descendant of the body of his late majesty King George the Second, male or female, (other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families) shall be capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his Majesty, his heirs or successors . . . ." The only power provided to Parliament by the statute is to "expressly declare their disappropriation of such intended marriage" of those royals over twenty-five years of age who persist in their desire to contract a marriage disapproved by the monarch. The Royal Marriage Act does not give the Parliament any authority over the marriage of the monarch. In the case of the intended marriage of a monarch, there is no provision in the Royal Marriage Act authorizing the government or Parliament to prevent an English monarch from marrying any person he or she may choose.

The only significant legal restraint on an English monarch's marriage is that an intended spouse may not be a Roman Catholic. This requirement is established by the Act of Settlement of 1701 introduced in the reign of William III to establish a stable monarchy and ensure that only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia (granddaughter of James VI and I of Scotland and England) can become the sovereign of the United Kingdom; the intended effect of the statute was to preclude any claim to the British throne by a Catholic Stuart. Specifically the statute provides: "That all and every person and persons, who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown, by virtue of the limitation of this present act, and 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 subject to such incapacities." Clearly the Act of Settlement provided no impediment to King Edward's marriage to Wallis Simpson, neither of whom was Catholic at the time of their intended marriage.

Following the meeting with the Prime Minister, the King did not proactively call upon potential allies to help map out a strategy to achieve his matrimonial objectives. Instead, the King was compelled to react to a memorandum given to him by his private Secretary, Alexander (Alec) Hardinge who was in the difficult position of being a liaison between the King and Prime Minister enjoying the confidences of both. Hardinge was informed by Baldwin of letters from abroad commenting unfavorably on foreign press coverage of the King's affair with Mrs. Simpson. Hardinge wrote to the King:

Sir
With my humble duty:
As your Majesty's private Secretary I feel it my duty to bring to your notice the following facts which have come to my knowledge, and which I know to be accurate. The silence of the British press on the subject of Your Majesty's friendship with Mrs. Simpson is not going to be maintained. It is probably only a matter of days before the outburst begins. Judging by letters from British subjects living in foreign countries where the press has been outspoken, the effect will be calamitous.

The Prime Minister and senior members of the Government are meeting today to discuss what actions should be taken to deal with the serious situation which is developing. As Your Majesty no doubt knows, the resignation of the Government an eventuality which can by no means be excluded would result in Your Majesty having to find someone else capable of forming a Government which would receive the support of the present House of Commons. I have reason to know that, in view of the feeling prevalent among members of the House of Commons of all parties, this is hardly within the bounds of possibility. The only alternative remaining is a dissolution and a general election in which Your Majesty's personal affairs would be the chief issue, and I cannot help feeling that even those who would sympathize with Your Majesty as an individual would deeply resent the damage which would inevitably be done to the Crown the cornerstone on which the whole Empire exists.

If Your Majesty will permit me to say so, there is only one step which holds out any prospect of avoiding this dangerous situation, and that is for Mrs. Simpson to go abroad without further delay and I would beg Your Majesty to give this proposal your earnest consideration before the position has become irretrievable. Owing to the changing attitude of the press, the matter has become one of great urgency.

Whereas . . . it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

The statute does not provide that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is given authority to make any request for authorization from the Dominion government required by the Statute of Westminster, but King Edward provided such authorization by his assent to the Prime Minister's question of whether the King wanted him to make inquiry of the Dominions. With the King's authorization, Baldwin was to put the question of the King's proposal of a morganatic marriage to the Dominion parliaments. But Baldwin did not limit himself to putting the question straightforwardly to the Dominion's. Instead he first sent to each of the Dominion's Prime Ministers personal secret telegrams which were designed to persuade the Dominion governments to adopt his views. The Australian Prime Minister, Stanley Bruce reported receiving a cable

informing me that he [Baldwin] had conversations with his Majesty the King about Mrs. Simpson, and that his Majesty had stated his intention of marrying Mrs. Simpson, but that at the same time his Majesty had said that he appreciated that the idea of her becoming Queen and her children succeeding to the Throne was out of the question, and that consequently he contemplated abdication and leaving the Duke of York to succeed on the throne. His Majesty had subsequently asked Mr. Baldwin's view on a new proposal, that special legislative provision should be made for a marriage to Mrs. Simpson, which would not make her Queen and would not entitle her issue to succeed to the Throne. Mr. Baldwin informed me that he had advised his Majesty that he did not think there was any chance of such an arrangement. He invited my personal view.

The November 27 inquiry by the Prime Minister was framed in a way most likely to get a negative response to the King's request for legislation authorizing a morganatic marriage. Baldwin posed to the Dominions the choice of alternatives of ordinary marriage, morganatic marriage, or abdication in favor of the Duke of York. Baldwin reported in his communications that he had already stated to the King his own opposition to the King's marriage to Mrs. Simpson, as well as his own view that a morganatic marriage was an unsatisfactory compromise. Thus in posing the question Baldwin gave his view of the situation, set out his arguments without an account of the King's opposing arguments.

The effect of Baldwin's communication was to suggest to the Dominions that the King was willing to abdicate, thus eliminating the need to consider the compromise proposal of a morganatic marriage. Baldwin also suggested that the Parliament of Westminster would not agree to the King's proposal, thus relieving each the Dominion's of any concern that their rejection would leave them in a solitary position of opposing the King's proposal.

The King had constitutional authority to directly consult the Dominions. If he had done so, he could have framed the inquiry more favorable to himself. It should not be forgotten that as Prince of Wales, Edward had traveled extensively in the Dominions and had developed a positive relationship with many of the political leaders of the Dominions. The King had only needed to invoke the Statute of Westminster, which effectively places Dominion Prime Ministers on an equal basis with the British Prime Minister in their relations with the King. By assuming control of the inquiry to the Dominion Parliaments, the King could have crafted a request for their concurrence to his proposal that could have produced affirmative responses which also might have had a positive influence on the members of the Parliament setting at Westminster.

It should be recalled that neither the government nor the Parliament had power in law or in precedent to prevent the King from marrying anyone he pleased. It should also be noted that no English monarch had abdicated voluntarily. The King was in a strong position to marry whomever he wished provided he did not formally ask the government's consent. Instead, by asking Baldwin to agree to a morganatic marriage, the King gave Baldwin the power to veto his marriage to Mrs. Simpson. Even worse, by authorizing Baldwin to make an inquiry of the views of the Dominion's governments on the morganatic marriage proposal, the King empowered Baldwin to extend the power of veto to the Dominion. And Baldwin effectively guaranteed the exercise of that veto by asking the Dominions: "Do you recommend the King's marriage to a woman with two husbands living?"

While the subject of the King's marriage involved the Prime Minister and the government, in the background was the Church of England and possible objection by the church hierarchy. The principal concern would be the refusal of the Archbishop of Canterbury to take part in the coronation ritual scheduled for mid-1937. The Archbishop, Cosmo Lang, never made any threat of such action, nor was it likely that he would do so. A refusal to crown the King would have raised issues about the establishment of the Church of England. It certainly would not have been in the interest of the Church leadership to provoke a political discussion about the status of the Church of England in 1937.

It is also important to have a proper understanding of the relation of the King to the Church of England. While Henry VIII assumed the title "Head" of the Church of England, the title was abrogated by the Catholic Queen Mary Tudor. Elizabeth I decided not to follow her father's example and chose to hold authority as the temporal guardian and protector of the Church. By the Act of Settlement of 1701, the monarch is required to be a member of the Church of England and is designated as "Defender of the Faith." In an extremely unlikely action, the Church might have subjected the King to excommunication as a result of a marriage to a divorced woman. Such an action is made unlikely by the fact that as a result of the English Reformation, marriage was no longer one of the Church's principal sacraments. The Ten Articles of Religion of July 1536 reduced marriage to a sacramental or lesser sacrament. It would be difficult for an ecclesiastical court to excommunicate the King for deviance from the Church's teaching on marriage; one should recall that this is the Church of Henry the VIII. However, even if the Church officials pursued an unlikely effort to excommunicate Edward, power was retained in Parliament to disestablish the Church. It seems certain that the leaders of the Church would have not jeopardized the institutional authority of the Church by undertaking such a radical program as excommunication of the monarch.

When considering the religious issue, it is also important to recall that when the King is in Scotland, he is a member of the Church of Scotland, which at this time already recognized divorce and permitted remarriage of divorced persons. Moreover, in the Dominions there was no Established Church, neither Anglican nor Presbyterian. While the position of the hierarchy of the Church of England must be understood as a representing a significant objection to Edward marrying Mrs. Simpson and proceeding to Coronation, it seems likely that any opposition of church leaders would have been surmountable.

From the time that the possibility of marriage with Mrs. Simpson arose, the King's advisors had urged delay in pressing the issue. At the outset, Monkton urged putting off the Simpson divorce; and throughout the final days of the marriage controversy, Churchill urged delay in any final decision about abdication. The question arises as to what would have been gained by delay. Three alternatives to abdication and marriage are readily apparent: the King could have given up the proposed marriage, the King could have maintained a relationship with Mrs. Simpson as his mistress, or the King could have preceded to his Coronation and subsequently taken Wallis Simpson as his wife. The King emphatically rejected these three alternatives. He clearly intended to marry Mrs. Simpson and he repeatedly stated, "No marriage. No Coronation." So what would be the benefit of delay?

Mrs. Simpson's divorce decree nisi was granted on October 27, 1936. A final decree was expected April 27, 1937. The Coronation was set for May 12, 1937. Thus, there was a period of over six months between the time of the original divorce decree and the scheduled Coronation; and there was even a five-month period after the initial divorce decree before the King could marry Mrs. Simpson. During this period the supporters of the King could have used their media and political power to secure a change in opinion and a possible change in government. It must be admitted that it is unlikely that any efforts would have been successful in changing the position of the Prime Minister or his cabinet. Nor is it likely that any member of the sitting government would have been willing to replace Baldwin and support the King's position. However, it is possible that the King's refusal to accept Baldwin's opposition to the King's marriage to Mrs. Simpson would have led to Baldwin's resignation. Baldwin was vulnerable because of various positions and actions he had taken on matters unrelated to the King's proposed marriage mostly involving foreign policy matters, including armaments issues. And, of course economic conditions made the possibility of electing a new government not unlikely. Moreover, a liberal-conservative coalition led by Lloyd George and Winston Churchill would have provided a strong candidate to replace the Baldwin government.

It is possible a government, which supported the King could have been elected. There is, of course, difficultly in assessing the potential popular support for a party which made approval of the King's marriage to Mrs. Simpson part of its platform. However, it is clear that certain newspapers with mass circulation such as the Express and the Mail, as well as the New Statesman, would have supported the King and supported a party committed to keeping the King on the throne. One should not forget that at the time of the abdication there were newspapers supporting the King as well as demonstrators picketing with placards denouncing Baldwin and supporting the King. Baldwin managed to cast the issue as a "constitutional crisis" with the threat of a "King's Party." Instead, defenders of the King could have argued that what was involved was a political crisis with no significant constitutional issue whether a party either opposed or supported the King's marriage to Mrs. Simpson.

One explanation given for the King's failure to pursue alternative approaches to the marriage issue is that he was concerned with jeopardizing the ability of Mrs. Simpson obtaining a final and absolute decree in her divorce proceeding. The concern was that the Proctor, a government official, might intervene challenging the veracity of the evidence given in the divorce proceeding. Support for this view comes from the fact that on December 5 when the Bill of Abdication was to be introduced, the King requested a second Bill to make Mrs. Simpson's divorce absolute. Baldwin promised his own resignation should he fail to obtain passage of this divorce bill. Baldwin failed to obtain passage, but he did not resign. In fact, the King would have been in a better position to guarantee the finality of Mrs. Simpson's divorce had he remained on the throne since the Proctor likely would not take action over the monarch's objection.

The ultimate question arises: why did the King not pursue any of the alternatives open to him that would have provided a more likely outcome favorable to his position that he retain the throne and take Mrs. Simpson as his wife. The King's official biographer Philip Ziegler makes it clear that Edward was aware of his popular support, according to Ziegler, "He had more than enough solid evidence, however, to convince him there was sufficient support for him in the country to make things thoroughly difficult for the government. How much that support would have amounted to was never put to the test, because the King had no intention of giving it the encouragement it needed if it was to mobilize and multiply." The conventional answer to the question of the King's failure to resist the pressure of the government to abdicate is based on the King's abdication addresses itself; in his address he declared that he wanted to avoid a "constitutional crisis" with the government. In his address, the King stated: "There has never been any constitutional difference between me and them and between me and Parliament. Bred in the constitutional tradition by my Father, I should never have allowed any such issue to arise." This view is based on the proposition that the King can only act on the advice of his ministers. Thus it is argued that the King was required to seek and accept the advice of his ministers on the matter of his marriage. But as has been shown here, there was no legal prohibition on the King's marriage to Mrs. Simpson; he need not obtain the approval of the government, nor of Parliament, to marry Mrs. Simpson; and he need not have raised the issue of a morganatic marriage.

It is more likely that the real explanation lies elsewhere. While some individuals like Lord Beaverbrook report that "though the King often spoke of abdication he always indicated that he was anxious to remain on the throne," others have suggested that at some deeper level of consciousness Edward desired to rid himself of the burdens and obligations of monarchy. As Prince of Wales, Edward increasingly objected to the duties imposed upon him. Some observers noted increasing carelessness and indifference in Edward's manner of carrying out public functions. Even the tour of South Wales, shortly before his abdication, in which the Prince expressed concern for the living conditions and unemployment of those he encountered, implicitly stated criticism of the government's policies which could have been seen as attempting to provoke a negative reaction from the sitting government which could view the King's conduct as unconstitutional involvement of the monarch in politics. This view gains support from the fact that the King's expressed concerns about social issues did not lead him to undertake any serious efforts to change social conditions. Edward appears to have been bored by and disgruntled in the performance of royal duties. One of the King's biographers, Frances Donaldson, reports that Edward had an "instinctive and genuine dislike of so much of his job and the life he had led." An authoratative psychoanalytic explanation of Edward's behavior may be impossible and is certainly beyond the scope of this paper, but one may consider Edward's own words as evidence of a deep ambivalence about his royal position. Edward wrote to his private secretary, Sir Godfrey Thomas in 1919:

"[A] sort of hopelessly lost feeling has come over me, I think I'm going kind of mad . . . [and] feel incapable of pulling myself together . . . Christ, how I loathe my job and all the press puffed' empty success'. I feel I'm through with it and long to die." . . . You'll probably think from this that I ought to be in a mad house already, tho' this isn't necessary yet: I'm still quite sane and very much in earnest, but I don't know for how much longer!!

These feelings continued to occupy Edward right up to the abdication. The King's official biographer, Philip Ziegler, reports:

"In the little circle that made up informed London, there were rumors that Edward VIII would renounce the throne, or at least that he had only accepted it with reluctance. Alan Don, the Archbishop's principal advisor at Lambeth Palace, was told [by a credible source] that the new King was to turn Roman Catholic as the easiest means to escape from his unwelcome task . . . . Once [the King] had told [Alan] Lascelles [one of his principal advisors] that he was keeping a Canadian ranch so as to have somewhere to which he could retire. You mean for a holiday, Sir?' asked Lascelles. No, I mean for good' [the King responded]."

It is not too far fetched to assert that such feelings underlie the actions of Edward VIII as he dealt with his proposed marriage to Mrs. Simpson and the issue of his retention of the throne. These feelings may explain King Edward's failure to pursue any of the available alternative courses that would have permitted him to retain the throne and marry Mrs. Simpson.

Donald H.J. Hermann

====================================================

The author is currently Professor of Law and Philosophy at DePaul University. Previously he taught at the University of Kentucky and University of Washington. The author's undergraduate degree is in Economics and History from Stanford University. His legal education was completed at Columbia University and he has a graduate legal degree from Harvard University. The author received his degree of Doctor of Philosophy from Northwestern University. He subsequently studied art history study and earned a degree from School of the Art Institute of Chicago and a Master's degree in liberal arts from the University of Chicago. Mr. Hermann has published extensively in law journals, and he is the author of Mental Health Law in a Nutshell, Legal Aspects of AIDS, and The Insanity Defense: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives.