Talk:Edward VIII

An event mentioned in this article is a June 3 selected anniversary

---

Excellent footnote, 66. . . Really good work. (You know you really should sign in under some identity. Typing 66 . . . is a bit of a mouthful.) wikilove. FearÉIREANN 03:58, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Styles

According to the Yorkshire Post for December 12 1936 (page 11, column 2 - I spotted it whilst looking through the month today), after Edward abdicated he was initially just "Edward Windsor, Esq." (and the BBC introducing his broadcast as His Royal Highness Prince Edward was innaccurate) and would remain so until the new King conferred titles upon him.

Does anyone know if this is correct, or journalistic error? If it is then when exactly did he become the Duke of Windsor et al? Timrollpickering 17:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect. As a descendant of his father (surprise, surprise) he has the style, title and dignity of HRH & Prince under the Letters Patent of 1917. He only lost the various knighthoods he had received, but he lost those on becoming King. George VI awarded these to him agai, which ade him the only commoner in all eight orders - 8 seyts of post-nominal letters, quite a handful.

According to his autibiography George VI mentioned a what royal dukedom to give him on the night of the abdication, but he remained Prince Edward for several months until the letters paent were prepared (just as today in the New Years Honours lists, the Queen awards Fred Bloggs an OBE and he becomes Fred Bloggs OBE straight away, but the list says She intends creating Fred Bloggs Lord Whatsit, and he stays Fred Bloggs until the Letters Patent are signed. IIRC this happened shortly before his wedding in June 1937. --garryq 18:48, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The minutiae of styles really should always go at the bottom of an entry like this, with just enough detail at the top to enable the reader to follow the central story. The first paragraph, as with mere mortals, should very briefly identify the subject. Wetman 06:35, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am a little confused and it will be a little confusing to read -so please bear with me. We are all agreed that the Queen is legally the Queen and that her official title is Queen Elizabeth II. However, when the Queen dies she will not legally be the Queen but will still be known as Queen Elizabeth II as she is the second Queen Elizabeth to have graced the throne of England. Now, when King Edward VIII seised to be King, he was known as the Duke of Windsor respectfully BUT was he still King Edward VIII as he too was the eighth King Edward to have graced the throne of England. Okay, he was not His Majesty anymore as that was the title of the new King but surely he was still King Edward VIII or Edward VIII. He must have been as nobody else could use such a title. For instance, in the case of his mother Queen Mary - she had been known respectfully as Her Majesty The Queen while her husband was alive but was subsequently known during her widowhood as Her Majesty Queen Mary and not Her Majesty the Queen. Surely the Duke of Windsor was also King Edward VIII regardless of whether he had abdicated or not and if not, who was? regardless of that, there could never be a King Edward VIII in the future so why not call him that? --Huw 18:43, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

True, but he would have been ex-King Edward VIII because he gave the throne up. King was what he was BEFORE, not after he abdicated. The other kings and queens are referred to as King George VI etc because that was what they were when they died because they died whilst they were on the throne.

Basically, when Edward abdicated, he was no longer King Edward VIII. Yes, he HAD been that, for 11 months, but after he gave it up he ceased to be a king, and he couldnt be known as such afterwards because he RELINQUISHED it and therefore had to have another title afterwards to live his life by. He could have styled himself Edward VIII but the point is that "Edward VIII" no longer existed - there HAD been a king called that, but when he abdicated there was no king by that title except historically (much as a dead monarch). Queen Mary could style herself a queen because she always WAS a queen, she never ceased being one, albeit a dowager. Edward was not a king afterwards, so he couldnt style himself one.

And if a future king chooses Edward as his throne name, he will be Edward IX. --StanZegel 19:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

So theoretically, he could still have signed himself Edward VIII but not King Edward VIII? I don't see how he stopped becoming Edward VIII because he was still Edward VIII and not King Edward VIII and another point to raise is that he wouldn't have been ex-King Edward VIII because he was still Edward VIII as nobody could use that name any longer! however, ex-King Edward might have been more appropriate or even Edward VIII but not King Edward VIII? Would that be more truthful? After all in the case of Diana, Princess of Wales..she was still allowed to use the title as a name rather than a title (as does the Duchess of York) but she wasn't Princess of Wales, Princess or any other title by marriage! --Huw 21:20, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

No, he couldn't have styled himself Edward VIII, because he DID stop being Edward VIII. The point is that when he abdicated his title, name & ordinal became historic. When a king dies, both the person and the title cease to exist - namely because the holder is dead. In Edwards case he didn't "die" but his title did. You're right that no-one could use that name any longer BUT it worked in the same way as a dead king. George VI, for example, is dead - because he's dead he can't be a king anymore (or, in fact, anything else), although he WAS a king and is always remembered as such. There isn't really a difference between the titles of "King Edward VIII" and "Edward VIII" because both titles are used to refer to a living current monarch (Elizabeth II, Queen Elizabeth II), the ordinal refers to his position as King of the United Kingdom, so putting King is emphasising the kingly status. (Elizabeth II doesn't stop becoming a queen if you don't calle her "Queen Elizabeth II") Edward DID stop becoming Edward VIII - he only held that title during 1936, after that he was a PRINCE, not a KING, so he couldn't be referred to as one. I think theoretically he would've been able to be ex-king Edward VIII, with the "ex" referring to ALL of that title (because the word "king" and the ordinal "VIII" both refer to his position, he wasn't just an ex-KING, but an ex "VIII" - as you said no-one else could be an Edward VIII after him - he was no longer the 8th king called Edward, he renounced that) but that would have been in bad taste in the light of the situation, and I think that style is more usually used by monarchs who have been forcefully deposed. He couldn't have been known as Edward VIII because that implies (as it does with any monarch) that he was still king. Re: Diana, Princess of Wales - that was slightly different as she was a divorcee and had got her title Princess of Wales from her husband alone (courtesy title) - Edward's kingly title was his by right. Diana gave up her marriage, and therefore the title, whereas Edward just gave up his title. I think the confusion here arises that Edward VIII is and will be the only person to be named as such, the next king named Edward would be Edward IX, BUT the core of the matter is that Edward could not possibly have been known as Edward VIII because he simply WASN'T Edward VIII any longer, in any way. When a king dies, because the actual person dies, the title therefore goes from him to the next person - because the former king is dead he can therefore be referred to as Edward VII or George VI or whatever because there's no chance he'll get mixed up with the present, living monarch - it's quite clear that because he's dead he's a king past. When Edward abdicated,HE didn't die but his title acted as though he had done - and went to the next person, so "Edward VIII" was an historic title, NOT a title in use. It's quite complicated - though I think you're right re: the title of ex-King Edward VIII, because that is what he was also as well as Duke of Windsor.Edward VIII was an historic title only relegated to history books, and you can't use historic titles in present day situations. Diana, Princess of Wales was called such because her ex-title acted as her surname - she was actually after divorce "Lady Diana, Princess of Wales" but dropped the "Lady", so she was actually reverting to her maiden status. It is misleading that she was called "Princess of Wales" even though she wasn't a princess anymore, but it was just a surname, nothing more - apparantly when the divorce happened the Queen didn't know quite what to refer to her as because there had never been a precedent of a Princess of Wales divorcing, so they referred to divorced peeresses. However, Diana was called as such after her divorce because in all divorces surnames act like that - because Prince Charles is never known as Mr. Charles Windsor Diana therefore (although she could've) wasn't known as such. Diana was Diana, Princess of Wales, or Diana, Duchess of Cornwall, or Diana, Duchess of Rothesay, etc just as she was theoretically Lady Diana Windsor, as a normal divorcee would be (but how would THAT have looked? Especially since she was the mother of the future king, I think they did it to give her a bit more respect). Anyhow, the point I'm making is that Diana's title was the normal product of a divorce and that Diana's title wasn't really the issue, her marriage was, since she wasn't giving up any office of her own since everything she had was by courtesy. Diana didn't use the title of Princess of Wales afterwards - she had NO royal titles afterwards - it just so happened her surname was very like the title she once held. Edward VIII was quite the opposite - everything he had was by right, and was relinquishing what was HIS. You made the point that no-one else could be Edward VIII - true, but what people neglect is the fact that that included Edward himself - "Edward VIII" didn't exist except in history books. (jayboy2005)

What if...

Am I correct in thinking that if Edward had not abdicated (but everything else remained the way it really happened), Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester would today be King? When Edward died in 1972, he had no children (at least no legitimate ones; we don't know for sure if Scott Chisholm's grandfather was really his son) and his only surviving sibling was Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. Surely Henry would then have become king, rather than Elizabeth becoming queen, wouldn't he? Henry died in 1974, and his oldest son Prince William of Gloucester had already died in '72, leaving Richard next in line to the throne. Right? --Angr/_comhrá 12:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester. In short - no, Elizabeth would have become queen. john k 13:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong about Prince William he was still living when Edward died, and if his father became King, he may not have died do to the added security of an heir. If all of this occured Elizabeth would have become queen anyway, as the line of succession goes from sibilings, than their children and then the next sibiling and their children. If the sibiling is deceased, their children would remain in the same spot in the line of succession, and still take prescedence over younger sibilings. So, if Edward had not abdicated and had no children at the time of his death the line of succession would have been: 1. HRH Princess Elizabeth 2. HRH Prince Charles 3. HRH Prince Andrew 4. HRH Prince Edward 5. HRH Princess Anne 6. HRH Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester 7. HRH Prince William of Gloucester (Still living at the time of the Duke's death) 8. HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester etc.

((Cooldoug111 17:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)))

Not quite, After Princess Anne, (1972 line-of-succession) it would have been Princess Margaret, David Armstrong-Jones, Sarah Armstrong-Jones & then Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. GoodDay 23:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Had Edward VIII not abdicated, he may well have died before 1972 - and Prince Albert, Duke of York (George VI) may have lived much longer due to not having the stress of being King during WWII. Therefore, if Edward VIII was indeed incapable of fathering children, and died in say the 1950s, he would have been succeeded by his younger brother Prince Albert, who would have become George VI anyway...only much later. When he died, say, in the 1960s-80s, presuming he had no sons (only Elizabeth and Margaret), Elizabeth would then have still become Elizabeth II. However, it is very questionable whether she would have married Prince Philip of Greece had her father not been King in 1947; therefore, she may have had either different children, or no children. In the latter scenario, all other things being equal, the present Duke of Gloucester would almost certainly be King Richard IV right now. Lord Charlton 15:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Edward VIII at Exeter Cathedral

In Exeter Cathedral, close to the main entrance on the left hand wall, there is a plaque with one of the few mentions of Edward VIII as king. (There are also a few other objects, plaques and other items associated with him - which could be listed.)

Why has the article page been blocked against vandalism?

Jackiespeel 15:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's because someone keeps adding that he was called "von Wettin", which is incorrect. He was from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, which is a branch of the Wettin family, but the British Royal Family were never known as "von Wettin" themselves. Others, quite correctly, keep removing this falsehood. Unfortunately it was protected with the "von Wettin" bit in - so we are the only source in the world saying Edward used to be von Wettin!! Yippee!!jguk 08:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

H.R.H The Prince Edward, The Duke of Windsor

Is this where the page should be locatate???. After all he was only King for 320 days and this is what he was when he died. Also why is someone trying to force von Wettin

The above sentence seems to have been abandoned untimely.Jackiespeel 18:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be located at Prince Edwar, Duke of Windosr. After all he abdicated the throne. Mac Domhnaill 21:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor also abdicated. So do you want him listed as "Charles, Lord of Yuste"? --StanZegel (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

You've got a point but I think he should be referred to as his highest title, which was king. "The Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor" implies he only ever was that all his life. His place is within the list of British kings because he was one - just because he abdicated doesn't change that. (jayboy2005)

Edward VIII and Crystal Palace

Crystal Palace burnt down a few days before Edward's abdication was announced.

Jackiespeel 18:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I am a devout Monarchist, but any man who would cast away his people to marry a whore of no importance does not deserve to be referred to as King. In my book he is HRH The Prince Edward Duke of Windsor.

I too am a monarchist but to call Her Grace The Duchess of Windsor a whore is a little extreme. We should all remember that HRH The Duchess of Cornwall was married before and HRH The Prince of Wales referred to his relationship with her as 'non negotiable'. Is he not fit to be King as a result? and should h relinquish his titles also? I ssay let he who is without sin cast the first stone and I hope this rediculous notion of having a Princess Consort instead of a Queen quite bewildering. Consider the possibility of referring to someone with the legal style of Majesty as 'Your Royal Highness'. It would make the very heart of the monarchy a national laughing stock.

Coronation

Edward VIII was never crowned. The date that was planned (and that was printed on mugs!) was re-used for his brother. Should we mention this? Morwen - Talk 15:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

We could, as it is mentioned in his brother's (George VI) article.Prsgoddess187 15:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

His Excellency The Governor of the Bahamas

I have re-read this, and it does not make sence to me. In Canada, when the Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn became Governor General of Canada, he was styled His Royal Highness the Governor General of Canada. Why is this not the case for the late Prince Edward when he was Governor of the Bahamas? His Excellency, even though this is a high title, is lesser than HRH, isn't it? I could understand why his wife could have the title of Her Excellency, seeing that she did not recieve the title of Her Royal Highness. Christophe T. Stevenson 03 Jan. 06

Dandy?

Don't know much about this, but maybe somebody else does. Apparently Edward VIII was admired by dandys the world over for his unique style of clothing and indeed his whole lifesyle. Could somebody write something on this aspect of Edward's life? Oddly enough the German article on Edward has more on this - including information on safaris he went on in East Africa... Edward is also mentioned in the dandy article.

Only abdicate one throne?

Could Edward theoretically only have abdicated selective thrones? For example, abdicating all but the Irish throne, being just King of Ireland? I don't see why he didn't do this, since Ireland wanted to be separate at the time.

No- constitutional conventions established in 1931 decided that no realm could pass laws regarding the succession of the throne independently of the others. Astrotrain 09:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Edward did remain as King of Ireland for one day longer than elsewhere, due to a delay in passing the External Relations Act which recognised the abdication. To put it bluntly, Éamon de Valera screwed up the abdication laws, hence the delay. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A bit of nitpicking

Here is the excerpt:

The couple appeared on Edward R. Murrow's television interview show "Person to Person" and were invited to a state dinner at the White House by President Richard M. Nixon;

In 1951 the president was Dwight Eisenhower; should it perhaps read as such, or was it Vice President Nixon who made the invitation? RashBold ^Talk 17:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Not nitpicking. It was President Nixon who invited the Windsors to the White House, two decades after the "Person to Person" interview. Perhaps the date should be inserted.Masalai 05:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What actually happended!

When Edward VIII abdicated he gave up the throne for himself and his descendants, he also had to relinquish all titles which he held. Had he not given up all his titles he may have been able to still attribute all the titles and privilages of Heir Apparent. As he was Sovereign of all the Orders of Chivalry it would have been difficult to determine which orders he should be a Knight of and which ones he should give up.

Overall it was easier for him to give up everything and start again. King George VI granted Edward the style and title held by a younger son of the Monarch and the Dukedom of Windsor. Thus he became His Royal Highness The Prince Edward of the United Kingdom, The Duke of Windsor.

Never before in British history had a Monarch abdicated, as such there must have been a diffcult discussion of what to refer to Edward VIII when he abdicated. It would have been out of the question for him to still possess the title of King in some form or another or even that of Emeperor, as he was Emperor of India.

Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth (The Queen Mother) held the titles of Queen because their husbands were Kings. Although when each of their husbands died they ceased to be "The Queen Consort" they were still Queens has the had not given up their positions. When a King dies his Queen Consort automatically becomes a Queen Dowager.

Had Edward VIII still held the title of King in some form after his abdication, it would have been difficult for King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (The Queen Mother) in their new positions as they would be overshadowed by Edward. This is also a reason why The Duke of Windsor as he then bacame has to remain in exile for a year following the adbication.

King

He couldn't have been styled "king" afterwards because he was no longer king. He had himself voluntarily relinquished the throne (unlike deposed monarchs who continued to be titled "king" out of courtesy - they were forced to give up the throne against their will). He was in no way still a king after abdication; he differs from queen consorts in this way because the queen consorts, when their husband dies, do not voluntarily relinquish their status. Edward could not have held the titles of the heir apparant since they can only be held by the heir apparant - which he was not, after his abdication.

Adrift?

This title seems rather POV-ish. 'Later Years' is the more accepted heading for biographical entries. I also dispute the notion that the Windsors were 'forgotten'. Open any glossy magazine of the time or read contemporary gossip colums, and they feature heavily during the 50s and 60s. It was only after the Duke's illness and during the Duchess's final years that they disappeared from the public consciousness. --Stevouk 11:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

clarification required

does this phrase make sense "The British Parliament passed His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 the next day and, on receiving the Royal Assent from Edward VIII, he legally ceased "

who received the royal assent parliment on edward??

Second or third (or fourth) shortest reign?

I believe that Lady Jane Grey is regarded as having had the shortest reign of any British (or English) monarch. That would make Edward VIII the third shortest after LJG and Edward V. N'est-ce pas? King Hildebrand 09:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thinks: Harold II reigned for only about 9 months in 1066. So maybe Edward VIII is actually 4th? King Hildebrand 10:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Lady Jane Grey wasn't a monarch. Hence why she is a Lady and not a Queen Jane. Astrotrain 10:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As Astrotrain says, Lady Jane Grey is not in the official list of English monarchs. Officially, Mary is considered to have immediately acceded upon Edward VI's death, per the terms of their father's will, which had been given legal force to determine the succession by parliament. Generally, counts like this are referring only to monarchs since the Norman conquest, but we should say that explicitly (second shortest since the Norman conquest). john k 11:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Windsor knot

"The Duke's name also became associated with a fashion item: the Windsor knot, after his fondness for large-knotted ties." The association of this manner of knotting a tie with the Duke dates from his days as fashion trend-setter when Prince of Wales, not his later life as Duke of Windsor. If there are other such minutiae to add, perhaps this could go in a "Trivia" section.Masalai 15:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have re-inserted this passage in a somewhat elaborated section on "royal duties," where it perhaps makes sense. Possibly other editors will have different views.Masalai 04:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

His title

The title "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" didn't come into existence until Elizabeth's coronation in 1953. The title used between 1927 and 1953 was "King (Queen) of Great Britain and Ireland." This indicated that the British monarch was still King of Ireland (until 1949), even though Ireland was now outside the United Kingdom. Between 1922 and 1927 George V still used "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland," although that United Kingdom no longer included the Irish Free State. john k 20:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

All the texts I have seen say that the and between Great Britain and Ireland was axed in 1927 in the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act. (George V was unhappy about the decision.) The fact that they were different kingdoms was indicated in the royal title by separating the kingdoms using a comma, making it Great Britain, Ireland . . . And was used when they were the one kingdom. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually John, the title until 1949 was

of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Emperor of India. (Instrument of Abdication)

In 1949 Northern Ireland replaced Ireland (with the comma after Great Britain dropped as they were the one kingdom, not separate ones, as was the case with Great Britain and Ireland. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)