History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Edward VIII abdicated the English throne after discussion with his Prime Minister.

Edward informed Baldwin that he would abdicate if he could not marry Simpson. Baldwin then presented Edward with three choices: give up the idea of marriage; marry against his ministers' wishes; or abdicate.[50] It was clear that Edward was not prepared to give up Simpson, and he knew that if he married against the advice of his ministers, he would cause the government to resign, prompting a constitutional crisis. He chose to abdicate.

Quoted from Wikipedia in order to establish context; the wikipedia text includes references & citations not reproduced here.

  • Were the procedures used to force Edward VIII to renounce the throne legitimate? Were there established precedents and procedures?
  • Were there procedures which would have allowed Edward to retain the throne?
  • To what extent were there covert, unstated objections to Edward? (e.g. "sympathy for Germany" is frequently cited). Is this a conspiracy theory, or is there any real evidence to support this contention?
share|improve this question
What constititutes "force." Did someone hold a gun to his head and say,"Abdicate, or else?" No. Did a bunch of people tell him, "England won't follow a king with a divorced wife?" Probably. A non-trivial question might be, "Did Edward VIII's abdication "follow established procedurs or was there a constitutional/legal way for him to keep his throne? – Tom Au Aug 30 '13 at 12:36
@PurplePilot The question has now (by Mark) been edited into a completely different, and useful question. – Lennart Regebro Aug 31 '13 at 7:42

Edward was presented by his minsters with three unpalatable choices, and he choose abdication from the list.

As there was no threat of physical violence, of insurrection, of violation of the King's peace, or of commitment of any other felony, it was constitutional. In England constitutional essentially amounts to whatever competent individuals agree to do without any felonious activity, or threat thereof.

share|improve this answer
I do not know, who put here the word "constitutional". It was not it my question and I think it is stupid to ask about constitutionality in UK (of course his abdication was legal, and UK has no constitution). – Anixx Sep 1 '13 at 7:50
I think you've oversimplifing. Bagehot has written books on the constitution. Here is a very brief discussion of the constitution. @PurplePilot has already weighed in. The Constitution of UK is a non-trivial subject. Why did you ask the question if you have no doubt about the legality of the act? – Mark C. Wallace Sep 3 '13 at 16:07

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.