Previous Message
The issue was that in 1936 of the three younger brothers of Edward VIII the youngest seemed the most capable to take over.
Bertie still had his stammer and was seen as weak. He turned out to be a good and possibly even great monarch securing the throne and monarchy by his exemplary behaviour during the war.
Henry was unwed and not particularly popular. Im not sure if he had a drinking problem at that time.
George was married to the glamorous Marina of Greece and Denmark they had a son and daughter so the next generation was secure and he and his wife were popular in the press.
I don't believe anyone in power seriously contemplated the idea of skipping four direct heirs (Bertie, Elizabeth, Margaret and Henry) but there seems to have been some speculation about it. Previous MessagePrevious Message
.
And indeed, in the event of abdication, it's entirely possible to bypass heirs who are closer in line to the throne. This has been stressed in the British case of 1936.
And indeed, had King Edward VIII of Great Britain suddenly died without any direct heirs, at any time after his accession in 1936, then the Duke of York would have automatically succeeded him on the throne: his status as the new king would not have had to be confirmed.
As a historian, I have never heard of this extraordinary claim. I should be grateful for reputable sources for this. I have asked other historians about this in the last 24 hours and they have all dismissed it as nonsense
I am well aware of perceptions of the brothers, only the public did not know how unsuitable the Duke of Kent was - promiscuous and taking drugs.
The point remains, who ever raised the thought of ignoring the legal line of succession? Can anyone quote a reputable source, please. This is just unsubstantiated and I doubt was ever discussed at the time, certainly not by anyone with even the most basic knowledge of the monarchy.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index