A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tags: , ,

legal sense and nonsense



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old February 6th 04, 11:47 PM
Nick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default legal sense and nonsense

(Sam Sloan) wrote in message ...
On 4 Feb 2004 17:53:51 -0800,
(Nick) wrote:
(snipped)
With regard to the 1936 British 'constitutional crisis' that led to the
abdication of King Edward VIII, I recall reading that at least one popular
American writer has misunderstood it to mean, in effect: "King Edward VIII
had to abdicate because the British constitution made it illegal for him to
marry Mrs Wallis Simpson, an American divorcee." That is untrue.

But it was not illegal for Edward to marry Wallis Simpson, which he did.
It was unconstitutional, however, for Edward, as the King, to marry her
and make her the Queen. And it was dangerously unconstitutional for
King Edward VIII to attempt to defy the *binding advice* of the elected
Government over the issue of the royal marriage, indeed, over any issue of
state. Essentially, that was the 1936 British constitutional crisis.


Could he have just married her and not made her the queen?


That possibility was proposed in desperation by King Edward VIII.

The elected British government (Stanley Baldwin was the Prime Minister)
informed King Edward VIII that it was opposed to him marrying Mrs Simpson,
and that if he did marry her anyway, in direct contravention of that binding
advice, the government would have no choice but to resign.

Under pressure from King Edward VIII, the British government consented to
submit these options to the other governments in the British Commonwealth:

1) The King could marry, and then Mrs Simpson would become the Queen
(which would be a 'royal marriage').
2) The King could marry, and Mrs Simpson would *not* become the Queen but
receive some courtesy title (which would be a 'morganatic marriage').
3) The King could abdicate and then marry Mrs Simpson.

Almost all of the other governments decided that only the third option
would be acceptable to them and their peoples.

I have never understood this. Why did he have to abdicate?


King Edward VIII did *not* have to abdicate if he had been able to resolve
himself *not* to marry Mrs Simpson. But he could *not* both marry her and
remain on the throne. So Edward made his choice.

--Nick
Ads
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2008 ChessBanter, part of the NewsgroupBanter project.
The comments are property of their posters.
Credit Cards - Mortgage - Free Advertising - Online Loans - Credit Cards UK