Controversial Abdications

[henridefense]

In the last century there have been at least two controversial abdications (which come to my mind at least, if there are others by all means include them) and these are the abdication of King Edward VIII of Great Britain and King Leopold III of the Belgians. I was wondering what others think of these. Were they justified and necessary? Should they have happened?

In the more famous case of King Edward VIII I must say that, in my opinion, it seems that Edward VIII was never really cut out for the job of king, putting duty and country first & all that. However, it would be hard to say it was absolutely necessary, at least in my mind from today's standpoint. After all, marrying a commoner is no longer frowned upon and even marrying a divorcee does not seem to be the taboo it once was and even that, I must say, I have found rather odd for the Church of England considering that it came to be because of a King's need for a divorce.

In the case of King Leopold III it seems to me that he (like Edward in many ways) has been victimized by alot of suggestive talk that has little or no evidence to back it up. I understand his willingness to abdicate to spare his country from trouble and infighting but by itself I don't see why he should have had to. He did what he thought he had to do for the benefit of his people and he remained a prisoner throughout the war. I feel rather bad that his reputation has been clouded by so many.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on these or other cases?

[hovite]

Dec 20, 2008 7:11:57 GMT @henridefense said:

In the more famous case of King Edward VIII I must say that, in my opinion, it seems that Edward VIII was never really cut out for the job of king, putting duty and country first & all that. However, it would be hard to say it was absolutely necessary, at least in my mind from today's standpoint. After all, marrying a commoner is no longer frowned upon and even marrying a divorcee does not seem to be the taboo it once was and even that, I must say, I have found rather odd for the Church of England considering that it came to be because of a King's need for a divorce.

There was more to it than that. The problem was that Mrs Simpson had another lover:

"The identity of Mrs Simpson’s lover has now been definitely ascertained. He is Guy Marcus Trundle, now living at 18 Bruton Street. He is said to boast that every woman falls for him. He meets Mrs Simpson quite openly at informal social gatherings as a personal friend, but secret meetings are made by appointment when intimate relations take place.”

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article861396.ece

[acj626]

Mrs. Simpson was not yet divorced from her second husband when she started seeing the Prince of Wales. There are many layers to this controversy.

[vittoria]

I once read a not-so-jocular remark that when it came to Mrs. Simpson, the upper-classes didn't care that she'd been previously married, but they did care that she was an American; while the working and middle-classes didn't care that she was American, they cared that she'd been divorced.

That comment sums up the reality: there was more to the abdication scandal than a single issue. However, at the time, the one issue of divorce was sufficient for public consumption. Over time -- since the early 17th century -- the royal family's role had evolved from political absolutism to social iconicity: the monarch and his or her relatives came to function as exemplars of virtue and morality. This became especially important in the 19th century, as a middle-class burgeoned in the wake of the Industrial Revolution. The middle-classes wanted to view the royals as a model family, good examples for themselves (as they were trying to separate themselves from their lower-class roots), and courtiers also understood that having this desire fulfilled did much to bolster the British self-image. Whatever was really going on behind the scenes, it didn't do to let daylight in upon magic, as Walter Bagehot famously said. Divorce wasn't merely a breaking of sacramentally-sanctioned bonds, it was a threat to social and familial stability, and the royal family couldn't be seen as unstable or "normal."

That's merely my take on an issue that is usually explained merely as a matter of the Chruch of England's prohibition of the religious remarriage of divorced people. How could the "Defender of the Faith" defy this prohibition? However, religions -- and monarchies -- always mirror and support social interests, that's one of their functions, and though they change and progress with time, as the CofE and the British monarchy have done, it was impossible to expect this of them in the 1930's. In fact, to my knowledge, there is no law or act prohibiting the marriage of the heir to a divorced person, as there is regarding marriage to a Roman Catholic. The kerfuffle of the abdication and Princess Margaret's personal tragedy came down to longtime social mores, codified in the Church's view on divorce, which lasted until the Synod of -- I believe -- 2003.

So, yes, the abdication was inevitable at the time, but I've always felt that Edward wasn't enthusiastic about becoming king, and that other people weren't enthusiastic about his becoming king either. I suspect that a certain inflexibility on the subject of marriage to a divorced woman actually masked a desire, on the part of some individuals, to encourage Edward to take himself off the throne.

As far as Leopold is concerned, his situation was more specifically political, but there were some social issues at play as well. His problems involved not only a loss of faith as a result of the events of the war, but also a difficult relationship with his ministers BEFORE the war and national distress following his remarriage, which was badly handled. However, I've gone on at too-great length, so I'll cut this short. Other people can comment.