As I remember it - an abdication is different from a death and the Act of Parliament which allowed Edward VIII's abdication also designated his heir - it wasn't automatic according to male-preferred primogeniture. Bertie was widely regarded as unsuitable, if not more than a bit short of a picnic and Gloucester was considered boorish. Although the British Royal family had no requirement to marry equally - indeed, Queen Victoria thought such requirements absurd - Kent was canvassed/favoured by some in the Government to succeed Edward VIII precisely because he had both a fully royal wife and a male heir. (At that time, notwithstanding the right of females to succeed, a male heir was still considered preferable.)
I think that this is from an edited Penguin book of essays published to commemorated the Queen's silver jubilee (1977), but as I say, the books are packed up.
One of the other interesting essays in that volume discussed the constitutional proposition that was apparently also considered/proposed by some constitutional authorities at the time of the King's decline in health, that the Princesses Elisabeth and Margaret Rose were equal co-heiresses to their father and that, since the Crown could not go into abeyance, his various sovereignties might have to be divided.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index | View thread »