Edward, Mrs Simpson and the Divorce Law: Stephen Cretney Investigates Whether the Government Colluded in the Suppression of Evidence That Might Have Prevented Wallis Simpson's Divorce and Royal Marriage

By Cretney, Stephen | History Today, September 2003 | Go to article overview

Edward, Mrs Simpson and the Divorce Law: Stephen Cretney Investigates Whether the Government Colluded in the Suppression of Evidence That Might Have Prevented Wallis Simpson's Divorce and Royal Marriage


Cretney, Stephen, History Today


ON DECEMBER 11TH, 1936, King Edward VIII abdicated so that he could 'marry the woman he loved', the American Mrs Wallis Warfield Simpson. But in fact Mrs Simpson was a married woman and so not free to marry the King, or anyone else for that matter. She had, it is true, started divorce proceedings alleging that her husband Ernest had committed adultery with an unnamed woman at a hotel in the Thames valley. Mr Simpson had not offered any defence, and the divorce court had accordingly granted Mrs Simpson a so-called divorce decree nisi. But the decree could not be made absolute (thereby legally ending her marriage) for six months.

The reason for this compulsory waiting period was that, at that time, the law refused to accept divorce by consent. The fact that a couple had agreed on a divorce--that there had been 'collusion' as lawyers put it--was not something to be welcomed: on the contrary, it was a ground for rejecting the petition. And there were other possible difficulties as well--not least, the fact that only an 'innocent' husband or wife was entitled to divorce, and some people suspected that Mrs Simpson had been the King's mistress, or at any rate that she had had several other lovers.

How was anybody to find out the truth of such things? That was the job of a Government lawyer (the 'King's Proctor'). It was his responsibility to investigate divorces--especially undefended divorces--in order to make sure that the applicant was 'innocent' and that the decree had not been obtained by agreement or even by faked 'evidence'. If the Proctor found that anything was suspicious, he could 'intervene' to put the facts he had discovered before the court. The court then had the power to rescind the decree nisi and thus prevent the husband and wife from marrying again. Furthermore even a private citizen could (on the payment of half-a-crown--less than 5 [pounds sterling] in today's money) intervene to 'show cause' why the decree nisi should not be made absolute.

Stanley Baldwin, the Conservative prime minister of the National Government, and his Cabinet, firmly believed that Mrs Simpson could not he allowed to become queen. The public, in the Dominions as well as in Britain, would not tolerate having a woman with two living ex-husbands on the throne. Nor (the Government decided) would it be legally possible for her to marry the King 'morganatically', that is without becoming queen. Edward VIII, faced with the choice of either remaining King or giving up the throne and marrying Mrs Simpson, came to a clear decision: he would abdicate. But there were some who thought the King's abdication would be a disaster for the monarchy and the country. The King, they thought, must therefore be 'saved from himself'. So, imbued with patriotic motives, they determined to prevent the divorce by looking for evidence that the King and Mrs Simpson had indeed committed adultery. And, as Sir John Simon, the Home Secretary, discreetly put it, there probably would be people who could give evidence of the couple's 'comings and goings'. These people saw a 'citizen's intervention' as the best way of stopping Mrs Simpson getting a decree absolute and so (they thought) of keeping the legitimate king on the throne.

There was another difficult problem. So long as Edward remained on the throne, the principle that a king 'can do no wrong' prevented his being brought into the case. But if he ceased to be king this protection would disappear. And since the King's Proctor routinely looked into all undefended divorce cases, it would be his duty in 'put his sleuths' on to the case, and see if evidence that Mrs Simpson had committed adultery could be found. From the King's point of view, therefore, the best thing to do would be to hold out until the end of the six months' waiting period. Perhaps public opinion would by then have moved in favour of allowing Mrs Simpson to become queen; but even if the King did in the end abdicate he would at least know that he could legally marry. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Edward, Mrs Simpson and the Divorce Law: Stephen Cretney Investigates Whether the Government Colluded in the Suppression of Evidence That Might Have Prevented Wallis Simpson's Divorce and Royal Marriage
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.