2M - Challenges to stability: the abdication crisis
Learn why Edward VIII's proposed marriage became a constitutional crisis, how fascists and communists challenged established politics, and why parliamentary government survived these pressures in the 1930s.
Abdication and constitutional monarchy
Edward VIII became king in January 1936 and wished to marry Wallis Simpson, an American woman whose second marriage was ending in divorce. Divorce and remarriage conflicted with the expectations of the Church of England, of which the king was Supreme Governor. The intended marriage was therefore not regarded by ministers simply as a private romantic choice.
The constitutional issue was the relationship between the monarch's wishes and the advice of elected government. Baldwin made clear that his government could not support Simpson becoming queen. Ministers also considered the position of the dominions, whose governments had a constitutional interest in the Crown. A proposed morganatic marriage, in which Simpson would not become queen, failed to secure sufficient government support and would have required legal changes.
Constitutional monarchy
A system in which the monarch's position operates within law and constitutional conventions, including acting on ministerial advice. Political government rests with ministers responsible to Parliament rather than with the monarch's personal decisions.
If Edward insisted on the marriage against ministerial advice, Baldwin might resign. Creating a government dependent on personal loyalty to the king could then draw the monarchy into partisan politics. Labour and Liberal leaders broadly supported Baldwin's constitutional position. The absence of a viable alternative administration greatly restricted Edward's room for manoeuvre.
The British press initially exercised discretion, but the controversy became public in December. Edward chose to abdicate. He signed the instrument on 10 December 1936; Parliament gave effect to the abdication on 11 December, and his brother became George VI. Edward's radio address explained his personal choice, but it did not change the constitutional settlement.
The crisis ended without a breakdown of parliamentary government. Baldwin's handling defended ministerial authority and kept the monarchy from becoming a rival political centre. It also demonstrated the strength of established social and religious expectations. A judgement can recognise constitutional stability without assuming that every member of the public shared the government's view of the marriage.
The BUF's ideology and appeal
Economic distress created opportunities for movements claiming that established parties had failed. Oswald Mosley, formerly a Conservative and then a Labour politician, left Labour after rejection of his unemployment proposals. After the failure of his New Party, he founded the British Union of Fascists (BUF) in 1932. Italian fascism influenced its organisation, uniforms and vision of leadership.
The BUF sought authoritarian rule, a strong leader and a corporate state, in which occupational bodies would replace parliamentary party competition as the basis of representation. It promised economic direction, protection and national revival. These proposals appealed to some people frustrated with unemployment or attracted by disciplined national unity, but they required a fundamental reduction of democratic choice.
Its blackshirt uniforms, rallies and organised stewards made politics theatrical and confrontational. Support came from different groups, including some middle-class sympathisers and disaffected workers; it was not simply the automatic political response of the most unemployed industrial regions. Fascist movements elsewhere did not provide proof that British fascism would succeed in the same way.
Antisemitism became increasingly central to BUF propaganda, especially in the later 1930s and in east London. It falsely blamed Jewish people for economic and political problems and encouraged harassment. This scapegoating offered a distorted explanation of hardship while making the movement a direct threat to targeted communities, even though it lacked national electoral strength.
The BUF's appeal must therefore be judged on two different scales. It did not become a credible national parliamentary majority, but its intimidation could seriously damage local security. A movement need not capture government to pose a meaningful threat to individual citizens and community relations.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account