Just wondering if he had not abdicated and Elizabeth did not ascend the throne would her son( her marriage staying the same) have become King as being the next male in line as George would not have become King in his place.
?
Favorite Answer
George may not have been King, but his daughter Elizabeth would still have been Queen. She was next in line. Charles would be King after her death. the only difference is Elizabeth would not have become Queen until twenty years later, when Edward died.
Anonymous
Who can say? It is possible that Edward VIII would have had more interest in having children to create an heir. It has been argued that as the Duke of Windsor, he took a conscious decision not to have children in case they were distressed by what might have been.
But if he had remained as king without children, and assuming the changed roles would not have affected longevity, George VI would never have been king and Elizabeth II would have come to the throne in 1972 - meaning this would be her 41st year on the throne rather than her 61st. We'd all be wondering whether she would survive to see a Golden Jubilee.
nosdda
Charles was not even born then. The queens Father took on the Throne when his Brother Abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson this was George 6th, and on his death, his Daughter Elizabeth tok on the throne and was crowned Queen of the United kingdom and the British Commonwealth.
?
Assuming Edward VIII would have still had no children and everything else stayed the same, including George VI's death in 1952, Elizabeth would have become Queen in 1972 when he died. That's how the British law of succession to the throne works.
Anonymous
It would all have depended on whether Edward had had children. If not, then if he'd been alive at the time, on his death the line would have gone to Edward's brother Bertie (George VI as he became) and so to his daughter Elizabeth and to Charles. So yes. Without Bertie, I think the line would still have gone to Elizabeth had Edward had no children, and so again, to Charles.