Far-Right Sage wrote:I believe you mean to refer to King Edward VIII,
Noted and corrected
but yes, that was a very real fear on the part of the Churchillians and the rest of the establishment although attempts to enact it of course never materialized due to the calling off of Seelöwe. It's one of the reasons he was sent off to the Bahamas.
Ironic because Churchill was one of Edward VIII's great defenders.
I'm even more concerned though about the first world war. We now accept that the crown must pass to the oldest child, regardless of gender. This of course means that Wilhelm was the true and rightful King of England during the First World war. George V being a treacherous usurper. And any British subjects who opposed Wilhelm were guilty of gross treason, punishable by death. The only question was whether we should refer to him as Wilhelm I or William V.
Of course Edward VII was also a treachuous usurper. His hand in the entente cordial being particularly treacherous, ensnaring us with the French war warmongering expansionists and their wicked plan to reoccupy Alsace Lorraine at any cost. He brought great evil upon the world