The author Gerald Bullett sent Churchill a letter in which he argued that the pressure being put on the King was ridiculous. Along with many others, he said, he believed that 'the Government's hostility to His Majesty's proposed marriage does not represent popular sentiment, and the sacrifice of the King's personal happiness on a point of punctilio would be both an outrage and a calamity.'21 According to the official account, he added, the King had asked his Ministers whether they were prepared to introduce a bill into Parliament making it possible for him to contract a private marriage - and the King's Ministers had answered in the negative. In that case, said Bullet, the matter was closed and there was no longer any need to expect an answer from the King:
He has asked a question, and the question has been answered. Surely it is open to him now to say that the subject is closed and that he has no remarks to offer. By taking up that attitude, an attitude which would appear to be constitutionally impeccable, he will put an end to the public clamour, while at the same time reserving his own liberty of action.
if you approve of this suggestion,' concluded Bullett in his letter, 'and if it has not already been put forward, could you not find means for communicating it to His Majesty?'22
But a feeling of inevitability was starting to develop - that Edward was going to have to go. And he was going to have to go soon. 'I agree with Churchill in pleading for time - though I see that that probably won't be given as there's to be an announcement on Monday', wrote Janet Trevelyan to her husband, the historian George M. Trevelyan. 'Yes, on the whole I do think there was no alternative for poor old Baldwin but to say that a marriage was impossible. But perhaps they'll have a secret marriage one of these days, if she's too "nice" to go on without!' Garvin in the Observer, she added, 'is really very eloquent this morning. He writes with his very heart's blood about the ineluctable choice between throne and love, and indeed it is very moving.'23 Perhaps it was especially moving because Edward and Wallis were in their forties, not in the first flush of youth that generates a romantic optimism. 'If you're really in love (and at 40 odd you should know) then marry Mrs Simpson', observed one letter to the King.24
It was unfortunate for Churchill - as several people pointed out in letters to him - that David Lloyd George was not in London to give his support. He might have been a useful ally in the House of Commons, on the day that Churchill was censured by the Speaker and shouted down from all sides. But the former Liberal Prime Minister was far away, in Jamaica, where he had gone in November for a rest. His secretary speculated that 'Lloyd George and Churchill working together for the King would have been a far more formidable proposition, and there were many on Baldwin's side who were relieved that Lloyd George was out of the way.'25 In fact, as soon as the crisis had begun, Churchill sent a message to Lloyd George, urging him to return to London. Frances Stevenson, who was with him in Jamaica (as his mistress, though she later married him after his first wife died), wrote, with obvious partiality, 'I fully believe that the crisis was purposely engineered while LG was out of the country; and I believe that had LG been in England, he and he alone could have persuaded the King where his duty lay. Baldwin knew what an influence LG had always exerted on the young Prince.'26 She and Lloyd George bought tickets for the next ship home.
On 3 December, Lloyd George sent a cable to his son and daughter saying that,
If Baldwin forbids King to choose his own wife, regard it as impertinence. Nation chooses Queen. King alone can choose own wife. Ought to have same right to select his partner in life as humblest of his citizens. If had not decided to marry the lady not a word would have been said by any of the Scribes and Pharasees [sic].
He was nauseated, he added, by burst ofhumbug and hypocrisy of which Baldwin is fitting exponent and Attlee an apt confederate. Had King not exposed callous neglect by Government of distress and poverty and bad housing conditions in realm convinced they would not have shown such alacrity to 'down him'. Hope you are not going to join the Pharasses [sic] who are hunting the King for his crown.'
Lloyd George did not think much of Mrs Simpson. 'The woman Simpson is not worth the price the poor infatuated King was prepared to pay', he wrote in a later letter to his daughter Megan. 'There are not in her any of the elements that can possibly constitute a tuppeny romance.' But this did not mean he opposed the marriage: 'All the same,' he added, 'if he wishes to marry her it could have been arranged quietly after the coronation ... If the King wants to marry his American friend - why not?' In Lloyd George's opinion, Baldwin was determined to get rid of Edward. 'I cannot help thinking the Govt, would not have dealt so brusquely with him', he said, 'had it not been for his popular sympathies. The Tories never really cared for the little man. Labour have as usual played a cowardly part. Everybody here very sad about it.' In the view of Frances Stevenson, it was specifically the King's visit to Wales that had prompted the breaking of the story in the press. When she and Lloyd George had left Britain, she observed, there had been no hint of the crisis. But soon after, 'the new and as yet uncrowned King made his historic visit to the South Wales distressed areas, and the whole situation quickly changed. By December 4th the story of the king's proposed marriage had broken.'28
Baldwin's supporters were triumphant at Churchill's defeat. Blanche Dugdale, a niece of Balfour had who been prominent in League of Nations Union affairs, believed that Churchill's career was destroyed. 'I think he is done for', she commented with satisfaction. 'In three minutes his hopes of return to power and influence are shattered. But God is once more behind his servant Stanley Baldwin.'2'' Violet Bonham Carter, a Liberal politician, took the same view, despite a deep personal and political loyalty to Churchill. 'Thank Heaven the forces of decency have routed Beaverbrook, Rothermere, Tom Mosley & Lady Astor,' she wrote in a letter to Dawson, 'but that Winston shld. have played this game - just as he seemed to be qualifying to play a really useful part-is tragic & to me quite inexplicable. Whatever happens - quite irreparable damage has been done to something we thought invulnerable.'"' The fall in Churchill's prestige, according to Harold Macmillan, was 'catastrophic'."
Churchill found that he had even alienated his allies, including the loyal Robert Boothby, another Conservative politician. 'There were several moments', Churchill later wrote,
when I seemed to be entirely alone against a wrathful House of Commons. I am not, when in action, unduly affected by hostile currents of feeling; but it was on more than one occasion almost physically impossible to make myself heard ... I was myself so smitten in public opinion that it was the almost universal view that my political life was at least ended.32
The degree of hostility his actions had provoked astonished Churchill - after all, he was only asking for a delay. 'I have never pleaded for anything except the King's unhurried judgement', he pointed out in a letter to Geoffrey Dawson. 'Where I differ has been in the alternative with which he is now unhappily presented.'" But this hostility was perhaps inevitable, given the fears of a threat to democracy which had been triggered by the rumours of Churchill raising a King's Party - or that the King might ignore the advice of his Government. 'It is a little difficult for an American', wrote John Gunther,
to realize with what power Constitutionalism is entrenched in England, and with what horror the possibility of a King's party was greeted by a great majority of the House of Commons. Parliament is supreme over the King. Charles I paid with his head for defying it . . . very few indeed would have been willing to envisage a royal dictatorship.'4
The Liberal MP Robert Bernays believed that opinion had now swung round completely in favour of the Government, and against the King, as a result of Churchill's interventions.15 That may well have been so in the House of Commons, but among much of the general public support remained strong. Letters and telegrams of support were still arriving for the King and many of them urged him to resist Baldwin. A woman writing from Dorset begged him not to let his opponents 'trick' him. Apart from being the King of England, she said, 'you are absolutely King of all
hearts. For the life of me I cannot understand all this Hubbub of the constitution.' Although she had to 'grow, dig and sell potatoes', she was 'sure by the Photographs in the Papers of Mrs Simpson she would shake hands with me, honestly dear Sire if I were in the position I would shake hands & kiss you both . . . do not let your opponents trick you.''1'' But the King keeping the throne and Wallis was looking increasingly unlikely. A letter with eighty-three signatures of support had been sent to the editor of the Star but, to the authors' disappointment, it had not been published.1' Many of the letters now arriving for the King were marked by a spirit of resignation, and their chief concern was to wish the King happiness with Wallis. 'We bow to the will of OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN' wrote a woman from South London to 'Beloved Courageous King Edward', adding as a postscript, 'All eyes on Deck.'38
On 4 December, the Dominions had been told that the King had been made aware of the necessity for a very swift decision. 'A section of the popular press', said Baldwin, was canvassing the idea of a morganatic marriage: 'I feel sure that such a course is not acceptable to the overwhelming majority of people in this country; nevertheless a weekend campaign in favour of it is obviously from every point of view extremely undesirable.'39 Evidently Baldwin feared that he might lose control of public opinion over the coming weekend. He invited the Dominions to communicate their views directly to the King.
The Australian Prime Minister sent the King a telegram on the night of 5 December stating that his Government preferred abdication to marriage of any kind to Mrs Simpson. The South African and Canadian Cabinets cabled similar messages over the next few days. The Governor-General of New Zealand sent Baldwin a telegram to say that Michael Savage had hoped for some solution that would allow the King to marry Mrs Simpson and to stay on the throne, but had regretfully accepted the British Government's conclusion that this was impossible. The Irish Government tendered no formal advice at this stage, but let it be understood that it did not object to the action being taken by the British Government.40
The Australian Cabinet backed their Prime Minister, Lyons, but many of the people of Australia felt they had not been properly informed about what was going on and had been given no chance to influence Australia's official position. The London editor of Smiths Newspapers sent a telegram to Godfrey Thomas, the King's Assistant Private Secretary, to report that cables from Australia revealed a thirst for some real knowledge - and that Australians believed they had heard everybody's views but the King's.41 The Executive of the Constitutional Association of New South Wales cabled Baldwin with the message, 'Strongly urge full delay. Public opinion in Australia seriously divided.' The message was copied in a telegram to Churchill.42
According to the Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday 8 December, 'The King's name was cheered in theatres, cinemas and restaurants in all of the capital cities.' The next day, the paper reported that some of the commercial radio stations, mostly but not entirely Labour- controlled, had rallied behind the King. One broadcast said: 'It is certain that in this battle between autocracy and democracy, the King is on the side of democracy. . . Baldwin, who is a diehard Conservative, is certainly not speaking for the mass of the people . . . Mrs Simpson will make the finest Queen England has known.' The Lyons Government responded by warning all broadcasting stations in Australia that they must refrain from inflaming Australian public opinion on the issue, and in Sydney and Melbourne groups wanting to hold meetings in support of the King were barred from using town halls.43
The Australian Parliament was recalled by wireless message. On Tuesday 8 December, John Curtin, the leader of the Labour Opposition, put on record his firm refusal to back Lyons. He questioned the Premier's right to tell Baldwin that the whole of the Australian Government was behind him and stated that 'The Opposition will leave the King unfettered in choosing his wife. It will not agree that his selection in that matter should be impaired by any influence of any sort or description.' The Australian Labour Party, he added, 'hopes that the present King will remain upon the throne of England. It desires to remain, as it will remain, loyal to King Edward VIII.'44 On Wednesday, when Curtin attempted to move a resolution of 'loyalty and allegiance' to the King, the Government stifled the debate.45 It was reported that MPs received a flood of telegrams in support of the King.46 Harold Holt, a young member of the United Australia Party, summed up the feelings of many Australians about Edward - 'he understood us, and we looked to him to lop off from the tree of tradition the dead branches which threatened to interfere with its healthy growth within the British Empire.' Had the King chosen 'to select any woman, to whom he was legally entitled to be married, as Queen,' he said, I, for one, would not have hesitated in my loyalty to him.'47
Nor was there unqualified support for Baldwin among the people of Canada. 'There is no unanimous point of view,' admitted Dawson, 'as a certain element holds the Monarch's private life to be his own affair and thinks he should be allowed to marry the woman of his choice.' Although Dawson claimed that 'the great preponderance of opinion throughout Canada is seriously disquieted',48 this was not the whole story. On the one hand, the Establishment newspapers echoed the attitudes of The Times. Toronto's Globe and Mail, for example, declared that, 'We in Canada can only pray that [Edward] . . . will find duty more appealing than personal inclinations.'49 But other newspapers, such as the Montreal Gazette and the Ottawa Citizen, made clear their support for the King. According to the Citizen, it was probable that, with more time to reflect, the forces of British democracy would align themselves strongly behind the King.50 The editor of the Canadian Post reported to the King that he had interviewed many Canadians, and 'all are with you and [the] lady of your choice.'51 A telegram sent from New York to Edward on 7 December reported that the Canadian Parliament was divided: that in a late poll of fifteen hundred people from all walks of life, three-quarters were in favour of Edward retaining the throne.52
'Full support and sympathy' were sent from the Dominion Federation League to Abolish Poverty, based in Ottawa.53 'I am now expressing the sentiments of all the Returned men of this vast Dominion', wrote a man in Vancouver to Edward's Private Secretary, 'when I state that we, I fear, regard our dear friend more as our Pal than our King and I want to tell him in the hour of this his great trial that no matter what happens now or in the future will always so regard him.'54 'Ride-em-cowboy, we know you'll win,' urged a letter from Toronto. 'We like your girl - she's OK with us. We're all cheering for you. Don't abdicate! We want you as our King! . .. these are Canadian sentiments.'55 I would like to see Winston Churchill and you head a British Cabinet', telegraphed a man from Ontario. 'You might astound the world!'56
'Mr King - Canada's Prime Minister,' wrote Wallis to Edward some time later, 'has seen it his duty to get up in whatever they have in Canada [she meant their House of Commons] and announce that he told "Mr Baldwin that the people of Canada would not approve King Edward VIII's marriage to Mrs Simpson whether she became Queen or not".' But how, she wondered, 'can Prime Ministers speak for the people when they have never even asked them?" It did seem that, as in Britain, there were sections of the population in the Dominions - the ruling class, the Conservative press, and the clergy - which supported Baldwin's position. But there were also large sections of the working class and the liberal middle classes - as in Britain - which supported the King but were never asked for their opinion. 'Canberra, Ottawa, Wellington, Cape Town - everywhere the story was the same', wrote Edward later in his memoirs. 'There had been no attempt to assess public opinion, which to the small degree that it had been sounded at all appeared to be divided.'58
The British Government did what it could to influence public opinion in the Empire. This was a considerable challenge given the vast extent of British rule in the world at this time. There was a flurry of telegrams, all in secret cipher, between London and the British colonies of central and southern Africa, it is possible that constitutional difficulties raised by proposed marriage of His Majesty the King may result in his deciding to abdicate', explaine
d Sir William Clark, the British High Commissioner in Pretoria, in a telegram to the resident commissioners elsewhere in Africa. He asked, 'Will you consider and inform me in what manner announcement should be made to natives in event of abdication taking place.'59
In the event, reactions from the British colonies of Africa, at least, were reassuring to the Government. A telegram from the Resident Commissioner in Basutoland informed Sir William that the abdication of the King 'would be understood by natives here as marriages of ruling chiefs are similarly restricted.' He added that it 'would not I think affect loyalty to the Throne'.60 The Resident Commissioner in Mbabane, Swaziland, told the High Commissioner that he was confident about the Swazi people's views on the crisis. He was about to meet with the Swazi National Council at the Lobamba Kraal, 'principally to get the Chiefs and people to do more in the campaign against locusts', and he was sure that 'the Swazis would understand, in the case of the Paramount Chief's principal wife, the one expected to bear an heir to the Chieftainship, the objection which there is to the proposed marriage; she would have to be a spinster of noble birth.'61
India was a different matter. Her reaction to the crisis was regarded as critical, and there was considerable anxiety in London about Indian sympathy for the King. While some newspapers, including the Star of India and Amrita Bazar, a leading nationalist daily in Calcutta, followed the line of the London Times, many others had been giving their support to the King ever since the story had broken. The Statesman urged: 'let us give our sympathies to our King and turn from evil-minded ones who would have us believe that in his normal desire to marry the lady of his choice he has in any way demeaned himself or forfeited his claim to our loyalty and devotion.'62 The 'issue has resolved itself into . . . abandonment of the marriage or abdication neither of which can be contemplated with equanimity', observed Hindu on 4 December. On the same day, the Bombay Sentinel declared that the 'King will win . . . the British public [is] behind the King in his battle with the Baldwin Government.' On 5 December, Hindu pointed out that under the existing system in Britain, permitting divorce and remarriage, it would be a matter of simple logic to allow the King to have his way, since there was apparently no obstacle against marriage to the lady in question, either as a commoner or as an American.63
The Peoples King Page 24