shivfan

Exactly....

It mattered not a hoot who was king, Edward VIII in his Hitlerite incarnation, or his brother George VI....

The policy of fighting with or against the Germans came down to the prime minister of the time, not the king. Parliament held the real reins of power for a long time.

For example, back in the day, George III and his sons, George IV and William IV, were open supporters of the pro-slavery lobby, and were against the anti-slavery movement. And yet, when the slave trade was abolished in parliament in 1807, George III had no choice but to sign the bill into law, and his son has no choice but the sign the Emancipation Act into law in 1833, when parliament abolished slavery.

Note - it was parliament that abolished the slave trade and slavery, not the king....

Zarin

Great imput. Helps me further evaluate what potential the English Sovereigns actually had. Anyone with a riposte to this line of developement? Would love to know it.

Linschoten

Chamberlain was neither foolish nor ineffective, it was just that foreign policy was not his strong point, and he did not understand a man like Hitler or Nazi ideology. Within his own country, he had been a great reforming politician who had introduced notable reforms, especially in welfare policy, but all of that has been forgotten.

Linschoten

The monarch does not really exercise political power, and is expected to steer clear of party issues. The Prime Minister has regular one-to-one meetings with the monarch, and they discuss the issues of the day; in the case of someone like the present Queen, who has had decades of experience under many PMs, such discussions might serve some useful purpose, but I am sure she would not try to push any personal political agenda. The main purpose of the monarch is to serve as a national focus and perform ceremonial and charitable duties, and to represent the country abroad. The best account of the place of the monarchy in the English constitution was written long ago by Walter Bagehot (the Queen that he is referring is Victoria rather than Elizabeth II !):
The English Constitution by Walter Bagehot: No. III. THE MONARCHY. Part 1

Times have changed since then, but much of what he says remains valid.

There's a good post on all of this by pugsville above, I'd agree with all that he says.

Zarin

Maybe you should start an OP on Neville Chamberlain. Help to correct these images of the man. Might turn out to be informative and revelatory.
You certainly have helped me get a different perspective on him.
There have been several American President's now not highly thought of that have the same problem with image. Either they were good with domestic agendas or very good for foriegn policy. Very few were good at both. Richard Nixon is the perfect example. His foriegn policies are generally considered superior to his domestic approaches. And he will be forever remembered as the only US President, so far, forced to resign that high office.

redcoat

It should be noted that when Chamberlain resigned, the king, George VI, was disappointed that Churchill became PM, he would have much prefered Halifax as PM.

Azita

He is supposed to even be the parliaments favourite, but knew Churchill was the better man for the Job, took some dignity NOT to take the job.

Mind you he and his coat could have started the war in 1937...........

Its always said that their were appeasers and Nazi sympathisers in England, But remember that Prescott Bush, GWB granddad, had considerable dealings with the Nazis, its even claimed he and others intended to impose a fascist takeover and Adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.

Zarin

Yes, but from what I gather, this new king was somewhat shy and reclusive and not a great speaker. Plus, since he was jusy newly installed as king probably wasn't sure of his footing and couldn't risk creating any political controversy. And most likely had not yet established his political credentials. I wonder how well Churchhill would have fared under Edward VIII?

Linschoten

Edward VIII wasn't shy and reclusive, that was more true of his brother who succeeded him as George VI. Edward was confident in company and possessed considerable charm, but he was a frivolous man who did not ake his public duties seriously. he never tried to advance any political ideas of his own as king. Churchill got on quite well with him, funnily enough; he would totally have dominated Edward if he had still been king at the time when he became Prime Minister, being an infinitely stronger character.

Zarin

I wasn't talking about Edward VIII as shy or reclusive, I was taking about his brother, who succeeded him. George VI. The one the movie "The King's Speech" was based on. I thought I had made that clear but apparently not. And from what has been stated here by those more familiar with British monarchal politics, the King had little influence at that. Which I was surprised to discover.
Edward VIII was probably doing the best he could under such limiting circumstances. And George VI was not ready to push anything until he was more firmly grounded in his responsibilities and what he was capable of accomplishing.