Reading with interest and, having only barely played a little HOI4 and being not all familiar with this event chain, I’m looking forward to being surprised at any PODs along the way.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well it seems Edward is going to attempt god save the king as a focus path, but he should be warned that taking that path opens him up to a communist revolution or fascist takeover by Mosley, and even if he does get his way, the dominions leave and won't come back unless forced.
Of course steady as she goes might have already been taken and he's just deluding himself and causing trouble for his eventual replacement but we'll probably find out soon enough.
Of course steady as she goes might have already been taken and he's just deluding himself and causing trouble for his eventual replacement but we'll probably find out soon enough.
Chapter 20, Parliament, 9 May 1936
Baldwin was still tense, seized by his conversation with the King. He had managed to steal an awfully broken sleep during the night, and so faced the day irritably. With the strange coincidences that fate throws up, he had a long-arranged meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hypersensitive that the press would draw a link between his visit to Windsor and his meeting with Lang, he arranged to work from his offices in Parliament.
He forced himself to stop pacing the room and adopt a more prime ministerial air, sitting in his arm chair as the Archbishop was shown in.
“Your Grace,” Baldwin said heavily, almost huffily. “Has anyone offered you a tea?”
“No,” the Archbishop said bluntly.
“You were attending the Lords anyway, I understand,” Baldwin said partly in clarification, partly as explanation for the change of venue.
Lang wrinkled his nose. “I see,” he said primly.
There was a knock at the door and Baldwin, whose bluff affability was clearly stalling, jumped to his feet and practically skipped to the door. “Ah! He’s here.”
He opened the door and ushered, virtually propelled, Viscount Halifax to a chair next to the Archbishop.
“Pwime Minister,” Halifax said in his rich, awkward voice. “Your Gwace,” he said, inclining his domed head in acknowledgement of Lang. The Archbishop, to Baldwin’s astonishment, actually smiled as he shook the lanky peer’s hand.
Baldwin pulled a chair over to face Halifax and Lang. “Before we get on with our Parliamentary business, I wanted to talk to someone about a very troubling conversation that I had with His Majesty yesterday. Your Grace, your role here is clear. Lord Halifax,” Baldwin shied away from calling him ‘Edward’, “as a leading churchman in Government, as well as a friend of the Royal Family, I have decided to cancel our routine meeting and bring you to this instead.”
“Intwiguing,” was Halifax’s only comment.
Baldwin smiled wryly, wondering if he had judged this badly. “I fear that we may,” he was playing with them, the ‘we’ designed to bring them into whatever conspiracy he was concocting and the emphasis on ‘may’ a canny ambivalence on something that he thought was inevitable, “may, have to contend with an” he waved a hand languidly, “undesirable Royal marriage.”
Lang closed his eyes. Halifax, whose saintly, otherworldly affectations belied a keenly political mind and a role at the heart of the establishment, frowned. In truth he was just not used to this sort of interaction with his Prime Minister. “You talk, I pwesume, of Mrs, er…”
“…Simpson,” Baldwin said. “It might be premature, of course, to canvas your opinions, but how would you react, Archbishop, to His Majesty seeking to marry Mrs Simpson.”
While Halifax frowned, and pursed his lips, Lang, Baldwin would later admit, was superb. Even his hair ‘played the part’ seeming to frizz as Baldwin spoke. The Archbishop half rose from his chair. “It would be monstrous,” he said, earning a raised eyebrow from the delicate Halifax and a barely concealed grin from Baldwin, who despite his panic, was enjoying the display enormously. “It would be a bigamous union! A forbidden, sacrilegious affair!” Although he hadn’t shouted, he had raised his voice, sufficiently for it to seem sublimely ‘fire and brimstone’. Halifax, despite his deep spirituality, looked bemused. Baldwin was trying (and failing) to conceal his amusement.
“Just so, Your Grace, just so. Do I take it that you as Head of the Church would oppose such a marriage,” Baldwin asked, managing to supress a smile.
“The King is the Head of the Church,” Halifax said heavily.
“Christ,” Lang snapped, making Halifax and Baldwin wonder if he had taken to blasphemy, “is the Head of his Church. His Majesty is the Supreme Governor. And cannot take the Coronation Oath if he is at variance with the teachings of his Church.”
Halifax sensed that Baldwin was baffled, bored and bemused. “Pwime Minister, the established Church does not allow, does not even wecognise, the legality and morality of divorce.”
“So,” Baldwin held up a hand to slow the conversation down, “if he marries a woman who had been previously married…”
“Twice married,” Lang snapped cattily, revealing himself to be more connected with gossip than Baldwin gave him credit for.
Baldwin waved his hand toward Lang in acknowledgement, “twice married, then the effect, in the Church’s eyes would be that the King has essentially married a woman who is still already married. Is that what you’re both telling me?” He glared at them both.
Halifax and Land exchanged glances. Both nodded. Baldwin leaned back in his chair and sighed, heavily. Lang closed his eyes. “And so it goes, ‘being by God's ordinance, according to our just title, Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these our dominions, we hold it most agreeable to this our Kingly office, and our own religious zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to our charge, in unity of true religion, and in the bond of peace. We have therefore, upon mature deliberation, and with the advice of so many of our bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this declaration following. That we are Supreme Governor of the Church of England,’ and then we close.”
“Archbishop?”
“The preface, Prime Minister, to the thirty nine articles.”
“But, am I also right, Archbishop, in thinking that your power to prevent this occurrence is, ah, rather limited?”
Lang looked hurt. “It wouldn’t come to that! There are measures: I doubt, very much, that His Majesty’s coronation could in these circumstances be an Anglican one.”
Halifax looked back and forth from Lang to Baldwin. “Is this, Your Gwace, a moment where disestablishmentawianism,” Halifax completely mangled, tortured the word, “waises its head?”
Lang looked pained; he enjoyed his role as spiritual leader of the established, official church, with its place at the centre of State ceremonial and the seats in the House of Lords. While the notion of wrenching the Church of England from the political establishment was occasionally made both by churchmen resentful of political influence in their affairs, and politicians irritated by the dominance of one Christian organisation over the Presbyterians, Church of Wales and other acceptable groups, there was no mainstream appetite for such a breach. Lang resolved, then and there, that he would not be the Archbishop to preside over such a schism; if it came to it, the King was the expendable one.
Baldwin sensed some of this. “Perhaps, Archbishop, you should meet with His Majesty.”
Lang hated that he was taking advice but nodded nonetheless. “Yes, yes I must.”
And, Baldwin risked giving more advice, “if I may, a touch of humility might endear you to His Majesty. He is very sensitive to his freshness compared to our,” he looked around the room “experience.”
Lang bridled and Halifax, wishing to avoid a confrontation, swiftly interjected. “If I may, Pwime Minister, perhaps I can also assist. I am close, as you surely know, to His Woyal Highness the Duke of York. Perhaps I could sound out that quarter?”
Baldwin was impressed. He jabbed a finger toward Halifax. “Good idea, but do so discreetly. I sense that the brothers are growing apart.”
“Do we,” Lang ventured, annoyed that he had been denied his opportunity to reprimand the Prime Minister, “begin to prepare Prince Albert for the enormous responsibility that may soon become his?”
It was said in a ludicrously pompous way, with hushed reverence and faux awe. Baldwin, and this time Halifax, smiled at Lang’s pretentious delivery. But Baldwin felt a chill of fear; the words that came to mind as Lang spoke were not attractive. Abdication, declaration of unfit to rule, disestablishment, what else will happen? What will they make of this, he wondered. A coup? He raised his hand again in a ‘slow down’ gesture. “We’re merely talking about helping His Majesty,” he said softly, “aren’t we Lord Privy Seal?”
Halifax was struggling to work out which horrified him the most: the King moving (either voluntarily or by force) aside or a weakening of church and state ties. “Just so,” he croaked uneasily, “just so.”
As Halifax and Lang retreated, Baldwin rubbed his painful stomach; he felt very uneasy.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
GAME NOTES
I have taken a liberty here, but (I hope) a believable one. Another butterfly…
Of course, the real abdication crisis happened much later into 1936 and Baldwin had already taken a spell of recuperative leave. Here, with the crisis breaking much earlier, and after a spate of foreign matters (not that he cared much) Baldwin is more stressed and has sought counsel. I have ventured that he has brought in the Cabinet’s great churchgoer, for whom I have a fascination (if not fondness – see the other AAR) to ease the deliberations with Archbishop Lang. Halifax’s role in the real abdication crisis was muted, practically modest; other than shock (he was easily shocked) and support for the Yorks, he was either overlooked or slyly escaped being consulted (I strongly suspect the former – the swerving was largely done by Baldwin and even Chamberlain felt left out). But, here, in a departure from characterisation so dramatic that I must lie down, I have given him a decent outing – certainly he was politically sharp enough to provide support if asked (and was incredibly well connected – he would be an asset for Baldwin in dealing with the Yorks).
And then Lang. If I am torn on Halifax, I am very clear on the Archbishop. He was a meddlesome, pompous, fairly malevolent little man and if I have played him for laughs I suspect that I am not very wrong in portraying how Baldwin would have received him. His relationship with King Edward was terrible – the King (rightly in my view) thought that Lang patronised him as a younger, inexperienced man, and as I have said elsewhere Lang’s first encounter with Edward as the King didn’t go at all well. Edward was defensive when Lang claimed to have argued with George V in support of him; Lang missed the point, which, for Edward, was that he had gossiped to his father about him.
As I typed this, I realised that this would be one of those innocuous conversations that is nevertheless oft quoted in the history books in the “following his disastrous meeting with the King, the Prime Minister met with the Archbishop and Lord Privy Seal” sort of way. This is certainly the first open discussion about one of the two constitutional problems with the proposed Simpson marriage; the King’s role as Supreme Governor (not, as Lang correctly points out, the Head). The other issue, here, of course, is the Dominions – this will be explored later. But I wanted to 'flag' the religious aspect - it's often overlooked as soon as the Cabinet and Dominions object to the marriage.
@El Pip: Abdication at the moment is still a far-fetched idea – the King has to consult with Baldwin some more and Baldwin has a lot of work to do (ok we’ve ticked the CofE, but he still needs to talk to the Cabinet and Dominions). Abdication, at this stage, is one of several options – the game does a decent job of offering the morganatic or full marriage options as alternatives.
@stnylan: As ever a very balanced comment – he could ‘compartmentalise’ (to a point, on some things he was obsessive, and could stubbornly hold a grudge) so yes, in another world could be wonderful.
@Kurt_Steiner: The thought had probably occurred to the King. But as the Heir Presumptive was Chamberlain…
@Captured Joe: I debated cropping the image more than I did, but wanted to ‘come clean’ on a couple of points.
I really like the concept of Political Power (PP) as it replicates, quite effectively, a Government’s capacity, its horsepower to ‘get s**t done’ (XP on the other hand, gets a stiff ignoring from me - the idea that I need to run the Home Fleet on an exercise to be able to build a bloody battleship is nonsense). This, to me, made it important not to stockpile PP in order to give whatever emerges from the Abdication Crisis (which devours PP – again, a fair reflection of the chaos engulfing Whitehall) an unfair advantage. My actual gameplaying will be revealed as and when it is helpful / necessary; I toyed with an update every time I picked a developer or minister, but felt it wouldn't advance the story.
@DylanMultiverse: The Abdication Crisis in a nutshell.
@TheButterflyComposer: The Irish Free State was treated like a Dominion – which, if you were British, it absolutely was, and if you were Irish, was a fig-leaf offered to the British after independence. The Abdication Crisis was useful to the Irish, it pushed them further along the road to full estrangement from London.
@DensleyBlair: I am deliberately keeping ‘the Goat’, the scale of his involvement, and his motives opaque at the moment. We have weeks of scheming and heartache to go…
@Specialist290: A very good point, and a fair assessment of his character from what I have read. I must also thank you for your nomination of me, based upon this AAR, for the Character Writer of the Week award. You are too kind.
@DensleyBlair: But the heartbreaking thing is that no one would offer this to a reigning monarch.
@Cromwell: The naming will, in a few months’ time, become something of a totemic issue.
@TheButterflyComposer: The King gets bullied, that’s all I’ll say.
@Bullfilter: and @TheButterflyComposer: The problem is that as soon as I reveal the focuses that I have plumped for, any suspense is demolished. Hence my caginess!
- 3
The pebbles are falling. The landslip is just about to start. When the moutainside falls into the sea who, I wonder, will be drowned by the displaced waters?
I must say I did enjoy Lang's rather exact correction of Halifax's assertion about who is the head of the CofE.
Let us think a moment about the Duke of York, a figure so far very much to one side of these proceedings and this tale. These cannot be comfortable times, when your fate hinges pretty much entirely on decisions made by others about which you very little agency. Edward, Baldwin, Lang, the other various politicians - all have a freedom of movement and decision making. Ultimately all the politicos have the freedom to resign as well (and technically, game-mechanic wise, so does Edward) but this is an avenue denied to the good Duke.
I must say I did enjoy Lang's rather exact correction of Halifax's assertion about who is the head of the CofE.
Let us think a moment about the Duke of York, a figure so far very much to one side of these proceedings and this tale. These cannot be comfortable times, when your fate hinges pretty much entirely on decisions made by others about which you very little agency. Edward, Baldwin, Lang, the other various politicians - all have a freedom of movement and decision making. Ultimately all the politicos have the freedom to resign as well (and technically, game-mechanic wise, so does Edward) but this is an avenue denied to the good Duke.
At least he won't be a modern Charles I. Or worse, British equivalent of French King Louis XVI or Russian Tsar Nikolai II.
Ah. Troublesome.
Yes...well, quite.
Good show.
Incapable of seeing the bigger picture eh? If such a momentous political direction begins with religious offence, the church will inevitably pushed further away from the state by someone. And if Edward wins this war, the archbishop is toast.
Killing him softly.
You could say that.
An ideal bishop.
No. Or rather yes, but he'd have to do a lot of reorganisation and propaganda to make it work. He can separate the church and state, but has, as the archbish said, to take several vows to protect the church. Indeed, he had to vow a short soon as he became monarch to defend the Scottish Presbyterian church. Of course given that his focus line ends with absolute power and declaring war on Ireland and every other dominion, Scotland kicking up a fuss wouldn't probably just end in their ass kicking too. Still, it would lead to a lot of potlcial and social disruption and trouble. There are good reasons why heads of state of more modern countries don't officially control and vow to protect always various religious institutions. Edward has to protect three, and deal with the various religion she of his empire as well.
A nice update, these private consultations really do add to the atmosphere of "contained chaos" in the government over the King's choice.
As an asside I always enjoy the C of Es rather bizarre insistence it opposes divorce given the circumstances of its founding. Perhaps Edward should have insisted Simpson had merely had two "annulments."
As an asside I always enjoy the C of Es rather bizarre insistence it opposes divorce given the circumstances of its founding.
Perhaps Edward should have insisted Simpson had merely had two "annulments."
As I alluded to in the nomination post, one of the things I greatly enjoy about this story is the way that you can take someone who is mostly unfamiliar to me and lay out their character and motivations succinctly and in a very humanizing way
Archbishop Lang here is a prime example of that. Even in his first appearance, you can readily see that, whatever his faults, he is certainly a man who is very passionate about what he believes and who does not dance around the issue or mince words on those things he is passionate about. These are certainly not flaws in and of themselves, and can even be somewhat admirable qualities in the right place and time -- but, at the same time, you can also see how this can make him quite brash, off-putting, or even (as you note) rather trite to those he interacts with. At the same time, there's also that little undercurrent of repressed (or perhaps even entirely unconscious) hypocrisy as well; considering the influence of an established Church and his place in it, it's clear that he's just as afraid of losing his own power and the perks that come with it as all the others present, even as he's appealing to much higher motives.
Archbishop Lang here is a prime example of that. Even in his first appearance, you can readily see that, whatever his faults, he is certainly a man who is very passionate about what he believes and who does not dance around the issue or mince words on those things he is passionate about. These are certainly not flaws in and of themselves, and can even be somewhat admirable qualities in the right place and time -- but, at the same time, you can also see how this can make him quite brash, off-putting, or even (as you note) rather trite to those he interacts with. At the same time, there's also that little undercurrent of repressed (or perhaps even entirely unconscious) hypocrisy as well; considering the influence of an established Church and his place in it, it's clear that he's just as afraid of losing his own power and the perks that come with it as all the others present, even as he's appealing to much higher motives.
I think you are being a tad unkind of Lang, the standard for Archbishops of Canterbury is pretty damn low if we are honest. Certainly compared to both his successor and predecessor he was a decent enough chap, a bit Victorian but one looks for old fashioned and steady in senior churchmen as the alternative is trendy-vicar. And no-one wants that.
In any event another step towards abdication, because whatever the HOI4 tech tree says I just cannot see a route for Edward getting on the throne with any degree of legitimacy. When the entire church hierarchy refuse to do the coronation oath or even let him into Westminster abbey would Eddie really proceed with a secular coronation? With his ego and delicate pride?
Technically you probably can annul a marriage that has been dissolved by divorce, after all the point of annulment is that the marriage never existed. But it is dicey theological ground at best and there is no-one in the church who would be inclined to indulge such a blatantly untrue sham. At least Henry VIII had a sort of arguable case - his first marriage was very clearly against scripture and the basis for the Pope granting the dispensation was "I'm the Pope, I can do what I want!" which is not great reasoning, though you can see why the Papacy was so keen on it.
In any event another step towards abdication, because whatever the HOI4 tech tree says I just cannot see a route for Edward getting on the throne with any degree of legitimacy. When the entire church hierarchy refuse to do the coronation oath or even let him into Westminster abbey would Eddie really proceed with a secular coronation? With his ego and delicate pride?
Amusingly, given Simpsons past, the C of E is fine with divorce due to adultery (Matthew 5:32 and all that) but despite her relentless cheating her first divorce had been on the grounds of "mutual incompatibility", which was a concept in US law but not English or C of E law of the time. I can only assume her first husband didn't want to be seen as a complete cuck and she didn't want to be see as a hussy, hence not using "adultery" as the reason.As an asside I always enjoy the C of Es rather bizarre insistence it opposes divorce given the circumstances of its founding.
Technically you probably can annul a marriage that has been dissolved by divorce, after all the point of annulment is that the marriage never existed. But it is dicey theological ground at best and there is no-one in the church who would be inclined to indulge such a blatantly untrue sham. At least Henry VIII had a sort of arguable case - his first marriage was very clearly against scripture and the basis for the Pope granting the dispensation was "I'm the Pope, I can do what I want!" which is not great reasoning, though you can see why the Papacy was so keen on it.
You don't want rowan Atkinson as archbish?
Ah, but you see Paradox cleverly gets around this by saying 'he gets married'. Apparently he's already king.
Checkmate, globeheads.
It used to be the only reliable way of getting divorce too. Roger Moore recounts in his biography that it was a common enough problem that London had a special place for 'adultery' which involved having a nice chat with a middle aged lady and at around ten pm being 'caught' in her bed.
Annulment doesn't have a great track record in English theology or law. Elizabeth was illegitimate because of it, which severely weakened the whole concept because parliament and the church had to recognise and keep recognising her as the rightful monarch despite this.
Before then, Henry messed it up quite a bit by annulling a ton of his marriages (he was either married twice or four times depending on how you count it, possibly three if you are particularly devoted to one particular pope). To be fair, his first marriage was such a mess theologically that it went ahead pretty much entirely because of poltics. First time because England and Spain/HRE wanted the match and then because the HRE told the new pope to keep it going. It's been a longstanding debate as to whether or not the pope (who inherited this mess from a predecessor) dithered for so long because he wanted Henry to just dump her himself. Unfortunately, Henry being Henry, he did it in such a way that there was no reaproachment possible.
He'd be better than many of the actual ones, but still pretty damn awful.
Paradox never did do facts. Or research. Or testing.
Depends on the time frame you are looking at. Over centuries, perhaps. But since the concept was (mostly) wrestled out of the hands of the Church in 1857 the law has been solid enough. They are a bit niche it is true, but to this day a few hundred marriages a year are annuled and a "Decree of Nullity" is issued. There's even a handy web based form and govt FAQ on it, which I find a charming bit of juxtaposition.
- 1
Ah, but you see Paradox cleverly got around that by making games and then Selling them. Then selling the fixes as well. And owning the means of discourse.
The actual event gives the options three:
If you insist on seeing this thing through, the government resigns and the dominions leave entirely. By this time you have lost around 75% of stability.
Then finally, Thousands line up to see the event of the marriage, with Lang getting the boot just before the big day for some other toady.
After totally destroying the government, the Church of England, the British empire and pissing off everyone but the unaligned, you are now finally ready to take control as Edward VIII!
- Abdicate you silly man. This makes the problem go away immediatly and raises stability by five percent.
- Compromise on a morganatic marriage. This makes everything worse, stab hit of five percent, the dominions get the choice to leave (which they will take) and for some arcanely reason raises the support of unaligned by five percent.
- Insist on a royal marriage. As you can imagine, basically rewriting church and state doctrine leads to a stab hit of fifteen percent, the empire collapsing outside of the African colonies and crown dependencies (and British Malaya for some reason). In exchange you get Edward as king! Also even more unaligned support.
If you insist on seeing this thing through, the government resigns and the dominions leave entirely. By this time you have lost around 75% of stability.
Then finally, Thousands line up to see the event of the marriage, with Lang getting the boot just before the big day for some other toady.
After totally destroying the government, the Church of England, the British empire and pissing off everyone but the unaligned, you are now finally ready to take control as Edward VIII!
Btw, this is by Far the simplest way to end up conquering the world as Great Britain...
Need to read up on the legalities of that. I presume the reason you'd do such a thing would be to remove heirs, because in modern times there isn't much of a difference between divorce, separation, annulment etc expect the overkill that is 'this marriage never existed under pain of torture' sic.
You will find out that it's the 1937 Act you want. What is interesting is how little impact Eddie's travails had on it's progress through the House or it's contents, perhaps part of the conscious effort to just not talk about him - lest said soonest mended.
Given the time religious concerns still inform it to an extent. Certainly the Church was not happy about the ground for divorce being expanded, so they were given the sop of being able to refuse to carry out weddings for divorces they didn't like. Hence annulment remained important for allowing people to remarry in Church, a concern which remains to this day, to an extent. Catholic Church maintains tribunals for that very purpose - because of course they won't accept a government Decree of Nullity made by secular authorities and have to decide for themselves. I understand very occasionally it can go hilariously wrong and they can make different decisions, so you can be legally annulled while still married before god, or vice versa.
There are a few reaons you would do one today, mucking about with 'first legitimate sons' or trying to get back into church aside. UK divorce laws require a 1yr wait and can be contested, you can apply for an annulment on the same day as the wedding and it can't be contested. Either the wedding was a void, or it was voidable, or not. Also doesn't come with the financial baggage of a divorce, no automatic splitting of assets or such like.
This is very funny.
The Church in Wales, if I am to nitpick. Unless another butterfly involves Cymru getting its own Church and not just disestablished Anglicanism.
Superb update, @Le Jones. Lang, contemptible though he is, bristles with pomposity and as a result is fantastic for the drama. Meanwhile, Baldwin's pain and Halifax's shrewd insiderism come across fantastically. How long can they keep things together before the wheels just come off completely., I wonder.
Aye. Tom’s been suspiciously quiet so far. Presumably the quiet before the storm.
Quite right, in this period Wales hasn't existed for around four hundred years.
He hasn't to show up though, if the chain is activated. Even if it's just to sidestep him and chuck the king out, Mosley will show up.
A subscriber to the Kinnock school of history, I see.
(Not that I don’t know what you mean, mind. Just hurts to be reminded.)
A subscriber to the Kinnock school of history, I see.
(Not that I don’t know what you mean, mind. Just hurts to be reminded.)
This is the kindest interpretation. By most practical measures Wales never made it past the 13th century and if you want to be cruel, arguably was never a thing until the English tried to kill it. Someone in Christ Church once said that Cornwall had more of a history of independence and sovereignty. Never seen a room get so tense so quick outside of the physics lab. Mind you at Keele, the extremely leftist uni, I met more than a few people who took great exception to the English empire building in the Middle Ages.
As I recall, in the nineties and noughties serious thought was put into revamping how we should imagine, teach and discuss the history of the 'Atlantic archipelago' and the three kingdoms within it. So Wales doesn't even get saved by the post modernists.