Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edward VIII abdication crisis


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:16, 30 August 2008.

Edward VIII abdication crisis

 * Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it forms part of a set: Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, Wallis, Duchess of Windsor, George VI of the United Kingdom, George V of the United Kingdom. DrKiernan (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Comment: A fascinating article, with which I have just a few gripes.
 * The section called Background is effectively a summary of the whole crisis but for the actual act itself. Important "deep background" factors are Edward's pre-history of affairs, usually with older married women, stretching back through the 1920s, and his antipathetic relations with his father, King George V, leading to his tendency to cock a snook at the norms and mores of court life. These factors, together with some of your material, might combine into a proper Background section, but most of what you have should properly be headed "General summary of crisis".
 * Arguments against: What you have entered under the "Societal" subheading are factors which caused unpopularity for Edward in certain quarters, but these are not "arguments against the marriage", which isn't even alluded to in the subsection.
 * Religious objections: Far too much detail relating to Henry VIII, four centuries earlier and in an entirely different set of circumstances. A much briefer reference to Henry, as England's only divorced and remarried king, would be in order.
 * Political objections: Again, some of the objections you list, mainly in the first para, are objections against the king per se, not arguments against his marriage.

There may be odd glitches in the prose, which I'm sure others will pick up, but the general flow is excellent, and I'll be happy to support when the above are addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've tried to address your comments by cutting out 300 bytes from the religious section and renaming the sections. DrKiernan (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: The changes of section titles make good sense, and largely satisfy the concerns expressed above. This is a lucid and engaging account of an odd episode in British history and, by way of a bonus, contains convincing arguments against the principle of hereditary heads of state. Well worthy of featured status, and my nominee for the front page next 10 December. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: Although I have had some (largely janitorial) involvement in this article over the last few years, the majority of work has been undertaken by others and it really is in great shape now. I have some subjective issues with the excessive weight attributed to precedent and comparison within the history of the British monarchy - my understanding being that the abdication had its impact as much for the fact that it was unprecedented as anything else but I do not consider this a bar to FA. Nevertheless the prose is accessible and flows well despite the technical references to religious and constitutional devices. I am not a MOS expert however and would encourage the editor to ensure the piece is style-audited by some of our resident, er, pedants :) As a stand-alone reference point it is undeniably comprehensive. The article has also experienced some content debate but now appears to be stabilised following sme sensible changes. The principal editor (and nominator) has done a fine job and I would second the proposal that it feature 10 December. Dick G (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments by karanacs.
 * Why does the article consistently use "Mrs. Simpson" instead of "Simpson"?
 * The body of the article should really assume that people haven't read the lead. The first section should probably give Simpson's full name and a bit of a description.
 * "By October, it was becoming apparent that Edward intended to marry Mrs. Simpson as soon as she was free to marry" - how was it apparent?
 * Per WP:MOSQUOTE, quotes of less than 4 lines shouldn't be offset in blockquotes.
 * What does this mean? "he lamented the King's need of grace"
 * Why is Monarchy capitalized? And should King be capitalized when it is not in conjunction with a king's name?
 * Why are common words like rumors, innuendo, and illegitimate wikilinked?
 * Thanks for the comments. To answer each point in turn:
 * To disambiguate from Mr. Simpson.
 * Added "...Mrs. Wallis Simpson, the American wife of British shipping executive, Ernest Aldrich Simpson. Mr. Simpson was Wallis's second husband; her first marriage to U.S. navy pilot Win Spencer had ended in divorce in 1927."
 * Because the moves towards it were made earlier in the year, for example Monckton asked Churchill for advice over Mrs. Simpson's divorce in July, and they were spending more and more time together as if they were a courting couple, for example holidaying together over the summer.
 * Changed.
 * It means that the Bishop felt the King needed the grace of God, i.e. the strength imparted to believers that gives them the power to resist temptation, repent their sins, endure hardship and inspire virtue. I've added a link but I don't like it much. Is there another, easier way to say this? If so, I would be happy to change to it.
 * I'd say it is simple and clear, now, so there's no need to change it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is per Manual of Style (capital letters): capitalised when referring to a specific monarchy or king, lower case when referring to monarchies and kings in general. For example, "Edward modernised the Monarchy" (speaking of the British/Commonwealth Monarchy in particular) but "Edward was the first British monarch to propose marrying a divorced woman" (speaking generally of all British monarchs throughout history).
 * They shouldn't be. Removed. DrKiernan (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that it should be fairly obvious in the article that when referring to "Simpson" we mean Wallis. When there could be confusion with her husband, she can be referred to as "Wallis Simpson" and he by his full name.  It is highly unusual to see "Mrs." or "Mr."  rather than firstname lastname.
 * To me, the first section does a good job of explaining that Edward and Wallis are seeing each other a lot, but really doesn't make that leap into "well, they must be considering marriage". The part about Churchill and July is all the way down the article.  For someone who knows very little about the topic, this is a confusing leap of logic.  Karanacs (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On the second point, I've changed "becoming apparent" to "rumoured". DrKiernan (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 *  Oppose . Image issues.
 * Image:Wallis Simpson -1936.JPG The licensing tag says: This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was. There is no description of such research in the image description.
 * Image:Edward_abdication.png - The source listed is "UK". This is inadequate.
 * Image:Stanley_baldwin.jpg - This is a peculiar use of the PD-because tag. Why is this image in the public domain? Has it never before been published? Was it first published or displayed before 1938? Which is it? How did you find out?
 * I hope this can be sorted out. Haukur (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for going through the images so carefully.
 * Tag updated.
 * Source added.
 * Image exchanged for another. DrKiernan (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, those are improvements. I still think the Simpson image could do with more research - someone should check whether the photograph is indeed in a December 9, 1936 issue of The Sketch and whether a photographer is listed there. Nevertheless I'll strike the oppose. Haukur (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The discussion of precedent says (probably correctly) that there was no British precedent. While it is not a precedent, of course, an internal link to the section on the present Duchess of Cornwall would be helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to consider mentioning, perhaps in a footnote, Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, and Prince Henry, Duke of Cumberland and Strathearn. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In what way would a link to the Duchess of Cornwall article be helpful? To my mind the circumstances are not even remotely similar. Nor are those of the two princelings you mention.  The precedent under discussion is that of morganatic marriages by rulers, not that of generally dodgy, failed or illegal marriages by minor royals. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggested a link to the section in this article, which already exists and explains the difference. The other cases should also be linked to in order to explain the difference, especially since all of them have been called, with various degrees of accuracy "morganatic". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Very informative and well written. I have only a few suggestions:
 * What do you think of combining the Legal and Societal sections in Opposition to form a larger section?
 * Can you turn this sentence from passive to active? It was felt that Edward could not retain the office of Supreme Governor (i.e. King) and marry a divorced woman with two living ex-husbands.
 * In Options considered, would this be more accurate? that the people would be opposed to his marrying Mrs. Simpson. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 'Oppose '—1a. Needs a careful sift through, particularly to clean up instances where the language is not quite logical. Here are samples from the top that indicate the types of issue in the whole text. Surely it's not hard to find a copy-editor for this topic.
 * The dots after "Mr." and "Mrs." are distracting. In BrEng it's very unusual; in AmEng it's now unusual too.
 * "The marriage was opposed by the King's governments in the United Kingdom and the Dominions on religious, legal, political, and moral grounds." To be fussy, that means that the government of Newfoundland opposed on all of those grounds, did it? And soon after, it's not "Dominions" but "Commonwealth governments". Are these technically the same set?
 * "The unwillingness of the Commonwealth governments to accept Mrs. Simpson as the King's consort, and the unwillingness of the King to give up Mrs. Simpson, eventually led to the abdication of the King, and the succession of his brother Albert as King-Emperor George VI." And was the British parliament considered a "Commonwealth government"? Please check. Presumably it was also unwilling. Remove the last two commas: they go bump bump.
 * "Edward VIII succeeded his father, George V as King-Emperor of the British Empire on 20 January 1936. He was a bachelor, but for the last few years had often been accompanied at private social events by Mrs. Wallis Simpson"—it would be "past", not "last", if in the present. But in the past, we need "previous".
 * "her name appeared regularly in the Court Circular, but pointedly without being accompanied by her husband."—this needs fixing.
 * "The cruise was widely covered in the American and continental European press, but the British press maintained a self-imposed reticence on the King's trip. Nevertheless, expatriate Britons and Canadians, who had access to the American reports, were largely scandalised by the coverage."—"Covered" is contrasted with maintaining "reticence"; I'd have thought "covered" vs "... silence". If not, please think of some other way. "American and continental European press" covered it, but then its expatriates with access to just "the American press" (we're left to assume that you're referring to expatriates living in the US, not Europe). Fuzzy. Tony   (talk)  02:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * PS I just noticed the "Modern parallel". This is dangerously close to POV and involves a theory about living people. I suggest it be removed. Any biography people here to comment? Tony   (talk)  02:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think all of these points have now been addressed, and I've been through the rest of the article as well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments Following the copyedit I just completed, I am almost ready to support. The only remaining issue for me is the Religious opposition section: it seems to wander from the point. The play-by-play of Henry's annulments and marital history is interesting, but unnecessary; George IV's attempt to obtain a divorce seems largely irrelevant, as does George I's divorce, since neither case is about marrying after a divorce. Something like this seems to cover the most salient points:


 * Edward was the first British monarch to propose marrying a divorced woman or marrying after divorce. The Church of England did not allow divorced persons to remarry in church while a former spouse was still living. Henry VIII famously separated the Church of England from Rome in order to acquire an annulment, rather than a divorce, when he wished to remarry while his former spouse was living. Although Henry remarried several times after annulments, he never divorced. The consensus view was that Edward could not retain the office of Supreme Governor of the Church of England (i.e. King) and marry Wallis Simpson, a divorcée who would soon have two living ex-husbands.

I'm a little concerned that this condensed version might be seen as glossing over the history of divorce and the Church of England, but it seems tangential at best to mention George I's divorce-before-succession and George VI's inability to obtain a divorce while king. I'll wait to see what the nominator and others think of my suggestion. Maralia (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the proposed paragraph, Maralia. I think it does a good job of covering the relevant facts without going into unnecessary detail.  Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that condensed version too. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support DrKiernan hasn't edited since the 22nd, so I've taken the liberty of implementing the paragraph I suggested above, since others seem to support it. Maralia (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments Aside from those, it's a very good article that helped me understand a subject which I've previously only known bits and pieces of. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "King-Emperor Edward VIII" vs "King-Emperor George VI" (inconsistent linking of title)
 * It says his brother Albert, but then he's called George?
 * MOS:IMAGES says 300px for lead image
 * Section header "Edward and Mrs Simpson" -- Why "Mrs Simpson", and not "Wallis"?
 * is there a link for "King-Emperor"?
 * "U.S. navy" --> U.S. Navy
 * "traditional prolonged stay at Balmoral, and instead he" --> "traditional prolonged stay at Balmoral; instead he"
 * "The cruise was widely covered in the American and continental European press, but the British press maintained a self-imposed silence on the King's trip." Is this covered by ref [2] at the end of the paragraph?
 * "it was rumoured abroad and in high society" I'm assuming this means British high society - perhaps this part should be first and "abroad" second?
 * The quote, "We hope that he is aware of his need. Some of us wish that he gave more positive signs of his awareness." -- I don't know what this refers to, at all. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why was her first divorce not recognised by the Church of England?
 * Is the full stop necessary here: "[...]She has already ruined him in money and jewels ...".[26]"
 * "Statute of Westminster" and "External Relations Act" are in itallics, but "His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936" is not. Is this purposeful or an oversight?
 * I know it's not directly related to the article, but the navbox is using the wrong flag in one instance. The Canadian flag next to William Lyon Mackenzie King, Image:Canadian_Red_Ensign.svg, is the one used from 1957 to 1965. It should be Image:Flag of Canada 1921.svg, used between 1921 and 1957 as this event occurred in 1936.


 * Responses


 * "King-Emperor Edward VIII" vs "King-Emperor George VI" (inconsistent linking of title)". Links are now consistent.
 * Strange as it may seem, British monarchs can choose whatever name they like when they become king. It doesn't have to be their own name, and it often isn't.
 * MoS says that images can be resized to 300px, not that they should be.
 * Wallis Simpson was and is still commonly referred to as Mrs Simpson here in the UK.
 * U.S Navy fixed.
 * Traditional prolonged stay altered as per your suggestion.
 * "it was rumoured abroad and in high society" altered as per your suggestion.
 * Simpson's first divorce was not acceptable to the Church of England because at that time the only grounds for divorce were adultery, not "emotional incompatibility". I'll add a bit to explain that.
 * The statute names should not be in italics, fixed now.
 * I will raise the issue of the Canadian flag with the person who today created that template.
 * Now fixed.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.