How to ditch a disastrous monarch

What the Trundle story suggests is that in Mrs Simpson, a way was found to remove the King

The astonishing information about Mrs Simpson's secret lover, Guy Trundle, does not seem to have sunk in yet. At any rate, no one seems to have yet appreciated the fact that it casts the abdication crisis in an entirely new light. The coverage was on the level of amusing tittle-tattle about what an old slapper she really was, followed by a predictable reaction along the lines of how readily we vilify women in this situation.

Well, considering that Mrs Simpson was still married, having an affair with the Prince of Wales, systematically milking him of huge sums of money and lavish gifts of jewellery and funding a second lover out of the proceeds as well as cheerfully selling invitations to court balls to café riff-raff for £50 a pop, I think a little vilification may be called for. But there's a very interesting question that arises out of the fact of Guy Trundle's existence, and what the security services did, or rather did not do, with the information.

The Prince of Wales, as he then was, was hopelessly in love with Mrs Simpson, and rather believed that she was in love with him. On the whole, it seems unlikely that she really did love him at that time, but as royal men always are, he was not very observant and more conscious of the honour conferred than of the probability of its being returned. In this case, the security services who discovered Mrs Simpson's affair with Trundle knew a great deal more about it than he did.

The abdication crisis was fought on the grounds of Mrs Simpson's suitability to be Queen-Empress, or even the morganatic wife of the King. But now it seems absolutely clear that that was not what it was really about. The fact is that the government was in possession of a piece of information that could, in all probability, have got rid of Mrs Simpson and banished her from the King's affections. If he had known that she was pursuing another affair, and using his money to buy expensive gifts for her lover, is it likely that he would have allowed matters to reach such a point of no return? He would very likely have cooled off rapidly on discovering her betrayal.

The interesting thing is that he was not told about this, and we have to wonder why not. If it was, as everyone claimed at the time, just about Mrs Simpson, then the government had in its hands the means by which Mrs Simpson could probably be removed with everyone's consent. The fact that they did not use it suggests strongly that they saw, in Mrs Simpson, a means by which an unsatisfactory and dangerously irresponsible king could be got rid of.

This is not necessarily a conspiracy theory. Before he died, George V predicted that "the boy" would ruin himself in a year and openly hoped that the throne would pass to the Duke of York, as in fact happened. Edward VIII's habits of work, his refusal to keep regular hours, his inability to return government papers promptly and, above all, his shameful ignorance of constitutional proprieties and his own role quickly caused widespread despair on his succession. He had to be dissuaded, on one occasion, from inserting a sentence into an official speech that would have conceded Dominion status to India at a stroke; he was in the habit of casually inquiring of his ministers who it was, exactly, who appointed bishops; he was a complete disaster from the start.

More seriously, there were grave concerns that the King and his immediate circle might, unimaginably, constitute a security risk. It was suspected that Mrs Simpson saw official papers, and it was known that she harboured strongly pro-German sympathies.

In the event, there is no evidence that information was passed to foreign governments, although on at least one occasion, the King did ask the ambassador of a foreign power if he would mind dropping off "the red boxes" if he was driving back to London. For the first and only time in history, official papers were vetted before being sent to the monarch. It could not go on. What the Trundle story very strongly suggests is that in Mrs Simpson a way was found to remove him. He could have her, and go on believing that she was a wonderful woman; in exchange, we could have the throne back.

There is a general point here, rather than an historical one. It is often assumed that this country is at the complete mercy of heredity and chance where the head of state is concerned. That is largely true, but not entirely. The fact is that whenever a truly disastrous monarch emerges – such as Charles I, James II or Edward VIII – the powers of the day always come up with some way of getting rid of them fairly promptly. The monarchy is sustained by consent; and when, in the particular case or in general, that consent disappears, there is no means by which the thing can be kept going. That is a truth that is going to become more pertinent, not less, in the immediate future.

p.hensher@independent.co.uk