• 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.
I can rather buy into this view of Churchill, in particularly his literary angle of affairs. It feels very true to the complex character that he was.

And likewise I can buy into this portrayal of Lloyd George. Ambitious, yes. Hungry again to be in the centre of things, yes - but not venal. I mean, to the extent one can be objective I think he comes across as something of a plotter (and with plenty of practice in plotting) but that is surely to be expected for a politician of his years and history? Perhaps a little less troubled in the conscience department by some, but there is a tough Welsh pride to the man even so.

I find it notable that Edward is finding himself frustrated even at these two relatively easy to secure supporters. I think that is of interest to the future - he needs to squirrel away his frustrations and put on the charm. Perhaps with these two he feels safe showing a more of himself though? In a way it might be thought of as a curious privilege.

As to Wallis, I do wonder if, properly played, she might become a powerful ally in affairs of state in the months and years to come.

As to the game mechanics, I am all for taking what the games gives you and re-labelling it and running with it however it best makes sense in-universe. Myself I view the "The King's Party" idea as more of a cross-party collection of politicians than its own political party. Ultimately it is an in-game simplification. And the wonderful thing about in-game simplifications is that the are seeds. An acorn will grow into an oak, but how it grows - well that is decided not by the acorn, but by how it was planted and how it is tended.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
As to the game mechanics, I am all for taking what the games gives you and re-labelling it and running with it however it best makes sense in-universe. Myself I view the "The King's Party" idea as more of a cross-party collection of politicians than its own political party. Ultimately it is an in-game simplification. And the wonderful thing about in-game simplifications is that the are seeds. An acorn will grow into an oak, but how it grows - well that is decided not by the acorn, but by how it was planted and how it is tended.

In essence, yes. The kings party focus by itself and the switch over afterwards to having the king as head of state and 'goverment' leaves a lot of room for personal interpretation, provided you then don't pick mosely to have a facist coup and put him in charge in all the chaos. The fact that is even possible implies a very sloppy and loose coalition of outsiders and 'moderates' running parliment barely through the crisis time, which effectively means that once that's over, either the king sets himself up as a much stronger central ruler, a much stronger constitutional monarch, or essentially forces parliment back the way it was, just with him and Wallis firmly on the throne.

Thing is, then you have the aftermath which has basically destroyed the empire outside of colonies (never the greatest source of strength for the british). Getting the dominions back takes a much more hardline approach inuniverse, unless you convince yourself/write it in such a way that most of the people in dominions are loyal/imperialist and want to be in the empire, but the governors and governments grabbed power and independence against the public will. At that point, the uprisings you support seem more like democratic resumption than highly questionable invasions of now sovereign territory.

But this does look like we are going down the HOI4 Kings Party path (unless a massove fakeout is about to occur, and baldwin gets them to back down right at the last moment too late to save the empire but just in time to prevent the focuses to get it back...
 
In essence, yes. The kings party focus by itself and the switch over afterwards to having the king as head of state and 'goverment' leaves a lot of room for personal interpretation, provided you then don't pick mosely to have a facist coup and put him in charge in all the chaos. The fact that is even possible implies a very sloppy and loose coalition of outsiders and 'moderates' running parliment barely through the crisis time, which effectively means that once that's over, either the king sets himself up as a much stronger central ruler, a much stronger constitutional monarch, or essentially forces parliment back the way it was, just with him and Wallis firmly on the throne.

Thing is, then you have the aftermath which has basically destroyed the empire outside of colonies (never the greatest source of strength for the british). Getting the dominions back takes a much more hardline approach inuniverse, unless you convince yourself/write it in such a way that most of the people in dominions are loyal/imperialist and want to be in the empire, but the governors and governments grabbed power and independence against the public will. At that point, the uprisings you support seem more like democratic resumption than highly questionable invasions of now sovereign territory.

But this does look like we are going down the HOI4 Kings Party path (unless a massove fakeout is about to occur, and baldwin gets them to back down right at the last moment too late to save the empire but just in time to prevent the focuses to get it back...
I am reasonably familiar with the mechanics of the King's Party Focus line - no need to lecture :) My general point is that the game mechanics are the start point for a narrative or historybook AAR writer. How one choses to represent these things in the AAR can be tremendously varied, and there really isn't a limit on how inventively an author's imagination can interpret in-game mechanics.

At the risk of sounding like an old fogey in my time of the forums I have seen entire plots created from random revolts, or a stability loss, and also from linking together any number of oddities. Even in their modern more detailed states Paradox games have only blunt tools to represent the wide variety of human actions. In HoI we have but two states: war or peace, for example. Clearly that is insufficient - and that insufficiency is just one avenue a writAAR can, should they chose, exploit.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Is there anyone that Wallace didn't inspire Bitter Distaste in except for Edward? Even those notionally on the King's side (DLG, Churchill, Duff Cooper) don't like her and is probably a key part of the problem. I wonder if the King somehow knows this, that the longer everyone has to 'get used to' the idea of Wallace as Queen the more opposition will harden against him as everyone realises how horrific it will be.

he still wondered if Bertie’s ailments would his ensure his reign as King a disaster.
I can absolutely see Eddie thinking this. His incredible, biblical, blindness to his own faults was only exceeded by his comprehensive inability to see the catalogue of problems with Wallace.

In anyone else that sort of thinking could be considered a sign of brotherly concern and thinking about the realm, but Eddie manages to make it come across as the actions of a selfish prat desperately looking for an excuse to do something he knows is wrong but really wants to do. It's a gift he has.

Speaking of which, the impression was of Churchill being somewhat out of his depth and losing control of the situation (to the extent he ever had any control) while Lloyd George was not only happy to ride the tiger but kept poking it. I do think Churchill would back out of anything that burnt too many bridges. If absolutley forced to chose between Parliament and Monarchy then he would always go Parliament and he must know that this is a fight the King cannot win without going to those extremes. Crazy gambles and mad cap schemes may be an inevitable part of Churchill, but so was cutting his losses and abandoning allies when in a hopeless situation.

Right so, at the moment, there is merely myself throwing ideas and research questions at El Pip everyday, and tentative series plans and episode summaries for three sets of six episodes each. I don't know what if anything would ever come of this
I am marginally more upbeat about this, my position is that either TBC writes it or I will end up doing it. And as I refuse to let so much research and thinking time be wasted on a oneshot joke thread it will be something more substantial than just prompts.

'Best' case outcome is that we end up with two; TBC doing the A-Team inspired version that we are workshopping up, while I do the 'Allo 'Allo inspired pastiche script that my soul longs for.
 
Is there anyone that Wallace didn't inspire Bitter Distaste in except for Edward? Even those notionally on the King's side (DLG, Churchill, Duff Cooper) don't like her and is probably a key part of the problem. I wonder if the King somehow knows this, that the longer everyone has to 'get used to' the idea of Wallace as Queen the more opposition will harden against him as everyone realises how horrific it will be.


I can absolutely see Eddie thinking this. His incredible, biblical, blindness to his own faults was only exceeded by his comprehensive inability to see the catalogue of problems with Wallace.

In anyone else that sort of thinking could be considered a sign of brotherly concern and thinking about the realm, but Eddie manages to make it come across as the actions of a selfish prat desperately looking for an excuse to do something he knows is wrong but really wants to do. It's a gift he has.

Speaking of which, the impression was of Churchill being somewhat out of his depth and losing control of the situation (to the extent he ever had any control) while Lloyd George was not only happy to ride the tiger but kept poking it. I do think Churchill would back out of anything that burnt too many bridges. If absolutley forced to chose between Parliament and Monarchy then he would always go Parliament and he must know that this is a fight the King cannot win without going to those extremes. Crazy gambles and mad cap schemes may be an inevitable part of Churchill, but so was cutting his losses and abandoning allies when in a hopeless situation.


I am marginally more upbeat about this, my position is that either TBC writes it or I will end up doing it. And as I refuse to let so much research and thinking time be wasted on a oneshot joke thread it will be something more substantial than just prompts.

'Best' case outcome is that we end up with two; TBC doing the A-Team inspired version that we are workshopping up, while I do the 'Allo 'Allo inspired pastiche script that my soul longs for.

I've never met anyone who has a problem with Wallace of Wallace and Gromit fame. I'm sure everyone would be okay with him as Queen of England...

I am worried about what churchill might do, since he will choose parliament eventually as he always does but how far will he go before he realises thats what he has to do? What damage will he do before he eats shoots and leaves?

As for the project, we need more talk on it but I'm certainly willing to give it a go, but I suspect the only way L'or L'or as outlined would work would probably be a collaberative script writing process. Or have two writers one thread, a script of allo allo gold team style and irreverent insanity going on in between (because we've gone compeltely nuts with other things to do with france but not gold).

I do really want to make much of this project though, it has a lot of potential given what we've already planned, researched and written.
 
I've never met anyone who has a problem with Wallace of Wallace and Gromit fame. I'm sure everyone would be okay with him as Queen of England...
This definitely brought a smile to my face this evening. Thank you.
 
Wallace Simpson, by report, got along very well with men of the Nazi Party. They may have liked her as much as they could respect any woman.

Churchill is too much a problem-solver to wonder whether the problem needs to be solved.


For L'Or L'Or there should be a departmental newsletter called The Gold Standard. In England, the Gold Standard of St George ;).

 
Last edited:
Damn it, Winnie. You gave them licence.

For someone who could be quite aware of his own egoism, he was not that good at recognising when he was feeding others' egoes. To be fair, he was bad in general at recognising politics, to others, wasn't a sport where people 'left their feelings on the field,' so to speak.
 
This definitely brought a smile to my face this evening. Thank you.

If all I acomplish on the forums is a laugh between friends now and again, it's going well.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
We now get to the nub if things. They won’t have any nervous energy or political capital left to be able to push Hitler back, whoever wins (I speak here narratively - not familiar with what the game gives one).
Here I have to balance the game environment and the real world, and I apologise if you disagree with my approach to either.
You should of course not need to apologise in any way at all! ;) It is of course your alternate world, to narrate in any way you think works for you. We are tuned in to follow your story, not anyone elses’s: and an excellent one it is.
As to the game mechanics, I am all for taking what the games gives you and re-labelling it and running with it however it best makes sense in-universe. Myself I view the "The King's Party" idea as more of a cross-party collection of politicians than its own political party. Ultimately it is an in-game simplification.
Quite. My thought would be more of a cross-party faction of members. I wonder if some of the Brexit shenanigans might be something of an analogue there for (broadly) how such a fraught and divisive issue might cut across party lines without actually re-writing them?
 
Sorry chaps, we're still at Belvedere...

1.png


Chapter 37, Fort Belvedere, 9 Aug 1936

“And, Sir,” Lord Londonderry said in a conspiratorial tone as Beaverbrook blundered into the drawing room, “I have just heard from Berlin, they have nominated Von Ribbentrop as their new Ambassador to London.”

The King acknowledged Beaverbrook and looked at Londonderry with interest. “The chap from the Naval treaty?”

“The same, Sir. He was also here during the Rhineland incident. He is thought to be of an anglophile leaning, and my contacts in Berlin are confident that he will be sent to us with instructions to create a closer understanding between Britain and Germany, something that we both want. In any event, Sir, he will be their Ambassador."

“When?”

“I believe that Eden and Baldwin were told it would be October.”

“I did not know that,” he said in a wounded tone. “Baldwin and I are irreparably estranged. Can I count upon you, Charles?”

1598530307016.png


“Surely, Sir,” Londonderry said with a hint of reverence. “But, if I may offer some advice?”

“Yes”, the King said in an ominously flat tone.

“It would not politic for the Sovereign to be openly seen to rely upon disagreeable elements for his survival.”

The King frowned, but Beaverbrook knew immediately what he meant. “He means Mosely,” he said in a mocking way.

“Mosely?”

Londonderry nodded. “He has publicly attacked Baldwin.”

“That doesn’t, Charles, mean that he supports me.”

Londonderry frowned but Beaverbrook chuckled.

Beaverbrook chuckled. “You’ll never win middle England if you’re relying on the Blackshirts. But Your Majesty is correct. I think he’s just capitalising on the chaos, instead.”

“The enemy of mine enemy, and all that,” Londonderry said slowly. Knowing Beaverbrook’s religious zeal, he tried to remember the source for that quotation but failed. “It’s er, biblical, I think?”

The King, frowned and it was Beaverbrook who rescued them. “It’s an ancient proverb,” he said simply. “Mosley is an irritant,” he snapped derisively. "He has said nothing that shows support for your, er, our cause. He is doing what he can to harm Baldwin."

“But, ‘hurrah for the Blackshirts,’ and all that,” Londonderry said, still confused.

“That was the Mail, Charles, not one of mine. Mosley and his band,” Beaverbrook explained, focussing on the King to the obvious irritation of Londonderry, “they’re rabble rousers, Charles, they’ll seek to create room for themselves by damming Baldwin; if they can exploit their position on Spain,” he said with a slight air of superiority.

“Ah, so it’s more ‘a plague on both your houses’, eh?” The King nodded, wearily. “Charles, perhaps you could stick around, unless you’re heading off somewhere?” Londonderry shook his head. The King waved them both to a couch and sat in an armchair, facing them. “Alright, Max, are we ready?”

“You can’t do the radio interview,” he said with devastating directness.

“I know!” The King snapped, “Charles here has just given the great news,” the King said with heavy sarcasm.

Beaverbrook now looked at, rather than through, Londonderry. “You bring news from Baldwin?”

“More Hankey really, although I understand that his words carry the imprimatur of the PM. They thought that someone close to His Majesty, but recently in the Cabinet, would be a fair intermediary. Here is their letter.” He handed a crisp, creamy sheet to Beaverbrook.

“Let’s see then. Whoa, ‘Such a broadcast can only be given on the advice of your ministers who would be responsible for every sentence of it’," Beaverbrook read aloud. “My goodness. And this bit. ‘For the King to broadcast in disregard of that advice would be appealing over the heads of his constitutional advisers. The last time when this happened in English history was when Charles I raised his standard at the beginning of the Civil War on August 22nd 1642’. Baldwin is not mucking around is he?"

"In our audience,” Londonderry continued, “Hankey told me that it would shock many people, especially womenfolk where sentiment for the monarchy is so strong, to hear directly from the King of his intention to marry a woman who is still another man's wife.”

The King looked sharply at Beaverbrook. “Well, as of tomorrow, she won’t be.” His tone suggested that the looming divorce made this objection simply dissolve away. “So Max, what can we do?”

1598530687326.png


“I will have my newspapers, and Rothermere’s, come out in support of the marriage.”

“An interview?”

“An interview,” Beaverbrook confirmed. “Rothermere and I agree. I’ve got two reporters outside, one from the Mail, one from the Express. I’ll sit with you, Charles here can as well” Beaverbrook enjoyed Londonderry’s flustered expression when this was suggested, “and you tell them about Wallis, and about how you are modernising the Monarchy”.

The King smiled. “Alright, Max, send them in.”

Londonderry, although no longer in Cabinet, was still, in theory, a loyal member of the National Government and felt a sudden flash of fear. He longed for a Churchill, a Lloyd George, a wily operator to keep the King under control. “Are you sure, Sir that this is…”

“…not now, Charles. This is what we should have bloody well done months ago."

"Does, Mrs, er, Walis, ah, Simpson agree?"

That stopped the King, who looked from Londonderry to Beaverbrook. "Max?"

Beaverbrook smiled at his monarch as a kindly uncle would a favoured nephew. "Sir, we can always delay it until the hearing is over, give you a chance to speak to Wallis. But the reporters are here now, Sir."

"You advise 'seize the day' and all that?"

"I do."

"Yes, well, send them in.”

The reporters nervously arrived and bowed. The King gestured them to the couch, which Londonderry and Beaverbrook vacated. Beaverbrook loomed over them, Londonderry retreated to a small chair at the back of the room, wishing that he could imperceptibly float away.

“Gentlemen, thank you for your coming," the King said in a rushed, nervy way. "Let's get right on to it. By ancient custom, the King addresses his public utterances to his people," he began, “so perhaps tonight we could portray this as a me reaching out, in the modern way, to two popular newspapers, to my people”.

The Express journalist was Andrew Fenn, who seemed, despite a yearning to travel to Spain to write on the fighting there, to be wrapped up with Royal stories (the normal chap was on leave). Seeing his proprietor glowering over them, he went first; he had been well prepared by Beaverbrook and despite his privately expressed terror that this would end catastrophically for all, opened his satchel and pulled out a notebook. “Sir, might I ask what it is that you wish to say to your subjects.” He said this warily. All of the British newspapers knew about Mrs Simpson, some even had stories ready to print on this matter in case the united front of the embargo was compromised.

“I want,” the King said with a rushed passion, “I would like the British people to read my words, without meddling.”

Fenn, despite Beaverbrook’s presence, worried again that he was about to earn himself the Government’s, what? At best disapproval, at worst a jail sentence. “Are we sure…”

“…this is your King,” Beaverbrook interrupted, a flatly threatening tone conveying the order.

The King behaved as if nothing had happened. The reporters were astonished, but then a footman brought a honey coloured drink in a heavy tumbler, from which the King drank heavily. “We will talk, no doubt, about Mrs Simpson. But the point for my people is that I am still the same man whose motto was 'Ich Dien', I serve. And I have tried to serve this country and the Empire for the last twenty years."

The Mail journalist, irritated that this was dominated by the Beaverbrook press, now spoke up. “Why all of this now?”

“I have no choice,” the King said passionately. “I have reached the point where I have no choice but to speak out. It has taken me a long time to find the woman I want to make my wife.” Warming to his theme, the King poured out his heart, telling the reporters about his meeting Wallis, exaggerating his father’s grumpy, helpless tolerance for a heart warming tale of benevolent support. But at the heart was Wallis, always Wallis. "Without her, I have been a very lonely man. With her I shall have a home and all the companionship and mutual sympathy and understanding which married life can bring.”

Fenn, the Express reporter, finished his scribbling and looked directly at his King. Risking Beaverbrook's wrath he tried a question. “How do you think that the British people, both here and in the Empire, will feel at reading these words?"

I believe,” Edward began with his odd emphasis on ‘I’, “that my subjects would wish for me to be blessed with the same good fortune in happiness as themselves.”

“Thank you, Sir. If I may, I understand that the Prime Minister has ruled out you marrying Mrs Simpson and of her becoming Queen. Can you comment on that?”

"Neither Mrs Simpson nor I have ever sought to insist that she should be Queen. All we desired was that our married happiness should carry with it a proper title and that dignity for her befitting my wife."

There were further discussions, with the two journalists eventually settling into a comfortable rhythm, Beaverbrook brooding large over the interview.

Fenn, sensing that the King was happily answering everything, kept going. “Sir, this is a very sudden, and dramatic break from tradition. Does Your Majesty feel that you are forcing this issue through?”

“No! I do not. I am willing, while our country has a debate on my proposal, to go away for a while. But nothing is nearer to my heart than that I should return," he said with feeling. "But whatever may befall, I shall always have a deep affection for my country, for the Empire and for you all."

That more or less wrapped things up. The reporters were granted a further few minutes of polite conversation, where the King gave them his maximum charm, and then they all filed out.

Both newspapermen agreed that this would not be rushed. They would allow some Godforsaken court somewhere to hear the case. There would need to be substantial liaison between editors (perhaps even owners) and then an agreed release date to ensure that everyone bought their papers. But the clock was ticking, and both the Daily Mail and the Daily Express anticipated that they would carry on their front pages the ‘story of the century’.

1598531514342.png


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GAME NOTES

I had the “Edward VIII Holds Radio Speech” event. After much reflection upon this I have concluded that there is no chance of Stanley Baldwin agreeing to let Edward VIII loose on the airwaves; the BBC was the radio broadcaster and so allowing the King to make an appeal would have almost certainly required senior ministerial (probably Prime Ministerial) approval. But I like the event because in the real world, had Edward VIII decided to press on with a morganatic marriage, a radio appeal was his proposed way of getting his message across to the nation.

And so I have adapted Baldwin’s very real objection to a radio broadcast and had Londonderry take it in a note. It wasn’t Londonderry in the real 1936, it was Baldwin, but, alas, the game stretches out the crisis much more than reality and I guessed that by now they are utterly estranged. And so a right-leaning, aristocratic former Cabinet minister would be a sound choice and Londonderry could be relied upon to act with discretion. As a leading proponent of Anglo-German friendship he would, of course, be keenly interested in the identity of the new German Ambassador and so I injected the gossipy point about Ribbentrop; his nomination to Whitehall was confirmed in early August and so it's fitting for Londonderry to know about it and to share it with the King. Londonderry’s misapprehension of Germany and her intentions was to haunt him; I am always reminded very strongly of Londonderry when I read / watch Remains of the Day, a genuinely great novel (and film) that captures remarkably the end of the great houses as well, in my view, as Brideshead Revisited (no Downton comments here please – it’s bilge). The character of Lord Darlington seems heavily drawn from Londonderry and his chums. Never too bright, he was of course, utterly traditional in his leanings and will be a staunch (if uninspired) supporter of the King.

Max Aitken, Lord Beaverbrook, “The First Baron of Fleet Street” or simply “The Beaver” was and is an even more divisive figure than Londonderry. His life is remarkable, even if he is not an easy man to like. I remember a number of skirmishes in the other AAR where I had my Halifax-as-PM Cabinet pack him off to Canada as Governor General as soon as possible and provoking the ire of the “he increased aircraft production” tribe (cough, @trekaddict cough). I think that we are both right. He was a remarkable character, on one hand utterly ruthless and scheming (he detested Baldwin, which is why the King is being more than slightly used here) and on the other very, deeply religious and weirdly uptight. I remain ambivalent about him but in finding that his enemy’s enemy is his sort-of-chum (and much of the support for King Edward really rests on this premise) he is probably the King’s most useful ally. If public opinion can form behind him, there is hope that MPs nervously glancing back at their constituencies might fall in behind the rebels.

There have been a few Mosley comments littered around the comments by the commentAARiat and so I have tried, after some insightful comment from @DensleyBlair (sorry old chum, that it's so brief at the moment) to suggest that which we think is likely (well, hint at it at this stage). The game makes a frankly weird alignment that Mosley must follow the King, and that the King gleefully accepts that support. Neither of these is true. We're exploring, at this juncture, assembling on Edward's behalf a coalition of sympathetic MPs. There is no way that wavering MPs would support the same cause as Mosley, particularly the Liberal MPs on whom Edward, Lloyd George and Churchill seek to rely. @DensleyBlair was wonderful in getting into Mosley's head (that'll be £240 please commentAARiat, for our therapy) and I agree with his conclusion that his approach would be focussed on attacking Baldwin rather than overtly supporting the King.

And so to Edward. The text given to the anonymous reporters (I considered fleshing them out, but demurred) is lifted with minimal editing from his proposed radio appeal. I wanted to at least show what Edward would have said, and this marks another significant POD from the real abdication crisis in that he actually got to say it (or have it printed, and I think it actually works better in print than it would read aloud). The journalist, Fenn, is of course fictional, but I wanted to have him pop up again given some important stuff that will come his way later.

We're at a point now where I have, almost, mapped out who would go where in the maelstrom that's unfolding. I have updates sketched out looking at Eden, Duff-Cooper, Sinclair and (sort of) Chamberlain. If you have a favourite figure from Britain in 1936, and he / she is reasonably well-known, I am willing to have a punt and write them into the narrative.

Because, dear reader, I'm a lawyer, so next update I'm going home...

Churchil and Lloyd George are in... so, when will Mosley show up? :)

Well, hopefully I have shown that this is not in an automatic thing!

At minimum. More likely getting rid of the royal perogative in all but rubber stamping parliaments choice, and restricting the monarchy even further down to modern day standards or less.

This is an interesting point, because no matter what happens, the residual power of the monarchy will be looked at (even if an ultra-loyalist considers it for a second and says 'nothing to see here').

As usual the Simpson woman manages to irritate both the politicians and this reader even with very few lines to say.

She's going to feature heavily in the next update. Thou hast been warned.

One thing that strikes me about this chapter is the air of unreality that runs like a thread through this entire chapter, starting with the very fairy-tale nature of Fort Belvedere itself. I get a strong impression that the King simply doesn't want to face the reality of his situation, both in his relationship with the Government and in his own personal life. One can, of course, chalk up the latter at least partially to the influence of That Damnable Woman, but I feel that there's an equally powerful compulsion on the King's own part to be seen as a "strong" figure (even if, in truth, he's playing at being much stronger than he really is).

I think you're right, Belvedere, in both updates, felt slightly unreal / fantastic

My oh my. David is really stepping up his game, isn’t he? The fallout in Parliament is going to be delicious, never mind the fact that the entire constitution is probably about to get torn up (and rewritten?) By the end of the year Britain is going to have a ministry chock a block with all the worst bounders, cads and rotters you could care to think of.

Feel free to suggest anyone that you want to feature in this ironic twist on "ministry of all the talents".

I hated reading the ancient Welsh chronicles. Mostly Latin, but when they went Welsh they really went welsh and it makes no sense.
Unfortunately, my family have been suitably Anglicised in the last couple of generations that my Welsh would probably be utterly useless to help me, too.

Despite the surname, I have almost no experience of Wales or the Welsh. I have enjoyed precisely four days in Cardiff, which was fun. But that's it. Most of it is an utter blank canvas.

I find it notable that Edward is finding himself frustrated even at these two relatively easy to secure supporters. I think that is of interest to the future - he needs to squirrel away his frustrations and put on the charm. Perhaps with these two he feels safe showing a more of himself though? In a way it might be thought of as a curious privilege.

I think that he's still finding his way; his handling of The Beaver and Londonderry is slightly different (perhaps less candid, still a bit frantic).

But this does look like we are going down the HOI4 Kings Party path (unless a massove fakeout is about to occur, and baldwin gets them to back down right at the last moment too late to save the empire but just in time to prevent the focuses to get it back...
At the risk of sounding like an old fogey in my time of the forums I have seen entire plots created from random revolts, or a stability loss, and also from linking together any number of oddities. Even in their modern more detailed states Paradox games have only blunt tools to represent the wide variety of human actions. In HoI we have but two states: war or peace, for example. Clearly that is insufficient - and that insufficiency is just one avenue a writAAR can, should they chose, exploit.

Yes, you're right of course, and this is an area I will reveal a bit more of the gameplay as the crisis erupts, I did have to enter a cheat to reflect something in which I disagreed entirely with Paradox.

Speaking of which, the impression was of Churchill being somewhat out of his depth and losing control of the situation (to the extent he ever had any control) while Lloyd George was not only happy to ride the tiger but kept poking it. I do think Churchill would back out of anything that burnt too many bridges. If absolutley forced to chose between Parliament and Monarchy then he would always go Parliament and he must know that this is a fight the King cannot win without going to those extremes. Crazy gambles and mad cap schemes may be an inevitable part of Churchill, but so was cutting his losses and abandoning allies when in a hopeless situation.
I am worried about what churchill might do, since he will choose parliament eventually as he always does but how far will he go before he realises thats what he has to do? What damage will he do before he eats shoots and leaves?

That's very balanced, Pippy and TBC. Churchill believes that he still has something to lose, and that any lingering chance of a return to Cabinet in a Tory / Tory-dominated Government. We know the history books, we know that all he has to is not-be-Chamberlain, but he doesn't. He is always going to keep one eye on the Tory Party.


This definitely brought a smile to my face this evening. Thank you.
If all I acomplish on the forums is a laugh between friends now and again, it's going well.

As it did me.

Wallace Simpson, by report, got along very well with men of the Nazi Party. They may have liked her as much as they could respect any woman.

There was of course that rumour that she was 'jiggy' with Ribbentrop.

For someone who could be quite aware of his own egoism, he was not that good at recognising when he was feeding others' egoes. To be fair, he was bad in general at recognising politics, to others, wasn't a sport where people 'left their feelings on the field,' so to speak.

I think that's fair, and I wonder if he will see the looming chaos too late...

We now get to the nub if things. They won’t have any nervous energy or political capital left to be able to push Hitler back, whoever wins (I speak here narratively - not familiar with what the game gives one).

Oooh, just you wait.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Well now I think the King's desire here to "get his own story" out are incredibly sound. If there is a one card that he can play that the establishment cannot easily counter it is popular support. And by now the franchise is both universal and unmoneyed. Which means that the "common folk" do have a say. Of course, it is also a burn the bridges sort of moment.

I like how Wallis lurks over this scene without ever being present.
 
A good old appeal to the country it is, then. No doubt once the housewives of Middle England hear David's plight they'll melt immediately and the throne will be his for the keeping. Baldwin can have no comeback to that (I'm sure that's the plan, anyway…)

The rogues continue their scheming, anyway. Good stuff.

If you have a favourite figure from Britain in 1936, and he / she is reasonably well-known, I am willing to have a punt and write them into the narrative.

Jimmy Maxton, please and thank you.

Feel free to suggest anyone that you want to feature in this ironic twist on "ministry of all the talents".

Oh well, let's see then… that'll be Churchill, Lloyd George, Boothby, and I suppose Channon and so on. If she weren't already dead, and if we wanted a curveball, we could throw Rotha Lintorn-Orman and her ilk, and all the nut jobs from the British Empire Union and the like. Add in an assorted collection of aristocrats, industrialists and blimpish officers, and then finish off with Dickie Mountbatten for good measure?

Despite the surname, I have almost no experience of Wales or the Welsh. I have enjoyed precisely four days in Cardiff, which was fun. But that's it. Most of it's an utter blank canvas.

Cardiff, unfortunately, has been thoroughly ravaged by property speculator-developers and these days is by no means the most diverting place in the world, although the Bay is nicely full of places you can take the kids (and the young at heart). Near enough half my childhood holidays were spent at Techniquest, or so it feels looking back.

But really you do the 18/19th century thing and go to Wales for the countryside. Well worth it if you can bear the appalling state of the roads and the complete absence of a train service (thank you Mrs May et al).
 
‘For the King to broadcast in disregard of that advice would be appealing over the heads of his constitutional advisers. The last time when this happened in English history was when Charles I raised his standard at the beginning of the Civil War on August 22nd 1642’. Baldwin is not mucking around is he?"

He is not. That was as close to a 'Fuck You' that the goverment could have written down, I think. And also contained a delightful death threat, possibly unintentionally but who knows at this point?

If you have a favourite figure from Britain in 1936, and he / she is reasonably well-known, I am willing to have a punt and write them into the narrative.

Oo...so many british actors and directors and authors. Maybe have a roundup of 'hang on a minute, they're still alive?' From the old fuddies from the victorian empire, coming out of the woodwork now to wage one last great battle either for or against the crown.
 
And yet...

So the interview is published. The people of Great Britain, the Dominions and the Empire are officially informed that the King intemds to marry a twice-divorced American but does not require that she be Queen (I almost wrote King, a Freudian slip indeed).

Once the King has made his will manifest I assume Baldwin and/or the Archbishop will have to make statements. Will they temporize or make a flat defiant call for abdication? Temporize in public and demand abdication in private? If the King, by tradition, does not overrule his ministers does it follow that they cannot publicly contradict him and remain in office?

And if Edward says four simple words - I will not abdicate - then will it become a war of public relations? Or... Baldwin doesn't really have the energy and spine to go 'full Cromwell', nor do I think any member of government (or opposition) wants a civil war, even one that spills no more than ink. So what do they do? Announce George VI and try for a fait accompli? Hound the king out of office with the press, when he has his own? Edward actually has a strong position so long as he is willing to flout convention and simply hold fast. Even if the Archbishop refuses to officiate at the marriage or coronation, if Edward insists on going ahead the Archbishop will ultimately lose.

It is all coming down to an ultimatum. The problem with that is that, when issuing an ultimatum you must be willing and able to take either answer. Both King and PM are willing to take one answer... but not each other's. So it is not an ultimatum but an impasse... and in an impasse, Edward wins.

I don't have a deep feel for some of the constraints and politics in this time and place. Please let me know what I'm getting wrong.
 
I don't have a deep feel for some of the constraints and politics in this time and place. Please let me know what I'm getting wrong.

This really depends on how you interperate Royal Prerogative.

It is long since established that parliment chooses the succession, and therefore by default the monarch. However, once one is established, parliment serves at their pleasure and for as long as the crown permits. They dissolve and open parliment (sort of at their will), they appoint the goverment (elections not necessarily required) and the PM.

So then, who has the final say in this matter? The king isn't yet corinated, but everyone knows and has committed to him being king, to the extent that the easiest way for him to be removed is for voluntary abdication. Can they get rid of him some other way? Well...no, not really, because everyone who doesn't want him as king, wants his brother as king. His younger brother.

So mucking with succession rules doesn't work. Parliment can refuse to operate and every govermebt resign and refuse to work until the king does abdicate (so forced abdication basically). Outside of abdication, voluntarily or by making things difficult til he 'volunteers' there isn’t much that can be done.

I suppose they can go the Charles I route and imprison him, try him as a traitor somehow and kick him out that way but really, if things devolve that far the monarchy is basically dead as an institution.

There may be other methods, but to my mind, its either abdication of a kind, or letting the king win. Civil war antics or republicanism just isn't on the cards.
 
I always feel a little sad about Lord Londonderry, he did valuable work in the early 1930s stopping the cabinet from gutting the RAF and particularly it's R&D budget. Had the Treasury got it's way it's entirely possible there would have been no Chain Home Radar and no 'high speed monoplanes (i.e. Spitfire and Hurricane). As thanks for this he got attacked as warmonger by Attlee and Labour, then dropped by Baldwin for being 'too strong on re-armament and worrying the voters.

So tragically he decided to repair his reputation by going for appeasement and becoming alarmingly pro-German, just at the wrong time. If nothing else a reminder of how utterly ruthless, and able to read the public mood, Baldwin was when he put his mind to it.

Because, dear reader, I'm a lawyer, so next update I'm going home...
Fingers crossed this has a curmudgeonly magistrate actually apply the law and refuse the divorce on the grounds it was a complete charade (which it was). If nothing else the fact that it was poor Mr Simpson who pretended to be the 'adulterer', and not Wallis"Bury me in a Y shaped coffin" Simpson, always make me laugh. As does the fact they botched the first attempt as the hotel staff were too discrete or, my preferred rumour, the staff knew Wallis from previous visits, didn't like her (no-one bar Eddie did) and so refused to make any statements because they could completely understand why someone would want to cheat on her.

Certainly the OTL judge really wanted to declare it all a farce, but couldn't find grounds to. If they have rushed it this time round, maybe Eddie's agents cocked it up and it will indeed be declared a sham.

There was of course that rumour that she was 'jiggy' with Ribbentrop.
She was 'jiggy' with everyone else, so I'd always assumed that was fact not rumour.


@Director I think you are missing that, assuming Baldwin does resign and Attlee agrees, there can be no British government. Eddie can appoint someone, maybe Lloyd George is vain and desperate enough (Churchill most assuredly isn't), but a vote of confidence will happen almost instantly, the Speaker will ensure it (at this point it is FitzRoy and he is as establishment as they come), and then that government will fall.

At that point the King essentially has to call a general election, to do otherwise is to try to rule without Parliament and overthrow democracy. Even if you think Eddie is mad enough to do that , no-one else will let him. Remember the Royal Doctor is probably still Dawson who absolutely puts the institution of monarchy and the good of the country about his notional patient's best interests, a quiet word in his ear and he will happily find Edward of 'unsound mind' and get George VI in as regent. And to muy mind Dawson would be right in his diagnosis in those circumstances; launching a coup against the entire nation, just so you can marry the deeply unpleasant Wallis Simpson is something only a madman would do. ;)

As above Baldwin may be tired and desperate for retirement, but he was a very sharp political operator and he's not lost those skills. Eddie has under-estimated him and that will be the mistake that dooms him.
 
Wallis"Bury me in a Y shaped coffin" Simpson

You know, it’s been twelve years and I’ve only just got that joke. :rolleyes:
 
That answers my (not entirely serious) inquiries into the amusingly ridiculous inclusion of Mosley into the "King's Party".

If you have a favourite figure from Britain in 1936, and he / she is reasonably well-known
Sir Arthur Harris, please.
 
This is the impass. The king technically is head of state. The goverment actually holds all the power except the fact that they can't actually get rid of him without murder or some form of abdication (which requires him to co-operate in some capacity). This means that he can sit in his toy castle and give all the speeches he wants tearing apart the goverment, the Church, the Establishment etc. and they can't really stop him, but he also can't do much more than that.

Basically it's a giant game of chicken with one side being increasingly loud and obnoxious, and the other tired, bored and desperate to do anything other than throttle the cock. They could do it, and probably will end up doing it, but what's going to happen in the meantime is the question, and the entertainment.

TLDR, Baldwin needs to have a firmer grip on cocks.