Evening star., 1938-11-20
By Mary.Carfer Roberts.

Frederick A. Stokes Co.
Here at last is statement of the
case for former King Edward VIII
in a form which is both profound
and comprehensive. In all the mil
lions of words which have been
dashed on to paper since the first
rumors of the Kings marriage were
heard, there have been amazingly
few which showed a disposition
on the part of their authors to use
any but the sensational aspects Of
the matter. And there have been
even fewer which indicated that
their authors were digging below
the immediate surface of the deeply
complicated affair.
To date. indeed. the reviewer has
seen no more than two books on
the abdication which seemed to her
to merit a place in the history Of
that event. One of these was Mr..
Kingsley Martins THE Magic Of
Monarchy: the other was Warre
Bradley Wells why Edward Went
Mr.. Martin. in his work, was con-
cerned to show that the crown of
England has come to be held in
primitive and superstitious awe by
the English people, exactly as that
crown has decreased in It's real, or
practical, significance.
Mr.. Wells, for his part took up the
case for the King. to show that the
monarch was deliberately crowded
from his throne by group which
feared what his democratic policies,
combined with his great personal
popularity. might bring about in
change. The first book might he
described as an indictment of the
commonsense of the English people,
the second as grave accusation
against the integrity of the profess
sional English politician. But neitil-
er went into more than a single
aspect of the abdication. and neither
went into its particular field very
deeply.
Now, close on to two years after
the event, Mr.. Compton Mackenzie
produces a work which surely will
stand as the authoritative statement
of the abdication. 1t goes into all
previously been touched upon, and
more And it delves profoundly into
the abdications historical back
ground 1t is a brave. knightly work,
and it should be immensely hearten-
ing to those admirers of English in
tegrity who have felt the abdication
to be completely disillusioning that
so chivalrous and high-hearted a
blow should be struck for the
beleaguered King by one of his own
countrymen. If England has ever
had a tradition of disinterested
honor in public utterance, it has lain
with her writer's rather than with
her politicians. And now it is a
good thing that one more Of her
men of letters comes to the fore to
speak for the injured in the face of
a powerful and determined opposi-
ton.
Whatever a reader may feel about
the rights and wrongs of the abdica-
ton. he must, if he be sentient,
realize that Mr.. Mackenzie has pro-
duced a magnificent case for his
former sovereign. And it should be
said here that he expressly disclalms
any motivation in so doing beyond
his own desire to defend the right.
The Duke of Windsor was asked if
he would be willing to have the book
undertaken; he replied that he
would, but did not make the work
an authorized" one. Mr.. Mackenzie
has therefore been free to comment
as he wished, and without his COM
ment the work assuredly would lose
q great deal.
The book is long one. 1t takes
up in turn those various arguments
against the former Kings marriage
which have been given such wide
and variegated publicity-the i'm
possibility of member Of the
Established Church marrying a di-
vorced person, the absence of NOR
ganatic marriages in English tradi-
ton, the insistence that there is no
possible provision for morgantic
marriage, the impoSsibility OF a
sovereign's marriage to commoner,
the impossibility of a sovereign
marrying without consent OF Parlia-
ment-and so on. There is little
left of any of these pieces of reason
ing when Mr.. Mackenzie has fin
ished his case against them. Yet he
deals in facts. He supports his
statements with most voluminous
references from the history OF his
country, in most instances drawing
from the history of the former
Kings own family.
AS to the argument that the
Established Church cannot counte-
nance the remarriage of divorced
person, he points out with terrible
specifically that the church has
done so in the past and that the
Archbishop of Canterbury himself
has issued the license for such q
marriage. This charge is supported
by a long chapter of review OF the
position of the church toward dl-
vorce, in the course of which Mr..
Mackenzie demonstrates that there
has been no definite church policy
in the matter, and that no one, King
or commoner, could derive guidance
from the acts of the clergy in the
past toward the subject, so contra
dictory have those acts been. To be
sure, the church may have a devas-
tating answer to Mr.. Mackenzies
statements. But 1t is difficult to see
how facts drawn so fatty from his
torical records could be entirely re-
futed.
And as to that statement which
was given such wide publicity that
English law has never recognized
morganatic marriage, Mr.. Mackenzie
replies by observing that King
George Nv was married morganati-
cally by clergyman of the Church
OF England and lived in that state
for many years of his reign. So
was the Duke of Cambridge and so
was the Duke of Clarence, both
relatives of King Edward and close
to the throne. Their marriages were