Heresthetic and strategic choice in a constitutional moment: the abdication of Edward VIII

Abstract

Changes in constitutional power involve conflict. These contests can be modelled as a strategic interaction. The abdication of Edward VIII was primarily a strategic interaction between him and his prime minister Stanley Baldwin. The interaction can be modelled using game theory, but heresthetic better describes how both players attempted to change the incentives and choices available to the other, as well as the veto players that could block movement away from the status quo. Edward abdicated, but he did so in part because of a lack of commitment to winning. Nevertheless, Baldwin paid a price: the weakening of the empire and the commonwealth. The outcome of the crisis was predictable, but it was a strategic conflict, not the cooperative interaction that Baldwin at the time, and others since, have made it out to be.