They have confused me with the outrage over the heroin being infected with anthrax though... mixed message for sure there.
Having contributed to steering this off topic, I'll try to steer it back...
I have my suspicions that had Edward retained the throne he would have been a force for change. Obviously this would have been unacceptable to the political establishment of the day, but I think he would have been 'the people's king'. While his fascist leanings would've probably meant it all ended in tears, he was nevertheless probably more in touch with the working man's world than Baldwin and his cronies. He'd still be out of touch with the working man, but less so than most MPs. He certainly has left more historical impact than his brother, who is only remembered as the Queen's dad. George was even overshadowed by his widow, who was a popular figure with the British public in her own right.
The obvious comparison is Prince Charles. Back in the 60's/70's he was looked at as a prospective 'really cool King', now he's like a royal David Icke and married to a modern day Mrs Simpson. Changing times is well illustrated however as there doesn't seem to be a mass of opinion against him gaining the throne in the future.