愛德華八世（Edward VIII，，英國國王，全名愛德華·阿爾伯特·克里斯蒂安·喬治·安德魯·派屈克·大衛（Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David），遜位後被其弟喬治六世封為溫莎公爵，自1936年1月20日其父喬治五世駕崩到1936年退位，為英國和英聯邦各自治領國王，印度皇帝，共在位325天。溫莎王朝的第二位國王。

在愛德華八世作為國王的數月之中，他的婚姻問題引發英國的憲政危機，政府、自治領政府、人民和教會均反對他迎娶辛普森夫人，愛德華八世如果違背民意引起政府辭職，即違背作為君主立憲政體下國王保持政治中立的基本憲法方針，所以他選擇退位，成為英國和英聯邦歷史上唯一自動退位的國王

。

繼位前，他是羅撒西公爵、康沃爾公爵及威爾斯親王殿下。在位時，他的全稱是大不列顛及北愛爾蘭聯合王國國王、英屬海外各自治領的國王和印度皇帝。退位後得到溫莎公爵的名銜。

後世人在提及「不愛江山愛美人」這一句時，往往會聯想到溫莎公爵的愛情故事。

愛德華八世退位後，由他的弟弟喬治六世繼位。1937年5月8日，頭銜改為溫莎公爵。二戰期間，他作為英國軍事代表常駐法國，在被指控為同情納粹後，到巴哈馬擔任總督。戰後，退休度過餘生。

1936年11月，愛德華八世與首相斯坦利·鮑德溫會面表達了他欲迎娶離過婚的辛普森夫人的想法，首相告知愛德華八世其想法在精神上是不可被接受的，因為英國國王作為英國國教會的領袖，根據英國國教的教義離婚和再婚都是不能被接受的，另外，人民也不能接受辛普森夫人為王后。^]

為此，國王提出了另外一個結婚方案，那就是辛普森夫人在婚後不擁有王后頭銜，他們的未來的孩子也不能繼承王位，這個方案依然被英國內閣拒絕國王通知英國內閣，如果他不能迎娶辛普森夫人，他將退位，鮑德溫首相給了愛德華八世三個選項，第一、放棄迎娶辛普森夫人。第二、違背英國首相意志迎娶辛普森夫人。第三、退位^[7]。愛德華不可能放棄迎娶辛普森夫人，也不可能違背首相意志，使得英國內閣閣員全部辭職，而引起英國憲法危機，所以，退位成了他唯一的選擇。

愛德華八世於1936年12月10日在三位兄弟約克公爵、格洛斯特公爵和肯特公爵的見證下在貝爾維德城堡簽署了15份給各個自治領的退位文件，次日，他最後一次作為國王批准「1936年國王陛下退位法案」。

1936年12月11日夜，退位後的國王以愛德華王子的名義向不列顛和大英帝國的人民廣播，解釋退位的原因，他說「我發現無論我有多麼願意履行國王的責任，在得不到我所愛的女人的幫助和支持之下去承擔如此沉重的責任是不可能的事。"I have found it impossible to carry the heavy burden of responsibility and to discharge my duties as king as I would wish to do without the help and support of the woman I love"。

Letters Patent dated 27 May 1937 re-conferred the "title, style, or attribute of Royal Highness" upon the Duke of Windsor, but specifically stated that "his wife and descendants, if any, shall not hold said title or attribute". Some British ministers advised that the reconfirmation was unnecessary since Edward had retained the style automatically, and further that Simpson would automatically obtain the rank of wife of a prince with the style Her Royal Highness; others maintained that he had lost all royal rank and should no longer carry any royal title or style as an abdicated king, and be referred to simply as "Mr Edward Windsor". On 14 April 1937, Attorney General Sir Donald Somervell submitted to Home Secretary Sir John Simon a memorandum summarising the views of Lord Advocate T. M. Cooper, Parliamentary Counsel Sir Granville Ram, and himself:

1. We incline to the view that on his abdication the Duke of Windsor could not have claimed the right to be described as a Royal Highness. In other words, no reasonable objection could have been taken if the King had decided that his exclusion from the lineal succession excluded him from the right to this title as conferred by the existing Letters Patent.
2. The question however has to be considered on the basis of the fact that, for reasons which are readily understandable, he with the express approval of His Majesty enjoys this title and has been referred to as a Royal Highness on a formal occasion and in formal documents. In the light of precedent it seems clear that the wife of a Royal Highness enjoys the same title unless some appropriate express step can be and is taken to deprive her of it.
3. We came to the conclusion that the wife could not claim this right on any legal basis. The right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances