Food & Drink2 mins ago
British Line Of Succession - Prince William Of Gloucester
I recently watched a documentary about the extremely handsome and dashing Prince William of Gloucester (born 18th December 1941). He sadly died piloting his own light aircraft in 1972 at the age of just 30. The narrator tells us that before his 1st birthday, William would become 4th in line to the throne (I'm assuming this would be behind the then Princess Elizabeth, Princess Margaret and his own father, the Duke of Gloucester). However, I would have thought he would have been 4th in line to the throne from birth. I am assuming the narrator was referring to the death of his uncle, Prince George, Duke of Kent who died in an RAF aircraft accident on 25th August 1942 but would have thought that the Duke of Kent was lower than Prince William in succession anyway. Am I getting confused?
Answers
I think that Gloucester was older than Kent, so it would have gone Elizabeth, Margaret, Gloucester, William so I can't understand the reference to his first birthday as Kent was next one down.
13:11 Wed 22nd Jun 2016
I cannot see how the narration is correct.
Kent was/is subordinate to Gloucester; the plight of any of that line would have no bearing on the line of succession in regard of the Gloucester issue.
Before William's birth, i.e. 17th Dec 1941, the line was:
{{{ Monarch's issue }}}
1 Elizabeth
2 Margaret
{{{ Monarch's sibling }}}
3 Henry, Duke of Gloucester (no issue)
{{{ Monarch's sibling }}}
4 George, Duke of Kent (2 issue - as below)
` 5 Edward of Kent (issue 1 of above)
` 6 Alexandra of Kent (issue 2 of above)
{{{ Monarch's sibling }}}
7 Mary, Princess Royal (2 issue - as below)
` 8 George Lascelles (issue 1 of above)
` 9 Gerald Lascelles (issue 2 of above)
etc.
At birth William of Gloucester would immediately displace the Kents and their subordinates. For him to be 5th would require issue of someone higher - King George VI, Princess Elizabeth or Princess Margaret.
Perhaps there is some confusion with his father Henry, Duke of Gloucester, born 5th in line ten months before the death of Queen Victoria.
Kent was/is subordinate to Gloucester; the plight of any of that line would have no bearing on the line of succession in regard of the Gloucester issue.
Before William's birth, i.e. 17th Dec 1941, the line was:
{{{ Monarch's issue }}}
1 Elizabeth
2 Margaret
{{{ Monarch's sibling }}}
3 Henry, Duke of Gloucester (no issue)
{{{ Monarch's sibling }}}
4 George, Duke of Kent (2 issue - as below)
` 5 Edward of Kent (issue 1 of above)
` 6 Alexandra of Kent (issue 2 of above)
{{{ Monarch's sibling }}}
7 Mary, Princess Royal (2 issue - as below)
` 8 George Lascelles (issue 1 of above)
` 9 Gerald Lascelles (issue 2 of above)
etc.
At birth William of Gloucester would immediately displace the Kents and their subordinates. For him to be 5th would require issue of someone higher - King George VI, Princess Elizabeth or Princess Margaret.
Perhaps there is some confusion with his father Henry, Duke of Gloucester, born 5th in line ten months before the death of Queen Victoria.
Thank you everyone for clarifying that. I'm glad to know that I was right. The clip I'm talking about is 5 minutes 15 seconds in:- http:// www.cha nnel4.c om/prog rammes/ the-oth er-prin ce-will iam/on- demand/ 60797-0 01
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.