British Line Of Succession - Prince William Of Gloucester

[pipdawg]

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?

[zebo]

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.

[zebo]

Just checked, Kent was older so it would be because of the death of Kent that he was fourth, it was Elizabeth, Margaret, Kent Gloucester, William at his birth.

[ABerrant]

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.

[Jackdaw33]

The narrator is wrong. William of Gloucester was fourth in line at birth, displacing the Duke of Kent and his children Prince Edward and Princess Alexandra.

[dundurn]

Gloucester was born 1900, Kent 1902, so Kent's death had no effect. In addition Kent had three children at his death so if he had been older all of these would have had precedence over Gloucester and his children. I don't understand the first birthday reference either.

[Jackdaw33]

At his birth in 1944 Prince Richard of Gloucester became 5th in line, further displacing the Kents. He is now 24th in line.

[pipdawg]

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.channel4.com/programmes/the-other-prince-william/on-demand/60797-001