Talk:Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester

Question by apoivre

serves as president of the Soviet of Architect-Artists - what is this? The only results the aalmighty Google can find are to this page. --apoivre 23:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed - let whoever put it there explain.

Would he be King?

Am I correct in thinking that if Edward VIII had not abdicated (but everything else remained the way it really happened), Prince Richard would today be King? When Edward died in 1972, he had no children (at least no legitimate ones; we don't know for sure if Scott Chisholm's grandfather was really his son) and his only surviving sibling was Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. Surely Henry would then have become king, rather than Elizabeth becoming queen, wouldn't he? Henry died in 1974, and his oldest son Prince William of Gloucester had already died in '72, leaving Richard next in line to the throne. Right? --Angr/_comhrá 11:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

No, Elizabeth would have become queen when Edward died. The daughter of an older brother goes before the younger brother. Victoria's father's younger brother, the Duke of Cumberland, was still alive at the time of William IV's death. john k 13:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up! --Angr/_comhrá 14:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

If Great Britain had male-only succesion, Richard (or possibly his brother, under different circumstances) would probably have been king. Morhange (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Only if that rule had been adopted since 1901. The main "what if" situation that would make Richard king today would be if George VI & his children had been killed in the Blitz. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

QC?

Is Prince Richard really a QC? Doesn't one need to be a barrister for that? Perhaps the person that added that postnomial meant Privy Counsellor?--dave-- 12:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

QC (along with another few poorly-spelt postnominals) was added from an IP which made half a dozen vandalism edits around the same time (and nothing else). I've reverted the changes to this article. Dr pda 16:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Phillip. I'm sorry I missed the obvious problem with that edit. All I saw was the original QC redlink and changed that. Well done.--dave-- 19:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Gave up Job?

He gave up a job in architecture to represent his cousin at Royal Events? This seems crazy, how often do they really need a cousin, does this pay more? Is the real reason he is rich he doesn't need to work? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.221.182 (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

The Royal Family have long undertaken a huge number of public engagements (particularly charities), in part because in most generations the monarch has had many children, providing a lot who can do them and raising expectations. The Commonwealth also adds to the demand for appearances. However when the current Queen ascended the throne there was a lengthy period when immediate family members who could do duties were in short supply as she had only the one sibling and all her children were very young. So several of the Queen's cousins have taken on duties to fill in the gaps. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

money?

If he became king some how. Would they include his glasses on money and stamps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.133.23 (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Maltese cross?

Anybody any idea as to why his robe in this picture has the Maltese cross? --92.10.82.140 (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

He is wearing his outfit for the Venerable Order of Saint John. Doops | talk 05:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Severn Valley Railway?

HRH The Duke of Gloucester is Patron of Scottish Veterans Residences (SVR) a registered charity which assists ex-service people who are homeless or in need. The article states that he is patron of Severn Valley Railway (also SVR). It may be coincidence but more likely that the acronyms have become confused. Typing SVR into search engines usually comes up with Severn Valley Railway which may be the source of the error.Flight of the heron (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Head of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha?

The abstract states that he is "the most senior exclusively-male-line male[...]of the entire House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha". I believe that's not correct since his relative Andreas,_Prince_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha is the head of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha also to be found in the abstract of House_of_Windsor. Any objection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.94.117 (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, Prince Andreas is the head of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, because Prince Richard's great-granfather Edward VII, who was the eldest son and heir apparent of Prince Albert, reigning Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, renounced his rights to the throne of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in favor of his younger brother. Prince Andreas descends from Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, who was the youngest son of Victoria and Albert and who did not renounce the Coburg claim. The throne passed to the closest male heir of Prince Albert who did not renounce his rights to it, but it could not and did not change the order of agnatic seniority and headship in the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which remaines until today unchanged. It is traditionally assigned that headship in European royal houses pass to the closest agnatic male. So, when the future Edward VII renounced his rights to the German throne of his father, he did not renounced his rights to become the head of the house. Further, when Prince George, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, the eldest son of future Edward VII, died, his second position in the line of succession to the headship of the house, passed to his younger brother and the Prince of Wales' second son, future George V. George V became not only the Sovereign of the British Empire, but also head of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha after the death of his father, Edward VII. When George V's eldest son and successor in both the kingship and the headship, former King Edward VIII, died without issue, the headship of the house passed to his closest male relation, his younger brother and George V's third son Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. Before that, George VI, the second son of George V died without male issue, leaving only two daughters, Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret. He became king when his elder brother abdicated from the throne, but former Edward VIII never lost the headship. If George VI weas alive at the time of former Edward VIII's death, he would became the head of the house, as the second son of George V, but his daughters would not. Princess Elizabeth could inherited the kingship from her father, as the senior descendant of Queen Victoria, but she could not inherited the headship of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha after her uncle, former Edward VIII's death, because of her sex. Instead of that, it was inherited by the surviving most senior m a l e - l i n e descendant of Victoria and Albert, Prince Richard, who was the second and only surviving son of Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.28.14.121 (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• It seems as though you're saying two things. If Prince Richard is the head of the House of Windsor, that should be clarified in the article as it currently states he is head of the entire house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The article on Prince Andreas also says he is the head of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (which I believe is true). Perhaps the article should say that Prince Richard is head of the House of Windsor, a cadet branch of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.Patrickmcg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC).
  • The House of Windsor, though, is NOT the cadet branch; they are the genealogically senior line, and Edward VII's renunciation of the ducal throne and its accompanying title Head of the House doesn't change that. Andreas is Head of the House because he is the heir to the ducal title, but he descends from the younger son. Richard is the male-line heir of the eldest son, and therefore the most senior in the House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.138.25 (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Apologies on my part. I wasn't reading what was actually written there, which is that he is the most senior member of the House. Patrickmcg (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Photograph

Shouldn't the more recent be in the infobox? I didn't recognize him and first thought I was on the wrong article... -- megA (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)