Talk:Prince William of Gloucester

Is the current Prince William named after him?

We've no reason to assume so DBD 00:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is a strong reason to suggest that possibility given the fact that Charles greatly admired William when they were growing up. Although William was the first cousin of Charles' mother he was closer in age to Charles and in many ways was a big brother. Whether the current Prince William was directly named for his grandmother's first cousin has never been revealed but there is a strong possibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.47.156 (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The possibility of this typical Daily Mail fantasy (a polite word) being true is equal to the possibility that the current Prince William is named after his illustrious cousin, the late and last Emperor of Germany, or, more up to date, that Southern gentleman and scholar, William Jefferson Clinton. As there is no evidence for it being true, should it not be deleted? Clifford Mill (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

he seems there are no color photos of him anywhere. He died in 1972. there must be some.67.243.48.138 (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC) There seems to be no photos at all of him.....weird....Ericl (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Later Life only discussed his death, so I changed it to Death. I did this because you expect to find such a section in the biographical article about anybody whose death was notable in some way, like being notably young. Personal Life only discusses his diagnosis of porphyria, instead of what relationships he may have had (including the friendship with Charles). The porphyria might justify a section title to itself.Silas Maxfield (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Below the current disambiguation, another one could read This article is about George V's grandson. For the Duke of Cambridge, who was named after him, see Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Should this be included at the top of the page?. --PrincessAlice13 (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I reverted/removed the following from this article as there is no source or documentation for this statement:

However, she was not the first. The first, wishing to be left un-named, was proposed to much earlier. He stood her up at a railway station after the royal family rejected her due to her family's alleged lack of noble standing. She married another fellow, but the Prince continued to pursue her even after she was married, eventually bearing a daughter together. The daughter, also diagnosed with Porphria, wishes to remain un-named. She now lives in Australia. Mylorin (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your malicious attacks on all of my posts, which is rather childish. There is no need to make documentation references when facts are known to the author. As I know the daughter personally, I stand by my comments.

Mylorin is simply complying with Wikipedia standard procedures: if s/he didn't, someone else would. All allegations must be attributed to a published source which meets Wikipedia's policies requiring reliability. Information which is only sourced to one or more individuals based on their personal knowledge of the situation are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, because anyone can edit any article here and make that claim. Others here must be able to verify your claim, i.e., must be able to trace it to an independently published source. FactStraight (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have deleted the page's category link People from Wolverhampton; he did not originate from or live in the area of Wolverhampton where his fatal accident occurred. Halfpenny Green is out of sight of the city on the border between Staffordshire and Shropshire.Cloptonson (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prince William of Gloucester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160303204820/http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page6118.asp to http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page6118.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The lede currently carries a tag asking for it to be extended. I can't see any notable points in the article that are not covered in the lede. Valetude (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

The porphyria article casts doubt on the George III theory and I wonder if those conclusions should be included here as well. JFW | T@lk 12:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

a recent article in BBC History magazine said that the porphyria theory about George III has been discredited. I think they now say it was probably bipolar disorder. This should be corrected. 188.30.188.30 (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply