Trying to think of a time besides 1377 that the normal succession bypassed birth order. At that time the Prince of Wales had died incumbent (in battle), and that title and the succession fell to his son.
Other hiccups in succession were the result of various kinds of civil war (Wars of the Roses and the Stuart/Cromwell events for instance).
Even in 1938 the Prince of Wales succeeded to the throne upon the death of George V. He abdicated before hs coronation, but unlike American inaugurations, the office passes immediately on the demise of the crown. The coronation plans were in being, they just had to change the name for George VI and include a lesser throne for Elizabeth the Queen Consort (known to us as the late Queen Mother).
Quite right. Although a bizarre (and I’m sure never seriously considered) plan for Edward VIII’s successor was revealed in a note discovered in the National Archives.
The note was from Sir Maurice Gwyer, a parliamentary counsel, to Sir Horace Wilson, adviser to Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin. Gwyer obviously had no faith in the talents of the Duke of York (later George VI) the shy, stammering Bertie, and proposed that Queen Mary act as Regent after the abdication, until her youngest son, Prince George, the Duke of Kent, would ascend the throne on her death. The fact that the Duke of Kent already had an heir was seen as a stabilising factor.
An utter nonsense of an idea, and one that seriously underestimated the talents and mettle of the man who served marvellously well as King George VI.