Two years ago, in 2015, our current Queen, Elizabeth II, overtook her great-great-grandmother in terms of the length of her reign.
When Queen Victoria died in 1901, she had reigned for 63 years, 216 days.
Queen Elizabeth’s reign currently stands at 65 years, 217 days.
Rumours abound about how much longer she may wear the crown of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.
At the age of 91, it can possibly be understood why these questions might be asked.
Her mother lived to the ripe old age of 101, why should we not think that Elizabeth may survive for another decade, or more?
The most recent rumour that I have read, is that a regency will be set up once she reaches 95, and Charles will take control without the title of King. Though by that time, the Prince of Wales will be well into his 70’s too, will his abilities be much better??
Many ask if Charles should even still be heir to the throne. How can a divorced manbe the head of the church? Besides the fact that he married a divorced woman, the fact which caused the abdication of his great-uncle Edward VIII, less than a decade ago.
Our country has changed dramatically since the abdication crisis, though has the monarchy changed as much? It is a dated institution, but that is part of the allure. England has had a monarch for centuries, the longest continual monarchy in world history, should it really change to such an extent to allow Charles’ accession?
Personally I do not have a problem with him becoming regent or King, though I do object to Camilla becoming Queen. In previous posts I have compared her to Anne Boleyn, the Mistress who married a King and became Queen. Diana was beloved of the country and many still find it difficult to think of her husband’s mistress wearing the crown that should have been Diana’s. In my comparison that would make Diana into Catherine of Aragon, I suppose. She died at the neglect of her husband, Diana is said to have died because her HRH and police protection had been removed, there is some similarity then.
Then there is the train of thought that Charles should be overtaken in the succession by his son and wife.
There was a very interesting drama on BBC recently called Charles III, it looked at a time when Charles took the throne, then was forced to abdicate in favour if William and Kate. A good watch if you can find it online somewhere.
William would make a popular King, I am sure, but is he ready? He has started a young family with Catherine in the last few years and another baby is due soon, I read the other day.
(I wish her well with her hyperemesis, I suffered it with all of my pregnancies and know the pain and stress that it causes.)
I think William should be allowed the time with his young family that the Queen did not have. Her children had to be brought up almost solely by nannies and in boarding schools, how about we let the Cambridge children have a little nearer to normal upbringing?
There are a fine number of heirs to the throne at present, with Charles, WIlliam, George, Charlotte and the new baby on the way. I doubt that any of them will acceed to the throne at an age to exceed our current Queen’s record for her reign.
At any rate, when she does go, there will be many people who question the future of the monarchy in general. Queen Elizabeth has been the Queen for most of the population’s lifetimes, she is like everyone’s favourite grandma, and it is difficult to imagine anyone taking her place.
It will be interesting though, to see who actually does win the throne after her, on the strength of popularity, or respect?