Who Will Reign Next

[Dman]

Even if she lived to be around that age, Charles will be regent or William because I highly doubt The Queen would be able to do much of anything yet alone be an active Monarch.

She's 87, I think it's time to truly enjoy the time we have her here and able because anything can change before you blink an eye.

[BrazilianEmpire]

Originally Posted by Dman

She's 87, I think it's time to truly enjoy the time we have her here and able because anything can change before you blink an eye.

I totally agree.

[GracieGiraffe]

Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire

Interesting - although creepy - discussion.

My guesses to Europe and Japan are:

1. HM King Felipe VI of Spain (2019).
2. HIM Emperor Naruhito of Japan (2024).
3. HM King Haakon VIII of Norway (2036).
4. HM King Charles III of the United Kingdom (2031).
5. HM King Frederik X of Denmark (2032).
6. HRH Grand Duke Guillaume V of Luxembourg (2035, because of abdication).
7. HSH Prince Alois III of Liechtenstein (2038).
8. HM Queen Elisabeth of Belgium (2042, because of abdication).
9. HM Queen Victoria of Sweden (2043).
10. HSH (or maybe HRH) Prince(ss) (The One Who Will Succed Prince Albert II) (2044).
11. HM Queen Catharina-Amalia of the Netherlands (2047, because of abdication).

Re Denmark, Sweden and Norway, this would mean Margrethe would live to be 92, Carl Gustav to 97 and Harald to 99. Sadly, I doubt it.

[BrazilianEmpire]

Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe

Re Denmark, Sweden and Norway, this would mean Margrethe would live to be 92, Carl Gustav to 97 and Harald to 99. Sadly, I doubt it.

Well, the late Queen Ingrid of Denmark lived to be 90, and Her Majesty was a heavy smolker, just like her daughter, so I believe Queen Margrethe II can live to be 92.

Longevity runs in the Swedish Royal Fmily, I have no doubt that King Carl XVI Gustaf will stay with us for long time.

King Harald V was a mistake, I was going to write 2026, not 2036.

[amaryllus]

These people have access to the best doctors, medicine and therapy money can buy, the best nutrition, the work they perform is not physically strenuous. And, this is equally important for the health of elderly people, they are surrounded by family, esp. Children. They keep you young. So, living well into the nineties is very likely barring accident.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by amaryllus

These people have access to the best doctors, medicine and therapy money can buy, the best nutrition, the work they perform is not physically strenuous. And, this is equally important for the health of elderly people, they are surrounded by family, esp. Children. They keep you young. So, living well into the nineties is very likely barring accident.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. Standing on your feet for long periods of time is actually rather strenuous, particularly if you're a senior. They also come i to contact with huge numbers of people, often shaking hands, and when you're 80+ it doesn't matter how good your doctors are, something as little as the flu can be deadly. Which, by the way, children in particular are carriers for illnesses.

As for them having access to the best nutrition, while I wouldn't disagree with you on the idea that they have the money to buy the best food, but that doesn't mean that they're eating the best diet. They also have the money to buy the best alcohol, the best drugs, the best cigarettes. I'm not saying that any of the current monarchs (or their families) partake in any of those activities, just that having more money doesn't necessarily mean you have a healthier life.

[NGalitzine]

^^^^^
They can also suffer from VIP treatment by doctors - doctors intimidated by their position and fear doing something wrong so fail to act promptly and the patient suffers as a result.

[amaryllus]

I see your point about money but it probably does not apply to this generation of monarchs.... I can't see Margrethe,for instance, swilling Jack Daniels and smoking a pack a day and limiting and passing on the more tiring but not really pressing duties to the younger royals is playing it smart. Really, I hope they use those resources, choose wise doctors, use common sense.

[Iluvbertie]

Margrethe is a heavy smoker having been seen in public with a cigarette and having clearly the very yellowing teeth of a smoker. In fact the rise in number of women smokers in Denmark has been partly blamed on Margrethe's public smoking. She smokes more than a pack a day - Denmark's Queen Blamed for Smoking Subjects - ABC News

queen of denmark smokes - Bing Images

[amaryllus]

Well, then just bust my bubble, Lol. Don't tell me she is a lush also....

[BrazilianEmpire]

Originally Posted by amaryllus

Well, then just bust my bubble, Lol. Don't tell me she is a lush also....

The Queen's mother, the late Queen Ingrid, also somked like chimney, but she died at the age of 90.

The women from that family seems to have strong genes. I think Queen Margrethe II will live to be around 90 years old.

[Futurist]

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

^^^^
Do you really expect QEII to live to be 105?

105, probably not, though it's not impossible either. But 100-103 is very possible, in my honest opinion. Though the lower end of that range (100-101) is probably more likely. Her mother did live to age 101, after all, and she appears to have inherited her mother's great longevity genes. :)

It's sad that her husband died two months before personally reaching the age of 100. :(

[Futurist]

Originally Posted by Dman

Even if she lived to be around that age, Charles will be regent or William because I highly doubt The Queen would be able to do much of anything yet alone be an active Monarch.

She's 87, I think it's time to truly enjoy the time we have her here and able because anything can change before you blink an eye.

Well, she's still here with us right now at age 95, and still in good health to boot! :)

I expect Prince Charles to inherit the throne at around age 80 or slightly lower than that once his mother the Queen will pass away as a centenarian around 2026-2028. You might view this as an extreme age to inherit a throne, but this early 18th century princess would have inherited the British throne at age 83 had she lived just a couple months longer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia...tlement%201701.

So, there was a near-precedent for this kind of thing!

[Osipi]

As long as the Queen is able to do what is required that only the monarch can do, I don't think Charles will become regent. The Queen is healthy and in full mental capacity and at 95, just started to be seen with a walking stick and she still rides her Fell pony around the Windsor estate. Not many 95 year old women can claim to still do these things. When the time does come and the Queen passes, Charles will easily step into the role.

[Duc_et_Pair]

As I am used to monarchs who retire to make place for their successors in their prime, I have mixed feelings. That a nearly 100 years old person is still a monarch can also be interpret as: the kingship is so empty-egged that even a brontosaurus can do it.

No any of us would entrust a 95 years old as a pilot, as a CEO of or as a nurse, but being by the Grace of God Queen of the United Kingdom suddenly is no any problem at all. And that she will he succeeded by another one past retirement age: what does it say about the seriousness of this High Office? Is it all just ceremonial theatre, with gerontocrat actors?

That is why I would find it refreshing, and absolutely honourable, when a monarch indeed can freely and voluntarily lay down the kingship. As is the use in the Netherlands and Luxembourg, and has been done in Belgium, Spain, Japan and even the Holy See.

Look how Haakon, Victoria and Frederik are in their prime but possibly will succeed in their 50's or 60's.

[Osipi]

Yet, on the other hand, many people in their 90s are still quite active in their world around them. Jimmy Carter is 97 and still active doing humanitarian work. Betty White is 99. William Shatner just went into space at 90. Getting to be in the 90s doesn't necessarily mean one foot in the grave any longer.

The Queen will continue to do as she does for as long as she possibly can. It's her lifeblood. It's what keeps her youngish and healthy. With the way the "Firm" is a well oiled machine and is prepared for any contingencies, there's not a situation that hasn't already been thought of and planned for should it happen.

I would be totally shocked if the Queen stepped down as that would go against a vow she's made and reaffirmed that her whole life, be it short or long, will be devoted to the service of the Crown. It's just who she is.

[Marengo]

Tja, they may be active for their age but -fortunately- nobody would expect these nonagerians to work in a full-time job. Very few people in their 90-ties will be able to do so, which is perhaps sad but which is also a simple fact of life. The demographic changes these last 150 years, where we all live longer and longer, does make abdications -IMO- a much more sensible sollution. And as Duc says, even the pope and the emperor of Japan can do it now, so why not anybody else? But of course nobody expects the Queen of the UK to step down at this point - or the Scandinavian monarchs for that matter.

In addition there is the cruelty to let the heir of the throne waste decades of his/her life. One can wonder if it is good to let the heir start this function a decade after the average retirement age. I can imagine people will judge that rather curious - undesirable even. Though it also has happened for the last two American presidents and for many Italian [ceremonial] presidents of course.

Queen Wilhelmina - who was the first one in recent history to pragmatically abdicate to make place for a younger generation - talked about it in her autobiography. She mentioned that when she was young she was always puzzled by the example of our Habsburg Emperor, the great Charles Quint. She initially thought his abdication was a great personal weakness. Only much later in life she understood the wisdom and the strength of his decision and that it was the ultimate service any monarch could do to his/her country: to understand when it was the right time to make place for his/her successor, who can do a better job for the nation.

In the end the monarchy's job is to serve the nation, and not the other way around. And one can wonder if the nation is best served by having a monarch whose cognitive and/or physical decline -which sadly comes with age- will mean that he/she can only perform a small part of the duties that are expected for his/her function.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Marengo

Tja, they may be active for their age but -fortunately- nobody would expect these nonagerians to work in a full-time job. Very few people in their 90-ties will be able to do so, which is perhaps sad but which is also a simple fact of life. The demographic changes these last 150 years, where we all live longer and longer, does make abdications -IMO- a much more sensible sollution. And as Duc says, even the pope and the emperor of Japan can do it now, so why not anybody else? But of course nobody expects the Queen of the UK to step down at this point - or the Scandinavian monarchs for that matter.

In addition there is the cruelty to let the heir of the throne waste decades of his/her life. One can wonder if it is good to let the heir start this function a decade after the average retirement age. I can imagine people will judge that rather curious - undesirable even. Though it also has happened for the last two American presidents and for many Italian [ceremonial] presidents of course.

Queen Wilhelmina - who was the first one in recent history to pragmatically abdicate to make place for a younger generation - talked about it in her autobiography. She mentioned that when she was young she was always puzzled by the example of our Habsburg Emperor, the great Charles Quint. She initially thought his abdication was a great personal weakness. Only much later in life she understood the wisdom and the strength of his decision and that it was the ultimate service any monarch could do to his/her country: to understand when it was the right time to make place for his/her successor, who can do a better job for the nation.

In the end the monarchy's job is to serve the nation, and not the other way around. And one can wonder if the nation is best served by having a monarch whose cognitive and/or physical decline -which sadly comes with age- will mean that he/she can only perform a small part of the duties that are expected for his/her function.

And Queen Beatrix stated in her announcement that she had "the conviction that the kingship should be in hands of a younger generation". (As we can witness at present day, from the outside it looks she still could have been Queen, so it really was her idea, after more than 3 decades and seeing her Heir nearing his 50's.)

It is very well possible that Queen Elizabeth is equally convinced the kingship should remain in her hands.

[Futurist]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

As I am used to monarchs who retire to make place for their successors in their prime, I have mixed feelings. That a nearly 100 years old person is still a monarch can also be interpret as: the kingship is so empty-egged that even a brontosaurus can do it.

No any of us would entrust a 95 years old as a pilot, as a CEO of or as a nurse, but being by the Grace of God Queen of the United Kingdom suddenly is no any problem at all. And that she will he succeeded by another one past retirement age: what does it say about the seriousness of this High Office? Is it all just ceremonial theatre, with gerontocrat actors?

That is why I would find it refreshing, and absolutely honourable, when a monarch indeed can freely and voluntarily lay down the kingship. As is the use in the Netherlands and Luxembourg, and has been done in Belgium, Spain, Japan and even the Holy See.

Look how Haakon, Victoria and Frederik are in their prime but possibly will succeed in their 50's or 60's.

I actually don't see the problem with a 95-year-old pilot, CEO, or nurse just so long as they actually have a younger but equally competent person to back them up in the event that they will have a sudden heart attack or stroke or something similar. Some people can retain their mental facilities even into their centenarian years, after all. This guy, for instance, only retired at age 102:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...02/4750205002/

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Marengo

Queen Wilhelmina - who was the first one in recent history to pragmatically abdicate to make place for a younger generation - talked about it in her autobiography. She mentioned that when she was young she was always puzzled by the example of our Habsburg Emperor, the great Charles Quint. She initially thought his abdication was a great personal weakness. Only much later in life she understood the wisdom and the strength of his decision and that it was the ultimate service any monarch could do to his/her country: to understand when it was the right time to make place for his/her successor, who can do a better job for the nation.

But Charles V was only 56 when he abdicated. He passed away at the age of 58, so he would not have reigned much longer anyway.