Do English queens make better monarchs than kings?Posted by Ellee on Nov 5, 2006 in Uncategorized | 20 comments
The evidence seems to undoubtedly suggest that queens make better monarchs than kings. I wonder why they have apparently been more successful at ruling countries, as well as empires, than their male counterparts.
Queen Elizabeth 1 reigned for 45 years and was 25 years old when she inherited the throne, remaining unmarried and childless which was also a very bold move in the 16th century. She is renowned for saying that although she had “the body of a weak and feeble woman”, she “had the heart of and stomach of a king.”
Queen Victoria was 18 when she took over the throne, following the three previous disastrous reigns of George 111, George IV and William IV, described respectively as “a lunatic, a profligate and a buffoon.”
She reigned for 64 years and left the monarchy considerably stronger than how she found it.
Our present monarch has reigned for 54 years, again she was young, only 26. Although the popularity of the monarchy is now in decline, she is one of our greatest assets and is overall much admired.
Maureen Waller is in no doubt that English queens have made better monarchs than our kings, outlined in her latest book Sovereign Ladies, The Six Reigning Queens of England, and I agree.
I wonder what qualities our queens have had that made their reigns so durable and successful, perhaps they are better listeners and decision makers, perhaps they focused more on their job and were excellent moral role models. They obviously had to work to assert and prove themselves in a man’s powerful world.
What characteristics do you think our queens have had to make their monarchies so outstanding? Are they any unique feminie traits that give them the edge? What can Prince Charles make learn from this when he eventually follows in his mother’s footsteps, how will he compare?