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?
I’m not a royalist so I’m not going to “start” on this one! But I would say that the queens displayed and display good old common sense!
WL, Common sense is crtainly a quality that cannot be under estimated.
I think it’s pretty well established that until about 60 men suppolement their decision-making with another organ besides the brain 😉
I think there are numerous examples of this in history!
Jim, That thought had crossed my mind too, only I’m glad it came from you rather than me. There’s no greater aphrodisiac than power.
I don’t think Charles will be much chop in comparison to Liz. I think she knows this and will hang on for as long as she can…. then he will get in for a little while only to hand over to his eldest.
Queens are certainly better.
Unfortunately, I don’t think Charles will learn anything, as he wants to do things his way, and won’t listen to good advice; he won’t be a good monach, and will be wise to pass the crown to William and his intended Kate.
Ellee, don’t you feel that it’s the dashing debonaire Lotharios who tend to flourish during Queen’s reigns who actually define the era? What is Elizabeth actually remembered for? Shakespeare, Drake, Raleigh, Essex?
That is probably because they were very exciting ages of discovery and innovation, how wonderful it must have been to have lived through that.
Hmmm. Dicovery and innovation? And press gangs and slavery!
As a Tory republican, my view probably doesn’t count for much. Perhaps though Charles should stand aside in favour of Princess Anne. She certainly has more common sense than her brother. And I can’t see her standing for any nonsense about a multi-faith coronation unlike the Prince of Wales.
Jean-Luc Picard says: November 5th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Jean-Luc, funnily enough I’ve just finished reading Mario Reading’s new Nostradamus book.
In one of the quatrain id dated for 2022 titled the abducation of Charles III of England:
King Charles III of England weary at the persistant attacks on both himself and his second wife in the twenty five years since his first wife, Princess Diana’s death, decides to abdicate in favour of her son, Prince Harry.
It also goes on to say that Prince Harry’s true paternity is brought into question.
Jim, The Elizabethan age was a unique era of discovery, what else is there left to discover today on this planet? And I admit to being a devotee of Shakespeare, I visit the Globe each year, it is unrivalled for its authenticity, perfection and entertainment.
http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/the-age-of-exploration.htm
The Victorian era enjoyed the arrival of new technology, it was the height of the industrial revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_era
Yes, there was squalor and poverty in those days, but today we have our own brand of street kids, alcoholism, overcrowded prisons, debt, bullies and unemployment, though admittedly they also have enhanced comfort and indulgences too. There will never be a perfect society. Today, our threat comes from terrorism.
Teri, Again, you provide more astounding information. What has happened to Prince William?
Ellee, yeah, I take your point, but there’s still loads to discover. We know hardly anything about the oceans’ abyssal zones, and I guess the future is in space research, not to mention genetics.
I’ve no idea. It doesn’t go into detail about William. But this is what it says:
Quadrain 10/21 Dated 2021.
Prince Harry takes over from Prince William as the formal successor to his father – the future King Charles III – as ruler of the UK. There is intense media surrounding Prince Harry’s paternity.
I can only assume that Prince William either abdicates his succession or something happens to him.
Teri, I cannot visualise Prince Harry as an inspirational monarch, with Queen Chelsey by his side. Poor William, what could possibly happen to deter him from taking the throne? Only abdication or death.
Those 3 girls struck lucky. They all inherited the crown, at a comparatively young age after a period of national and international exhaustion. The only way was up, baby.
Elizabeth 1 arrived shortly after the worst of the 16th century politico-religious upheavals, Victoria after the post Napoleonic period and Elizabeth 2 just as Britain emerged from post WW2 austerity. And they had good men-tors.
Dirty Dave, Yes, that’s an excellent point, good timing and good luck certainly played its part, but at the end of the day, they delivered the goods, they didn’t foul up.
I’m a Blue Republican too…
Meanwhile, back at the plot, I imagine that it would have been a lot easier to have arranged a place coup against a useless or otherwise boat rocking queen, whereas our more useless kings have counted on a far greater degree of leeway?
Ahem, ‘palace’ coup.
Loads more to discover – we are only just scraping the surface of knowledge. The more you know, the more you know that there is more to know.
[…] Sovereign Ladies: The Six Reigning Queens of England, by Maureen Waller […]