[user104658]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I agree.



Your second paragraph I wholly would support.

I'd like to think that could all happen.



Equally that's my criticism of the present Queen, after 69 years of her reign.

Nothing really has altered to drag the Monarchy as being more representative of the modern age.



Stuck in rigid tradition, of stifling and straitjacket type rules, termed duty.



I wonder what will happen next year if the Queen is still the Monarch.

It will be an incredible Landmark of a full 70 years reign.

They cannot demand Prince Harry and Meghan attend any function or events.

However it will be interesting to see what happens.

Or even if they are asked to.

It is under a year off yet I guess.



It's doubtful however there'll ever be another Monarch in place for a period of 70 years.

Taking a step back and looking at it historically, it's really quite interesting from that view I think. The Monarchy obviously has shifted and adapted over the centuries but usually there's a new monarch every few decades at most, sometimes after only a few years, whereas because Liz 2 became Queen so young AND has lived so long it's been in more or less the same place since the second World War. No "fresh start" to trigger any evolution. They obviously made that deliberate effort to adapt to the modern world on the 70's/80's but begrudgingly and with pushback from within. It NEEDS a new younger Monarch for the 21st century to rebrand and survive, but there's no way Charles is going to volunteer for that, he wants his shot at the top job and to an extent, I get that (because I think if he had known as a young man that he'd never be king, he'd have pied the entire thing too).

I do think there's a good chance William will be "King by 50" anyway. Not to be too blunt but... Well... Charles does not look as healthy as The Queen did at 72, put it that way.