Congratulations Ma'am. Long may your reign continue.
Actually, all things considered Wayne Rooney might well make a better heir to the throne that the present incumbent of that position.
Considering that her mother lived to 101 - if the Queen does the same then Charles will be 78, and, with the progress of medical knowledge, H M may well last longer than that.
Twelve more years married to Camilla Park-and-Ride? He just might not make it that long.
King William III? A far better bet in the job than his father, in my personal opinion only, of course.
Problem is that of course Charles was popular in his youth, similar to William - don't you remember that lovely couple in the 80s with their 2 sweet kids.
But decades of kicking his heels waiting for a job he was 'born' to but unlikely to actually attain until he is over 70 has corroded the public's view. Not least because it is difficult to retain good news stories when you effectively spend decades at tax payer expense without a job.
And for all the great press about William now I struggle to see how he will be able to sustain media positivity over the decades he will need to wait until he attains the throne.
So just to give some kind of perspective. If the Queen lives to the same age as her mother, Charles won't become King until he is 78. If Charles lives as long as his father William will be at least 61 before he attains the throne. And the same issue will face George.
In the world of longevity, with a strict hereditary monarchy we will constantly have heirs kicking their heals until old age and monarchs not attaining the throne until they are at traditional retirement age and then likely spending a considerable amount of their reign in increasing poor health and unable to fulfil the requirements of the job.
