We already know the prudent Queen Elizabeth II made plans for after her passing. But according to a pretty wild report, one of those was ensuring the brevity of her eldest son’s reign!
As you no doubt have heard by now, the 96-year-old passed away at Balmoral Castle on Thursday afternoon and was immediately succeeded by her son, now King Charles III. But a source tells Radar Online he won’t sit the throne for very long — at least not if he follows the commands of his late mother.
A “high-ranking royal aide” told the outlet months ago:
“Her Majesty isn’t certain her family is up to the job of guiding Britain for the next 100 years. She’s not convinced her heirs have the will, skill, or character to do it right.”
One can see the issue when it comes to potential successors like Prince Andrew… But this source says she did something about it!
“So the Queen has bound them in shackles that will survive long after she goes to the grave.”
Damn! This supposed insider says Elizabeth gathered everyone together for a summit at Sandringham to address her inevitable demise — and surprised the family with a series of edicts to be followed after her passing.
The most unusual of these alleged commands? That her son, then Prince Charles, agree to abdicate on the occasion of his 80th birthday. That would only give the 73-year-old 7 years on the throne, one tenth of the historic reign of his mother. The throne would naturally pass to his son, Prince William — who has also been prepared for the role his whole life. Unlike his father, however, he is a young man in good health — and might be more suited to some of the rigors of the job. Could that be reason enough for Charles to pass down the throne rather than rule until his own death?
For instance, after her succession, Queen Elizabeth embarked on a 6-month tour of the Commonwealth. These kinds of trips around the world would be difficult for a septuagenarian to regularly undertake in the best of circumstances — add in the pandemic, it seems more dangerous than it’s worth.
But forget about convenience. How likely is this anyway, that the man might give up his crown to his son early?
Well… not that out of the question, actually. Royal scholar Dr. Robert Morris of University College London told The NY Post in regards to the question of Charles giving the crown to his son:
“It would be perfectly natural for King Charles to want to assume the throne and perform the royal duties for which he has spent so long preparing. But some might also see it as equally natural if a man now already 73 did the job for some time before handing over to William.”
Morris explains that abdication in order to retire is not frowned upon in the same way that abdication for other reasons, such as King Edward VIII leaving the throne to marry an American divorcée.
We guess we really won’t know if this is true for another few years. But Charles, in his first address to the nation as its King, did cast some doubt on it by pledging “lifelong” service, inspired by his mother. Hmm.
Do YOU think Charles will eventually step aside for Will??