LONDON —
It is reigning men. Is that good?
For the next 75 years or so, that is the forecast for this sceptered isle, regardless of whether you like it or not.
As Britain mourns Queen Elizabeth II and prepares for the era of King Charles III, a relatively overlooked fact is that, barring an accident or revolution, the United Kingdom will have a man on the throne deep into the 21st century.
A switch at the top could have an effect that goes beyond the sight of a royal 5 o’clock shadow. Britons are mourning the loss of a woman they describe as the nation’s grandmother, and may find themselves adjusting their expectations of how their monarch should act.
Elizabeth ruled Britannia for a record-breaking 70 years, longer than any of her predecessors and, in all likelihood, any of her successors. Most people in this country have never heard of anyone else besides the queen, and have never seen anyone else’s portrait on stamps or currency.
The next two heirs to the throne are William and George, both sons of William. The younger two will eventually be known as William V and George VII if they keep their given names.
The author of a recent book on the monarchy said that unless something dramatic happens, we are going to have a series of kings for the coming decades.
Britain will have a king until 2109 if George lives as long as his great-grandmother, who died at 96.
Charles was Britain’s oldest-ever new monarch after serving the longest apprenticeship in history. He has a couple of decades ahead of him as king because of the longevity of his mum and granny, who lived to be 101.
Charles can’t project the feminine glamour that many associated with Elizabeth during the early years of her reign. When she succeeded her father, King George VI, she was a young English rose who embodied the hopes of people trying to recover from World War II.
Hazel Adamson, an 89-year-old retiree who lives outside London, remembers standing in line for three hours to see George VI’s coffin in 1952 as the country was hoping for a better life. It was called the Elizabethan Era because she was young.
In the midst of postwar rationing, photos of the queen in jewels were common.
Elizabeth had to fight gender expectations as she tried to navigate a male-dominated world. Her first prime minister was three times older than her.
The order of the day was for men to be in charge and women to be submissive. To take her place at the head of this nation and play a huge role on the world stage was what the queen stepped up to, according to a veteran lawmaker. What determination and courage must have been used.
Even after a long-reigning queen and, as of this month, the country’s third female prime minister, Charles may have to contend with a mirror- image. He and his male successors inherit a monarchy that has become more stereotypically feminine in nature over the last seven decades.
Fans of both “The Crown” and “The Queen” know that Elizabeth did not always exhibit those qualities. She was criticized for waiting eight days before visiting the grieving residents of the Welsh mining village of Aberfan, after an accident in 1966 killed more than 120 people. Her response to Princess Diana’s death in a Paris car crash in 1997 was met with outrage.
The queen was referred to in explicitly maternal terms in the fulsome tributes recently.
The matriarch of the nation is what we keep hearing. The narrative does play into the gender of the person.
In recent times, the monarch and the royal family have been comforting the afflicted. Although Charles has gone off to disasters of different kinds, I don’t think kings do the same thing. Men don’t bring that kind of emoting and we feel that women have that motherly touch.
The new king is well-suited to the role of consoler in chief, as he is full of passion for his causes and compassion.
In his few days as monarch, he has tried to show a warm and human side, allowing himself to be touched and even kissed by his subjects in a way that Elizabeth, despite her dazzling smile, didn’t, carrying herself with what she thought a due measure of stately aloof. During a visit to Buckingham Palace in 2009, royal watchers gasped at the violation of protocol when First Lady Obama slung her arm around her hostess.
Robert Lacey, a royal historian, said that an ability to empathise will stand Charles in good stead because of the shift in modern perception of monarchy.
The days when kings were expected to lead their soldiers into battle are gone. In constitutional systems like Britain’s, they don’t hold any political power but serve primarily as figureheads, which means the “caring, motherly functions” of the monarchy have become more important.
Read stories from the L.A. Times.
You can get the day’s top news with our Today’s Headlines newsletter.
Los Angeles Times promotional content may be sent to you occasionally.
Lacey told the Los Angeles Times that a woman is better suited to be a representative monarch than a man. Men are supposed to have firm and decisive opinions and actions, but that is not appropriate in a man with no power.
Lacey said that Charles and William have a more feminine side to them than the stereotypically masculine behavior expected of men of Charles’ generation and even his own.
There will be company as king with Charles. All of the reigning crowned heads of Europe are more likely to need Rogaine now that Queen Margrethe II of Denmark is out.
If nothing else, Charles would be advised to think hard before deviating from his mother’s example, even if it was a “feminine” one, given that polls consistently showed her to be the most popular member of the royal family.
“She did her best for the country, and I think people appreciated that,” said Joan Williams, a retired music teacher who stood outside all night in central London to catch a glimpse of the queen. He will probably follow in her footsteps because the country loved her.