Dachshunds were nearly wiped out in the US during WWI. Fortunately, by WWII, people were able to separate the dog from the country. Of course, a lot of anti-German propaganda imagery used dachshunds.
As with Louis XIV, that includes the time that the king was just a child and the monarchy was represented by a regent. Sobhuza technically became king at the age of five months, but actually reigned for just about 60 years.
If one only counts actual direct reign, it would seem that Elizabeth already holds the record. For most of us, Elizabeth has been Queen forever – King George VI died in 1952
That’s one bad dog indeed:
https://maryevanspicturelibrary.typepad.com/.a/6a017d4254a056970c01a3fccc1e3c970b-pi
https://blog.maryevans.com/2014/03/sausage-dogs-persecuted-the-fall-of-dachshund-during-ww1.html
She’s been the “Her” in “Her Majesty’s Secret Service” for every incarnation of James Bond!
Benny Sixteen was actually the second Pope to retire. Celestine V issued a papal decree in 1294 that Popes were allowed to retire, and then a week later did so. He was a righteous, humble, and naive man, who didn’t realize how corrupted the Papacy had become until he was in the big chair. He lived out the remainder of his life under the generous and very insistent hospitality of his successor.
The other aspect of her extraordinary longevity is it doesn’t portend well for Charles. While I wish him a long life, his physical ability to carry out extensive royal duties is going to become limited in a relatively small number of years.
Another perspective on how long Queen Elizabeth has reigned: when she ascended to the throne, World War II had ended just seven years previously, and memories were still fresh. One of the great post-war reforms, the National Health Service, had been established just four years prior. There are probably very few Britons today who remember a time prior to the NHS. The Queen is one of those few – she would have been 21 at the time. Not that she would ever have had to worry about paying for health care!
William IV started his reign at 64 , he only lasted 7 years. ( 1830 to 1837) Charles already has him beaten. Don’t know about kings/queens in other countries
Leaving aside the fundamental point made by @Northern_Piper that QEII (nor her heirs and successors) doesn’t run any country, methinks the recent unpleasantness stateside would strongly indicate that for a very substantial bloc of Americans an unelected person pretending to run a country is the preferred model of governance.
King Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden became king in 1950 at age 68. Reigned till 1973. 23 years is a good run.
That’s why I said she “pretends” to run the country. Of course they do get her to approve all new bills .
That’s why she owns all the swans, of course.
She doesn’t pretend to do anything. She fulfills her role as is outlined by her country’s laws.
To me, by changing the family name it just made sure everybody knew the family history. Streisand effect.
Except that they weren’t doing it to hide something. They did it very publicly.
Right, because no-one in Britain was ever taught their constitutional history from 1700 onwards. It was all kept extremely hush-hush until George V dragged it into the light.
The Benelux countries have monarchs descended from Germans, most of the defunct Balkan monarchies also went to various minor members of German families:
and the Swedes got one from France, and the Norwegians got one from Denmark. That was what happened in those days. So what?
As time went by, those that adapted were kept on, and those that didn’t, weren’t. Those that did survive do so because the people don’t see a need to change.
as I said before if it’s no big deal to have a german sounding name why change the family name?
Even if Charles doesn’t ascend to the throne until he’s 80, he still has a good chance of reigning longer than that.
As people have replied to you, several times already, it was due to a high level of anti-German sentiment in the U.K. during WWI, which the royal family undoubtedly acknowledged.