Long May They Reign - How Long?

[zaffre]

Very simple but hopefully interesting question - what's the longest possible rule?

If you only count sovereign states (and I do for the purposes of this, since otherwise the possibilities become near infinite) then in OTL the record of 72+ years set by Louis XIV is on track to hold pretty much indefinitely, as far as I can tell. But across the span of all possible AHs, 72 years seems very easily beatable, and even Sobhuza II's 82 years quite surmountable. The crucial feature here is that human life expectancy has risen largely because of children living longer, rather than massive changes to the upper bounds. Very improbable for pre-modern monarchs to get truly ancient, but not impossible - St. Anthony the Great was born in the 250s and despite (or because?) he holed up in the desert for most of his life, it's pretty widely agreed he made it to his 100s.

This makes the most likely contenders monarchs that were crowned young and (ironically) died young, since it's comparatively easier to say that King Poisoned II of the By-His-Uncle dynasty could have lived an extremely healthy life than that Louis XIV suddenly takes up cardio. And this is why other forms of government don't really enter into this, since we tend not to elect kids. Of course, the funny thing about this is that child monarchs inherently have especially, er, fraught reigns. King Henry VI would have "just" needed to make it to 83 to be the all-time GOAT, but I mean [GESTURES AT HENRY VI]. So the best bet is probably a child monarch with a very robust state apparatus behind them, like Louis himself. Pretty much any contender for the top spot has a fascinating ATL reign, by definition.

I'll start us off with a very logical option but also a bit of a cop-out - have political butterflies in late 1920s Europe, of any number of varieties, and it's not likely, but certainly possible, to have King Michael I of Romania (1927-2017).

 

[napoleon IV]

This is also a bit of a cop-out, but if George VI had died just a few years earlier (not hard to imagine given his health problems) then Queen Elizabeth II would have ruled for slightly longer than Louis XIV.

 

[Yokai Man]

I'll start us off with a very logical option but also a bit of a cop-out - have political butterflies in late 1920s Europe, of any number of varieties, and it's not likely, but certainly possible, to have King Michael I of Romania (1927-2017).

[CRACKS KNUCKLES]

Weeellll,in order to have that you’d need to kill Carol before 1930 somehow which,not that hard,just have him die during WW1 BUT in that scenario he ain’t the heir to the throne anymore-Nicolae is,and he’ll live til 1978 and run things the same as Carol-and thus Mihai can’t become king anymore.

It is possible to have the 1934 assasination succeed by pure luck/Morozov having a moment of carelessness and not spotting it in time but I should point out that Mihai only became King officially became King once he became 18 of age-the Regency Counsel was in place between 1927-1930.

 

[Excelsior]

The other Balkan monarch brought to the throne in his childhood was Simeon II of Bulgaria. He is still alive today, the last living head of state or government from WW2 alongside the Dalai Lama. Not sure how to get the Bulgarian monarchy to survive post-war. In a no-WW2 timeline, Simeon's father perhaps would have lived longer as his death was quite mysterious and possibly committed by the Nazis. He would have die in the early 50s for Simeon to beat Louis XIV by 2023.

A bit of a crazy one, but I believe there is a case to be made that if the pandemic didn't happen, Queen Elizabeth might have lived longer without the effects of Covid.

Another one, Otto von Habsburg, son and heir of the last Austrian Emperor, Charles I. Otto's time as head of the house lasted from 1922 to 2007, 75 years. However, if Charles I had still been on the throne, it is unlikely he would have died of his OTL causes, that being a cold progressing to pneumonia during his exile in Madeira. Furthermore, Charles's reign was accelerated by the death of the previous heir in 1914, we all know that story. If Franz Ferdinand had been on the throne, no telling when Otto could have taken the throne. So in order to take advantage of Otto's longevity, there would have to be some way of getting him on the throne around 1925 at the latest, and there still being a throne throughout his lifetime.

If Hirohito had been removed from the throne after the war, and Akihito became Emperor, he could serve up to 77-78 years and counting, as he's still alive. However, he may still abdicate. But even if he did so on the OTL date, he would beat Louis XIV by a number of months, depending on the start date of his reign.

 

[Elektronaut]

The Old Pretender lived to be 77. If he'd came to the throne around the same time in his life that Louis did, he could have equalled or beaten Louis' reign, and in the ATL it might also still be standing as the record. Admittedly you'd need a vastly more politically competent James II for this to work which would likely butterfly away his birth.

 

[Time Enough]

You could have Emperor Hirohito being forced to abdicate in the wake of end of World War 2, and after a regency under Prince Takahito or Nobuhito around 1951, Akihito becomes Emperor, where given he’s still alive, you could have him reigning Japan for over seventy two years (he probably would abdicate after a certain point like otl but still you could have an Emperor for just over Seventy years quite easily).

 

[Excelsior]

If Wilhelmina of the Netherlands had not abdicated, and reigned until her death, she would have reigned for 72 years and 5 days, just 105 days behind Louis XIV. Possibly the closest anyone has come in OTL with the least amount of divergence.

Alfonso XIII of Spain came to the throne being born after his father's death, meaning his theoretical cap would be his lifespan. However, he lost the throne in 1931 after just 45 years as king. He then died at age 54. I could see him living longer, up to his 70s, in a more stable Spain.

Fuad II of Egypt came to the throne five months old, and is still alive today at age 71. But the forces which brought about his father's abdication make Fuad losing the throne at some point seem unavoidable.

 

[kratostatic]

This is also a bit of a cop-out, but if George VI had died just a few years earlier (not hard to imagine given his health problems) then Queen Elizabeth II would have ruled for slightly longer than Louis XIV.

Or even have him die in the Blitz? Assuming Elizabeth II then lives as long as OTL that would 81 or 82 years.

 

[zaffre]

Credit to @Beata Beatrix for inspiring this genuinely nuts option:

Edward IV takes a minor wound at Towton that festers and ultimately becomes a major wound. He dies a matter of weeks after his coronation, leaving the Yorkists & Warwick with no better option than to crown his 11 year old brother, George, Duke of Clarence, as king. Clarence is an untrustworthy scumbag, but stays simpatico with Warwick and ultimately avoids a lot of the headaches that Edward IV faced because he is not very motivated to rebel against himself. The stray Lancastrians get hunted down and killed, eventually, and George I wields all the murder-y levers of the state to live to a ripe old age.

How old could that be? Our first benchmark, Clarence himself (1) died at 28 because he was executed. So we'd have to look at our second benchmark, Clarence's son, the 17th Earl of Warwick (2) who died at 24 when he was executed, after failing to pass the Voight-Capon test. Which leads us to our third benchmark, his daughter Margaret Pole (3) who made it all the way to 67 when she was, get this, executed.
What I'm getting at is that we can use 67 as an extremely reasonable lower bound (that would already make his reign 1461-1517, clocking in right above Henry III in the top 5) and if we add in the secret spice that is not getting executed, I think it is very barely reasonable - but reasonable - for George I to make it to 83, passing away in 1533 after the longest reign of any sovereign monarch in history, due to a tragic accident during one of his many recreational baths in Malmsey wine.

 

[Nanwe]

Alfonso XII of Spain came to the throne in 1874 at age 18 but unfortunately died from tuberculosis in 1886 after visiting a hospital. His siblings (born in the late 1840s/mid-1850s like him) all lived into the 1930s-40s, meaning that had he lived until the age of say 80-85, he would have been king for some 65 years.

 

[Edmund]

Edgar Ætheling is easily done. Harold doesn't take the throne in the first place; or Hastings is less one-sided and William is either dead or in no position to force the Witan to accept him as king. That's a reign of sixty years that we reliably know of and probably a good few more after that (though I doubt he lived to be a supercentenarian).

 

[David Flin]

Edgar Ætheling is easily done. Harold doesn't take the throne in the first place; or Hastings is less one-sided and William is either dead or in no position to force the Witan to accept him as king. That's a reign of sixty years that we reliably know of and probably a good few more after that (though I doubt he lived to be a supercentenarian).

Hastings? One-sided?

Surely some mistake.

 

[MachiavelliJr]

The Old Pretender lived to be 77. If he'd came to the throne around the same time in his life that Louis did, he could have equalled or beaten Louis' reign, and in the ATL it might also still be standing as the record. Admittedly you'd need a vastly more politically competent James II for this to work which would likely butterfly away his birth.

I think James II dropping dead very shortly after "James III" was born might do it - Mary of Modena gets her marching orders from Parliament, Anne is notional Regent for her baby brother, real power is with, hmm, someone else for quite a long time, and James III turns out to take after his uncle more than his parents or grandfathers.

 

[AH Layard]

I think James II dropping dead very shortly after "James III" was born might do it - Mary of Modena gets her marching orders from Parliament, Anne is notional Regent for her baby brother, real power is with, hmm, someone else for quite a long time, and James III turns out to take after his uncle more than his parents or grandfathers.

I think that would be too late? It was widely assumed that the baby was an illegitimate imposter, there’s no way that dissenting Protestants would stand for that (especially when William has been preparing to invade for the past three months). In fact it makes the argument for inviting William over a lot easier, it forces the issue of succession as the monarchy should pass to Mary immediately and they don’t have to disagree with James II’s wishes as a divine monarch when he’s just died.

 

[MachiavelliJr]

I think that would be too late? It was widely assumed that the baby was an illegitimate imposter, there’s no way that dissenting Protestants would stand for that (especially when William has been preparing to invade for the past three months). In fact it makes the argument for inviting William over a lot easier, it forces the issue of succession as the monarchy should pass to Mary immediately and they don’t have to disagree with James II’s wishes as a divine monarch when he’s just died.

The warming-pan theory is bollocks though, and everyone knew it was at the time, it was just the only way to avoid the prospect of James and Mary of Modena raising the Prince of Wales in a Catholic household. If someone else will be raising the kid, Parliament's choice is either they can rule, or a Dutchman whose own religious sympathies are unclear beyond "definitely not a Catholic" can come and rule them. The better version is Charles II lives two more years and baby James is his heir.