Comments by "John Brereton" (@johnbrereton5229) on "Louis XIV: The World's Longest Reigning Monarch | 1715: The Sun King is Dead | Real Royalty" video.

King Loius XIV was born in 1638 and though he was proclaimed King in 1643, after his father died, he was only 5 years old. Therefore, his mother Queen Anne and Cardinal Mazanin actually reigned in his place untill 1653, and Mazanin on his own until 1661. Therefore, Louis didn't actual reign until 1661 and he died in 1715 aged 77. Which equals 54 years, nothing like the 70 year reign of the 96 year old Queen Elizabeth II.
40
@Dxvin_04 In order to 'Reign', you need to possess and exercise Sovereign power. Louis did neither, he was only 5 years old and couldn't wipe his own bum, let alone run a country. That's why his mum, Queen Anne, did both for him.
13
In reality she did, Louis XIV was only 4 yrs old when he was proclaimed King. Therefore, his mother Queen Anne ruled in his place. Louis didnt reign untill 1661 and he died in 1715, so 54 years, not 72.
7
@jvmgarcia Queen Anne ruled in his place because he was only a toddler, and later he had Jeane Baptist-Colbert, Marquis de Louvois, Huges de Lionne etc etc. No Monarch rules without expert advice. However, it's interesting to note that as he became a man he took more control but that's only in the last 50 odd years of his life, not the 72 claimed.
4
@jvmgarcia So is Louis XIV disputed, that's what this whole debate is all about.
3
@jvmgarcia Open your bigoted eyes Garcia, this whole thread is disputing it right here and now ffs ! Just because Wikipedia says something it doesn't make it true, it's is not the font of all knowledge you know.
3
@notnek202 No that's your 'logic' Kenton, and as we can all see, it's not logical, its just nonsense !
3
@jvmgarcia As I repeated elsewhere, Louis was only 5 when he became king and so couldn't even wipe his own bum, let alone rule. Therefore his mother Queen Anne did both for him, so she was hardly 'irrelevant' .
3
@jamiemohan2049 No Government could be appointed in the UK without the Queens approval, no laws could be passed without her approval and all the UK armed forces and the Police all have to pledge allegiance to her, so Queen Elizabeth II was hardly without power as you claim.
3
@jamiemohan2049 It's not for show, if she didnt sign them they would not be legal and it would cause a constitutional crisis. Where as, 5 year old Loius couldn't do anything let alone sign documents, because he couldn't even wipe his own bum, so his mum, Queen Anne did both for him.
3
@notnek202 It's not me, that considers there is a 'magic age'. It's actually called reaching your majority and its enshrined in Law. That's why 5yr old Louis XIV couldn't rule untill he had reached it, his mother Queen Anne ruled as Regent in his place. The same rules apply to any person in line to a throne anywhere in the world.
2
@notnek202 Do you know any historians ? Have you asked any ? The answer to these question is so obviously, No !
2
@evaburnz Yes indeed Eva, I can smell it seeping from your comment even from here. 😖
2
@simonabelciug8527 Thats my point, Louis XIV only ruled absolutely after he reached his majority and took over from his mother. So that's just over 50 years then.
2
@incognito-px3dz Ive already dealt with this before ! However, to reiterate, no new Prime Minister or Government could take office without her approval. No Bill's could pass through Parliament without her approval, no new laws could be enacted with out her approval. Both the Army and the Police all declared their allegiance to her, not Parliament. The Queens approval and official signature were fundamental to the whole process and without it, it would cause a constitutional crisis, so hardly just a figurehead.
2
@incognito-px3dz Oh god, not again ! The Queen held full royal prerogative powers for 70years while Louis had full power for 54 years.
2
@jvmgarcia No need for me to try again, my point stands !
2
@notnek202 I've fully explained my reasons for disputing this claim, and you have said nothing to change my mind. In fact all you have done is to constantly repeat a vigorously disputed claim. I suggest you either come up with convincing facts to disprove what I have stated, or you just 'get over it'.
1
@juliendaguin-gesset9321 Yawn ! 😴
1
@juliendaguin-gesset9321 so deluded lol 🤣🤣
1
@notnek202 you lack reasoning !
1
@incognito-px3dz I don't see the the point in continuously refuting the bleeding obvious.
1
@jvmgarcia Au contraire, the complete opposite is true .
1
@jvmgarcia No, I live in a world of reason and logic, while yours lacks both. Perhaps you have been blinded by the sun king.
1
@Hope-om1kc To reign over a country you need to exercise Sovereign power and rule over the people. Louis couldn't even feed himself or wipe his own bum so how could he rule ? Queen Anne ruled, Loius didn't, however you must be a misogynist to think a baby has more brains than a women ?
1