[Neil Jones]

True, 1953 is 70 years ago after all. Anyone under the age of 75 probably doesn't remember it. And Charles could potentially last 20 years, since he's in his 70s now and his parents lived to their 90s. Nobody who WAS around for Elizabeth's coronation is likely to be around for William's, and even those who were kids at the time (i.e. in their 70s now) have a high chance of not living that long. Charles's will be their only chance to see one.

Agree but I do think also the majority of people around will still be there for William's coronation. My father and mother are 57 and 64 so I would hope they will be around for William. I might even be around for George

People probably said the same things about when Queen Victoria was seemingly going on forever, and she ultimately reigned for 64 years (admittedly coming to the throne at the age of just 18 probably helped there). Of course we had three monarchs in a period of less than 20 years in the early 1800s so you had plenty of time to read (no TV remember) about them in the newspapers.

Then of course there wasn't another one until 1901 when Victoria died, and again we had another three or four monarchs in the following 50 years, and nothing for another 70 odd years, but of course when the newsreels became a thing they became accessible to more people to see what was going on so it became less of a secret as it were.

Monarchy reigns just goes in cycles, and its more likely the next long reign won't be for a very long time, assuming nothing out of the ordinary happens, so we're in for a period of relatively short reigns (compared to Elizabeth II anyway) for a while to come. It needs somebody to come to the throne in their late teens or 20s to get a "decent" length reign on the books.