For the world leaders arriving in Glasgow for Cop26, the news came as a huge disappointment. The Queen would not be there to greet them: instead she would address then in a recorded video. There would be no chance to be photographed with her and impress the voters back home; none of the "magic dust" that, in the words of the journalist Martin Ivens, her presence sprinkles on such occasions.  

Her absence is quite understandable. Any 95-year-old needs to take things easy, and the death of the Duke of Edinburgh six months ago was a great blow to the Queen. In recent weeks there have been signs of increasing frailty. She was photographed using a walking stick for the first time, and cancelled a visit to Northern Ireland after spending a night in hospital.

She is now resting at Windsor Castle. But, as Martin Ivens wrote in an article for Bloomberg,  "The UK must begin to think the unthinkable: of life without her."

Another article, by Serge Schmemann in the The New York Times, is being widely discussed. It suggests that she might be the world's last "global monarch".

Schmemann argues that although there are still a dozen monarchies in EuropeThe second-smallest of the world's continents. It has a population of 746 million. , and almost 30 countries around the world with royal families, few people other than their subjects know or care about them. Queen Elizabeth, on the other hand, is known and widely respected the world over.

Fifteen countries outside Britain acknowledge her as head of state, while to 36 other members of the Commonwealth she represents their former monarchy.  

After 69 years on the throne, she is certainly a historic figure. She has seen 14 US presidents and five popes come and go. If she is still alive in three years' time she will overtake Louis XIV of FranceHe became king at 14 and ruled so long that he was succeeded by his five-year-old great-grandson. as the longest-reigning European monarch ever.

No individual in the future is likely to have such stature. Canada and Australia are two countries that might well decide they no longer want a British head of state once she is gone.

The term monarch derives from two Greek words meaning to rule and alone. The earliest monarchs were generally successful military leaders who managed to establish themselves so firmly that they were able to pass power on to their children.

This often required ruthlessness, but also diplomacy, since they needed to dissuade the aristocracy from supporting rivals for the throne. Glamour was also an important ingredient: by building palacesThe Royal Palace in Madrid, measuring almost 1.5 million square feet, is considered to be the world's largest functioning palace. and hosting magnificent banquets they could impress people with their power and wealth. Becoming a monarch was the ultimate fantasy, explored in fairy tales, much as becoming a music or sports star is today.  

The idea also developed that monarchs were chosen by GodThis idea was known as the "divine right" of kings., and therefore it was wrong to rebel against them.

Queen Elizabeth does not, of course, have the powers of an absoluteAble to rule without restraint. The Queen is a constitutional monarch who has to follow the wishes of parliament. monarch. But as Serge Schmemann notes, "No other head of state has succeeded in meldingBlending. The verb is a combination of melt and weld. the ancient rites of hereditary monarchy with democratic rule as she has."

Some say, no. The Queen comes from an age when royalty really meant something and was automatically respected. In an increasingly democratic world, that is no longer the case. In countries like the Netherlands, royals have realised that the best thing is to present themselves as ordinary people.

Others argue that most of us still value the historical tradition, glamour and stability a monarch represents. The Queen's successor will probably live the same kind of life as she does: the key is to be sensitive to the wants and needs of ordinary people, while also giving them grandeur to admire.