Royal editor Robert Jobson put forward the theory as a possible “solution” after admitting he feels “we’re putting too much on a 96-year-old woman”.
This comes as Prince Charles took the Queen’s place on Tuesday for the reading of the Queen’s Speech at the State Opening of Parliament, as she continues to reduce her public-facing duties.
Speaking to Dan Wootton, Mr Jobson weighed up the Queen’s ability to carry out her work with her need for more rest.
He said: “The fact is the Queen has mobility issues, I understand her knee is playing up and her ankles are playing up.
“She’s struggling a bit with mobility, but that doesn’t mean she can’t carry out the jobs that she does.
“I must admit, I feel we’re putting too much on a 96-year-old woman, I really do, you’ve got to have some humanity here.
“Yes she’s the Queen and she said she’ll reign until she dies but she’s the longest serving monarch, she’s the oldest monarch we’ve ever had.
“You’ve got to remember that Queen Victoria was about 82 when she passed away, this is the realm we’re dealing with.
“I think that it’s time not necessarily for a Regency because that is totally within the gift and the decision of Her Majesty and Parliament.”
However, Mr Jobson also expressed the need for Prince Charles to take on more responsibility and how that could affect the monarchy.
READ MORE: Queen knew Prince Harry would ‘want out’ ahead of shock exit
“Personally I think for the constitutional monarchy you need to clear that up, and perhaps a Regency would be a solution.
“It’s there for a reason, it’s an Act of Parliament.”
Great Britain was ruled by a Prince Regent from 1811 to 1820, when King George III was deemed unfit to rule due to mental illness.
His son ruled by proxy until the King’s death, when the Prince Regent ascended to the throne as King George IV.