In case you haven't been reading the news recently you should take a look at this: Succession Rules to Change
In short the Commenwealth Nations have got together and decided that the Laws of Succesion governing the British Monarchy should change. Specifically they've scrapped the bit about not marrying Roman Catholics and made it so that the first born child of the reigning King or Queen is the heir apparent regardless of whether they're a boy or a girl instead of giving preference to first born sons.
Now I'm a Monarchist. I love the Monarchy so this story is of interest to me. But I have to say I'm not to fond of the changes. Not the "You can now marry Catholics" bit, I'm fine with that. But the shift away from Male orientated primogenitor. Mostly because I don't see why it's actually neccerssary.
Now before you start screaming sexist and throwing things at me, hear me out. The UK (in one way or another, I'm thinking specifically England) has had a Monarch since approximatly 871AD, (there were others before then of course, but that was when one person started to rule the whole country) an unbroken line strenching from then till now - apart of course from that messy period just after the Civil War but we'll skate over that. That's over 1140 years. Now granted most of those Monarchs have been male but that's just how it worked back then. However since Mary I came to the throne in 1553, we've has six Queens (Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria and Elizabeth II). That's six Queens in 458 years for those of you keeping notes, one of whom was our longest reigning Monarch ever.
We've also in that period had one female Prime Minister who was the longest running Prime Minister ever. America on the other hand - one of the countries most excited over this whole thing - has been around for 234 years or there and there abouts and has yet to even have a female Presidential candidate, let alone a female President. So we can't exactly be accused of gender bias.
I tend to live my life by two mottos. Such is Life, and If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This pandering to the Political Correctness Brigade seems to me like fixing something that isn't broken. Our current succesion laws don't forbid a girl from becoming the Monarch. If William and Kate were to have a girl and then no other children, or a girl and then another girl the eldest would become Queen and that's fine. But the system of letting boys have first bite at the crown so to speak has worked - as shown above - for over a thousand years and I don't see any reason to change it now. It's traditional and surely the Monarchy is all about tradition. It also seems like we're switching from one form of discrimination to another. Previously it was a case of "Bad luck, you weren't born male." Now it will be a case of "Bad luck, you weren't born earlier." Discriminating in favour of age seems only slightly less bad to me than discirminating in favour of gender.
Now I know this is all a case of locking up the stable, after I've already seen Black Beauty heading towards Hastings. The Commenwealth has made a decision and there is nothing that I or anyone reading this blog can do. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. However if we are going to mess around with the rules regarding the Monarchy, could we insert a line into the Consitution similiar to one the Spanish have, making the reigning Monarch the living embodiment and personfication of the United Kingdom.
I'd like that very much.
Wow, I have to comment on this - and to begin with I'm a republican with a lingering affection for the monarchy, so here goes.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I see no difference between the provision preventing spouses of Catholics succeeding from the one about male primogeniture. They're both archaic hangovers from a different world, and I'm exceptionally glad to see the monarchy arrive in the 21st century by scrapping both of them.
I actually think you make a valid point about age, but I also don't think it's really one that can be compared with male primogeniture, which is inherently sexist. Now that may be reason enough to change it, but if it isn't, how can a country that claims to be non-discriminatory have a law discriminating over anything (let alone the succession) on the basis of gender? That kind of discrimination, in my view, has no place in the modern world, regardless of how much impact it will have in real terms. Sometimes a symbolic act accomplishes more than just symbolism.
Regarding the inherent unfairness of letting the eldest child succeed first, I agree to an extent, but I think the fundamental idea is sound - the eldest child will have had the longest to mature and "learn the ropes", if you will. Now, of course, there have been some outstanding monarchs who came to the throne at a young age, our current queen included, but I think that's more than counterbalanced by the predominance of total disasters (Henry III, Richard II, Henry VI, Edward V, Edward VI ...). It seems like a defensible choice, if a choice must be made, to give the throne to the oldest and hopefully wisest sibling. In any case this kind of heredity is what is naturally wrong with monarchy, although I know there's no way the UK is going to ditch the royals any time soon.
Lastly, I have to address the argument about "tradition". Just because something has worked for over a thousand years doesn't mean there isn't a better option. (And I will point out that male primogeniture did in fact lead to one of England's first civil wars, the Anarchy.) Male primogeniture may have worked in the Middle Ages, but the fact is that if the Constitution places greater value on a male than on a female, that's sending a message that girls aren't up to the task. And that's not OK.
Oh, and the living embodiment thing is actually a bit of a problem too, since the queen is in fact queen of sixteen different countries. Making her the living embodiment of one of them is a little problematic. I do think the idea's rather romantic, though.
An interesting post, though - I do think you make some interesting points.
One point I almost made and then didn't is that there is a glaring example of when letting the eldest go first is a terrible idea.
ReplyDeleteHello Edward VIII. We were much better off with his younger brother.
Exactly. But that's why hereditary offices are a really bad idea ...
ReplyDeleteI mentioned some of this on chat, but I'll repeat in more detail here. Although I'm a woman, I accept that men and women are different and that in some areas of life God has created us for different tasks and assigned us different roles.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, however, since it's been accepted that women can serve as monarchs, making the woman, if she is first-born, the heir just seems to make sense. I don't think this is "pandering to the Political Correctness Brigade". That would be something like deciding to scrap the terms "king and queen" and calling them all "monarch" or some-such neutral term. I'm not a feminist, and I think this was a good decision.
I like your thinking on the fact that we're replacing gender discrimination with order-of-birth discrimination. It's important to raise questions like that, but in this case it doesn't really apply. Co-monarchs or a shared/divided kingdom isn't an option, so we have to decide who inherits the throne on some basis. Deciding that on "who's more fit" is too subjective a question (that what democracy and the Prime Minister are for). But your argument doesn't work for me because is the order-of-birth discrimination isn't new - it was there all along. Succession was based on the first-born male. Failing a male heir, it went to the first-born female. All they've done is removed the gender specification that existed in addition to the order-of-birth one.
The old system was unequally discriminatory in that men had only to be the first-born son (regardless of any older daughters) whereas a woman had to be the first-born child. Now the requirement is the same for both men and women.