Male primogeniture

Having long campaigned for the ending of male primogeniture – I am delighted to see the Prime Minister take up the cudgels so forcefully. I am equally delighted that (according to press reports) the Queen is in agreement. Her Majesty’s views are hugely important and will undoubtedly help the cause at the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of State coming shortly.

There was a view expressed by one senior politician – one of the times I raised this issue on the floor of the House a couple of years ago – that it obviously should happen but that it wasn’t a priority. The problem for ending male primogeniture is that it has never been a priority in that way – but it should have been – long before now.

The symbolic resonance of females being pushed out of the way of the line of accession says it all – gives permission to the world (and I do mean the world) to discriminate against women. It’s importance cannot be underestimated.

So I hope and trust that this most basic of examples of discrimination will be set right in the not to distant future.

 

0 thoughts on “Male primogeniture

  1. I think you mean Commonwealth Heads of Government. A Commonwealth Heads of State meeting would be Her Majesty with herself.

  2. I can’t help but find even the concept of royal primongeniture (male or otherwise) beyond ridiculous in the 21st century. What is the point of legitimising an inherently unjust and unequal institution like a monarchy by introducing equality amongst the offspring of Kings, Queens, Princes and Princesses. Surely as Minister with responsibility for equality you should be concerned with equality for all, not just for the half dozen or so ludicrously privileged people to whom this might ever make a difference over the next few centuries. How about campaigning for everybody to have an equal shot at becoming head of state?

  3. I find myself agreeing with both perspectives. It’s obviously wrong for the rules to work this way, and unambiguously better to get rid of it. It’s also obviously unimportant.

    Let’s just fix it anyway. It’s not going to be expensive or difficult.

  4. I agree with Ciaran, this is totally irrelevant.

    How about please tackling all the biased laws giving special sexist rights and privileges to females in the other 20 million non royal families in the UK.

    The coalition has made a start with pensions – reform child benefit, passports, citizenship and equal parenting next please.

  5. Checking back here I now see Ms Featherstone wasting her office again. It seems to be a pretty regular occurrence.

    Unfortunately her hypergamous nature combined with the application of apex fallacy means that she cannot help herself and focus disproportionately on attacking ‘high status’ males around the world now at the expense of ordinary people in her own country and constituency. Especially ordinary men who are now severely discriminated against in family courts, pension age, military draft legislation etc.

    Any primogeniture is now wrong in modern democratic society, however it must be realised that the male version was a system used in successful societies. Societies with female progeniture and/or matriarchies just aren’t successful as history has so far proven.

    So not only is Ms Featherstone wasting her time and taxpayers money only this non-issue she wants to potentially experiment with other cultures development by application of feminist dogma.

    Why not just campaign to abolish royalty altogether? That would be more suitable target for true ‘equality’.

    That wouldn’t be such a cosy topic with Her Majesty though would it?

  6. As your government systematically erodes the rights of women in the workplace, toys with the idea of cutting pensions and benefits in real terms (relied on by women more than anyone else) because it has let inflation rip, as you yourself describe the Prime Minister’s proposals on maternity rights as “hideous” – you blog about the succession to the throne and say it is a priority. You are a disgrace.

  7. Can’t we just phase-out the Royal Family altogether and then there won’t be an issue?

    Ms. Featherstone, thank you, it was good to see you making a stand against awful ideas for maternity – it’s the first time I’ve been impressed by you since the election. Cameron is happy to accept maternity/paternity rights himself but now that he’s finished having a family (or do we get a baby every election?) Always good to see someone leading from the front, accepting a bit of pain themselves, it was just like his £24K mortgage….. something for something, eh?

    As you’re so keen on maternity, which I agree with, what happened with the Health & Social Care Bill, the Welfare Reform Bill, etc, etc, etc????? Were you looking the other way?

  8. Still no blog posts or vocal concern about nationality discrimination against unmarried fathers and the daughters who are not allowed to derive British citizenship through them.

    Will you be addressing the fact that illegitimate children are excluded from the British line of succession? It’s okay to change the law for gender, but let’s leave the other law in place, right Lynne?

  9. Lynne Featherstone is a complete idiot. Time waster, look up in a dictionary the meaning of the word equality and monarchy, please do it, before you disgrace yourself and the meaning of equality again.