4 Faulty Arguments against Male Primogeniture
Though the rhetoric against male primogeniture takes a variety of forms, it usually reduces to one of four arguments. Although each has a prima facie appeal, as we unpack each one it will become apparent that it is based either on factual misunderstanding or faulty reasoning. Even more crucially, three out of these four arguments threaten to undermine the very existence of the monarchy itself.
Faulty Argument No.1: We want to be modern!
Advocates of absolute primogeniture typically avoid appealing to any objective ethical criteria but instead argue on the grounds that the current system is ‘old fashioned’ or ‘out of keeping with modern society.’ For example, deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has commented:
‘Prince William and Catherine Middleton might have a baby daughter for instance as their first child, I think most people in this day and age would think it’s worth considering whether we change the rules so that that baby girl then could become the future monarch.
‘I think that would be in keeping with the changes that happen in society as a whole. My own personal view is that in this day and age the idea that only a man should ascend to the throne I think would strike most people as a little old-fashioned. I think it is worth thinking about, I think it is worth talking about. It is worth looking at what other countries that would be affected also feel on the subject.’ 18
Of course the rules of succession do not say that ‘only a man should ascend to the throne’, but that aside, Mr Clegg’s personal view is based, not on reasoned argument, but on an appeal to being up to date and modern. He appeals twice to ‘this day and age’ and suggests that the current system may be ‘a little old-fashioned.’ Mr Clegg is not alone. Keith Vaz MP referred to the succession laws as ‘out-dated’ 19 and claimed in Parliament that:
‘Whereas [male-preference primogeniture] might have been acceptable in another age, I believe that at this time in our history Britain is a modern … society and that this ought to be reflected in our succession rules. … We have a 21st century monarch and we need 21st century succession rules to match.’ 20
Finally, when David Cameron announced the changes at the Commonwealth of Nations conference, he also appealed to the need to be modern as if this alone furnished the only justification required for changing the laws:
‘Attitudes have changed fundamentally over the centuries and some outdated rules, like some of the rules on succession, just don’t make sense to us anymore.’
‘The idea that a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter simply because he is a man … – this way of thinking is at odds with the modern countries that we have become.’ 21
To start with, it is false that male primogeniture is out of keeping with the 21st century, since the royal houses in Spain, Monaco, Thailand, Portugal and Swaziland all follow the same system of male primogeniture as Britain. But even if this were not the case, the appeal to modernity is plagued with a host of problems. Chief among these problems is that it presupposes a chronological criterion of truth by which ideas and policies are being evaluated, not by the standard of right or wrong, truth or falsehood, but according to whether they are antiquated or modern. Such a false assumption can be effective in creating prejudice against an idea, turning the debate away from more objective criteria.
The chronological criterion of truth is a hidden assumption. C.S. Lewis called this type of reasoning ‘chronological snobbery’ and described it as ‘the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited.’ Lewis went on to point out that:
You must find why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood. From seeing this, one passes to the realization that our own age is also “a period,” and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristic illusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those widespread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessary to defend them. 22
If Lewis’s words are applied to the question of our succession laws, it follows that it is insufficient for our leaders to merely assert that some of the rules on succession are ‘old-fashioned’ and ‘just don’t make sense in our modern world’. We must find out if and why these rules no longer make sense, and whether any reason for them no longer making sense is a rational one or not.
More seriously, the hidden set of assumptions which animate Faulty Argument No.1 could threaten the very existence of the monarchy itself. Those who have sought to spread republicanism throughout the Commonwealth have often done so with similar appeals to ‘this day and age’, suggesting that the monarchy itself is out of date and a relic from the past. If the chronological criterion of truth is allowed to flourish when it comes to changing the order of succession, it may be only a matter of time before the same principle begins buttressing those who wish to challenge the very institution of the monarchy itself.
Faulty Argument No.2: Most people want a change!
In addition to suggesting that male primogeniture is ‘old-fashioned,’ Mr Clegg has also appealed to what ‘most people’ supposedly want. (‘would strike most people as a little old-fashioned.’) Others have gone further. For example, when Mr Vaz was arguing for a change of law in Parliament, he claimed, ‘The reality is that the public want more women to take high office’ 23 and argued from public opinion polls that the majority of citizens support absolute primogeniture. 24
The answers in polls are notoriously dependent on the question, and – in reality – the public are not much concerned by sex wars and the succession to the crown. Neither features in the Ipsos-Mori ‘most important issues’ poll which is topped by the economy, unemployment, immigration, crime, health care and education. 25
The Government should be careful of allying themselves with Mr Vaz’s attempt at populism. As Daniel Martin has observed, ‘there are fears that the change [in succession laws] could fuel the republican movement in Australia, where campaigners could use the opportunity to amend legislation to oust the Queen.’ 26 In Jamaica the situation is even more unpredictable. Britain itself has an active anti-monarchy lobby that will use any opportunity – including a public discussion of the succession laws – to challenge the legitimacy of the crown. 27
Faulty Argument No.3: The succession laws are sexist!
Perhaps the most common argument for changing the succession laws is that of equality. Stated crudely, it just isn’t fair that males should take precedent over females in the succession to the throne. In a society committed to equal rights, isn’t it hypocritical for the law to give males a greater chance of inheriting the throne than females? Surely it would be more fair for both sexes to have an equal chance at the crown. Keith Vaz MP gave voice to these sentiments in January 2011:
‘At the centre of this debate is a great principle: gender equality. … Our country leads the way in equality issues, and that should be reflected in our succession rules. … Sex discrimination has been illegal in the United Kingdom since 1975. Some 35 years after the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Britain’s employers must ensure equality between the sexes. Those who break the law are rightly punished. The Bill attempts to bring such gender equality into our succession rules.’ 28
David Cameron’s wrote to the Commonwealth countries, that ‘We espouse gender equality in all other aspects of life and it is an anomaly that in the rules relating to the highest public office we continue to enshrine male superiority.’ 29
Such a line of reasoning, even though it is false, is designed to court sympathy. Analysts have identified the sense of fairness as being one of the core ethical values embedded within the human intuition. 30
Before exploring the problems with the equality argument, we should note that those who make this objection over-exaggerate the extent to which the current system excludes women from the throne. Telegraph writer Gerald Warner rightly pointed out in 2009 that
‘ … the present succession rules do not originate in the Act of Settlement, but in our ancient history and tradition. Nor do they effectively discriminate against women. In the period since the Act was passed, we have been ruled by men for 174 years and by women for 134 years.’ 31
But while male-preference primogeniture does not prevent a woman from ruling, it always ensures that it will be statistically more probable that a man will inherit the throne. So the question arises: is this a form of institutionalized inequality and gender discrimination? The short answer is yes. However, gender discrimination is not always a bad thing and in inevitable in some situations. 32
In his book The Retreat of Reason: Political Correctness and the Corruption of Public Debate in Modern Britain, Anthony Browne showed that gender discrimination is not only accepted in many instances, but many times is necessary, laudable and defensible. Browne wrote:
‘Young men pay higher rates for car insurance than young women and older men, because young men are, on average, more dangerous drivers than young women and older men. A young man who is a safe driver is thus discriminated against because of the characteristics of other people in his age and sex group. … Anti-discrimination campaigners may publicly declare that all discrimination on the grounds of sex should be outlawed, but they are unlikely to agree that all men should have the right to use women’s toilets, that men should be allowed to go to women’s gyms, or to demand overturning the right of women’s clothes shops to refuse to employ men. … Men pay smaller pension contributions than women for a given level of private pension, for the simple reason that, on average, they have shorter lives and so on average claim less. … The various forms of rational discrimination that are widely accepted are not often called discrimination – although that is clearly what they are – because accepting that some discrimination is actually essential to the working of a society would undermine the public acceptance of a zero tolerance of all forms of discrimination’. The war on discrimination would become meaningless if there were general public awareness that actually some forms of discrimination are needed.’ 33
Given that many forms of gender discrimination are publicly practised and acceptable in modern Britain, David Cameron’s statement that ‘We espouse gender equality in all other aspects of life’ 34 is simply not true.
It follows that we need to be asking whether or not sex discrimination with respect to male primogeniture is rationally justified or not. We cannot know that male primogeniture is wrong merely from the fact that it discriminates against women.
The burden rests on those who wish to overturn centuries of precedent to first establish that male primogeniture is a case of unjustifiable discrimination. However, instead of making this case, opponents of male primogeniture simply assume that the discrimination in the succession laws is equivalent to illegal and unjust discrimination. For example, Keith Vaz MP told Parliament: ‘Sex discrimination has been illegal in the U.K. since 1975 and those who break the law are rightly punished. This rule attempts to bring gender equality into our succession rules.’ 35
This is manifestly untrue: only certain types of sex discrimination, namely those deemed to be wrong, have been made illegal. In order to show that the discrimination inherent in the succession laws must join the category of illegal discrimination, it is necessary to first establish that such discrimination is wrong. But that is something that none of the critics of male primogeniture have yet been able to do.
Few realize that if the false principles on which the anti-discrimination argument is based were extended to their logical conclusion, it would throw into question the very legitimacy of the monarchy itself. If, under the mantra of equal rights’, we altered the succession rules so as not to discriminate against firstborn females, then it would be hard to know how to answer those who said that such a system is unjust for discriminating against second-born children, or even children from another family. An hereditary monarchy occupied by only one person is inherently antithetical to the idea of ‘equal rights.’ This is one of the reasons that Telegraph commentator Charles Moore was correct to point out that ‘If you cast doubt on the succession, you cast doubt on the whole thing.’ 36
The power of this logic has not been lost on the anti-monarchy lobby. In researching for this paper we wrote to the anti-monarchy group Republic and asked if they saw the debate about succession as an opportunity to make the case for abandoning the monarchy completely. A representative from the group wrote back and said, revealingly, that:
‘Once we concede the principle that the throne should be open to women, the debate will raise a lot more questions: why not a second born daughter? Why not someone else’s daughter? So, we are looking forward to this debate to enable us to highlight the unfairness of the hereditary principle in and of itself.’
Graham Smith, campaign manager for Republic, when asked about the proposed changes in October 2011, said, ‘In practice, it simply means that the eldest child of one family is preferred over all others. Inequality is therefore further entrenched in the system.’ 37
Faulty Argument No.4: We’ve had good queens in the past!
While it is true that Britain has had some very good queens in the past, this does not in itself prove that the succession laws should be changed to allow for more of them. One of the worst times in British history occurred under the reign of a queen, Mary Tudor, or Bloody Mary (1553-1558).
Britain has had some excellent male monarchs in the past – and some dreadful ones. The whole argument leads nowhere. There is a matter of principle at stake, and we have been content in the past to leave its outworking to Almighty God. During the last century, the eldest son failed to succeed to the throne twice. George V and George VI were arguably better men than their elder brothers.
So far we have considered the legality and historicity of the present system of male-preference primogeniture. We have also analysed the four main arguments for converting over to absolute primogeniture, and in each case we have found the argument wanting. It is now time to turn our attention to some of the primary reasons in favour of maintaining the status quo.
