This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2012/jun/04/royal-succession-gender-equality-feminism
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Is royal succession gender equality a good thing for feminism? | Is royal succession gender equality a good thing for feminism? |
| (30 days later) | |
| Even the staunchest republicans among us – those who, like me, fled the country for a weekend to escape the patriotic parade of red, white and blue – can't have helped but feel a tiny flutter of satisfaction at the Queen's confirmation last month that our monarchy's archaic system of male-preference primogeniture is to be overturned. | Even the staunchest republicans among us – those who, like me, fled the country for a weekend to escape the patriotic parade of red, white and blue – can't have helped but feel a tiny flutter of satisfaction at the Queen's confirmation last month that our monarchy's archaic system of male-preference primogeniture is to be overturned. |
| So, at this most royalist moment, let us pause to ponder the significance of the fact that a daughter born first to William and Kate will now automatically inherit the throne, rather than having to give way to her younger brother. Is this a landmark step in the feminist struggle, or an irrelevant bit of paper-pushing that was long overdue? | So, at this most royalist moment, let us pause to ponder the significance of the fact that a daughter born first to William and Kate will now automatically inherit the throne, rather than having to give way to her younger brother. Is this a landmark step in the feminist struggle, or an irrelevant bit of paper-pushing that was long overdue? |
| First, it's worth pointing out that the change hasn't yet become law: while the 16 Commonwealth countries have approved it in principle, discussions are ongoing, and several pieces of historic legislation will need to be altered before the decision is legally binding. But it's certainly a remarkable move. The deeply sexist system of ignoring a first-born daughter in favour of a male heir arrived in Britain with the Normans; the Anglo-Saxons had favoured the more meritocratic (though equally sexist) "atheling" system, under which the best man for the job was chosen from a number of eligible male relatives. A similar process is still used by the Saudi royal dynasty today. | First, it's worth pointing out that the change hasn't yet become law: while the 16 Commonwealth countries have approved it in principle, discussions are ongoing, and several pieces of historic legislation will need to be altered before the decision is legally binding. But it's certainly a remarkable move. The deeply sexist system of ignoring a first-born daughter in favour of a male heir arrived in Britain with the Normans; the Anglo-Saxons had favoured the more meritocratic (though equally sexist) "atheling" system, under which the best man for the job was chosen from a number of eligible male relatives. A similar process is still used by the Saudi royal dynasty today. |
| So it's understandable that David Cameron was looking more than a little smug when he announced the proposed change during a visit to Australia last October. And when it becomes law, the change will bring us into line with other, more enlightened European countries, including Spain, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands, all of whose monarchies have already got rid of male-preference primogeniture. | So it's understandable that David Cameron was looking more than a little smug when he announced the proposed change during a visit to Australia last October. And when it becomes law, the change will bring us into line with other, more enlightened European countries, including Spain, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands, all of whose monarchies have already got rid of male-preference primogeniture. |
| But despite our slowness to follow their lead, royal historian Robert Lacey says the decision is an admirably swiftreaction to wider social change. "Male-preference primogeniture came out of the fact that our early kings led armies, and so they were usually men – they were basically thugs and gangsters," he says. "When you think that it's only 100 years since women got the vote, the decision to overturn it has actually come along fairly rapidly." | But despite our slowness to follow their lead, royal historian Robert Lacey says the decision is an admirably swiftreaction to wider social change. "Male-preference primogeniture came out of the fact that our early kings led armies, and so they were usually men – they were basically thugs and gangsters," he says. "When you think that it's only 100 years since women got the vote, the decision to overturn it has actually come along fairly rapidly." |
| He believes firmly that the proposal originates with the royal family rather than with the government. "I think they're fully aware of the fact that our most successful monarchs have been women – Elizabeth I, Queen Anne, Queen Victoria, our own queen. In a modern society, where the royals have psychic power rather than actual power, it's all about keeping the monarchy in business – and they know that a woman will probably do that better than a man." | He believes firmly that the proposal originates with the royal family rather than with the government. "I think they're fully aware of the fact that our most successful monarchs have been women – Elizabeth I, Queen Anne, Queen Victoria, our own queen. In a modern society, where the royals have psychic power rather than actual power, it's all about keeping the monarchy in business – and they know that a woman will probably do that better than a man." |
| In that case, then, surely we can hail the abolition of male-preference primogeniture as a feminist victory, whatever we feel about the monarchy's continued existence? June Purvis, professor of women's and gender history at Portsmouth University and editor of the Women's History Review, certainly thinks so. "It's a very significant step for women," she says, "and far too long in coming: it should have been sorted out back in the 70s. A lot of people will say it's irrelevant because they're in favour of a republic, but I personally think our monarchy is no bad thing – and having a woman at the head of it has to be good for the feminist cause." | In that case, then, surely we can hail the abolition of male-preference primogeniture as a feminist victory, whatever we feel about the monarchy's continued existence? June Purvis, professor of women's and gender history at Portsmouth University and editor of the Women's History Review, certainly thinks so. "It's a very significant step for women," she says, "and far too long in coming: it should have been sorted out back in the 70s. A lot of people will say it's irrelevant because they're in favour of a republic, but I personally think our monarchy is no bad thing – and having a woman at the head of it has to be good for the feminist cause." |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe. |