BRITISH AND COMMONWEALTH PEOPLES DO NOT HAVE TO COPY SWEDEN: REASONS WHY GENDER-BLIND PRIMOGENITURE DOES NOT PROMOTE EQUALITY

“Tokenism: The practice of making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to do a particular thing, especially by recruiting a small number of people from under represented groups in order to give the appearance of sexual or racial equality within a workforce.”

Dictionary definition.

SUMMARY

Equality requires inclusion of the group that suffers discrimination. Equality is not the result of a hierarchical system that asks who comes first and only promotes one person. For the government to have a succession law that is inclusive of women, the cultural structure of society has to include all women and their historical identities.  Equality needs the creation of maternal surnames that are hereditary through the maternal line, and the Royal family would have to recognize the maternal lines of Queens. 

INTRODUCTION

Sweden was the first country with gender-blind primogeniture, and most monarchies of Europe copied this law without critical thinking. There is no evidence that gender-blind primogeniture promotes equality in society or for the monarchy; gender-blind primogeniture is not equality, because it creates/promotes a category of inequality, and this is the irrational preferences for the firs-born. Gender-blind primogeniture is a bad example for children and adults. This idea ignores the unequal treatment of non-royal women.

REASONS WHY GENDER-BLIND PRIMOGENITURE FAILS TO PROMOTE EQUALITY FOR THE MONARCHY AND SOCIETY:

Tokenism: Gender-blind primogeniture is the classic case of tokenism, there is promotion of one woman to a symbolic role, but the political system fails to increase the number of women in parliament. Equality is not the result of one cosmetic change; instead it requires a change in the culture of society. If parliament wants to change society, the composition of parliament has to be an example to others.

Concepts that promote equality benefit everyone, and examples of this are universal suffrage and equal treatment under the law. What benefit of equality would gender-blind primogeniture bring to the 99.99% of the population? There is no benefit for most of the population, because most people do not have a royal connection.

 

This idea is like fashion, it is very popular now, but eventually working class people would become indifferent to it; this is a law only for the 1% of 1% of the population. If parliament wants to have a monarchy with gender equality, it has to find an all-inclusive idea that benefits/applies to everyone in society. There is plenty of room in society for more gender equality.

Chicken and egg question: Gender-blind primogeniture is an attempt at redesigning society/culture by asking: What came first the monarchy or primogeniture? Neither, culture had a patriarchal structure before the birth of the monarchy or primogeniture. The preference for men is a reflection of cultural values.

What is the unequal structure of society? The patriarchal cultural system gives preference to men, because culture/society only recognizes paternal lines. Equality requires a cultural organization that is both patrilineal and matrilineal.  

For example, the surname tradition is analogous to male-primogeniture, and both situations are a reflection of patriarchal culture. In English speaking societies surnames are of paternal line derivation. The structure of the family follows the paternal line; men have traditions, social status, and prestige thanks to the patrilineal surname tradition, but women do not have this.  

Gender equality is not about primogeniture.  Equality is inclusion of the maternal lines of men and woman. This is a simple concept that would change society and the monarchy from a patriarchal organization to an all-gender inclusive and dual lineage system.

What can parliament do to be more inclusive of royal and working class women? Any changes to the law of succession must include changes to the surname tradition. Equality for society requires adding/creating a (dual) surname tradition that is of maternal (paternal) line derivation.  

Changes to the succession of the monarchy would require recognition of royal maternal lines; it is hypocritical to include a token woman as queen, but exclude in society the history of women and their maternal lines. Recognition of maternal royal lines would bring equality to the monarchy, since the monarchy/society only recognizes the paternal lines of kings and men.

How can the monarchy be more inclusive of women? The name of a dynasty only comes from a man, and women never had this right/tradition. If the Queen names the dynasty, the house of Bowes-Lyon Windsor after her mother and father, this is recognition of the dual maternal and paternal lineages of the monarchy.

This would be a positive example for society; it would grant women and their maternal lines equal social status.  And for the first time in history the monarchy would include a tradition of female origin.

Gender-blind primogeniture is discrimination. Is there a moral reason that gives the first-born the right to inherit the crown? No, there is no moral reason, or logical argument why the first-born should be given preference in inheritance. The idea that civil rights or succession rights are only equal for the first-born is morally indefensible. The only place in the world where gender-blind primogeniture would make sense is the People’s Republic of China, where in the near future most people would be an only-child and probably the first-born.

Most people in the world are not the first-born, and for that reason primogeniture represents unequal treatment. Primogeniture is a poor example for children who are not the first-born, because it means that they are not good enough to succeed in life. Also, there are situations in society where some parents show irrational favor for the first-born. Equality requires succession that alternates the order of birth or uses a lottery system.

Below is a journal reference of order of birth discrimination. This type of discrimination is not well known, but it exists in society.

Overpeck, M D et al. “Risk Factors for Infant Homicide in the United States.” New England Journal of Medicine: 339 1211-1216 October 22, 1998.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199810223391706

There are different systems of inheritance. Primogeniture is one of many systems of inheritance, and two additional examples are election in succession and inheritance of the last-born (Borough-English). A seniority system like gender-blind primogeniture is the least democratic succession, since seniority systems give the successor more time to accumulate power through patronage. It is a mystery to me why parliament failed to research other alternative forms of succession that are more democratic than primogeniture.  

The monarchy is not hereditary; it is successive. Many kings and queens came into possession of the crown only because they had the support of parliament. The Queen is not the senior person of the oldest line; the senior person of the oldest line is a member of the former Royal family of Bavaria.

Gender-blind primogeniture is an idea for an absolute hereditary monarchy, since it grants the first-born exclusive rights of succession. Gender-blind primogeniture implies that legitimate inheritance of the crown only comes from primogeniture; indirectly gender-blind primogeniture questions the legitimacy of the Queen and all previous Queens and Kings after James II.

The lesson from history is that succession to the monarchy is not the absolute right of the first-born, since there is a practical side to the monarchy. The ability of the successor to work with the political system is more important than being the senior person of the oldest line. Every person who abdicated, deposed, or excluded from succession would become king with gender-blind primogeniture. James II, his son, and grandson would be the kings, instead of William and Mary, George I, George II.  Edward VIII would be the King, instead of George VI.

Inventing a non-traditional monarchy. I will provide an imaginary comparable example to illustrate the lack of critical thinking behind gender-blind primogeniture; this hypothetical situation uses the surname tradition. The surname tradition is more patrilineal than the monarchy, because it originates exclusively from the paternal line; there are no surnames of maternal derivation that are 100 years old.

If tomorrow parliament were to enact a law that makes all surnames illegal, because this is unequal treatment of women. The imaginary law would say that the name of the closest street to the individual’s birthplace is his/her surname, if this person was born in a building.  But if birth were in a ship, airplane, train, or car, the individual would use ship, airplane, train, or car as the surname. Would this be an acceptable replacement for the male-derive surname tradition? This hypothetical example is irrational, arbitrary, and non-traditional way to solve the unequal situation of the male surname tradition.

Gender-blind primogeniture is an irrational idea, because it ignores maternal lines, women’s history, and the unequal social status of all women. Gender-blind primogeniture implies that the maternal and paternal lines of peoples are of no significance in society and history. All cultures find meaning in their maternal and paternal lines. Women need the prestige and historical awareness that comes from their maternal lines, if society is to exist with gender equality.  

CONCLUSION

Every ethnic group has at least one thing that is unique and great about them. I have no doubt that Sweden has many things that are unique and great. Representational democracy is the gift to the world of English speaking nations. The British and Commonwealth Parliaments are capable of a thoughtful answer to succession that is not an imitation of the monarchy of Sweden.