Monday, October 5, 2015

MONARCHY: GENDER-FREE SUCCESSION IS REPUBICAN ARGUMENT











“Culture is the sum total of the ways of doing and thinking, past and present, of a social group. It is the sum of the traditions, or handed-down beliefs, and of customs, or handed-down procedures”.
Page 50, from Bogardus, 1930: 336

Summary: The monarchy gender-less succession does away with the cultural traditions of maternal and paternal lines. The gender-blind ideology has origins in Totalitarian Communism; Marxist ideology considers cultural traditions, gender roles, and historical institutions backward influences from the past.

The royal male lines of Europe contributed extensively to the creation of constitutional monarchies and European civilization.  It is misguided to treat as irrelevant the history and Culture of the paternal royal lines of Europe, since these male lines have a unique ability for public service.

Gender-blind succession is a big failure in terms of Civil Rights, since it ignores all working class women and the history/Culture of their maternal lines. An institution and a group of people that have no history and Culture lobotomize the ability to function successfully in the future. 

Introduction.

The 21st century has no experts on theories of monarchy; and the reasons for the monarchy existence are unclear. The European governments think of the paternal royal lines as an archaic symbol of gender discrimination. For the British and Commonwealth Monarchy, gender-free succession is an alternative solution to male-primogeniture. Is this the all inclusive and rational answer to succession?

Gender-blind primogeniture makes succession the accident of birth; this situation ignores gender history, Culture, public service, and Civil Rights. The successor at best, sometimes, is a token female. What are the assumptions behind a gender-less succession?

If the paternal lines of European royalty are of no importance to the continuation of extant monarchies, then a gender-free succession has four assumptions: 1) The monarchy is separate from the Culture of society, because absolute primogeniture is a rule that only applies to the monarchy. 2) Monarchy is only a hereditary institution. 3) It does not matter who is the successor to the crown for as long as the principle of inheritance is met. 4) The three previous assumptions imply that the actions of monarchs are inconsequential.

I will argue that the paternal lines of European royalty are of great importance to the succession and continuity of extant monarchies; the following four arguments support my previous assertion: 1) Monarchy is part of the Culture of society with rules that reflect cultural values and traditions. 2) The British Monarchy and the other extant European monarchies are not hereditary, instead they are successive; these institutions derive their success from a Culture of Service.

3) In a monarchy it matters who is the successor, because the first criterion in succession is not primogeniture, it is service and accountability.  4) As a cultural institution, the actions of a monarch are of great importance in representational democracies.


What is the difference between a hereditary monarchy and a monarchy with a Culture of Service?

The foundation of a hereditary monarchy is military support, without other criterion. There are no succession restrictions that come from laws, history, ethics, Culture, and religion. In a hereditary monarchy the right of inheritance is absolute, and the expectation is that the monarch has an unbroken line of descend. For example, Napoleon Bonaparte was emperor of France, because his monarchy was the result of military support; but it did not have a historical and cultural foundation.

A monarchy with a Culture of Service has the following components: Standards of behavior, an old history, legal traditions, common Culture with the people, and accountability for these ideals. Culture of Service institution is successive, because the previous ideals act as restrictions on succession; there is exclusion of some princes/princesses. Frequently, the ruler is not the senior person of the oldest line. An example of a monarchy with a Culture of Service is the United Kingdom.

Hereditary monarchies have a short dynastic history. Monarchies with a Culture of Service have male dynasties that go back hundreds of years, as is the case with the paternal lines of Europe. The historical success and longevity of these male lines is the result of the Culture of Service. The only part that is hereditary in European monarchies is the continuation of the Culture of Service in the old royal lines.

The paternal lines of royalty have a pan-European Culture of Service.

The European royal lines had common origins. These paternal lines either originated through election or were the charismatic pre-Christian lines of European tribes. At the end of the Roman Empire, the Germanic and Slavic kings who invaded the Roman Empire claimed descent from pagan deities or mythical heroes. 

After the conversion to Christianity of Slavic and Germany tribes, the European kingship developed a Pan-European Culture of Service. The paternal royal lines of Europe were able to expand to different corners of Europe. These expansions across European regions or countries were usually the result of dynastic marriages between families that had/have a common Culture of Service.

With the exception of William the Conqueror, most of the royal paternal lines did not originate through military conquest or a coup d’état. And none of the present paternal lines of European royalty originated through a violent military take over.

The Culture of Service made the British Monarchy a success.

The history of the British Monarchy is turbulent, but it has lasted a thousand years. The success of the British Monarchy comes from a set of values, useful traditions, and a Culture that exists in some of the royal lines. 

In the last four hundred years some British kings suffered decapitation, deposition, abdication; there was exclusion from succession of some royal lines. In the previous situations some monarchs acted against the cultural values of the British people. In the long run the British people decided that the monarchy through some royal lines is an essential part of their governing Culture.

Why did the British monarchy survive dramatic situations? All institutions that are long lasting have standards of excellence, principles that benefit society, and provide political unity. Today the British Monarchy does not need military force to support its existence. The English/Scottish/British Monarchy is not an institution separate from the Culture and ideals of society. In its values, traditions, and practices it mirrors the Culture of the British people.

If heredity is the reason for the monarchy, can a monarchy be invented?

If hereditary is the reason for the existence of the monarchy, any dictator would invent a new monarchy; the new monarchy would last for many centuries or a thousand years. Since the French Revolution, there are many attempts at creating monarchies by people without a royal line and popular support. I will include five examples: 1) Napoleon Bonaparte crowned himself emperor in 1804; he made many of his relatives kings, but in 1815 Waterloo ended the Napoleonic monarchies.

2) Mexican General Agustin de Iturbide was Emperor of Mexico for less than a year (1822-23). 3) In the early 20th century the Chinese General Yuan Shikai became Emperor of China for 83 days. 4) In 1925 Reza (Khan) Pahlavi deposed the traditional royal family of Iran and became king of kings. This monarchy lasted 54 years until 1979, because it had firm military support. 5) Jean Bedel Bokassa had himself proclaimed Emperor of the Central African Republic/Empire (1976-79). The historical lesson is that heredity by itself does not create a monarchy.

Can Native American Cultures exist without the traditional paternal and maternal lines?

In any society the standards of Culture are learned from father and mother; continuity of Culture goes back for many generations thanks to traditional maternal and paternal lines. For example, the indigenous peoples from the Americas have Native American Culture, because most paternal and maternal lines exist in their nations for thousands of years before Christopher Columbus. The argument that ethnic groups do not need maternal and paternal lines to maintain its values, traditions, concepts, and procedures, is a poor comprehension of cultural transmission. 

What are the consequences of gender-free succession?

A gender-free succession ends the traditional lines of European royalty, since succession does not require matrilineal or patrilineal descend. In a few generations the royal families of Europe would only have a distant genealogical connection with the historical male lines. The paternal genealogy would not come from the traditional royal lines of Europe: Bourbon, Oldenburg, Saxony, and Bernadotte. The Culture of Service that exists today in the paternal and maternal royal lines would disappear from future royal families. This new development in succession questions the existence of monarchy, since hereditary by itself is not a justifiable system.

There is nothing wrong with the values and traditions of the commoners that marry royalty (21st century). But the new members of the royal families do not have traditions of service. Thanks to gender-blind primogeniture the new paternal lines of future monarchs would not have examples of old traditions of service.

A gender-less succession lacks common ground with democratic societies.

A gender-free succession lacks common ground with democratic societies, because this is an accidental succession. In representational societies, leaders do not obtain their public roles through an accidental demographic assignment, according to the last census. Leaders in government receive their public roles through election. Democratic societies function through proven democratic concepts like election, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression. A gender-less succession is not a proven democratic concept.

Culture-less and gender-less is an ideology from Totalitarian Communism.

Communism perceives Culture, including gender roles, as backward influences from the past.  In the former Soviet Union workers were free of traditional gender roles. Women could be truck drivers or construction workers; but this freedom of employment had limitations. The workers did not have rights as citizens of an open society; they were at the mercy of the dictates of the Communist party.

Communist theory “predicts” that a “New Man and New Woman” would be born under the totalitarian ideology. This “New Man” would be unselfish, without cultural/ethnic traditions, and no gender prejudices. And a new “utopian society” would evolve under the Marxist system.

After more than 50 years of Communism in the former Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, and China, the totalitarian ideology did not produce societies without religion, devoid of cultural identities, and free of gender roles. The “utopian” society never appeared.

The gender-less and culture-less ideology of Communism influenced the thinking of the West; some intellectuals from Western countries applied the culture-less/gender-less ideas of Communism to their societies. For example, in Australia some intellectuals considered the Culture of the Aborigines an “inferior influence” from the past; the solution to this assumption was Cultural Genocide, where the Cultural examples of aboriginal parents were not good enough for the indigenous children. In the name of “progress and equality” the government of Australia took away the children of the aboriginal Australians.


The concept of gender-free succession is like the abuse of Australian aborigines. In the European situation the cultural examples of paternal lines are “primitive and worthless influences from the past.” The treatment of the European royal lines is Cultural Genocide.




Are cultures free of gender identity, without gender history, and without paternal and maternal identities?

Cultures or Ethnic groups are NOT gender-blind; this is an absurd idea. Human beings come with a gender and cultural identities, including 21st century European societies.  Gender is part of our biological nature. In the study of Anthropology, most societies are either patrilineal or matrilineal; and there are a few cultures that have a dual matrilineal and patrilineal cultural system.

Gender history and gender in Culture is one of the most important topics of feminism. Any type of gender-specific history and cultural awareness is a way to empower women; this is similar to African-American learning about their history, traditions, and cultural values. Gender-specific history and traditions empowers both men and women.

Are cultural traditions subject to political ideology?

Surnames are of exclusive paternal line derivation; in terms of gender-free ideology this represents unequal treatment of women. If parliament applies the gender-blind ideology to the patrilineal surname tradition, then surnames would not exist in society. Would the British and Commonwealth nations accept this idea?

I will provide another comparable example, if the United Kingdom and Commonwealth parliaments enact laws that abolish male circumcision, because it is a cultural practice and a tradition from the past. The Islamic communities of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries would feel discriminated, because male circumcision is a cultural and religious practice in Islamic societies.

Gender-free succession has no critical thinking.

A gender-free anything has no connection with Civil Rights. For example, when there is discrimination for race, ancestry, or gender, Civil Rights legislatures include “race”, ancestry, ethnicity, gender and other categories. Civil Rights laws are of universal application. These laws apply to all circumstances, and the unequal situation requires an investigation. Gender-free succession does not meet the previous criteria.

The new law of succession has no criterion of service. Instead, gender-blind primogeniture is a seniority system. The British parliament does not use a seniority system for leadership positions, and in employment seniority systems are unequal.

Gender-less succession gives the first-born absolute right of inheritance. History shows that succession is NOT the absolute hereditary right of primogeniture. In the traditional British Monarchy succession is subject to standards of behavior and accountability for these ideals. Example, George VI was not the first-born, but became king, since the marriage of his oldest brother did not meet the religious standards of the Church of England.

Succession: Standards and Accountability.

What is the evidence that succession is subject to standards and accountability or a Culture of Service? The following laws hold members of the royal family accountable for standards of behavior: Bill of Rights (1689), Act of Settlement (1701), and Royal Marriage Act of 1772.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is not the representative of an irrational hereditary tradition. The Queen is the present successor of an institution with ethical, legal, and religious standards, where accountability for these standards is more important than an absolute right of hereditary. This is the reason the Queen is the legitimate monarch, although her Majesty is not the senior person of the oldest line. 

In British Culture it matters who is the successor to the crown, because monarchs must live their lives according to standards of behavior. This action is an example for society; and it symbolically empowers the monarchy, socially legitimatizes the political system, and permits peaceful changes.

Conclusion

The idea that gender discrimination is limited to the monarchy is not true; unequal treatment of women still exists in British and Commonwealth societies. A gender-free succession is a law that only applies to the monarchy. In contrast to the new law of succession, British and Commonwealth societies are still patrilineal.
It is an erroneous assumption to think that what applies to the monarchy has nothing to do with British/Commonwealth Parliaments or the Culture of the common people.

In the 21st century the monarchy is still a great success story in a world full of violence and dictatorships, since the monarchy is a participant and a symbol of the Culture of the British and Commonwealth governing bodies. The British system of government developed under the reign of the paternal royal lines. The governing Culture is of monarchical origin. For example, concepts of respect for rules and accountability developed with the monarchy.

A gender-free succession is similar to a phrase from advertisement, where someone says that a certain brand is the best, without evidence; or in the case of the gender-less succession no connection to gender history, Culture, and universal Civil Rights. And it is hatred of Culture and gender to assume that the royal paternal lines did not contribute to the creation of constitutional monarchies.

Bibliography

Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kuckhohn with the Assistance of Wayne Untereiner and Appendices by Alfred G. Meyer, Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Published by The Museum, 1952.
If you would like to contact me or support my research:
John Freeman, Phoenix, Arizona, 85003, USA.

http://definitionsofaestheticsandculture.blogspot.com/2012/04/believing-with-max-weber-that-man-is.html

Monday, June 15, 2015

THE ALL-INCLUSIVE LAW OF SUCCESSION FOR A PEOPLE’S MONARCHY


 THE ALL-INCLUSIVE LAW OF SUCCESSION FOR A PEOPLE’S MONARCHY 

John Freeman

My ideas for the succession law do not discrimination for order of birth or gender. These suggestions are respectful of patrilineal and matrilineal cultural systems present in all societies. I include paternal and maternal lines of succession, since the monarchy is a multi-dynastic institution with royal lines that come from both males and females.

These ideas are for future generations and never retroactively. My suggestions have four components:

1) If succession rights come from a mother, daughters have preference over men. If succession rights come from a father, sons have preference over daughters. The gender of the parent is the first precedent in succession rights.

2) Succession rights alternate from youngest to oldest in one generation and from oldest to youngest in the next, to avoid unequal treatment of any kind.

3) Rights of succession come from Proximity of Blood and Lineages. Proximity of Blood means that daughters/sons of a monarch come first in succession, followed by granddaughters and grandsons, or more distance blood descendants. Succession rights only go as far as the great great-granddaughters/grandsons

4) Lineages: Descendants of queens in direct female line have succession rights in perpetuity. Descendants of kings in direct male line have succession rights in perpetuity.

Why the preference for females, when succession rights comes from a mother? Why the preference for males, when succession rights comes from a father?

The monarchy at the present time is a patrilineal system; the monarchy only recognizes paternal lines. This is the reason for male-primogeniture and unequal treatment of female. A dual system of succession that is both matrilineal and patrilineal will brings equality to both genders.

This system would eventually produce a Netherland type of monarchy, where matrilineal Queens succeed one another, since in every monarchy there are kings that only have daughters. My suggestions promote the maternal/paternal lines of both sexes, and in the long run there is no gender discrimination. 

Why alternate succession from youngest to oldest in one generation and from oldest to youngest in the next generation? 

This is real equality in succession, since primogeniture of any kind is a hierarchical concept that favors the firs-born. My suggestion allows for succession of oldest, youngest, and middle daughters/sons, since order of birth is not gender specific. This idea allows for random succession of oldest, middle and youngest daughters/sons.

What can the monarchy do to be more inclusive of women?

At the present time the practice to name a dynasty only applies to men. 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. This is also historical recognition of female traditions and cultural awareness of the contributions of women.

Why is gender-blind primogeniture not equality?

Equality is a concept of universal application. Gender-blind primogeniture is a selective application of laws, and it discriminates against people who are not the first-born, and most people in the world are not the first-born.

The following are examples of selective application of laws, and these examples are not equality: Women and men have the right to vote, but women do not have equal pay. We are all citizens, but people of African ancestry are 3/5 of a person and do not have the right to vote.

Gender-blind primogeniture goes against the civil rights and laws of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries, since these nations do not apply laws and civil rights selectively. 

Conclusion

Monarchies and cultures have lineage traditions where people from different societies find cultural meanings in maternal and paternal lines. Gender-blind primogeniture is comparable to re-inventing the wheel, because gender-blind primogeniture destroys the concept of maternal and paternal lines.

Primogeniture of any kind is all about who comes first; it is as if the monarch is and always was the senior person of the oldest line; this implied that the reason for the monarchy is primogeniture. But the real reason for the monarchy is that this is an institution of public service.

If the political leaders of the realms are sincere about the ideals of equality, then my suggestions meet the ideals of equality much better than gender-blind primogeniture. Also, my ideas are inclusive and respectful of cultural traditions of maternal and paternal lines. 



Sunday, June 14, 2015

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.