Should the British monarchy abolish male-preference for the succession?

Question

Male heirs are given preference in the succession to the British throne, so they take precedence over any older sisters. As times have changed is it time to change the system so that the eldest child, regardless of gender, succeeds to the throne? I know Sweden has abolished the preference for males - where else has done this?

Yes, I'm perfectly aware there are long-serving queens in British history - but they only prove the fact that women are perfectly capable of reigning and maintaining stability - so why maintain the preference for males? Doesn't that send out the message of "well the current queen does a good job, but it would have been better if she'd had a brother"?

Also, the fact that the immediate succession wouldn't be affected too much if the change was made now perhaps means this is a good time to do it?

Also, many of the 'traditions' of the British monarchy are things that have been added and modified over the years - many them only the last century or so. Things that are changed now very quickly become tradition (look at the whole debate about the flag flying at half mast for Diana - took days to do because of 'tradition', yet it was repeated immediately for Princess Margaret and the Queen Mother). Tradition is no excuse for not moving with the times.

Answer 1

Other countries have done this I think it's the Netherlands, Belgium and Norway. Spain is discussing it as is Nepal and Japan (Japan still has Salic Law - no right of succession through women at all). Denmark is going to revise it's laws but it has to pass through a referendum.

In the UK the law is less urgent since the first three places wouldn't change if the law did (Charles, William and Harry), Anne would move from 9th to 4th and her younger brothers would move down behind Anne and her children.

Answer 2

It's an interesting point, and there's little defence can be made these days for sex-based preference in the inheritance line.

Incidentally, I don't think the monarchy costs all that much. The cost to the country comes from the Civil List, which is the cost of running the Royal Household and itself reflects the surrender by the Crown of the net surplus of the Crown Estate. Most of the Civil List is spent on wages for staff employed in the Royal Household, and it is not an income for the Royal Family itself, contrary to a fairly widespread misunderstanding in the public mind. The Civil List works out at around £8 million pounds a year. However, the Crown Estate pays the Treasury around £150 - 200 million in revenue surplus.

Answer 3

YES, I really think that male-preference kind of succession should be abolished because come to think of it, most female monarchs or queens have done good for England and for present-day UK, and most of them lived long too. I also think that there should be equality among male and female successors, look at Princess Anne, just because she is female but second eldest child of Queen Elizabeth, she is the 9th in line to succession but if there was no male-primogeniture practice she should have been 4th in line.

But we can't do anything its the monarchy's laws and I respect the British Monarchy

Answer 4

The UK did change the succession law. However, the changes have to be ratified by all 16 Commonwealth Parliaments before the law takes effect.

The current law in the UK is male-preference--sons first in age order, then children.
Charles, William, George, Harry
Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie
Edward, James, Louise
Anne, Peter, Savannah, Isla, Zara, her unborn child

Once the law takes effect, it will only affect those born after October 2011. This means that the present line of succession is largely unaltered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_line_of_succession
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_Crown_Act_2013

Answer 5

It is time the monarchy moved with the times, the eldest child regardless of sex, should always be the more important. However, if they are mentally impaired or hooked on drugs so that they become incompetent obviously the next in line should be nominated.

Answer 6

Apparently three other European nations had changed their succession law to Equal primogeniture, they are:
Kingdom of the Netherlands
Norway
Kingdom of Belgium

It is possible that Spain will eventually change their succession law as well since the birth of The Infanta Leonor of Spain daughter of Felipe, Prince of Asturias. Her birth has sparked discussion of a revision of the Spanish Constitution of 1978 to abolish the precedence of male heirs over their older sisters. In this case, she could become heir apparent when her father is king. Otherwise, she would be heiress presumptive until and unless her parents should have a son. Should she become Queen, she will be the first queen named Leonor of united Spain (Navarre had a Queen Eleanor in the 15th century).

Hopefully, more and more European nations will see that women should be treated equally, and eventually when Prince William takes the throne, he will persuade the British parliament to change its current succession law.

Answer 7

They did in 2005.

Answer 8

well we do have a female on the throne at the moment, as her eldest child is male then he is the obvious heir to the throne anyway, as he has 2 sons then of course the eldest of them will succeed him. if you knew your history well enough you will also know that we have had long reigning females in the past ie. queen elizabeth the 1st and queen victoria.

Answer 9

It should. In Japan the conservatives have argued that whatever it is that makes you royal is only carried on the Y chromosome. What nonsense.

Answer 10

I think they already have effectively abolished the male-preference.

Not that it matters, since our next two monarchs will be male anyway!

Unless Charles, Wills & Harry all die before the Queen, in which case Anne would be up for the job.