Why haven’t ladies challenged male primogeniture?
When the Labour MP Keith Vaz introduced a private member’s bill in January ‘to remove any distinction between the sexes in determining the succession to the Crown’, he mentioned that, although not one of those in line for the throne, he did need to declare an interest. Vaz is a fervent monarchist who believes that in order to save itself, the monarchy must change; that it must fall in line with modern Britain’s values on gender or die.
You wonder why, in the face of a thousand and one more pressing social issues, anyone would want to bugger with the Act of Settlement, which has sat like a fat cat in the corner of the British constitution for more than 300 years. Really, does anyone care? Does anyone hear any princesses rattling their silver spoons in protest? Or for that matter, the thousands of daughters of aristocrats who, not even oppressed by some law but by a culture of male primogeniture and property entailment, have watched, for ever, as brothers make off with the booty?
Well, I will be one of the teeny tiny minority who care when that bill is tabled in May. I am the firstborn of the younger brother of an earl. There are no hereditary titles and my father’s estate was not inherited or entailed to him. I have a younger sister and three younger brothers. Nonetheless, at the reading of the will after my father’s recent death, I was firmly reminded of my place by certain clauses bestowing his ‘residuary estate’ ‘upon trust for my first son A during his life and subject thereto’, followed by ‘A’s first son’, then ‘his son B and his son’, then ‘his son C and his son, provided always that A’s male heir shall mean son or grandson ascertained in following order of priority’. Blah, blah, blah.
Unlikely as it may seem, I hold no antipathy towards my younger brother. It’s the system, not him. He has grown up expecting and accepting both the privilege and the responsibility of inheriting the bulk of my father’s assets. Neither do I bear my father any animosity. We benefited financially in other ways and he was conditioned by a custom that kept the estate he bought and cared for together.
What I regret is that I failed to question this country’s misogynistic perceptions and attitudes for so long. Growing up, I accepted that my younger brother would inherit the family estate and all its chattels. I was flattered that my father considered me ‘pretty enough to marry someone very rich’. I thought it normal that my education was inferior to my brothers’ and that my extremely bad reports were of no consequence. I heeded his advice that ‘there’s nothing more boring than an educated woman’ (hence I became a model and actress). I thought it reasonable that women left the table so men could talk seriously. Even after years of living in Australia, where you spread equality on your toast for breakfast, I never really confronted my father on the preposterous notion of male primogeniture. I was too feeble to ask questions that might anger those who perhaps sensed what thin ground they stood on. I was too devoted to family to risk alienation. Too conditioned to knowing my place.
How did this happen? I grew up in the Sixties and Seventies. Women from other classes were heading off to university, stamping their feet, raising their voices, demanding woman’s rights and justice. What happened to us? In the name of tradition, for the sake of family estates, we conspired in the consolidation of power for the male head of the family and divested ourselves of any power at all. And powerlessness must have bred apathy, or we’d be rattling our silver spoons and throwing the Sex Discrimination Act at their heads by now.
It’s too late for my generation. Most of us have accepted our inferiority and, many, shunning the limited choices of ‘marrying well’ and without the education to pursue serious careers, must beg for cottages on the estate or pocket money from a magnanimous brother. No chance of one of my peers challenging the boys in law courts. Apathy and empty pockets keep us all firmly in our place.
Vaz’s proposal to change the law from ‘male’ to ‘absolute’ primogeniture with regard to succession of the Crown may eventually make it much harder for families such as mine to enshrine male primogeniture in their trusts, but judging from the government’s responses to the Vaz’s proposal I’m not holding out much hope for change. ‘Amending the Act of Settlement is a complex and difficult matter that requires careful and thoughtful consideration.’ The difficulty lies, apparently, with the 15 Commonwealth countries whose legislation would also be affected. May I suggest tearing a page out of the His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act, legislation enacted practically overnight when Edward VIII gave up the throne? Even 85 years ago and without due proclamation, the colonies either gave consent or passed their own acts and eventually caught up with which brother was on the throne — albeit, in Canada, a year later. But in this regard, I fear, ‘careful and thoughtful consideration’ is a euphemism for ‘not now’.
No, the task of change must fall to the next generation of sisters. Most of them, unlike most of us, have had educations equal to their brothers’ — and, like girls the world over, when they’ve been given a chance, they’ve excelled. Many in the 21st century are taking degrees, anticipating fulfilling careers in which they expect and receive equal pay. With luck, they will then find partners from whom they demand and receive equal parenting. These young women will know that male primogeniture is not a right but an act of outdated chauvinism. They will challenge openly and confidently fathers and brothers and trustees who try to claim that they are merely custodians of the pile, essential to its preservation, when in truth they are clinging to a culture that is outdated, self-serving and ridiculous. They will be no less devoted to family but will not accept the concept of being lesser in aptitude or responsibility than younger brothers. Mercifully, they will have no idea of their place, which means that, with the Sex Discrimination Act tucked firmly under their arms, they will march straight to the courts and demand fairness and justice.
Scoff all you like, but as Vaz warns us, ‘Sex discrimination has been illegal in the UK since 1975 and those who break the law will be rightly punished.’ Regardless of the government’s stalling, it will only be a matter of time and one Sidebottom v. Sidebottom win to the plaintiff to change all this unfathomable hogwash for ever.
In the grand, national scheme of things, this might seem a very trivial issue. But if you believe in democracy and equality, male primogeniture is indefensible.
Comments