The Summer baby who will be King… or Queen
Ann Lyon |
We now know that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are expecting their first baby in July and, under current government plans, the child will be third in line to the British throne irrespective of sex. The government has announced a Bill to give effect to 'strict primogeniture', overturning the 1701 Act of Settlement, which currently enshrines male primogeniture. Elizabeth II became Queen only because she had no brothers; her second child, Princess Anne, follows behind her younger brothers in the line of succession.
There is already media speculation about future legal battles between royal siblings and brothers and sisters competing for other aristocratic inheritance rights. But why has there been, historically, an overwhelming preference for male rulers?
Many succession systems have followed Salic Law, derived from the sixth-century Franks, in which inheritance exclusively follows the male line: only males claiming through male ancestors may succeed. Salic Law reached extremes on the death of Henri III of France (1574-89). His successor, Henri IV (1589-1610), had to trace his claim to the throne through the male line dating back to Louis IX (1226-70). The exclusion of women could continue even after a successful female reign. In the absence of a male heir, Maria Theresa (1740-80) succeeded her father Charles VI (1711-40) to the Habsburg lands under the Pragmatic Sanction, but strict Salic Law governed the succession after her death.
Although a number of women acted successfully as regents, including Louis IX's mother Blanche of Castile, whose grandmother, Eleanor of Acquitaine, was an active figure in the politics of her time, they were excluded from ruling in their own right. The desire for male rulers springs from four roots: the traditional role of monarchs as military leaders; the need for stability; avoidance of domination by foreigners through marriage to female rulers and perceptions of women as weak and foolish creatures, whose husbands would be the 'real' rulers.
Historically, military command could literally mean leading troops in hand-to-hand fighting. When the Austrian centre broke at the Battle of Aspern in 1809, Archduke Charles personally led his last reserve into the thickest fighting and turned the tide against Napoleon. Royal command continued in continental Europe until the First World War, when Albert I of Belgium and Nicholas II of Russia took personal command of their nations' armies. Numerous other princes acted, nominally at least, as army commanders. The symbolism of monarchical military prowess remains today. British coronation ritual includes vesting the monarch with sword and spurs; the great seals of medieval and early modern kings show them armoured and riding a charging horse against unseen enemies.
Desire for stability and maintenance of independence are closely related. Women were considered incapable of commanding armies against both external enemies and domestic rebels. Before Elizabeth I, virtually every female ruler in Europe faced civil war with rival claimants, over her marriage, or both, and many husbands or potential husbands were murdered. It was feared that a female ruler's realm could be incorporated into her husband's state or lands on her death, a genuine concern given the then hazardous nature of pregnancy and childbirth. In 1545 Henry VIII brokered a marriage between his son Edward and the infant Mary Queen of Scots to incorporate Scotland into the Tudor realms. If a queen married one of her own subjects, this generated hostility from his aristocratic rivals. Mary never did marry Edward, the treaty between Scotland and England having fallen apart. Her rapid descent from power began with her marriage to Lord Darnley in 1565, against all her counsellors' advice, her fate sealed by her subsequent marriage to Darnley's murderer, James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell.
Mary was not the only queen regnant who proved unequal to the challenge of ruling a patriarchal society. In 1474 a lengthy conflict over the succession to Castile was resolved by the acceptance of Isabella as queen on the death of her half-brother, and her marriage to Ferdinand of Aragon, the nearest male heir. The two ruled both kingdoms as a partnership, but when Isabella died in 1504, her daughter, Juana 'la Loca' (the Mad), was excluded from power first by her husband, Philip of Burgundy, and then by her father. After Philip's death in 1508, Ferdinand had Juana confined in the castle of Tordesillas on grounds of madness, a tactic continued by her son, the Emperor Charles V, and grandson, Philip II, for almost fifty years.
What are the implications of the long tradition of male primogeniture for Britain today? While times have changed radically and it seems crown and country - and the Prime Minister - are supportive of strict primogeniture, there are hurdles to cross.
The first is the relationship between the monarch and the Armed Forces. While the last British monarch to command in battle was George II at Dettingen in 1743, the monarch is still the head of the British Armed Forces, a symbolic but central role. George VI was held in high regard in the Second World War, at least in part because he had seen action as a junior naval officer in the First World War. That Prince William and Prince Harry are serving in the armed forces demonstrates the continuing ties between military and monarchy.
Secondly, there is the increasing inconsistency between succession to the crown and to peerages. Most descend by agnatic primogeniture, not infrequently dying out through lack of male heirs.
A third concern, reportedly raised by Prince Charles in discussions with the Government, relates to proposals that heirs should be permitted to marry Catholics.
By no means all monarchs since George II have served in the Armed Forces (George IV, Victoria and Edward VII did not), and these demands could be satisfied by a female heir serving in a non-combat military role for a few years as Prince Charles and Prince William have done. The issue of parity for inheritance of peerages is more serious, even though hereditary peerages no longer carry an automatic seat in the Upper House. Further legislation will be needed to deal with this anomaly. To complicate matters, many aristocratic landholdings are entailed in tail male, so that they pass with the title instead of being divided among all children. No new entails may be created since the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, but many still exist.
Could we see in future a scandalous legal dispute between a modern Mary, Countess of Grantham in her own right, whose marriage to her cousin, Matthew Crawley ends in divorce? She has the title, but he has Downton.
Please note: Views expressed are those of the author.About the author
