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?

Answer 1

yes, it is time to have gender equality

Answer 2

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 3

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.

Answer 4

It's an interesting point, and there's little defence can be made these days for s*x-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 5

does it matter they have a female in charge at this time!

Also the U.S.A. has not given up on men yet so why should Britannia?

Answer 6

The British monarchy exists because it is tradition. As times have changed (as you put it) it's really a terrible waste of money to keep supporting a monarchy that is not needed especially when that money can be used elsewhere. So to answer your question, if England keeps the monarchy for traditional reasons then they should keep the tradition of succession as it has always been.

Answer 7

long live the Monarchy

Answer 8

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 9

Yes it should stop being anti female and anti Roman Catholic.

Answer 10

Yes, I believe it should. I believe a female monarch can do just as good of  a job then a male monarch.

Answer 11

Dont know ....ask the queen

Answer 12

Yes

It's not fair on girls

Answer 13

yep i agree with you, it should be the first born who takes the throne no matter what the gender.

Answer 14

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 15

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 16

It is time the monarchy moved with the times, the eldest child regardless of s*x, 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 17

They did in 2005.

Answer 18

Anne wouldn't have wanted the job anyway, that's why her children don't have titles.

Answer 19

Anti RC - rofl.. It created the English church, its part of the English monarchies history. Ignorance... sheesh... go look up Henry VIII.

As for male preference.. well its tradition isn't it? Whats the point of having a traditional monarchy with no tradition? Next thing they'll be getting married in stretch limos wearing Kappa Tracksuits.

Answer 20

More to the point Should the British abolish the Monarchy? ....Yes

Answer 21

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.