Two issues related to the royal succession have surfaced in the media recently – first, the abolition of male primogeniture and secondly the ban on Catholics in the line of succession.
The abolition of male primogeniture seems, in 21st century eyes, an entirely reasonable measure. However, before jumping to the conclusion that the exclusion of first-born females is an injustice it is worth considering the reasons male primogeniture exists in the first place. It is not an equality issue; English succession law has clearly acknowledged, at least since the reign of Mary, that a woman can succeed to the throne. The Empress Matilda contended for the throne on the understanding that England lay outside the scope of the Salic Law that dominated much of Europe. Matilda had a better right to the throne than Stephen because she was the heir of Henry I’s body, and thus took precedence over a male cousin; furthermore, it was Matilda who initiated a new dynasty when her son Henry of Anjou succeeded rather than Stephen’s son William of Blois. The reason why the female issue of a king did not succeed before a male issue was not sexism (the view that women made weaker monarchs, or some such) but dynastic and genealogical concerns. The right to kingship must be as unambiguous as possible; this could be guaranteed (theoretically) through inheritance in the female line but historically it is through inheritance in the male line. This means that a daughter who is the only issue of a male line will continue that male line (e.g. Margaret of Scotland continued the House of Wessex). The one thing that is not possible is for succession to be in both the male and the female lines; if a female heir took precedence, each male heir would produce rival lines. One only has to consider the Carlist Wars in 19th century Spain to see the problems that a change to succession law can cause.
Of course, in a world of constitutional monarchy none of this matters. And it is only because this does not matter that a change in the law is contemplated. If the monarch had power the identity of the monarch would matter; and consequently the dynastic succession would matter.
It has been widely reported (e.g. The Daily Telegraph, 10th April) that a repeal of that part of the Act of Succession that bans a Catholic from a place in the line of succession could lead to the succession of the de jure King, Franz of Bavaria. Sadly, this seems unlikely. Succession legislation has traditionally been couched in terms of succession from a specified ancestor; for instance, the Act of Succession itself defined the ‘legitimate’ royal house as that which descended from Sophia of the Palatinate. If succession legislation were left open to retrospective application then numerous spurious claims could be made. The best new Act of Succession would define the royal house as the senior descendents of James I; this would be the Wittelsbachs, where the Windsors are the junior descendents (being descended from Elizabeth of Bohemia). However, I suspect that in reality the new Act of Succession will permit Catholic descendents of Elizabeth II to succeed, and thus will not herald a Jacobite springtime…
This is the letter I wrote to The Daily Telegraph on the issue:
Sir,
Male primogeniture in the succession to the English crown is not, and never has been, an issue of equality and it is ignorant of politicians to believe it is. The reason for male primogeniture is a dynastic, not a sexist one. It has been established since the reign of Mary Tudor that a woman can be Queen; in the 12th century a civil war between Stephen and Matilda was fought over this issue, and it was Henry of Anjou, Matilda’s son, who became king after Stephen’s death. However, succession to the throne cannot be ambiguous and must, therefore, be through either the male or the female line. If it is through a mixture of the two, rival lines could be created in every generation. Admittedly, in a constitutional monarchy the likelihood of pretenders and usurpers is slim, but the monarchy remains part of the British constitution and consequently the identity of the monarch must be clear.
The Jacobite
