# The Commonwealth has abolished male primogeniture. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2011, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134 "2011-10-29T00:16:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/1 "2011-10-29T00:16:01Z")
As well as agreeing that the gender of the first-born child in the line of succession to the throne of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and so on is immaterial, and that males no longer have precedence in the line of succession (which I assume will someday lead to a one-day old Princess of Wales) the 16 Commonwealth nations have also agreed that the monarch may be married to a Roman Catholic. :eek: The real point of this thread is to wonder whether the raft of statutory changes that will be required to push both of these through will give an opportunity to the republicans of the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and so on to dump the monarchy completely. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/2 "2011-10-29T00:55:26Z")
Well fortunately those laws have long since been made unnecessary. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/3 "2011-10-29T01:03:05Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Well fortunately those laws have long since been made unnecessary. I’m completely bewildered by this response. ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/4 "2011-10-29T01:20:51Z")
It will certainly be an opportunity to bring up republicanism again, so if they’d been smart they’d have done it a while back before that really got going. I suspect most places are putting it on the back-burner till the queen dies, so dont think it will cause it in practise. Otara ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/5 "2011-10-29T01:24:43Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > The real point of this thread is to wonder whether the raft of statutory changes that will be required to push both of these through will give an opportunity to the republicans of the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and so on to dump the monarchy completely. I like to add that all ten Canadian provinces will have to ratify the changes as well, but I just don’t see a problem. Speaking for just Canadians, I feel confident, especially in the wake of the Cambridges’ visit here that the anti-monarchists won’t even show up on TV. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/6 "2011-10-29T01:37:30Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > (which I assume will someday lead to a one-day old Princess of Wales) Nope. The Prince of Wales is a tit;e given by the sovereign to his/her eldest son (and now Princess/daughter), generally when the heir apparent arrives at a responsible age. The title that has passed at birth is the Duchy of Cornwall – which automatically passes to the monarch’s son, even at birth. Does anyone know if Cornwall will pass to the King’s daughter if and when the eldest child is a daughter? ---
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/7 "2011-10-29T02:05:08Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > […] > The real point of this thread is … That so many people are willing to worship the product of a vagina. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/8 "2011-10-29T02:12:52Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Nope. The Prince of Wales is a tit;e given by the sovereign to his/her eldest son (and now Princess/daughter), generally when the heir apparent arrives at a responsible age. The title that has passed at birth is the Duchy of Cornwall – which automatically passes to the monarch’s son, even at birth. Does anyone know if Cornwall will pass to the King’s daughter if and when the eldest child is a daughter? I think so. The Sovereign is the Fount of Honour so s/he can issue letters patent changing it from “eldest son & heir” to “eldest child & heir”. I know the title is automatically given and doesn’t require fresh letters patent for each creation, but presumably there’s some letters patent somehow describing the title & saying it automtically goes to the eldest son of the monarch. Ditto for the Dukedom of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, etc. Anybody know when this change goes into effect? I know each realm has to pass legislation implimenting it, but once that’s all done will Princess Anne & her kids be jolted ahead of Prince Edward or will it only effect dynasts born after a certain date? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/9 "2011-10-29T02:33:24Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > I think so. The Sovereign is the Fount of Honour so s/he can issue letters patent changing it from “eldest son & heir” to “eldest child & heir”. I know the title is automatically given and doesn’t require fresh letters patent for each creation, but presumably there’s some letters patent somehow describing the title & saying it automtically goes to the eldest son of the monarch. Ditto for the Dukedom of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, etc. Changing the descent of a peerage requires an Act of Parliament. If new letters patent are issued changing the descent, then all it does is create a new peerage that will exist in addition to the old one (for example, if the Queen decided to issue letters patent changing the Earldom of Wessex to be inherited without respect to sex, then she would be inadvertently making her youngest son two earls at once, and each of his current children would inherit one of the earldoms). Most of the Scottish titles were also created by acts of the Scots Parliament, so presumably they would need to be altered by Parliament too. But even if an heiress apparent isn’t the Duchess of Cornwall, she’ll still receive funding from the Duchy under one of the terms of the new Sovereign Grants Act. (So would an heir presumptive of either sex.) ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/10 "2011-10-29T02:39:28Z")
I thought it was kind of funny that Cameron was going on about how silly and outdated the concept of male primogeniture was, and how it had no place in modern society. Yeah, sure thing David. You’re right, it is kind of silly and outdated. You know what’s also silly and outdated? Monarchy. (feel free to insert obligatory watery tart reference here) ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/11 "2011-10-29T02:41:42Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Well fortunately those laws have long since been made unnecessary. I’m with **Frank** here. Could you, well, elaborate? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/12 "2011-10-29T02:55:42Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > I thought it was kind of funny that Cameron was going on about how silly and outdated the concept of male primogeniture was, and how it had no place in modern society. Yeah, sure thing David. You’re right, it is kind of silly and outdated. You know what’s also silly and outdated? > > Monarchy. > > (feel free to insert obligatory watery tart reference here) You know who else thought monarchy was silly and outdated? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/13 "2011-10-29T03:02:01Z")
Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England (and his warts). ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/14 "2011-10-29T16:24:39Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > The real point of this thread is to wonder whether the raft of statutory changes that will be required to push both of these through will give an opportunity to the republicans of the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and so on to dump the monarchy completely. In Canada at least, abolishing the monarchy would require a major amendment to the constitution, which is… er, not going to happen, for several reasons. Especially since most people, even those who’d theoretically prefer a republic to a monarchy (like me), don’t see that as in any way an important political issue. I’m actually unsure about what is required to change the line of succession to the throne for Canada. I assume a major constitutional amendment, which would require the assent of a majority of legislatures from provinces housing a majority of Canadian citizens in addition to the federal parliament (I think that’s how it is anyway), is not required, but what exactly is required? That’s the thing with partly unwritten constitutions: by convention, Canada’s monarch is the same as the UK’s, and it’s accepted that the UK cannot unilateraly change its monarch, but is getting the Canadian prime minister’s approval to amend the Act of Settlement enough? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/15 "2011-10-29T16:26:22Z")
> [@PaulParkhead](#): > > I’m with **Frank** here. Could you, well, elaborate? I meant that for political and practical reasons it may have been unwise to have women and Catholics succeed to the throne in the centuries past in particular the latter (see James II). ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/16 "2011-10-29T16:36:52Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > I meant that for political and practical reasons it may have been unwise to have women and Catholics succeed to the throne in the centuries past in particular the latter (see James II). Ah, I see. That’s clearer, and a fair point. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2011, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/17 "2011-10-29T18:22:33Z")
I much prefer our royal family to any realistic elected representative. Democracy (or what goes for it in the modern world) is overrated anyway. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2011, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/18 "2011-10-30T11:58:56Z")
> [@Naxos](#): > > That so many people are willing to worship the product of a vagina. Like looking at the finger pointing to Heaven . . . ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2011, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/19 "2011-10-30T12:27:14Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > I much prefer our royal family to any realistic elected representative. Democracy (or what goes for it in the modern world) is overrated anyway. Why’s that? Are the **people** overrated? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2011, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134/20 "2011-10-30T15:42:11Z")
Look, people are assholes. That means democracy isn’t a panacea, because usually the voters are a bunch of idiots. That doesn’t mean choosing your leaders by who slid out of whose womb is going to work any better. Lots of countries used to try to get around this by having the nobles elect the new king when the old king died. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-commonwealth-has-abolished-male-primogeniture/601134.md?page=2)