THE odds are probably a bit higher than one in four. These are the odds of Prince William and Princess Kate having a girl first followed by a later boy.
It has happened before in English royal history, and more of that anon.
Sure, there are a huge number of permutations: no children; all girls; boy first and so on. But the one that will get up people’s noses is a girl born first and a boy born later, because under present rules, the younger boy takes the throne before his older sister, which would be highlight the discriminatory nature of the monarchy.
Republicans will be hoping for it. Better still that before her brother is born that she falls for a Roman Catholic and has to renounce the throne in order to marry him. Again, that is the rule.
These days, couples are often happy with just two children, preferably one of each. If they don’t get a boy, the statistics show they are more like to try with a third or a fourth. That propensity would counter the likelihood of no children or an all-girl family to give us about one in four.
In short, the possibility of a discriminated against princess is on the cards. More likely, perhaps, that someone chucking the throne to become or marry a Roman Catholic.
Now, my one in four estimation roughly fits with our one sample – the British monarchy.
Twenty people have sat on the English throne since the death of Henry VIII in 1547.
Since then, three first born women have been “cheated” out of the throne by the rule of male primogeniture. That common-law rule, incidentally, is now enshrined in statute law by the Bill of Rights (1689), the Act of Settlement (1701), the Act of Union (1800) and the Statute of Westminister (1932).
But the act of discrimination against the three first-born women could have had a huge impact in British, if not world, history.
The first came in 1547 when Henry VIII’s son, Edward VI, took the throne as a boy. He was surrounded by Protestant evangelists who engaged upon vicious repression of Catholics.
The older sister, the Catholic Mary, was shut out from taking the throne for six years. She in turn repressed the Protestants. If she had been given a six-year start she might have been able to re-establish Catholicism and bar her younger half-sister, the Protestant Elizabeth I, from taking the throne and English and world history would have been dramatically different.
The next cheated woman was Elizabeth of Bohemia the eldest surviving offspring of James I (who was king from 1603 to 1625). Elizabeth lived till 1662. If she had taken the throne instead of her younger brother Charles I, England might have been spared the Civil War.
Then we have the interesting case of James II’s Protestant daughter Mary II taking the throne (jointly with her husband William III) in 1689 in preference to James II’s later born Catholic son, also James. That son was born while James II was on the throne before he was toppled by Parliament which installed William and Mary. So there has been one case of the female taking the throne before the male. Religion was more important than male primogeniture.
There were 11 monarchs between James I and Victoria who had the next cheated woman, her daughter, also Victoria.
Sure, she was not cheated out of much. She only survived her mother by six months. But if the discriminatory law had been changed in Victoria’s time, again it could have had huge significance. Bear in mind, her son was Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany.
Now here comes the long bow. Without male primogeniture could all of the slaughter of the young men in World War I been averted? And would that have meant no World War II which was the extension of the first war? What world would be have had now?
Whatever the fate of male primogeniture Princess Kate will be at least spared the fate of some of her predecessors. Queen Anne had 18 children, stillborns or late-term miscarriages. George III’s wife Charlotte had 15 children. Six was common among the monarchs. Edward VI’s mother, Jane Seymour, died from birth complications.
But back to the rules. Five European monarchies have changed it. And in at least one a woman has taken the throne before her younger brother. But none of those five has the baggage of an Empire. Fifteen countries have the Queen as their monarch and under the Statute of Westminster 1932 and other laws relating to colonies that became independent later, all have to agree to a change of succession laws.
So what should Australia’s position be? It might be all very well for England to sustain its 1000-year-old monarchy with changes to retain its popular support. But is that the road for Australia? And we have to agree to any change under the terms of the Statute of Westminster.
It seems to me that, from an Australian perspective, there is no case for change. This is an hereditary monarchy, after all. It comes with fundamental defects, from an Australian perspective, not just a few unacceptable incidentals like being discriminatory on the grounds of sex and religion.
The objection is more fundamental than whether a boy or girl takes the throne or whether a Catholic or someone married to a Catholic can take it. The objection is that it is inherited — that a position in the political structure of the country is determined by the birth, not by election. Moreover, of necessity the occupier of the position is British, lives in Britain and pursues British trade, sporting and other interests, often contrary to Australian interests.
The other objection is that the English monarchy is founded on the absurd concept of the divine right of kings. They say that “god” put them there.
Removing male primogeniture and the bar against Catholicism just helps the monarchy become more acceptable.
On the fundamental question the monarchists say, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. So why would they even tinker with it? They should be supporting male primogenture and be aghast at the possibility that the monarchy, the person at the apex of the Australian constitutional system could be beholden to a foreign head of state – the Pope, who is head of state of the Vatican.
But it is broke, in Australian eyes, and the whole thing (not just two discriminatory parts of it) should be replaced with a democratically selected head of state who must be an Australian.
I wish William and Kate a long and happy life with some lovely children (preferably with a girl first), but not at the apex of the Australian constitutional system.
Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke erred in tinkering by changing the national anthem, calling the monarch the “Queen of Australia” and abolishing appeals to the Privy Council. They should have left them all in place so people could see more clearly how inappropriate it is for a modern democracy to have a position at the apex of our constitutional system that is denied Australians and can only be occupied by right of birth “given by God” – whether male or female is first born.
CRISPIN HULL
This article first appeared in The Canberra Times on April 30.