Ha ha. It's nonsense, but they're only up to the point of looking at it and still considering several other options.
The quote is from "Ladies first in Tory plan to abolish male primogeniture/Daughters may take hereditary peerages under new bill" (The London Times).
After seven miscarriages and two rounds of IVF Charlotte Carew Pole was “absolutely thrilled” when she gave birth to her daughter, Jemima.... “‘Congratulations, what a shame it wasn’t a boy’, or ‘How quickly can you have another?’” were some of the comments she received.
“There was a general expectation that I must keep pumping them out until a boy arrived. And all because I married a man who will inherit a title.... He doesn’t care about it, and neither did his parents. But the more I thought about it, the angrier it made me. I was outraged that this was still happening. Why should you look at a scan and be disappointed it’s a girl?”....
Male primogeniture – inheritance by the eldest son - is a feudal relic, designed to ensure that estates remain undivided on the deaths of their owners, and kept out of the hands of women too weak to fight off predators.... Britain and Lesotho are the only two democracies with reserved seats in parliament for hereditaries.... The reservation of seats in parliament for men almost certainly contravenes Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights, prohibiting discrimination on grounds of sex....
Posts
80 comments:
Oof. Is Primogeniture really an issue?
I recall something about the Vikings or Saxons or somebody having no primogeniture. Quite to the contrary, an estate had to be whacked up among all heirs which is why they ended up with those nifty boats that were really good at getting deep inland using rivers.
This reminds me of various organized religions that try to update their dogma to appease modern sensibilities. If I recall the religions that grow the most are the ones that hold fast to traditional dogma. And when talking about peerages, and hereditary title in the UK isn't the closest corollary religious organizations?
P.S. Nice looking females but what's up with the denim? Camouflage cargo pants too much of a downscale thing?
They do it that way to cut down on the talking in the House of Peers.
Who cares about the European Convention of Human Rights which, without even having read it, I suspect is 99% pure BS.
Good example of something being presented as sex when it's really about class.
sounds like pretty republican thinking, to me
No nobility == No royalty
And, by the way, isn't Jemima a racist name? Probably proscribed by the ECHR?
“‘Congratulations, what a shame it wasn’t a boy’, or ‘How quickly can you have another?’” were some of the comments she received.
I call bullshit. Document these claims it you are an abject liar.
Rory said...
Good example of something being presented as sex when it's really about class.
yep! that's why i deleted my earlier post. None of this is about sex
ALL of this is about a mother wanting a title for her daughter
And all because I married a man who will inherit a title.... He doesn’t care about it, and neither did his parents. But the more I thought about it, the angrier it made me. I was outraged
The More she though about it, the MORE she wanted that title!!!
and, since another child was unlikely ( seven miscarriages and two rounds of IVF )
She KNEW that The Only Way to get that title, was through her daughter
There's a saying:
If someone says that they don't care about the title... it's All about the title
Change the law or don’t, I do not care.
But the “ European Convention of Human Rights?”
Yea, screw that.
Haven’t they already done away with it for the royal family? The solution should be as simple as the problem is insignificant.
Jersey Fled said...And, by the way, isn't Jemima a racist name?
Only to her nieces and nephews.
Blogger Doug said...“‘Congratulations, what a shame it wasn’t a boy’, or ‘How quickly can you have another?’” were some of the comments she received.
I call bullshit.
Good point. They may have been said behind her back, but not to her face.
In the real primogeniture, the primo had to have the geniture to hold the land against invaders. No phones, no police on the other end of the line. If the primo above him, e.g., the king, wanted help with invaders, the primo himself had to go help, and take a bunch of sub-primos with him.
Next think you know they're going to try to ban primae noctis.
Anyway, here in the States, we don't have such a thing as family inheritance of position...supposedly. But, you might ask the Cuomo's, Pelosi's, Kennedy's, Bush's, Dingell's, Murkowski's, Udall's, Levin's, Kildee's and others. Not that their kids can't aspire to work in their family business, but in some cases there's more than a bit of political ownership going on.
If it has to do with voting, it's a good idea to keep women out.
Britain and Lesotho are the only two democracies with reserved seats in parliament for hereditaries...
There's the real problem here.
It worked quite well for centuries until the death tax did what family feuding could not.
If you are concerned about the "royal" lines breeding true....aka the kid is the actual genetic descendant of the "royal"line....then you would have a Matriarchy. There is no doubt on who the Mother is, while there is often doubt about who the Father is...royal or not 😁
Is this still a thing? A formal codified thing or just a tradition. One you can easily change by a law or with a formal will. The "title" IS an asset just like the family jewelry. Ask Hunter Biden about the value of the "asset" of being the son of a politician. Worth BIG BUCKS.
Cultural traditions...like the sons should inherit the assets...are not so easy to change.
Edited for egregious grammar errors and not enough coffee.
Why can't the UK be more like the US?
Another reason to celebrate the 4th of July
... he Cuomo's, Pelosi's, Kennedy's, Bush's, Dingell's, Murkowski's, Udall's, Levin's, Kildee's ...
I believe you want the plural form here (Cuomos, Pelosis) rather than the possessive (Dingell's, Udall's).
Tim macguire said: Good point. They may have been said behind her back, but not to her face.
Or not said at all, but rather a complete fabrication of her victim-statused mind.
This is also the mindset of the Amish. Girls are sweet, but it's the boys who work the fields. The local record for children is 15. Once they hit about 7 or 8 children, the older ones can assist in child care.
The boys are encouraged to hold off marriage as long as possible so the family can continue to extract money/work effort. The size and scope of their wedding gift depends on it.
Isn't this just a cultural norm for the Brits? Kind of like the Uighar genocide is to China, in Slow Joe's mind.
The British Empire was staffed by younger sons who were out of the money in dear old Blighty.
" But, you might ask the Cuomo's, Pelosi's, Kennedy's, Bush's, Dingell's,
Murkowski's, Udall's, Levin's, Kildee's and others."
My favorite from your list is the Dingell clan. Serving *cough* in congress on the same throne since 1933. And there 4 little Dingellberries in the crowded on-deck circle.
"Serving *cough* in congress on the same throne since 1933."
Pelosi's immediate family has been on the government payroll since 1926. A bit of that time has not been in an elective office, but at least three of her brothers spent their lives in the fascinating, challenging world of courthouse clerking.
tcrosse said...
The British Empire was staffed by younger sons who were out of the money in dear old Blighty.
'Won', not 'staffed'.
What could the 3 or 4 other things be?
1) create a House of Ladies to go with the House of Lords
2) replace primogeniture in favour of the first born son with ultimogeniture in favour of the last born daughter
3) place a 100% tax on inheritance of a peerage
Should we ask whether we think it has worked or not?
Under ultimogeniture in favor of the youngest daughter, Queen Elizabeth II would be succeed by her daughter Princess Anne, and then by Anne’s daughter Zara Tindall.
A disadvantage of ultimogeniture is that it would tend to result in more regencies of minor monarch’s, but all UK monarchs live under a kind of regency of the parliament anyway. An advantage, for monarchists, is that it would lead to longer reigns.
The best thing to do is do away with hereditary peers. But if the UK keeps it then they should follow the change to an absolute primogeniture as was done for the UK crown and most European crowns.
The UK has been very well served by some of their female monarchs. Both Elizabeths would be strong candidates for GOAT.
tcrosse said...The British Empire was staffed by younger sons who were out of the money in dear old Blighty.
Not just Britain but America or as it was then the "colonies" was won/created by those escaping from or seeing a dead end in their 'old countries".
One of my earliest direct ancestors was a younger son of a Scottish Laird (lord or something) Because he was never going to be anything but a "younger" son and not inherit anything...he came to the Colonies. Seeing no future in England he left for greener pastures. Or something like that :-)
James Veitch (Vaitche)the Sheriff (1628-1685)
Others, earlier, were Quakers escaping from England. My Grandmother was Quaker.
Sometimes good can come from the oppressive cultures of the past.
The Napoleonic Code did away with male primogeniture and resulted in more and more heirs inheriting less and less land, until there was not enough to make a living from.
The UK has been very well served by some of their female monarchs.
The Russians were ruled by 3 empresses for most of the 1700's, the last of whom wasn't even a Romanov. Before he was murdered, Catherine the Great's son made a law to keep women out of the succession.
Has everyone forgotten Downton Abbey?
The problem there was that the title of nobility and the estate were tied up in the chain of property title going back centuries. The "fee" could not simply be passed by will or other contemporary laws of inheritance, but could only be passed according to terms of transfer laid down centuries before. Namely, first sons.
The reason that was the problem is because the family had only daughters. So the insufferable prig Mary would not inherit the estate. Rather, upon Lord Grantham's death, it would go to some distant relative, first to someone who died on the Titanic in the first episode then to another distant relative, Matthew Crawley, who Mary ended up marrying before they killed him off, but not before they had a son.
Thus contrived, the estate would stay in the family through Matthew's son.
The English used the elimination of primogeniture to eviscerate the landed Irish Catholic families, mandating equal distribution of property among children. After several generations, the inheritors had too little land to sustain a family, and had to sell. The younger English sons went into the Navy, Army, law or the Church. Some did all, though switch out Navy & Army for military service. The daughters were provided with 'settlements', usually an annuity in the consols to provide an income for them. It worked for hundreds of years so it seems to have been successful to me.
Mark,
That is an important point. The entail would tie a landed estate to a particular family line. If I understand it right, it is based on the English lease or rental terms that are let for a certain number of 'lives', usually 3, with a 'life' figured at 29 years. So Lord Grandpa McWhisker would draw his will that his estate would pass to his male heir after 2 or three generations. The eventual inheritor would draw a similar will, entailing the estate to his grandchild. The middle generations were legally unable to sell the estate, either entirely or in part. Hence the continued 'Downton Abbey' plea to break the entail, which I believe like divorce, would require Parliamentary action, although I may be conflating historical periods on that point.
Anachronistic.
Having an aristocracy meant something when they were old landed families that had been ruling England since Norman Days. It became absurd starting around 1900, when Mr. Soap-suds or Mr. Diamond Merchant became Lord Diamond and Lord Soap-sods. If you look into it, a lot of the current Lords and Ladies are just descendants of people who gave lots of cash to the Liberal, conservative, or Labour party.
I sorta of like the "Sir" knighthood thing, because its a way to recognize induvial achievement, although even that was made absurd by making the Beatles or some actor a "Knight".
Thank God we don't have this in the USA. can imagine a House of Lords complete with "Lord Rockefeller" "Lady Hillary" "Lord Gates" "Lord Romney" or "Lord Eisner".
rcocean said...
Thank God we don't have this in the USA.
But they're working on it!
In the older days, Americans used to brag about having an English Lord in the family background way back when. This was usually combined with having some Indian blood like Liz Fakeahontas warren. Some did a two-fer by claiming to descendant from an Indian PRINCESS. Double score!
Strangely, no one ever talks about their ancestor who got kicked out England for being a thief, or how they're part African-American.
I got no dog in this fight. I'm a continent and an ocean away from it.
That which we call feudalism by any other name is just as real today.
No. We most definitely have a de facto system of nobility and oligarchy today, in society/culture, in education and business, and absolutely in government, including elective office.
"They order, said I, this matter better in France."
Sterne
If you want to see a different way of handling inheritance, look across the Channel, where each child gets an equal share of the estate, leading to some ridiculously small farm plots and family squabbles that cross generations.
I read somewhere that the English aristocracy and its rules of primogeniture were kind of democratic. The eldest son was called Lord, but the other boys were called Mr. and did not have any aristocratic privileges. There were no de's or Von's. At the time of the Russian Revolution there were something like 1.5 million aristocrats.....In Burke's time, there were only 192 titled aristocrats and some of them were Catholic or insane and thus could not be seated in the House of Lords. Perhaps the smaller number or peers made the system more manageable and minimized resentment. In any event, the younger sons in England had a better deal in the long run than the younger sons in France or Russia.
Amexpat said...
The UK has been very well served by some of their female monarchs. Both Elizabeths would be strong candidates for GOAT.
You can't be serious,can you?
Under Elizabeth's rule England has become a major league shithole.
To those who say she has no power I suggest you look up all the powers she does have. That she does not exercise them to stop the rot is just a further nail in the claim that she is goat. Or even marginally competent.
But exercising those powers would foment a "constitutional crisis" some might say. Bullshit. England has no constitution. What they call a constitution is whatever the politicians and the queen say it is on any given day.
How could there be a constitutional crisis when there is no constitution? Yeah some would be upset but what could they do? The sovereign holds the reigns.
John Henry
William,
The English did have 'Fitz' denoting a bastard son. The kings just made them Dukes, but lower aristocracy used Fitz, and many of those were acknowledged by the family. I occasionally want to talk about this with my friend FitzWilliam, but good manners intercede.
I recall years ago when my father in law was subscribed to some British magazine, that Baronets were available for sale, as they were originally created for the Crown to sell. Not necessarily to willing recipients. Back cover adverts of some monthly, and around a price I could actually afford now. We spend enough time in the UK that it might have been worth the price, given BA, hotel, and restaurant upgrades for a Bart. being in the house. Of course, that would just mean the staff spitting in my glass and such, but there one is. Honest trade offs.
IIRC the (Kievan, pre-Mongol) Russ divided property equally among sons, which led soon enough to complete fragmentation and internecine fighting; the Muscovites learned, and didn't make the same mistake.
The ascent of the monied into the aristocracy in Britland has been covered well, and there are the little extras like Miss Jennie Jerome of New York snagging a real live lord--the sort of elite mixing that played a yuge part in 20th C history.
The same thing happened on the continent of course--in the 19th C and even earlier money could buy titles and nobiliary particles, even Jewish money, and the Brits allowed purchase of military (infantry and cavalry only!) and naval rank well into Victoria's reign.
Narr
de Narr narr
Narr,
The predatory nature of the English aristocracy for American heiresses is the story of many novels. I think it was in the later 19th C. under Cardwell that England reformed it's officer class and removed purchase. 1878 perhaps, but there was a lot of money in those commissions. Back to the old 'life, liberty, and property' constitutional question in the UK.
tcrosse said...
The British Empire was staffed by younger sons who were out of the money in dear old Blighty.
exactly.
One inherited
One went into the Navy
One into the Church
One into the Army
I was off on Cardwell's Reforms, a decade earlier, though he was Minister until 1881,according to the internet, which is easier to check than going to the basement library.
Is there a more racist and sexist name on earth other than Jemima? Granted, Sambo can be considered racist, but no one ever claimed it was sexist.
"Is there a more racist and sexist name on earth other than Jemima?"
Pearl Milling Company?
Tim macguire said: Good point. They may have been said behind her back, but not to her face.
Or not said at all, but rather a complete fabrication of her victim-statused mind.
I find it very believable, just like the episode of Criminal Minds where the bad guy would kidnap and rape women until they produced male children.
Old Aunt Jemima" began with a stanza expressing dissatisfaction with the dullness of worship services in white churches, such as a complaint about the length of the prayers. The song ended with the following two stanzas:
The monkey dressed in soldier clothes,
Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh!
Went out in the woods for to drill some crows,
Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh!
The jay bird hung on the swinging limb,
Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh!
I up with a stone and hit him on the shin,
Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh!
Oh, Carline, oh, Carline,
Can't you dance the bee line,
Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh!
The bullfrog married the tadpole's sister,
Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh!
He smacked his lips and then he kissed her,
Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh!
She says if you love me as I love you,
Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh!
No knife can cut our love in two,
Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh!
Oh, Carline, oh, Carline,
Can't you dance the bee line,
Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh![2][3]
Some variants of the song substituted "pea-vine" for "bee line". Another version included the verse:
My old missus promise me,
Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh!
When she died she-d set me free,
Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh!
She lived so long her head got bald,
Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh!
She swore she would not die at all,
Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh![2]
The ins and outs of inheritance were the background of Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949), possibly the funniest movie ever made.
todd, yes Cardwell Reforms of 1871, thanks.
Narr
A few years after they abolished flogging!
The great Alec Guiness!
Narr
Good one
There are consequences to signing global treaties.
Ha ha. It's nonsense, but they're only up to the point of looking at it and still considering several other options.
That's the English way. (In which, unfortunately, they largely no longer believe).
The reservation of seats in parliament for men almost certainly contravenes Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights, prohibiting discrimination on grounds of sex....
Brexit for the win!
This is about family names. Otherwise, the disparities exist with exceptions in isolation. Normal men and women indulge neither one-child nor selective-child, masculinism nor feminism.
If you consider the role that blue jeans and rock and roll played in weakening the Communist Party's cultural hold over the Soviet Union, knighthood for the Beatles is not entirely devoid of sense.
May I offer a English perspective?
The 92 hereditary peers who sit in the House of Lords are elected from the 1500 or so hereditary peers. Oddly they are the only elected members of the House as the remainder are appointed (Life Peers) or serve ex-officio (mainly the Lords Spiritual, who are Bishops and Archbishops of the Church of England).
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is relevant because it was incorporated in the UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, an early law promoted by the first Blair administration. Pace Churchy LaFemme it's not affected by Brexit as the ECHR, and the associated European Court of Human Rights, relate to the Council of Europe (CoE). UK is still part of the CoE which also includes many other non-EU countries including Russia.
FYI "Left Bank of the Charles" the House of Lords includes over 200 Baronesses among the Life Peers. Also there are six female Lords Spiritual. No need for a House of Ladies.
Finally Leland asked "Why can't the UK be more like the US?" After witnessing the last four years I respectfully decline.
Finally Leland asked "Why can't the UK be more like the US?" After witnessing the last four years I respectfully decline.
If only you hadn't preceded us with such specimens of insanity as Mayor Khan. I guess "Red Ken" was not much better. My friends are all clustered in southeast England around Chichester. Sort of a white ghetto.
Skippy Tisdale said...
Old Aunt Jemima" began with a stanza expressing dissatisfaction with the dullness of worship services in white churches, such as a complaint about the length of the prayers. The song ended with the following two stanzas:
*******************
From my experiences in India, there is more genuine religiosity in one afternoon at a Hindu temple than in a month of Sundays at a Methodist church.
"such specimens of insanity as Mayor Khan" Fortunately the Mayor of London doesn't have much actual power apart from over public transport. Hence the resort to crowd pleasing stunts. It doesn't help that the members of the London Assembly have little real power either.
You might be interested to note that the Mayor of Liverpool was arrested in December on suspicion of bribery and witness intimidation. Liverpool's always had more interesting politics than London.
Expanding on the topic of "Why can't the UK be more like the US?" I commend two aspects of the UK system to your attention.
Separating the Head of State from the Head of Government has given us a well respected, and much loved, figurehead unsullied by political compromises. Long may she reign.
Having the defeated PM leave office the day after a General Election makes the transition of power considerably smoother.
Having the defeated PM leave office the day after a General Election makes the transition of power considerably smoother.
Having a permanent establishment of Civil Servants in place also greases the skids. We have that, too.
"Is there a more racist and sexist name on earth other than Jemima?"
In the Bible, Job oldest daughter was named Jemima. I know several Amish ladies named Jemima - all Caucasian. I am thinking they didn't get the email.
Western civilization has deep roots, but that doesn't mean it can't be killed. Chop away at the roots long enough and it will die.
All in the name of "progress".
I don't think I'll like what replaces it.
^^^^^ Exactly right.
Tony from London said...
Having the defeated PM leave office the day after a General Election makes the transition of power considerably smoother.
Well, here's the deal:
To do that, you have to have elections where almost everyone is voting in person, and where no absentee ballots can count if they're received after the polls close.
You also can't have polling places "stop counting" in the middle of election night while they still have votes to count.
And, in that situation, Trump would have been easily re-elected, and the transition would not have been a problem
UK perspective again:
"you have to have elections where almost everyone is voting in person" Just over 20% of the electorate voted by post in the 2017 General Election. Not sure whether 80% counts as "almost everyone".
"where no absentee ballots can count if they're received after the polls close" That's true in the UK. No ballot that's received after the close of polling is counted.
"You also can't have polling places "stop counting" in the middle of election night while they still have votes to count." I don't think that this happens in UK general Elections. There's usually strong media presence at every count and kudos to be first to declare a result.
The feeling here is that the risk from postal voting is due to undue influence within certain communities rather than additional votes being created.
Another difference is that all adults are automatically added to the electoral roll.
"you have to have elections where almost everyone is voting in person" Just over 20% of the electorate voted by post in the 2017 General Election. Not sure whether 80% counts as "almost everyone".
There were < 3.3 million votes counted in WI in 2020 (first State where I looked for numbers). Of those, 1.9 million were absentee ballots :https://www.news8000.com/nearly-1-9-million-absentee-ballots-returned-in-wisconsin/
80%'s a lot closer to "almost everyone" the 43%.
"There's usually strong media presence at every count and kudos to be first to declare a result."
There was no effective media or poll watcher presence in Detroit, Philly, or Atlanta. There can't be, when you're not allowed to be close enough to the poll workers to be monitoring what they're doing.
and it has appeared to be standard Democrat practice over the years for their percents to report last. After they know how many ballots they have to fake up to steal the election.
"The feeling here is that the risk from postal voting is due to undue influence within certain communities rather than additional votes being created."
Well, there's multiple problems with postal voting:
1: With a secret ballot, know one can know how you voted, so no one can buy your for. With postal, they can examine your ballot before you send it in, and then pay
2: Friends / family can examine your ballot, and pressure you to "vote the right way"
3: Too many States allow "ballot harvesting", where a 3rd party can take possession of you vote before delivering it. Said 3rd party can of course open your ballot, change your vote / put in a completely different ballot, etc.
4: When you vote in person, your id can be checked. When you vote by mail, it cannot be.
Especially if signature verification has been turned off.
Postal voting is an invitation to fraud, and should never be allowed absent proven need and rigorous checking
Post a Comment