Politicians can't resist meddling. So 'Our Dave' apparently is considering a change in the law so 'Kate & Wills' first born, if it is a girl, will become Queen rather than her younger brother if she has one. Now as a beneficiary of primogeniture - the custom by which the eldest male inherits the title/house/estate or, in the case of Prince William and his wife, the crown - you would expect me to support it and I do. Primogeniture is a simple rule which is understood by everyone and therefore brooks no argument. My eldest son will inherit my house and estate, all my children have known this since they were old enough to understand and they accept it as fair. They know the only reason that there is a house and estate to inherit is because generation after generation has followed this rule and that the only fair rule of inheritance, as far as estates go; is to give as you received. In other words if you received your estate because you were the eldest son it is not for you to wee wee and have change of heart and 'try to be fair' by dividing your inheritance or, just as bad, deciding that one of the other siblings is 'more suited' to inheriting the estate.
According to a fatuous survey in Country Life magazine (can't be much good if they didn't ask my opinion) some 43% of landowners now feel 'primogeniture to be either less important or not important at all, preferring ability, fairness and equality.' Actually all that proves is that 43% of landowners are pretty mentally retarded, something I suppose many people suspected anyway. There is nothing 'fair' in cutting out your eldest son (unless of course he is entirely useless and degenerate) if you yourself inherited solely because you were the eldest. As for 'equality' pass the sick bag. As for the offspring of Prince William and Katherine why change a rule which has, on the whole, worked well for a thousand years? No doubt 'Our Dave' assumes that if they have a daughter she will turn into a clone of the Princess Royal, Princess Anne but think about it, what if she turned out like Princess Beatrice or Eugenie? no better not.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Saturday, 16 April 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Followers
About Me
- Francis Fulford
- Francis Fulford is a writer, broadcaster and television personality. He lives at Great Fulford, a beautiful country estate in Devon that has been the home of the Fulford family since around 1190.
Posts
Blog Archive
Search This Blog
© Francis Fulford's Blog 2010, All Rights Reserved. For the Great Fulford website please click here.
Farage has been shooting up the political agenda recently and not with all the usual negative baggage that the BBC like to append to him, his kind of old fashioned Politics is gaining support, and not too soon. However it's unfortunately forceable that this kind of namby-pamby politics will continue to prevail as the moronity in this coalition understand it to be the last, and only, time they will get a taste of power and are going for broke.
ReplyDeleteUltimately though as swift as a Clegger's and his band of plastic shoe wearing tit-heads were wafted into top office, someone will open a window and cry "Watch out for the water!" (garde a l'eau) and throw the cretins out.
I agree with you that it makes sense to pass an estate to one child, and that that child should be chosen by birth so as to avoid friction and uncertainty. But why must it be the eldest son, not the eldest child? The latter is an even simpler solution. The present system is hugely insulting to 50% of the population for no good reason.
ReplyDeleteThats tradition Carol, live and deal with it, eldest Son it is.
ReplyDeleteCaron- I should remind you that if we lived by the rule of eldest child rather than son after the death of Queen Victoria, we would have ended up with Kaiser Wilhelm II as king.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that splitting an estate quickly dissipates family holdings, I think you illustrated a problem with primogeniture. You can end up with an heir that is "entirely useless and degenerate."
ReplyDeletePerhaps designating one, still within the family, is better.
Tradition can occasionally lead to bankruptcy.
I'm not directly involved with any sort of estate sharing or likewise, but I really don't see the problem with changing things so that the eldest child inherits the estate, boy or girl.
ReplyDeleteWhat this would have meant had we done it throughout the years is irrelevant – it is a rule that was established in an entirely different culture, when women were not considered capable. Times change, and so should ideas.
It would be great if you had written this with some actual discussion of any real disadvantage to changing the law. Your blog comes across as somebody who's simply sticking in the mud without giving any real thought to any sort of alternative. (Sorry.)