So the Queen prefers men..?
October 13 2011
Update: HM clearly reads AHN! For just two days after this was posted news came that the Queen is to support changes to the line of succession.
Here's a question I have been pondering. It's nothing to do with art, but it's certainly history: is the Queen in favour of changing the laws on royal succession to allow Prince William's first child to become sovereign, even if a girl? It would appear not, if her decision on the succession of William's other title, the Dukedom of Cambridge, is anything to go by.
Early readers of this site may remember that when William was made Duke of Cambridge on his wedding day, I wondered whether the title would pass to his first child regardless of sex.
Well, I've finally found the answer - it's boys only. From the official London Gazette: [More below]
In accordance with the direction of Her Majesty The Queen Letters Patent have passed the Great Seal of the Realm dated the 26 May 2011 granting unto Her Majesty’s Grandson, His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales, K.G., andthe heirs male of his body lawfully begotten the dignities of Baron Carrickfergus, Earl of Strathearn, and Duke of Cambridge.
Why does this matter? Because it's an interesting insight into the Queen's thinking at a time when public feelings over sexual equality are more sensitive than ever. It would have been possible for the letters patent (the piece of paper which makes you a peer) to state 'heirs general', which would allow a girl to inherit the title if she was William's eldest child. The specification of 'heirs male' or 'heirs general' for a peerage is in the sovereign's gift, and although male primogeniture is the norm for titles of nobility, many peerages, such as the Earldom of Mar, are able to descend through the female line.
Now, David Cameron has recently begun the process of exploring a change to the line of royal succession to allow the first born child, regardless of sex, to become monarch. But this will take a great deal of time, and the cooperation of fifteen other governments. So the question is, does the Queen's decision to specify that the Duchy of Cambridge, at least, pass only to boys give a little glimpse into her thinking on the matter?
Of course, if the necessary laws on the succession of the crown are changed it would be possible for William's first child if a girl to become Queen, and his second, if a boy, to get the consolation prize of the Dukedom of Cambridge. But that cannot have been the reasoning behind the 'heirs male' specification, for there is no shortage of royal dukedoms. The monarch's younger male children are traditionally given their own dukedom anyway - the sovereign can simply create a new title. Prince Andrew, for example, is the Duke of York, the title usually given to the second-born son of a sovereign.
It may be that I am the only saddo to think about these things. But I wonder if, amidst all the glitz of the royal wedding, we've missed a telling window into the royal mind. The point is, the Queen could have created a title that passed to William and Kate's first-born child regardless of sex. But she didn't.
