Feminism and the monarchy
Is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II a feminist icon? I don’t know if she is, but a strong case could be made for it (perhaps the F Word can tell us). What better retort to those who believe that women can’t survive at the top, or cope with pressure, then to point to her? Yes, she inherited the position, but in the fifty six years since her father died, she has been a widely respected figure and is almost universally praised for the way that she has conducted herself in an age of 24-hour news and blogs where the slightest mistake gets pounced on.
Can the feminist movement benefit even more from Elizabeth II however? At present, the succession to the throne is weighted in favour of males, so that any male child is automatically closer in line to the throne than his sister(s), whatever their ages. This arrangement made sense five hundred or more years ago when this was the norm in most households. If the monarchy had attempted to reform it then, it could well have led to civil war, as many would have flocked to the banner of a male pretender to the throne, angry at the change in customs or simply to exploit the situation.
But since then, the diminishing power of the monarchy in relation in other institutions has meant this is no longer a concern. In the 16th century, there were real worries about whether a woman could rule properly, and these fears weren’t lessened by the reign of Queen ‘Bloody’ Mary. It wasn’t until her successor, Elizabeth I that people realised that a woman could be Queen of England without ruining everything. Not all of our female monarchs have been brilliant, but on average they have been no worse then the men (perhaps even a little better).
Tradition is a fine thing, but there are times when change can be good. Which is why it is time to change the rule that says younger brothers can reign ahead of older sisters. Yes, this would only affect an incredibly small section of society, but it would send out a powerful message: that women are equal when it comes to the most important role in the British constitution. The feminist movement cannot live on symbols alone, but they do help.
(Part II, on Religious reform and the monarchy, to follow in a few days)
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Current affairs,History,Sex equality
Thank god for Dr. Guillotin!
Get rid of the monarchy!
“Which is why it is time to change the rule that says younger brothers can reign ahead of older sisters. Yes, this would only affect an incredibly small section of society…”
An understatement if there ever was one. It will affect about 1 in 60,000,000 every 100 years or so. Thats incredibly small, so small that i imagine many people couldn’t be bovered to even contemplate which member of royalty misses out on the privilege of becoming the head of our so called democratic state.
Perhaps we should bring in a rule that the head of state should retire at 65 to collect his/her pension. If we get the ball rolling now it’ll come into place in about 5 years time and let the baton pass straight to Wills. Lolol.
Imagine how Charles and Camilla would feel. Di could have her revenge at last.
Not just the ‘sons come first’ rule. Anyone who marries a Catholic automatically loses any claim to the throne as do ‘illegitimate’ children, ie. whose parents were not married.
Rumbold, you recall Elizabeth I’s reign showing that women could be great leaders. I would add Queen Victoria – The Empress of India as well. And before people start calling me an imperialist, taking the cue from Python – What have the Romans ever done, sorry Brits ever do for India?.. they did build great buildings, road, train system and Parliamentary democracy, so there.
The monarchy is a medieval institution, that’s obvious, but I fear if we got rid of them, a rich and at times uncomfortable history and tradition mixed with hypocrisy would go. And let’s not forget their infidelity (King Edward VII’s affair with Alice Keppel which produced Camilla’s Grandmother for one), the support for Hitler (Brownshirt Prince Charles Edward who became head of the German Red Cross when they were carrying out euthanasia on ‘undesirables’ and King Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson, lifelong supporters of Hilter, as well as Prince Phillip’s Nazi in-laws), the list goes on…
The ‘House of Windsor’ or should I say the ‘House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha’, is a Germanic branch of European royality both from the Queen’s side and Prince Phillips’. Shame this didn’t prevent two world wars but alas, that’s pantomime. Whether we love or hate them, would miss if they didn’t exist. right?
I wouldn’t call a female monarch in a medieval monarchial system a feminist icon, especially not any modern monarch as they don’t actually do anything. If anything, the monarchy represents all things retrograde, but give me Queen Cleopatra any day.
Personally, I have trouble working up much enthusiasm for this idea. There would be symbolic merit to removing the inequalities in who can succeed to the throne: on the basis of gender, religion – I’m sure there are more ridiculous rules and regulations.
But the problem is that introducing reform leads, I think fairly inevitably, into abolition. Once the concept receives any scrutiny whatsoever, well, the foundations crumble. Or perhaps I’m wrong, and reform of this kind – as I believe has already been undertaken in other EU countries – would save the monarchy from collapse?
I don’t know that Elizabeth has done anything much to qualify as a feminist icon!
frankly, the monarchy is the worst option, until you start looking at the others.
chirac, anyone?
mugabe?
clinton?
dubya?
khamenei?
assad?
mubarak?
musharraf?
deary deary me. at least monarchy has something going for it. but yes, get rid of the gender rule.
b’shalom
bananabrain
This idea was floated a while back by Lynne Featherstone MP. It didn’t get anywhere, inevitably, because – as Jess points out – the monarchy doesn’t want anyone thinking too much about things like equality. The heriditary principle and human rights are completely incompatible.
Bananabrain – your logic seems to be: “If we abolish the monarchy, that would mean having a president. There are some bad people who have had the title ‘President’. Therefore, anyone called President must be a bad person.” Pretty weak.
Abolish it now!
Glad to see that this article flushed out some republicans. I’ll go get my shotgun.
Parvinder Singh:
Yes, and I am going to write a second piece on the monarchy and religion, which deals with this.
Good point about Victoria. She was probably the greatest of all of our queens, but by that point it was accepted that a female could rule well. I will decline to comment on what Britain did for India, as it won’t end well.
And like Bananabrain says, look at the alternatives.
Jess:
I don’t think that would be the case. The British monarchy has always proven itself willing to adapt, or else had reform thrust on it. Of course, sometimes it takes a bit of time (such as the fact that British monarchs continued to call themselves Kings/Queens of France until 1802, depsite losing their last piece of French territory in 1558).
‘Is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II a feminist icon?’
Hell, no!
The House of Windsor is the UK’s longest running and original reality show – a global version of the Big Brother House. A cast of characters doing embarrassing things on a public stage. Even Charles and Di had their diary room type interviews with martin bashir etc
Perhaps HRH is closer to Jade Goody than a feminist icon
oh I doubt ‘Il Papa’ will burn up his Sin Remission tickets on annoying non-catholic sinners.
bananabrain – that is the lamest argument I’ve ever read.
I find it bizarre that anyone would defend the monarchy at all, but calling the Queen an icon of any kind is just daft. She was born into a medieval institution that has no place in a democracy and which is entirely out of step with progressive ideals.
James gets it spot on at http://www.republic.org.uk/blog.