BOYS, GIRLS AND STORMS IN TEACUPS.

I don't really know whether I care or not. If Kate has a girl first, should she be heir to the throne ahead of any younger brothers ?

This hasn't actually been an issue for generations; the last time there was an eldest child who was female was in 1840 when Queen Victoria's first child was born. The Princess Victoria went on to marry the Prussian Crown Prince, later the German Emperor, and was the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm II who led Germany into the First World War. Had she been entitled to succeed to the British throne, she and the Kaiser would have ruled in Britain as well as Germany, from 1901, instead of us having the somewhat dissolute Edward VII, followed by those we have now. Which would have been better ?

It is, of course a rather futile exercise to try to look at things in this simplistic way. If the Princess had, indeed, been destined to become Queen, there can be little doubt that the matter of her marriage would have been something that would have exercised the minds of the highest and mightiest in the land for many a long day; it must be doubtful, given the political uncertainties in the Germanic parts of Europe, that a marriage to a German prince of seriously high station would have been considered expedient. The Queen's own marriage to Albert had clearly been to a man of a lower order of nobility and any marriage of a future Queen would surely have to have been of a similar nature. marriage to a Crown Prince of Germany would not have been possible and, perhaps, the First World War and even the second, may not have occurred.

Many will no doubt have an assortment of arguments to support the notion that male primogeniture is unfair and they may well be correct. Others will argue the opposite case and cite issues such as the marriage mentioned above as a reason for sticking to the status quo; after all, would we have wanted to be ruled by the Kaiser ? Such arguments are fatuous.

There is no logical reason for excluding females from the line of succession in preference to their male siblings. Elizabeth I didn't do too badly, Mary II and her husband, Wlliam III, probably saved the nation from religious warfare and serious revolution while Mary's sister, Ann, oversaw the beginnings of the British Empire. Victoria's reign was one of almost unbroken progress and saw the influence of Britain spread to almost every part of the globe, while the current incumbent hasn't exactly thrown in the towel in favour of her husband. What's the problem ?

If we retain the monarchy, and I can see no better alternative, then the eldest child of King William (if he chooses to use that name; he could choose any of Arthur, Philip or Louis instead) and Queen Catherine, regardless of gender, should become the heir to the throne. Job done.