Senator Alan Eggleston. “The Republic: an idea that has reached its time”. Address to the John Stuart Mill Society. September 22nd, 1997 – “The present system works well so why change it? I think the real issue is the question of appropriateness. Symbols of national values are important to any nation and the monarchy does not symbolise the values Australia stands for. A monarch selected on a hereditary basis and which gives preference to males is not a modern Australian ideal. By instituting an Australian Head of State we have the opportunity to honour a distinguished Australian by making that individual the symbolic head of our nation.”
Succession to the British throne is based upon male primogeniture, whereby male heirs take precedence and the right of succession belongs to the eldest son. Thus, the heir apparent has always been a male. A female heir to the throne could only be the heiress apparent, rather than the heiress presumptive (“presumptive” as she could be ousted at any time by the birth of a son to the reigning Monarch) if she were the sole, or eldest, surviving daughter of a dead heir apparent, who had no sons.(13)
In some realms the Salic law principle operates, whereby women are entirely excluded from the succession, such as in Belgium and Spain. Indeed, when King William IV, ruler of Britain and Hanover, died in 1837, the succession to the British throne by his niece, Victoria, meant the end of the Hanover connection, since by Hanoverian law a woman could not ascend to their throne.(14)
However, there is no reason why modern Britain could not have adopted a different system, as Sweden did in 1979, whereby the right of succession passes to the Sovereign’s eldest child, irrespective of sex.(15) This is especially relevant when the wide acceptance of women as British Monarchs is considered. Queen Elizabeth II and Queen Victoria are prime examples.
As we live in modern times of equal opportunity for women, it is outrageous that the highest office in the land is a bastion of sexual discrimination.
This is yet another instance of how outmoded the English Monarchy is.”
Comment & Debate