Talk:Primogeniture

message: No family, rich or poor, contented itself with one child, female OR male, in pre-modern times. peasant or noble, up to even the king, would have as many children as they reasonably could to ensure the family's survival. Havingh just one son and not wanting more would have been silly. What if that son were to be killed (like Edward, the Black Prince of Wales)? Don't assume historical facts. Only post in Wikipedia articles that which you absolutely know to be factual. The main reason many people deride Wikipedia as a serious resource is exactlty because some people post assumption, myth, rumour, or just plain error and don't bother checking facts.
Hey guys, I just stumbled upon this page, and I am actually not interested in the topic, but I have just got this strong impression of striking POV of the whole page so that I have to protest here. If I am mistaken please apologise my disturbance, but the representation of primogeniture seems to be TOTALLY UNBALANCED, doesn't it?
Was primogeniture invented in the second millennium?
Is it a European invention?
Hey! This is not a European or Western encyclopedia!!! How about China? How about middle east? How about biblical times? 
This article seems to get lost in details before properly establishing a big picture in the first place! 
I know, I am not suppose to criticise before contributing anything, and thus I really hate my role hear now. But think about that: 
How can this article possibly start with "It is the tradition brought by the Normans of Normandy to England in 1066."??? IMHO this sentence does not belong into the opening paragraph! Or can anybody explain to me why the Normans were so incredibly important history, or at least in the according context?
Tang Wenlong (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found my own answer on alt.talk.royalty FAQ. They all changed their laws since 1980. Rmhermen 23:47, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Cognatic is nowadays not very useful term. Historically, it is not the same as absolute primogeniture. In times earlier than the few most recent decades, a primogeniture that allowed females to succeed, practically always preferred males of the same parent, and left females only a subordinate position. However, due to historical meaning of the term, I hereby request you not to equate "cognatic" and "absolute". It is incorrect equation. 213.243.176.125 16:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not simply for the sake of sex 

message: I strongly agree with one of Tang Wenlong's comments above.  The article should begin the way it did two years ago. Interesting, but peripheral, material should be placed in appropriate subsections.  The mention of Normandy in first paragraph is certainly not the only way that the article has gotten worse, but for fun I traced that change down: it was made by 198.146.111.47 in an edit with no edit summary.  That seems wrong; indeed given the apparent controversy of this page someone should have reverted this undocumented edit immediately!
By the way, I'm not sure the Norman comment is even particularly valid!  Primogeniture had been practiced by many nations prior to the Normans (including, in England, the Normans' Anglo-Saxon predecessors themselves!); moreover, rather than oldest son inheriting entire state, William the Conqueror famously divided his estate between two sons!
But I won't do the necessary editing, especially with my poor Internet connectivity.  I made a non-trivial improvement to this page 2 years ago and, although it more-or-less still survives in the page, an ally had to fight an edit war to keep it in: the editing enemy wanted to delete information he didn't even disagree with because of a terminology quibble!
Jamesdowallen (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page needs MAJOR editing! 

message: Poking around the web suggests that "agnatic primogeniture" means males, then females, rather than males only, i.e. the same as "male primogeniture". —Ashley Y 00:48, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
::Your poking around the web only brings here results that are themselves caused by incorrect use of those terms. Their incorrect use in Wikipedia is partly responsible for that, which is actually a good testimony that Wikipedia is used and has impact.
Therefore, definitions used in Wikipedia should be kept correct, since we do not want that our readers receive misinformation, and then get embarrased.
Cognatic has the meaning that women are accepted. Due to historical practices, cognatic however has some internal connotation that women are a bit subordinate to men.
Agnatic means pure male line. If you poke some more in documents, you realize that agnatic relatives in literature are such that descent in male line from same ancestor. The term "agnate" has been used in princely family pact documents hundred and more years ago in German empire and meant the dead male members of the same male-line dynasty. For example, the Succession Pact of Schwarzburg sometime in the beginning of 1900's, where three gentlemen called themselves as "Agnates of Schwarzburg", stated that there are no more agnates of that ancient principality, and made a pact where they agreed upon to sanction the potential unification of their lands, in certain order of succession, since at least two of them were elderly and without male heirs. Two of them were reigning Princes. The third was a brother of one of the previous. The two branches had divided several centuries ago. In the pact, there were nowhere anyone male who descended from Schwarzburgs through a woman.
The use of the term thus squarely means that agnates are those who descend from a common ancestor through unbroken male line.
I understand that recent changes in succession laws which brought so-called lineal primogeniture, confused many, since there had been no term for that - it has been so rare, practically nonexistent. At that point, some confused persons apparently began to use the old term "cognatic" meaning the lineal. And agnatic in their minds also moved from pure male descent to some mixed formula.
:Actually, I have seen one scientific paper where the author proposes the combo term "cognatic-agnatic" as term for the mixed succession with male children of the same parent preferred.
However, also the fact that when the terms cognatic and agnatic were developed, the two most usual primogeniture models in use were (1) pure male, and (2) mixed which approved also females (daughters) after sons were exhausted.
The terms were developed for those situations. Agnatic really means pure male. Cognatic means that both male and female are accepted, but in those dayus, females were practically always put behind males of same parents.
Please use these terms according to their established meaning, please do not try to change their meaning. If you change it, much of earlier literature and sources become confusing and not useful - since they are not compatible with your new uses of the terms. 
The definitions should be corrected in a way that your latest change (24.4.2005) is invalidated.
May I ask which sort of qualifications you have regarding genealogy?
(I happen to have researched history, particularly medieval history, and all sorts of genealogy, already over 20 years, and be academically educated in my field. 213.243.176.125 16:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I shall defer to you on the meaning of "agnatic". "Cognatic primogeniture", however, has a clear modern meaning (as found in dictionaries, for instance) and should be used as such. See for instance . —Ashley Y 03:16, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
I do not trust fully that dictionary. As far as I have checked it, it is from one recent book. What if it just is an incorrect idea of that one author, and now spreading over and over, because of internet?
The book in question is quite recent, and probably took its clue from the recent changes in succession laws of Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands and Norway. What if the book in question has not bothered to analyze earlier usages of the same term?
I remember to have read many older sources, treating succession cases in 18th and 19th centuries, which used "cognatic" in its more traditional meaning. Now you are saying (by your own words "has a clear MODERN meaning") that it does not matter what has the meaning of "cognatic" been in earlier decades, all that matters is its "modern" meaning. If you want it in this way, what are you going to do to confusion and misunderstandings due to people reading earlier treatises (where the meaning was not this) and thinking that the word there means what you want it to mean "in this modern meaning"?
This is always the danger of changing the meaning of a descriptive word long used in literature. Old texts analyses, treatises etc do not change their wordings just because a couple of countries change their constitutions. 62.78.104.193 12:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agnatic 

message: Ok.. I myself came to Wikipedia about 2 months ago and learned of the term Cognatic used in the same context as "absolute Cognatic primogenture" as the eldest child taking precidence over younger, senior branch over joinor. As you point out it seems to make sense, Cognatic meaning leanier.
What is the current defination under thouse countries that follow the "eldest over youngest, reguardless of gender" order of succession. Though this is a relitively recent developement, what exactly is it called in thier constitutions? I have read the Spanish Constitution, and studied the Danish Constitution long ago.. I need to get a more recent English translation. Drachenfyre
:Actually, the word cognatic is not used in laws, in constitutions, or in family pacts. They usually say the thig in lucid words, such as "succeeded by the eldest child", or "succeeded by male child and failing such, next male line of the house". Cognatic is a descriptive term used by researchers and analysts, when they categorize the succession laws they are studying. Therefore, we need not find any legal content to the word cognatic, since it is not usually used in legal texts. We need to find its meaning in the research community, what is its meaning to the scientists of genealogy who have used it in their treatises - already some centuries. 62.78.104.193 12:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion, but understandable... 

message: The term "agnatic-cognatic" has been used in only one of research papers I have read, and it is a relatively recent publication. I surmise that the author has created that wording because of his one-time need to specify very precisely a strict idea of succession, and he did not know the term "male-preference primogeniture", which also may be a new and artificial creation.
These new terms have apparently been needed now, since the original meaning of "cognatic primogeniture" has in recent years been in process of losing its originally rather precise meaning - its original meaning has been precisely that "male-preference primogeniture" - to proponents of fully equal primogeniture who have misleadingly tried to adopt the older term to their monopolic use.
Because of the background of these "agnatic-cognatic" etc, I cannot accept Ashley's hasty edits regarding its meaning. 62.78.121.136 06:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agnatic-cognatic 

message: This portion of the Preference for males section strikes me as heavily POV:
His income was very dependent on protection money collected from those people he was in office of protecting against wars, violence, crimes, other injustices (this sort of protection money, more or less extorted from people by use or threat of the violent powers of the protector himself, was labelled by the less-infuriating terms "tax" and "duty"). 
I realize that many anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, anti-tax activists, and others believe that taxation is inherently robbery, that government is not morally different from the Mafia, etc., but I'm surprised such rhetoric has lasted this long without being heavily edited.  Thoughts?  LeoO3 20:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, there is even something doubtful about it, considering that at certain times, most of the royal revenue came from their being landed, taxes being, compared to what they began to become during the renaissance and the early-modern period, ridiculously low in some places. And I hardly see the link with preference for males: did the author somehow believe that medieval kings took the time  to personally oversee collection in their realm (or even had it)? Snapdragonfly 19:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV rhetoric 

message: The sentence "Likewise the divergence in 1890 of the thrones of Luxembourg and the Netherlands, the former grand duchy being governed by semi-Salic law, unlike the latter kingdom." doesn't entirely paint the right picture. Both monarchies were governed by semi-Salic law at that point. The Luxembourg line of succession however went back more generations than the Dutch one, because the Luxembourg succession was ruled by the provisions of the Nassau House Treaty of 1783. Where the succession was concerned Luxembourg is the successor state to the Principality of (Orange-) Nassau-Dietz. The Dutch succession only went back to King William I (1815-1840). Therefore Luxembourg still had agnatic heirs from another branch of the House of Nassau left to succeed, while in the Netherlands the male line starting with William I was depleted. I will make the proper adjustments in the article's text.Gerard von Hebel 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Netherlands and Luxembourg 

message: I've seen the term primogeniture used in a more general way, by critics of capitalism, to refer to a condition wherein resources tend to be owned by those who were "there first" (born first). Those born later are at an increasing disadvantage, in terms of how much wealth they can own. The first one who made a claim to a piece of land, for example, would be said to benefit from primogeniture. Has anyone else seen the term used in this way? Might be an interesting foot-note...
:Yes, and now it seems that in the first paragraph the article explains primogeniture generally, not concerning only primogeniture in monarchies. However, it should be clarified somehow, where the article describes general primogeniture and where it turns to describe monarchies. Now the reader must guess, which is not good. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic Primogeniture 

message: I've read articles in the past which claim that various unpublished blood heredity studies suggest that extra-marital conception accounts for 15% to 20% of all births, even during conservative times in conservative communities in the American south.  I'm fairly certain there was an article in The Sciences to this effect in the early 1990s.  Regardless of whether this rumour has any truth or not, it's quite possible that the human male has greatest certainty in the paternity of his marital first born, especially if the first conception dovetails the infatuation period where the love birds are rarely separated.  
I don't know whether this Robert Trivers-like hypothesis has been developed elsewhere, but if there were an element of validity here, it would certainly outweight the arthimetically simple-minded nonsense about 23/47 "genomic" inheritance due to the XY chromosome disjunction.  MaxEnt 22:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood heredity studies 

message: I found this article extremely interesting and well-written.
But I question the statement:
> No monarchy in Europe applies or is known to have applied
> matrilineal primogeniture (uterine primogeniture) to
> successions ...
Although they always had Kings, not Queens, both the
Picts of Northern Britain and Etruscans of Italy
practiced uterine inheritance -- the Kingship typically
passed to a son-in-law (Etruscan?), or a uterine
nephew (Pictish?). Young man reaching for greater things
 
For example, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus was son of
the 5th King of Rome (who was husband of Princess Tanaquil),
but it was his brother-in-law who became the 6th King.
Lucius married his niece Tullia (daughter of daughter
of Tanaquil) to earn the right to be 7th King!
(I've read parts of this in various sources
but mainly ... Wikipedia!  Some ancient genealogies
may be partly mythical, but the inheritance rules
should be factual.)
(I'm certainly not qualified to edit the Primogeniture
page, but it should contain some mention of uterine
inheritance as practiced by Picts and Etruscans.
I understand that the system persisted, at least
to a small degree, in inheritance among the very
early Scots Kings, and very early Latin Romans.)
Jamesdowallen 05:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Matrilineal primogeniture (uterine primogeniture) is a form of succession where the eldest female child of the subject is entitled to the hereditary succession before her younger sisters, and her brothers are not entitled to inherit at all. No monarchy in Europe has applied this form of succession. In regards to the Picts and Etruscans, their form of succession can not be called Matrilineal primogeniture, since the women themselves did not inherit the throne. FrinkMan 17:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Your term "Male Inheritance from wife or mother" is a good description of this form of succession. FrinkMan 10:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uterine inheritance in Europe 

message: Does anyone know what would happen in the UK if the following situation were to happen. This is an example: In the future, we have King William and Queen Kate and they have one daughter Victoria who is an only child. Queen Kate is pregnant with a male child when King William dies. Does Victoria become Queen? Does the male child become King on birth? What happens? --81.103.41.71 (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Provisions would surely be made to ensure the succession of a male if that is what the unborn child is. Compare also the succession of Alphonse XIII of Spain at his birth and also the provisions made for an possibly unborn child of Dowager Queen Adelaide at the succession of Queen Victoria. There is no set standard or law to deal with such cases, it is a case-by-case scenario. In the case of a posthumous son of William IV, that child would have immediately become King and Victoria would have taken another status... Maybe still styled Queen Victoria (but not reigning), maybe something else. We don't know. Charles 04:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: There is already provision in UK enactments to adopt equality in genders for the throne.  However, the whole issue has had to be parked, because the UK monarch is not just the monarch of the UK but of a whole bunch of other countries as well.  It would require legislation to be introduced and passed in the respective parliaments of all those other countries before such practice could be adopted.  Since there are in excess of twenty of them, it just ain't going to happen easily. 109.153.235.85 (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential posthumous birth of an heir 

message: The article states the following:
"These Founding Fathers of the United States of America were nearly universally descended from the landed gentry of England, with many being descended from English Kings of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, especially through the numerous offspring of Edward III of England."
The wikipedia article on Edward III States the following:
"He is quite unusual among medieval English monarchs in having no known illegitimate children. This devotion extended to the rest of the family as well; in contrast to so many of his predecessors, Edward never experienced opposition from any of his five adult sons."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.132.204 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, the assertion "These Founding Fathers of the United States of America were nearly universally descended from the landed gentry of England" is rubbish, a myth concocted by the American gentry to cover up their very plebeian origins, one later added to by unscrupulous 'genealogists' whose bogus pedigrees are still believed today by the gullible. Solicitr (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA Founding fathers, Edward III 

message: Ok, so I read through the terms and I have a question, and should the term exist it ought to be added.
Here's the question;
What is it called when you have a system wherein you have a matrilinerar line wherein the eldset female is preffered but males are allowed to hold the throne if their are no females?
:-IkonicDeath  —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What is it Called When..

message: I see the intention of an editor who has names himself as 'FactsStraight', is to get facts twisted here. That is unfortunate. 82.181.239.182 (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: @ 111.119.183.60 (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agnates 

message: because some -probably ignorant- editors seem to plead the authority of this publication, here's its text:
Tronföljd: extended text (16Kb; Norwegian)
Tronföljd, den ordning, hvari trontillträdet sker inom
en monarki. En lagbestämd tronföljdsrätt tillhör den
ärftliga monarkien, i hvilken, inom en viss ätt eller
dynasti, kronan på grund af börd öfvergår från en
medlem till en annan i en viss oidning (se Succession,
sp. 643). Trontillträdet i valmonarkien grundar sig
däremot på ett
tronföljden afgörande val, till följd hvaraf,
då tronföljaren icke blifvit förut vald, alltid
en mellantid där uppstår mellan föregångarens
afträdan-de och den nyvalde efterföljarens tillträde
till tronen, medan i arfriket (se d. o.) konungen,
såsom det heter, aldrig dör ("le roi est mört,
vive le roi!"). I valriket kan dock vara genom lag
eller sed bestämdt, att valet skall hålla sig inom
en viss släkt, så länge lämpliga medlemmar af denna
finnas. Denna förbindelse mellan arf och valrätt var
utmärkande för den gammalgermanska statsförfattningen
och fortfor i Sverige, äfven sedan detta land under
medeltiden förklarats för ett valrike. På en del
håll gaf den upphof till fullständigt arf-rike, men
då betraktades till en början successionen som rent
privaträttslig, och riken delades därför ofta som
andra gods. Statens fordran på enhet och odelbarhet
nödvändiggjorde emellertid en författningsenlig
reglering af arfsföljden i öfverensstämmelse
härmed, och med länsväsendets majo-ratsprincip
till förebild antogs då vanligen som grund för
successionsordningen inom dynastien förstfödslorätten
i rätt nedstigande led, den lineala primogtnituren,
d. v. s. företräde åt äldre gren framför yngre och
inom samma led för den äldre framför den yngre
med iakttagande af representationsrätt, enligt
hvilken t. o. m. den aflägsnaste descendent intar
förut afliden ascen-dents plats framför den förre
troninnehafvarens lefvande barn. Den skillnad,
som förefinns i tronföljdsordningen inom olika
stater, beror hufvudsakligen på, om och huru långt
successionsrätt inrymmes åt kognater, d. v. s. kvinnor
och deras afkomlingar. Tronföljdsordningen kan
därför vara antingen agnatisk, då successionen med
ovillkorligt uteslutande af kvinnlig stam öfvergår
blott på stamfaderns manliga bröstarfvingar, eller
kogna-tisk, då den öfvergår äfven på kvinnliga
bröstarfvingar, enligt regeln dock med företräde
för manliga bröstarfvingar, men allenast inom samma
led, hvadan, då successionen öfvergått på en linje,
troninnehafvarens döttrar gå före hans bröder eller
andra agnater, eller ock agnatisk-kognatisk, då
successionen, först sedan hela den manliga stammen
utgått, öfvergår på kvinnolinjen med företräde inom
denna nya dynasti för manliga bröstarfvingar, så länge
sådana finnas. I hvilken ordning de kvinnliga linjer,
som stå i lika nära släktskapsgrad till den siste
agnaten, skola vara suc-cessionsberättigade, kan vara
på olika sätt bestämdt i olika länder. Den agnatiska
arfföljdsord-ningen, hvilken ännu är bestämd efter den
franska saliska lagens grunder, var den, som alltmer
gjorde sig gällande och har blifvit införd i Sverige,
Norge, Belgien, Italien, Preussen och Danmark. Den
kognatiska blef rådande i Storbritannien, Spanien
och Portugal, den agnatisk-kognatiska i Holland,
Österrike-Ungern, Ryssland samt åtskilliga tyska
furstendömen. Som villkor för att en medlem af en
dynasti, som skall kunna komma i fråga till tronföljd,
må intaga tronen gäller, att han härstammar från
stamfadern, d. v. s. den, som för sig och sin ätt
förvärf vät kronan, och i regel (undantag Norge
under medeltiden) att han är af äkta börd, hvarjämte
dessutom på sina ställen fordras, att han skall vara
aflad i jämbördigt äktenskap äfvensom att bifall till
äktenskapet getts
af dynastiens regerande hufvud, stundom också af
folkrepresentation. Vidare kunna vara föreskrifna
personliga behörighetsvillkor, såsom bekännelse af en
viss troslära, normalt sinnestillstånd, frihet från
kroppslyten. De bestämmelser om successionsrätten och
successionsordningen, som sålunda ges, ingå i den
offentliga rätten, hvaraf de bilda en viktig del,
och ändras i den ordning, som för statsrättsliga
lagars stiftande är bestämd. På sina ställen har dock
som villkor för ändrings genomförande äfven krafts
bifall därtill af ättens successions-berättigade
medlemmar. Stadganden, hvarigenom afsetts att
ge större helgd åt en viss tronföljdsordning,
särskildt mot ofvannämnda slags anspråk, ha stundom
benämnts pragmatisk sanktion (se d. o.). Sverige
blef under medeltiden ett valrike. Det heter
nämligen i Landslagens konungabalk, kap. B: "Nu är
till konungsriket i Sverike konunger väliande oc ey
arf vande". Dock skulle helst en "af konungasynom"
utses till konung. Men på Västerås riksdag 1544
kom 13 jan. en arfförening till stånd (jfr Sverige,
sp. 1207), hvarigenom ständerna "lofvade och svuro"
att, så länge Gustaf l:s "konungsliga manskönssläkte
och lifsärfhärschaffter för honden och lefvandes
are", dem hålla för sina "rätte, naturlige konunger,
furster och herrer", först den äldste och "sedan
ifrån linien till linien". Sverige hade därmed fått en
tronföljdsordning med agnatisk lineal primo-genitur
(se d. o.). Om konungaätten utginge på manslinjen,
skulle val ske. Denna arfförening fick sin tillämpning
endast på Erik XIV, ej på hans son. Eiksens ständers
beslut 1569 fråndömde Erik och hans efterkommande
rättigheten enligt 1544 års arfförening till kronan,
som i dess ställe tillföll Johan III. Tronföljdsrätten
hade 1544 getts utan något förbehåll, men den
förargelse Eriks giftermål med hans frilla hade väckt
föranledde, att i den vid 1582 års riksdag beslutna
stadgan om "konungslig och furstlig rättighet"
intogs en bestämmelse, att successionsrätt skulle
förloras genom giftermål med ofrälse kvinna. Detta
upptogs dock ej i följande arfföljdsordningar förr
än under 1800-talet, men då utsträckt till förbud
mot giftermål med alla kvinnor af icke furstlig börd
(se nedan). 7 mars 1590 beslöto ständerna i Stockholm
antagandet af en ny arfförening, hvilken utgör en
förnyelse af 1544 års arfförenings bestämmelser om
agnatisk tronföljd för Johan III: s afkomlingar,
med sekundogenitur (se d. o.) för brodern Karl och
hans manliga efterkommande, men med det tillägg att,
därest hela manslinjen utginge och arf vingar af
kvinnliga linjen lefde, ständerna skulle anamma och
bekänna som drottning den "konungadotter, om hon till
är, eller ock furstedotter, som då äldst och oförssdd
(ogift) är", hvarigenom tronföljden sålunda nu blef
agnatisk-kognatisk. I hvilken ordning prinsessor
af olika grenar skulle vara arfsberättigade,
namnes icke. Dock bestämdes, att arfsrätt ej skulle
åtnjutas af dem, som ingingo giftermål med inländsk
eller utländsk herre utan ständernas samtycke. Denna
arfförening kom att tillämpas endast på Sigismund,
hvilken med hela sin ätt skildes från tronen
på Linköpings riksdag 1600. Därefter kom en ny
arfförening till stånd, på Norrköpings riksdag. 22
mars 1604. Genom denna fästes arfsrätten vid
Karl IX och hans manliga linje med sekundogeni-tur för
Johan IILs son hertig Johan, som efter Sigismunds
afsättning var den enligt 1590 års arf-förening
närmaste tronarf vingen, men som af sagt sig
kronan. Först efter det Karl IX dött cch hans manliga
linje utgått, skulle Johan och hans manliga linje
komma i fråga. För den händelse att äfven dennes
manliga linje utdoge, skulle arfsrätt för prinsessor
af Karls och Johans hus i likhet med hvad 1590 års
arfförening stadgade, träda i kraft, med de i samma
förening fastställda villkor angående skyldighet
att för giftermål inhämta ständernas samtycke samt
med tillägg, att successions-rätt skulle förloras
äfven genom äktenskap med någon, som icke bekände
sig till den lutherska läran. Detta skulle gälla
också arffurste, och ingen, som ej själf vore med
ständerna ense i religionen, skulle få tagas "til
then konungelighe regering". Arffurste, som ville
behålla arfsrätt, finge ej heller ingå giftermål,
utan att ständerna satts i tillfälle att pröfva,
om detsamma vore deras furstliga nåde och hela riket
gagneligt. Med hänsyn till senare tiders erfarenhet
stadgades slutligen, att arffurste, som mottagit
annat konungarike, ej skulle få bestiga Sveriges tron
och att ej heller arf-konung finge mottaga annat
land och konungarike, med mindre han alltid blefve
boende i Sverige. På grund af denna arfförening
besteg Kristina tronen. Då Karl IX:s dotter Katarina
af Pfalz, som dog 1638, gift sig med en furste,
som bekände sig till en främmande religion (den
reformerta), var Kristina den enda arfsberättigade
medlemmen af konungahuset, och därför genomdref hon,
som ville förbli ogift, på riksdagen i Stockholm 6
nov. 1650 en ny arfförening, hvari tronföljdsrätt,
dock blott agnatisk, tillerkändes Katarinas son Karl
Gustaf (som 10 mars 1649 utsetts till tronföljare)
och hans efterkommande. Detta riksdagsbeslut är också
märkligt därigenom, att däri förbjöds den splittring
af regeringsmakten, i form af ärftliga hertigdömen,
hvilken, på grund af en i 1544 års arfförening gif
ven autorisation, förut förekommit till förmån
för manliga medlemmar af konungaätten. Riket
skulle nämligen efter denna dag aldrig delas,
utan alltid vara och förbli ett corpus tillsammans
under den regerande konungen, och arffurstarna
skulle i st. f. arffurstendömen låta sig nöja med
den disposition i gods och penningar, som i hvarje
särskildt fall bestämdes. Denna pfalziska husets
arfsrätt utsträcktes till att bli agnatisk-kognatisk
på sätt i Norrköpings arfförening uttryckligen
var stadgadt, genom Stockholms riksdagsbeslut 3
jan. 1683, som stadfästes genom Karl XLs, af ständerna
i Stockholms riksdagsbeslut 20 nov. 1693, § 2, såsom
en oföränderlig laga stadga antagna testamente. Vid
Karl XII:s död skulle därför som tronarfvingar kunnat
ha ifrågakomma hans syster Ulrika Eleonora och hans
äldre då döda syster Sofias son hertig Karl Fredrik af
Holstein-Gottorp, men ingendera af dessa prinsessor
hade i afseende på sina giftermål iakttagit de i
Norrköpings arfförening stadgade villkoren för
arfsrätt på kvinnolinjen. Ständerna ansågo sig
därför berättigade att förfoga öfver kronan, och
21 febr. 1719 kom så till stånd ett rikets ständers
beslut ang. Ulrika Eleonoras "utkorelse till Sveriges
krona och regemente", hvaruti, med uteslutande
af arfsrätt på kvinnlig linje, rätt till kronan
tillerkändes Ulrika Eleonora och hennes manliga
bröstarfvingar "efter 1650 års riksdagsbeslut"
(d. v. s. tronföljden blef åter agnatisk). Bestämmelse
härom intogs i regeringsformen (§ 3) af samma dag och
upprepades så väl i ständernas "förening" 24 mars
1720, hvarigenom kronan öfverflyttades till Ulrika
Eleonoras gemål Fredrik I, som i regeringsformen
2 maj s. å. (§ 3). Då denna arfsrätt gällde endast
Fredriks ättlingar med Ulrika Eleonora, som afled
barnlös 1741, måste då ett nytt konungahus utköras,
och detta skedde redan under Fredriks regering
genom rikets ständers förening 23 juni 1743,
hvari ständerna utsago Adolf Fredrik af Holstein
"till kungl. höghet och efterträdare på den
kungl. svenska tronen" och "efter honom dess manliga
bröstarfvingar till arf tagare af Sveriges krona,
på sätt, som Sveriges rikes successionsordningar
innehålla och förmå". Konungaförsäkran 25 nov. 1751
(§ 14) gör härtill det tillägg, att ständernas
bifall ej ovillkorligen fordras för prinsars och
prinsessors giftermål, utan, därest det ej tålde
dröjsmål, egde konungen med råds rade därom sluta
och förordna. I 1772 års R. F. (§ 3) stadgades,
att "med successionsordningen till riket blifver
alldeles vid arfföreningen. såsom den år 1743 gjord
och vidtagen blifvit", och ständernas samtycke till
prinsars giftermål gjordes ej längre erforderligt för
arfsrättens bibehållande, utan genom föreskrifter
i § 36 förklarades konungens bifall vara till
fyllest. Sedan rikets; ständer 10 maj 1809 förklarat
Gustaf IV Adolf och. hans bröstarfvingar för alla
tider förlustiga Sveriges krona, blef uti 1809 års
R. F. (§ 1) stadgadt, att Sveriges rike skulle
vara ett arfrike, med den. svccessionsordning
för en afliden konungs manliga efterkommande,
som af rikets ständer fastställdi varder. Till
följd däraf är i Sverige den ärftliga; monarkien
konstitutionellt grundad. Denna stats-form är således
ej fäst vid någon viss ätts tillvaro, efter hvars
utslocknande representationen skulle ega fria händer
att bestämma om statsformen. Och i öfverensstämmelse
härmed föreskrifves i R. F. (§ 94) att, därest den
konungaätt, hvilken arfs-rätten till riket uppdragen
vore, på manliga sidan utginge, riksdagen skall
sammanträda för att ett nytt konungahus utköra med
bibehållande af denna regeringsform. Den i R. F. §
l åberopade successionsordningen förklarades
uti R. F. § 85 skola som grundlag anses och vid
samma riksdag af konung cdi riksdag gemensamt
fastställas. Efter det attr Kill tronföljare 28
aug. 1809 blifvit vald prins Kiistian August af
Slesvig-Holstein-Sönder-borg-Angustenborg, blef
också som grundlag fastställd föi successionsordning
för hans manliga bröstarfvingar 18 dec. 1809. Sedan
prinsen, som var ogilt, aflidit, 28 maj 1810, och
därefter prinsen af Ponte-Corvo Johan Baptist Julius
(Bernadotte) blifvit på urtima riksdagen i Örebro
genora den af rikets ständer 21 aug. s. å. upprättade
förening och valakt utkorad till Svea rikes kronprins,
fastställdes likaledes i Örebro i öfverensstämmelse
med den föregående år beslutna den nu gällande
successionsordningen 26 sept. 1810 som orygglig
grundlag. Den tronföljd, som därigenom tillerkändes
kronprinsens (Karl Johans) äkta bröstarfvingar, än-
agnatisk (de al kung:!, huset a£ kvinnkön och
deras efterkommande, ändock dessa af mankön
äro, h-i ingen rätt till kronan, enl. S. 0. §
3) och rätt nedstigande, d. v. s. lineal
efter förstfödslorätt, den ofödde hans rätt
förbehållen. Vissa behörighetsvillkor äro stadgade för
successionsrättens bevarande. Den af kungl. familjen,
som ej bekänner sig till den rena evangeliska läran,
vare från all successionsrätt utesluten, heter det
i S. 0. § 4. Prins, som utan konungens vetskap .och
samtycke gifter sig eller tager till gemål enskild
svensk eller utländsk mans dotter, haf ve förverkat
arfsrätt till riket för sig, barn och efterkommande
(S. 0. § 5), och samma påföljd inträder, om prins
utan konungens och riksdagens samtycke blifver
regerande furste af utländsk stat (S. 0. §
8). Om genom uraktlåtande af dessa föreskrifter
hela det arfsbe-rättigade konungahuset förlorat
successionsrätten, blifver, heter det i S. 0. §
9, tronen, likaväl som om konungahuset utgått på
manssidan, ledig till nytt val och skall ett nytt
konungahus utköras. Som successionsordningen är
grundlag, hvilken ej kan ändras vid samma riksdag som
den, då fråga därom väckfis, så måste i sådant fall
de uti nu gällande S. 0. innehållna grunder anses
ega giltighet för det nya konungahusets arfsrätt,
till dess de i laga ordning ändras. - Under den
svensknorska unionen blef S. 0. af 26 sept. 1810
enligt Norges grundlov af 4 nov. 1814, § 6, och
riksakten af 6 aug. 1815, § 2, tronföljdslag äfven
för Norge, men genom unionsupplösningen 1905 har den
åter blifvit gällande blott för Sverige. S. B.
82.181.239.182 (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nordisk familjebok: tronföljd 

message: None of the arguments in favor are actually arguments:
# Why are subdivision and selling property (or pressures to sell property) bad? As section "Arguments in fovor" mentions, there has even been an argument that subdivision of land is a good thing.
# How can the conquistadors and English gentry settlers to America be seen as a good thing??  They caused many terrible things, including enslavement, slave trade, genocide of native peoples, and economic exploitation of poorer settlers.
# The text admits that the argument for Japan is flawed because there were very few opportunities for female empresses to "prove" that they can be "good" in whatever sense one wishes to consider.
-Pgan002 (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments in favor? 

message: The statement  "In the 19th century, only the Bourbons and Savoys among Europe's historic national dynasties continued to exclude women from succession" is wrong.  As one example, the House of Hanover observed the Salic law; otherwise, Queen Victoria would have succeeded as Queen of Hanover as well as Queen of England.  But because of the Salic law, her uncle the Duke of Cumberland succeeded as King of Hanover.
---
but was 'Hanover' a nation ?  instead of a slice of a nation... 82.181.239.182 (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "It is a popular myth that Victoria was blocked from the Hanoverian succession by Salic law".  I hate to be picky but this is the sort of hyper-technical picky remark that confuses rather than enlightens.  Semi-salic and Salic give the exact same result until a dynasty actually goes complete extinct which obviously is quite rare.  To write "Salic" instead of "semi-Salic" may be technically wrong, but is far too minor a transgression to warrant talk of "popular myth" !! Jamesdowallen (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous statement re 19th-century Europe 

message: I had my head chopped off in a debate a few years back about the meaning of "Direct Descent". Does it imply agnatic primogeniture or is it genealogical grandstanding? Some clarification would be appreciated. Thanks. 
Paul. 
Paul Roberton (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people seem to use "direct descent" just to mean what I'd call "descent."  These people, believe it or don't, would say that the present Prince of Wales is "descended" from the childless King Edward VIII, but "directly descended" from Edward's brother, King George VI.  Jamesdowallen (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

text: A direct descent is thus: Son/Daughter, Grandson/Granddaughter, Great-Grandson/Great-Granddaughter etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

text: No, those women ascended the throne because they had no brothers. Had they had a brother (even a younger brother), they wouldn't have ascended the throne. They ascended according to the rules of male-preferance cognatic primogeniture. Absolute cognatic primogeniture was only invented in 1980. Surtsicna (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What, pray tell, is "Direct Descent"? 

message: I reverted the addition on "unintended effects..." because it didn't contain sources.  When I looked at the rest of the article, however, a lot of it is lacking sources.  This is a significant problem. There are some fairly detailed claims, both scientific and historical, in this article, that desperately need sourcing.  Wikipedia requires all information to be verifiable through the use of reliable sources.  Personally, I was tempted to scrap everything in the "Arguements for...," "Historical Examples," "Historical reasons...," and "(Unintended) effects..." sections until reliable sources can be found.  I may well come back and do that in a few days if no sources are found.  At this point, a reader has no way of distinguishing any of this from original research.  I am assuming that the people who added this info have sources for their information, so I would urge them to start adding citations--it shouldn't be up to others to go out and find sources to support your additions.Qwyrxian (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As a side note, I am going to the list in "Other Methods" section, because it doesn't belong here--for example, in the article on cars, you don't find a list of other types of vehicles, just a brief description and link to the main article; I'll do the same thing here later on today.Qwyrxian (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations desperately needed 

message: I agree this page needs a major edit.  All I got out of it was eldest son comes first. Which everyone knows already.  Then all this agnate and cognate stuff...whatever that is.  Please define the terms (hyperlink them to a valid explanation).
So here's the question, which, if the answer was in the article, good luck finding it.  The king has 3 sons, Albert, Bobby and Charlie.  King Dies, Albert ascends.  Albert dies without issue.  At the time of Albert's death, Bobby is deceased.  Bobby's son Bobby Jr is age 32.  Charlie is living, aged 30.  Who is the new king?  Bobby Jr (ie, like a depth first search) or Charlie (like in a breadth first search)? 
Thanks to anyone who can knows for sure; I think an example like this belongs in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.124.153 (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bobby Jr. (i.e. Robert II) becomes king if the crown passes according to primogeniture. For example, William IV had four younger brothers. The eldest of those younger brothers, Edward, had a daughter, Victoria, but died before William. The other three brothers, younger than both Edward and William, were alive when William died. But since they were younger than Victoria's father, Victoria succeeded to the throne. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help - Simple Question - Not Well Addressed in the Article 

message: I would really like to see a section on Primogeniture in East Asian culture where it has had a long history and deep impact.  I would also like to see the history section split into Primogeniture in the western world + middle east (monotheocratic world) and Primogeniture in the far east.  At the moment only Primogeniture in the western world + middle east (monotheocratic world) seems to be discussed on this topic.  I would venture to write it my self but I do not feel as thought I know enough about primogeniture in the far east to do the subject any justice.--Discott (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Primogeniture in East Asia

message: : In such cases, inheritance was based on uterine kinship. So a king would typically be succeeded by his daughter's husband jure uxoris or by his sister's son.
A king's daughter is not related to him by uterine descent; her husband even less so.  I'm removing the words marked. —Tamfang (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uterine (or Ovarian) primogeniture 

message: Spain is listed as being both absolute cognatic primogeniture and male-preference primogeniture.  Can someone with an authoritative source please clarify.  98.218.255.29 (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain 

message: I'm a bit confused by this paragraph (emphasis mine):
In the 19th century, only the royal houses of Bourbon and Savoy among Europe's historic national dynasties continued to exclude women from succession, while the new monarchies or dynasties of France (under the Bonapartes), Belgium, Denmark (from 1853), Sweden (from 1810), and the Balkan realms of Albania, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Romania, and Serbia introduced Salic law. During this era, Spain fought civil wars which pitted the Salic and female-line heirs of their dynasties against one another for possession of the crown.
According to the wikipedia article on Salic Law, its salient feature on this matter is exactly that it 'exclude[s] women from succession.'  Bonaparte France, 1820, and 1853 would all seem to be during (or on the eve of) the 19th century.  So, how can it be said that only the Houses of Bourbon and Savoy excluded women from succession in the 19th century if all these other countries also followed Salic for at least some part of the 19th century?  I'd fix the grammar if I knew the answer on the substance.  I'm hoping someone else does.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCormac (talk • contribs) 20:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed- it's nonsense.  Throughout the former Holy Roman Empire the Salic law remained in effect- that's why William IV was the last English monarch who was also Elector/King of Hanover.  Victoria couldn't inherit. Solicitr (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, it's accurate. Note the word "historic": The Bonaparte, Balkan and post-Napoleonic monarchies (Belgium, plus Denmark and Sweden under new constitutions) only became Salic in the 19th century -- and none are still so. Previously, these countries were not independent or women had been eligible to succeed. As for the Holy Roman Empire, Salic law was not the norm pre-1800: The emperorship itself was elective, not hereditary at all. The electorships were Salic (because, properly, they were offices of the Empire rather than realms) but the title was only hereditary in four of them (Bohemia, Prussia, Palatinate, Saxony) prior to c.1700, and the remainder (Bavaria, Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Baden, Wurttemberg) were only electorates for between 3 and 100 years before abolition of the Empire in 1806 -- at which point they became kingdoms and adopted semi-Salic succession (except Hesse-Cassel and Baden). Most of the lesser principalities of the Empire were semi-Salic, i.e. women could inherit, but only upon extinction of all males of the dynasty. Semi-Salic and male-preference primogeniture (a daughter inherits after all of her father's male-line descendants, but before her father's younger brothers and their descendants) were the most common forms of succession in Europe's monarchies, pre- and post-1800. Hanover is a widely misunderstood example: because its throne bypassed Princess Victoria of Kent and went to her uncle Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland when she inherited the UK, it's widely but wrongly believed that Hanover's succession was Salic. In fact, it was semi-Salic, thus if no male of the House of Hanover had been alive when William IV, King of Great Britain and Hanover died, Victoria would indeed have become reigning Queen of Hanover. FactStraight (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Say what?  Self-contradicting paragraph 

message: "Many of the early Virginians who were plantation owners were such younger sons who had left England fortuneless due to primogeniture laws."
This enduring myth seems to have been concocted by the planter class themselves, or more likely their post-Civil War descendants.  In fact there is no evidence for it at all: the Virginia planters large and small were with only a few exceptions men of no family at all who were able to acquire large land holdings, mostly through Crown grants, in the New World. In more than a few cases they came over as transported convicts or indentured servants. Solicitr (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virginia planters 

message: Absolute primogeniture is apparently informally called Tolkien primogeniture by some, because he used it for the Ruling Queens of Númenor decades before it happened in actuality... AnonMoos (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not called "Tolkien primogeniture" but "Numenorian primogeniture". But you're right, this usage has gained considerable acceptance in genealogical circles in recent years. FactStraight (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Tolkien

message: The paragraph on the inheritance rules for the X chromosome is incorrect.  A female inherits one X chromosome from her father intact, however, the one that is inherited from her mother goes through recombination.  Even the one that was inherited from her father was previously inherited from his mother after going through recombination.  So, it is not the case that X chromosomes can be passed down through the generations intact like the Y chromosome (only about 95% of the Y chromosome is passed down intact, the rest goes through recombination with the X chromosome).
This section on the X Chromosome is complete nonsense and should be deleted.
Wemagor (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  X chromosomes 

message: In medieval Anjou, it was actually the custom that those closest to a deceased lord would be the heirs:  that is, a king's younger son would inherit ahead of the grandchildren born to a deceased older son.  Inheritance goes through a complete sibling set before proceeding to any grandchildren.  This is fairly important because it specifically became a focal point for the inheritance argument following the death of Richard I of England.  Of Henry II's surviving three sons (Richard, Geoffrey of Brittany, and John), Geoffrey died in 1187 but his pregnant wife later bore a son, Arthur of Brittany.  Richard died without issue in 1199.  Arthur claimed that, under normal primogeniture law, as the son of John's older brother Geoffrey, he was the lawful heir to the throne.  John countered that inheritance law in Anjou always favored "those closest to deceased", i.e. all siblings without one generation, favoring younger sons ahead of the children of older sons.  Ultimately of course, what played a major role in deciding the issue was that Richard I himself, when mortally wounded, ordered that John was his legitimate heir - because Arthur was a young boy of 12 and under the influence of King Philip II of France.  So is there a technical term for this kind of inheritance law, which "exhausts a sibling set" before proceeding to grandchildren?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.197.76 (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called succession according to agnatic seniority, and is still the way that the throne of Saudi Arabia is inherited among the male-line descendants of the dynasty's founder, Ibn Saud. It is an alternative to primogeniture, therefore deserving separate treatment in its own article. FactStraight (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Primogeniture in Anjou and the Angevin Empire

message: Salic Primogeniture gets its name from the Salian Franks. The Salian Franks were the Franks who lived "by the Sea side" (probably means the Franks next to the Atlantic Ocean aka the Franks living in modern day France), in comparison to the Ripuarian Franks (probably along or on the side of or perhaps on the other side of the River, I think this was the Rhine river). This was at the time of Clovis king of the Salian Franks, who at some time during his tenure produced a list of laws titled in its present Manuscript form something aproximating: "The Laws of the Franks by the Sea side" now aka "The Salic Law". We know him as Clovis the Great, however there were a number of Frankish Kings of this name, which moderns equate to the name Louis. From this culture we inherit a definition of Primogeniture as passing things to the eldest male child of the last reigning/owning male or his closest living male descendant. This was not what the Scots had at the time of MacBeth, it was what he fought against and what became the way of chosing Kings of the Scots after his death. This was what was in US schools meant when one says "the classic form of Primogeniture", and what was meant in History class when anyone who remembers seeing Vietnahm on TV would have learned of it at that time. Why all this otherstuff is here... and why is this excluded ? 
John5Russell3Finley (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Two reasons: 1st, this article is about primogeniture not about Salic law, which is a feature of one type of primogeniture -- and is only widely remembered as applicable to most European thrones because succession to those thrones was generally misunderstood: even today most people think that Germany, especially, practiced Salic law and that Queen Victoria failed to become Queen of Hanover when she became Queen of Great Britain because of it, whereas the truth (as stated in sections above) is that almost all German realms, as well as Russia, descended by semi-Salic law (i.e, it was always theoretically possible for a woman to reign if all males of her dynasty -- not just the male issue of her father, as in Britain's male-preference primogeniture -- died out). The fact that this only happened in post-Napoleonic Europe in the House of Nassau (twice: once to Wilhelmina of the Netherlands in 1890, and once to Marie Adelaide, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg in 1912) reflects sheer chance and the fact that pre-19th century most German dynasties didn't practice primogeniture at all and therefore proliferated a lot of cadet branches, so there were usually plenty of males to inherit, although often very distantly related to the senior reigning branch. 2nd, since 1980, most European monarchies have adopted gender-neutral succession, and feminism has swiftly neutered primogeniture so that it no longer carries the implicit meaning of "masculine primogeniture", which is what everyone (mis)interpreted the word to mean until 40 years ago. So Wikipedia is retro-actively re-defining the term (just as the words "husband" and "wife" are being expunged in favor of "spouse", even though that's not what most people say or write -- yet). FactStraight (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salic Primogeniture 

message: It seems misleading to start by saying that "primogeniture is the right, by law or custom, of the firstborn son to inherit ..."m and then in the second sentence to say "Historically, the term implied male primogeniture ...." Yes, but.  It seems to me that it might be more helpful to say "Primogeniture is the right, by law or custom, of the firstborn child to inherit ....  Historically the term implied the priority of male children ..." or something similar.  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentences 

message: The opening paragraphs claim that the birth of Prince George has made the issue of primogeniture "moot" in the UK for "a generation". Given that a generation is typically reckoned at 30 years, this claim should be viewed as incorrect, since it is very easy to imagine that if a second child was born who was female, there would be questions of eligibility for the throne in the case of the first prince being ineligible, for whatever reason, whether choice, mental incompetence, or death. There's no certainty it will be moot for the next 30 years. Tsop (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "moot" was put in the article a month ago (03:50, 7 August 2013), but it is not clear what is intended by this in plainer English. The law of succession has not yet been changed; it may have been by the end of this year, or sometime next year. Mootness explains that the ordinary British meaning of "moot" is "debatable", but what is debatable about the present law of succession under which Prince George is next in line after his father, and so he will be when the law is changed, whether or not any sister or brother is born, who would become next in line after George? As soon as the law is changed, the next in line after George will be immediately determined. So far as primogeniture is concerned, there will be nothing to debate about. There will only be a change, according to the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, if there happens then to be any daughter who will move up the line above a brother born after her. Qexigator (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect claim in opening paragraphs 

message: I was going to integrate a statement that I was moving from a matriarchy article revision, where it didn't belong, into this article, but I wasn't clear where to put it; and it lacks a citation:
Even in patriarchical systems of male-preference primogeniture, there may occasionally be queens regnant.
What it would add to the article is that the queen as inheritor can inherit the full power to rule, i.e., being female does not mean that her rule is only symbolic with a man lawfully making her decisions. However, without a citation and given the several varieties of primogeniture described in the article, it's unknown how a source would contextualize it and therefore where it would go. If anyone knows about this better than I do, please edit as you see fit.
Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  inheritance by queen regnant 

message: They must have some kind of rule.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.38.22.202 (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saudi Arabia? 

message: All 16 Commonwealth realms have adopted absolute primogeniture succession. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonwealth realms 

message: I'm sorry if this sounds very pedantic, but the meaning of the word 'primogeniture' is "the state of being the first-born child" (Oxford Dictionary as on the Apple Mac). As far as I know that is all it is. Primogeniture does not have a specific reference to the gender of that child. The opening paragraph of the article is, therefore, misleading when it states that it is the custom of males inheriting.88.107.148.102 (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "Primogeniture" 

message: After a little further research in the Encylopaedia Britannica 1963 edition, it appears that 'primogeniture' does, indeed, refer to the "eldest son and his issue" (EB/1963; vol18, page492). That means that my comment above (The word 'Primogeniture') is incorrect and should be withdrawn. Luke Wiseman88.107.148.102 (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "Primogeniture" revisited 

message: According to the article Monarchy of Canada (if I'm reading it correctly), Canada is still male-preference. Therefore the statement "...and the other Commonwealth realms", may well be misleading. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take any further discussion of this issue to Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada#Succession  to keep the discussion in one place. Meters (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: :
This formulation includes some circumstances that do not cause abeyance, and omits some that do.
As I misunderstand it, the cause is that the English common law of inheritance recognizes no seniority among sisters.  Whenever two or more sisters (or their heirs) reach the top of the queue, no one inherits the whole claim, so the title becomes abeyant.  This can happen if the late titleholder had no sons and two daughters, or no children, no brothers and two sisters; or if the title would have passed to a cousin, who had died leaving two daughters ...
If the founder of the lineage had several sons, each of whom had one daughter, then there are "more than one descendant in the legitimate female line" — but that's not enough to cause abeyance. —Tamfang (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  abeyance 

message: It would be nice to show on a hypothetical family tree the various kinds of primogeniture, the current prose description of the different kinds feels confusing and the wording inconsistent. Wave32 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primogeniture diagrams 

message: Odd that the article mentions Monaco but not Liechtenstein.  Maybe I'll deal with that when I'm less frazzled. —Tamfang (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  the other tiny principality 

message: The grammar in the "Preference for males" section is weird and confusing.  It seems to have a lot of run-on sentences, and strange grammar.  Example: `Added to this, on any necessary remarriage from death in childbirth.`  This sentence seems to be missing a verb.  I don't know what it is trying to say, so I can't fix it. ----Cowlinator (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The grammar in the "Preference for males" section is weird and confusing.  

message: The article has two "Historical examples" sections, for some reason: So I have merged them together (in practice, the second section was more complete, so pretty much the only thing to add from the first was the "Unreferenced" template). I trust everyone is OK with that. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical examples 

message: I've changed the layout here, to make it a bit clearer.
#Matrilinear primogeniture belongs with the other Orders of Succession, so I've moved it up
#Salic, and Semi-Salic primogeniture are just alternate terms for agnatic and (a very strict) male-preference inheritance, so I've moved them to an Other Terms section.
#The arguments for and against are arguments regarding primogeniture, not male preference, so I've put them in an Arguments section
#I don't what to do with the Preference for Males section at all; it's a separate issue, but maybe should have arguments for and against as well.
I've also re-written the lead sentence; as was pointed out above, the reference given says that primogeniture means the first-born child inherits; it is only by default that it usually implies the first-born (legitimate) son. So I have re-written the lead sentence to reflect that. It doesn't change anything else much, so we might as well be accurate. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: In section "Preference for males", it was less than clear to me on first, second and third readings precisely what is the intention - particularly how the meaning of the second clause relates to the first - of the sentence, "Eldest daughters could find themselves under a situation of duress on remarriage, and the concept of the trophy bride if the husband were slain is one resonant in many cultures especially before the 20th century."  
Perhaps an editor who does fully understand could elucidate, rewriting the sentence a little less opaquely as befits an encyclopaedic work. Hedles (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm charitably guessing that it refers back to marrying someone outside of your political sphere. Such the eldest daughter of a king might become justifiably concerned for her safety if he has remarried to a woman from a country that is in turmoil, since she could then very well be seen as a "trophy" if captured by those new enemies. I'm assuming this based on the reference to the Spanish Armada. GraveyTrain2124 (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trophy bride 

message: I feel like the diagrams of absolute primogeniture, male-preference primogeniture etc. need a key to explain what's going on. I understand the terms but the diagrams would be so much more intelligible with labels. Wikiwikiwoolgar (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labels for the diagrams 

message: Since none of the arguments reference any serious philosophical arguments for or against, the whole section is pointless. It's just the personal opinions of wiki editors. Delete the whole thing? Aminomancer (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove "Arguments" section 

message: Why even link to the article for female infertility when the linked article says nothing about female infertility prior to the 20th century, as it claims? GraveyTrain2124 (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  10% of women were infertile, but no source? 

message: Most Gulf countries are agnatic appointment, not agnatic primogeniture, as the maps show at the moment. --37.144.245.25 (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gulf countries 

message: Why does Cognatic primogeniture redirect here, but the page doesn't define it at all? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cognatic primogeniture