<
The announcement that Princess Charlene was carrying twins was made
several months ago and ever since, there have been many questions
as to how the line of succession would work in this situation and
in what circumstances each of the twins might be heir.
Crucially, Monaco still uses the system of male preference
primogeniture in its line of succession. This means that all male
children take precedence over any sisters in the line of
succession, regardless of age, the same system still used by a vast
number of the world’s Monarchies – including, for the moment at
least, the United Kingdom and Commonwealth realms.
Monaco’s rules for succession gave three possible combinations for
what would happen for the twins in terms of their place in
succession. If both had been male, it would simply be the eldest of
the pair (i.e. the ‘first one out’) that would be first in line and
thus, one day succeed as Prince. If both had been female,
similarly, the eldest of the pair would eventually succeed
(providing Albert and Charlene didn’t later have another child
which was male). However, if one child had been male and the other
female then, even if the female child had been born first, the male
child would be first in line and one day succeed. This is exactly
what happened.
The two new princely children, Princess Gabriella and Prince
Jacques, were born two minutes apart. Princess Gabriella first. It
was a distinction that would never had made any difference to the
twins’ future as Jacques, being male, was always due to
inherit.
Curiously, the situation playing out in Monaco now – which, so far,
has gone largely without comment in the media – is exactly the kind
that was feared with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in the UK.
Royal watchers will remember that following the announcement that
the Duchess was expecting, senior politicians began frantically
introducing the succession laws, agreed in Perth back in 2011, that
would change the UK’s succession from male preference to absolute
(or “equal”) primogeniture because of fears that the first-born
child, if female, could later be displaced by any male child
William and Kate could have had. Almost 4 years on from the
original agreement and the changes, while not yet in force, are now
firmly on the statute books and set to become active sometime early
in the New Year.
Back in Monaco, meanwhile, the situation feared by British
courtiers and politicians is happening for real. With no plans for
changes to the Monegasque succession rules any time soon, it’s not
too difficult to see how the current set of rules could one day
become a cause for strife. With many monarchies having undergone
the transition from male preference to equal primogeniture, and the
general push for Monarchy to conform to modern sensibilities around
equality, could this point of contention – as a result of being
swept under the carpet or otherwise forgotten in Monaco before the
birth – now cause even greater hassle in the future?
Of course, many would argue that the succession has now been
“settled” through the births and it would be wrong to tamper with
it now. They might be right. It is however, not an issue which will
go away. Monaco, being in the arrangement it is, is unlikely to
undergo any great push from its citizens to update the laws, least
of all now. Though the potential for some form of legal challenge
in the future is one remote possibility.
You might think that now the births have occurred, there’d be no
chance of doing anything. You’d be wrong. There’s even precedent
for it.
In 1980, Sweden updated its succession laws, after two royal births
caused controversy over the parity of male-preference. Princess
Victoria, born in 1977 was Crown Princess (heir) to the Swedish
throne from her birth until the birth of her brother Prince Carl
Philip in 1979. He displaced her as heir. While the pair were still
infants, the law was changed, resulting in Princess Victoria being
restored to first-in-line.
Whether such a change is needed, or will be needed, in Monaco
remains to be seen. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that
Monaco may wish to follow some of its European counterparts down
this road of its own volition. There is of course a uniqueness
about Monaco itself and its Monarchy that could mean it doesn’t
undergo the type of drive for gender equality in its ranks that
demands action, as we’ve seen with some European Monarchies.
The result and response to this monarchial curiosity remains yet to
be seen, but I’m willing to make a prediction that this won’t be
the last you read on the matter.
photo credit: TylerIngram via photopin
cc]]>


Norway also faced a similar challenge when it adopted equal primogeniture. The current King’s young son Prince Haakon was ahead of his older sister Princess Martha when the new law went into effect. Unlike in Sweden, however, the new law was written to impact only heirs that had not yet been born. So, Haakon did not have relinquish his place to his older sister; but Haakon’s son Prince Sverre Magnus did not get to leapfrog ahead of his older sister Princess Ingrid Alexandra when they were born.
I suppose it’s out of the question that twins share the role of heir.
Co-monarchy isn’t unheard of, though I suspect it’s one avenue few monarchies would wish to explore. Not least because of the radical changes needed constitutionally.
While favoring sex-blind primogeniture in the abstract,I think that no country should ever change its law of succession.Right and wrong can not change…if the new law is needed then the old law has always been wrong and all successions under it are suspect.
Your thinking is flawed. It’s not that the old laws were wrong per se, but the laws, like many laws change to meet the needs of societal changes. Laws are not concrete, but ever evolving just like the people they govern.
Right and wrong do not “evolve”,only our understanding of them.Monarchy exists to remind us that the things we can never change are thereby the most important.
Monarchies are man made and therefore can be changed.
There is an ideal model of Monarchy that can not change,and men who presume to change it away from that model harm everyone.
Do you consider male preference primogeniture to be immovably right and therefore unchangeable?
I consider it tolerable.I consider changing a rule on which a current monarch’s title to the throne depends to a different rule to NOT be tolerable.
Twins -“If both had been male, it would simply be the eldest of the pair (i.e. the‘first one out’) …” Wrong! As there are only TWO, the report should have read “elder of the pair”. Ditto for twin females. Eldest only applies when there are three or more. (Grammar nazi on patrol).
Surely it all depends too, on whether these were celebrity ‘caesarean’ twins or normal delivery. My daughter had emergency delivery because the larger twin was forcing its way past the smaller which was in danger of being crushed. As a consequence the smaller was delivered ‘upwards’ first though left alone it would have been second. More answers than questions………….