If we did not have a monarchy I suspect that we might well be talking about whether the Blair children might come back to save the Labour party, or whether the Thatcher's have yet produced another family member with Margaret’s grit.

The hereditary principle has naturally evolved from the management of large families, clans or  tribes. Each member has a natural investment and ownership in the society, and the children of  the chief are in a unique position to learn from the chief while possessing a genetic relationship.  Of course, in the past, the chief was predominantly male (but by no means exclusively) on  account of the sheer physical nature of protecting and defending the tribe and its assets. Our  society is no different in that we need leadership and government. Much of the warfare has been  turned into intricate diplomacy and negotiation, as well as a greater understanding of the issues  that our society faces. As of October 2024, the UK has had four prime ministers in as many years  and it takes time for an incoming prime ministers to become fully abreast of all the issues in the  country, and there is no guarantee that their term will end suddenly like Liz Truss who lasted only  45 days in 2022. The Earl of Devon has offered the following thought on the nature of hereditary peers:  

“There was an interesting debate the other day [in the House of Lords] about the  hereditary peerages, and someone stood up and said: ‘You know these people, how did  they get here, these hereditary peers?’ And I happened to be sat next to the Duke of  Wellington. It’s very obvious how he got here. You know, the Duke of Wellington, there’s a  picture of him [in the Lords] at the Battle of Waterloo? It’s like, how do the rest of them get  here? You never really know.”  (The Guardian 23/09/2024)

Hereditary Monarchy

The Royal Family have all the issues in the country encoded into their genetic existence, but when  the monarch dies or abdicates, how is the new monarch to be chosen? If the successor is to be  chosen by the family, this can open the family up to divisions, politics, powerplay and chicanery,  especially by the more unscrupulous members of the family. If the choice of successor is not  arbitrary then the problem of internal family politics is mitigated, though admittedly not  eradicated. The heir apparent is to be the first-born child of the monarch followed by any child  born to the heir, then the next child born to the monarch and any children born to them, etc.

Primogeniture?

In the UK with King Charles III, the heir apparent is Prince William of Wales, then his son George,  etc. then Prince Harry Duke of Sussex followed by his children and so on. This is called  primogeniture – passing the title to the first-born – and the beauty of this principle is that it is  stable and in no way arbitrary. It allows the first-born child to be aware of the responsibility that  the role of monarch possesses and for life-long preparations to be made for this. The hair  apparent can be instructed in the issues facing the country, take an active role in representing the  national interests and prepare to be the focus of the National Identity.  

Of course, there are complications, and the history of the UK monarchy has several. One of the  rules that qualifies primogeniture in the U.K is that the reigning monarch cannot be a Roman  Catholic. This has been in force since the Glorious Revolution of 1788 when the Roman Catholic  King James II was deposed for trying to undermine the Church of England. In principle, his line  should have continued with his son, James, and grandson, Charles (Bonny Prince Charlie).  Instead, parliament chose to replace him with his daughter Mary II and her protestant husband  William III who himself was a grandson of Charles I. Mary died in 1694 and William reigned alone  until 1702. He was succeeded by Queen Anne who was another daughter of James II. When she  died in 1714, outliving all her children, the line of succession passed over closer members of the  Royal Family on the grounds that they were Roman Catholic and eventually settled on George the  Elector of Hanover who was the great-grandson of James I. This was not without the supporters  of James II trying to reinstate his successors, known as the Jacobite line.   

While the Jacobites were largely unsuccessful, it is interesting to note that a significant group of  Jacobites married into the Spencer family. One of most significant members of the Spencer family  was Lady Diana Spencer who married Prince Charles of Wales in 1981 and bore Princes William  and Harry in 1982 and 1984. This means that, when he finally succeeds to the throne, Prince William will reunite the Jacobite and Hanoverian lines of the monarchy after nearly 300 years.  However convoluted this succession might have been, the hereditary principle in the UK has  prevented the monarchy from being a free-for-all by giving definite rules in order to control how  the monarchy continues.  

Until recently, the rule of primogeniture was that the monarchy would pass to the first-born son  of the monarch and then to the male heirs before the female – this is known as agnatic  primogeniture. In the UK, however, the evidence that a ruling queen is good for the country has  been overwhelming as we can see from the examples of Queens Elizabeth I, Anne, Victoria and  Elizabeth II. The opening of primogeniture to allow for a first-born female heir apparent is obvious  and good for the country and is a movement from the agnatic primogeniture to absolute  primogeniture where the sex of the heir is irrelevant. Such a move from the agnatic to absolute  primogeniture for the hereditary peerage also ensures that the family lines are in less danger of  extinction and thus preserve the heritage of the country.