Thoraiya DyerBattling Sexism in the British Monarchy – But Are Leadership Traits Inherited?
May 17th 2008 11:10
An equality law giving a monarch’s female children equal rights to inherit the throne seems, at first, like an excellent idea. Who says boys make better leaders than girls? They don’t call Elizabeth I’s reign “The Golden Age” for nothing. Why not let the oldest child, regardless of gender, inherit?
The Daily Mail ( Really Long Link ) reported on 21st April this year that Solicitor General Vera Baird intends to draft a bill, not only to end male primogeniture in the British Royal Family but to repeal the ban on marrying Catholics.
Says the newspaper article:
“The single equality bill to be drafted later this year, will bring together existing laws on sex discrimination, age, race, disability, sexual orientation and religion.
The Solicitor General told the Sunday Times: "I have always thought that what we have to do with the Royal Family is integrate them as far as possible into the human race."
She added: "The ban on Catholics should be abolished too, because that is discriminatory."”
Interestingly enough, it seems like the Australian government would have to agree to any such changes:
“Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay, who has raised the issue with successive prime ministers, has welcomed the move.
But he said Ms Baird was "naive" if she thought Westminster could act on its own to change the rules, as under the Statute of Westminster 1931 any change would have to be agreed by the parliaments in all countries which have the Queen as head of state.”
What I find bizarre is that Ms Baird claims to be crusading to change the law in the interests of the royals themselves, to try and make them more “normal”.
Actually, the NORMAL way for people to reach positions of responsibility and power in the developed world involves a great deal of study, passing of exams, proof of good character, extensive experience, and, finally, a vote by the masses.
What makes us think, in this day and age, that just because someone’s ancestors proved fit to rule, they themselves are inherently fit to rule?
Are leadership traits genetic?
First, I guess, we have to decide what good leadership traits are. People may disagree with me, but I think intelligence, honesty, courage, vision, competence, fairness and broad-mindedness are essential in a good leader.
Time to hit the science journals to find out what’s nature and what’s nurture.
A 1990 study ( Really Long Link ) conducted with identical twins separated at birth concluded that intelligence is 70% inherited.
More recently, a 2005 search for genes responsible for variations in intelligence ( Really Long Link ) were tentatively successful; they estimated that,
“Between 40% and 80% of the variation in human intelligence (IQ) is attributable to genetic factors.”
Honesty, or the lack thereof, on the other hand, seems to be mostly learned, as are many other moral values such as fairness and broad-mindedness. They are beneficial in some situations and harmful in others, so I suppose there is no clear way for nature to select for them. All nature can do is serve up a mixed bag and leave it to society to decide what is needed at any one point in time.
Some might argue that honesty is detrimental to an ambitious leader.
Courage?
I can’t find any evidence that courage is inherited, either.
Vision?
This trait is difficult enough to define, much less pin onto sections of chromosome. Part of it may be intelligence. Part of it may be the ability to make intuitive leaps. Part of it may be taught.
Although, if something has to be taught, who has better resources than the Royal Family? Who else would be allowed to fly helicopters around just for the heck of it? Money can probably make up for all sorts of character defects.
Competence, for example. This attribute is going to combine natural aptitude with the results of education and training. Education and training, you can pay for. Natural aptitude, probably not.
What should the King or Queen of England have a natural aptitude for?
Traditionally, the monarch would be expected to be competent at swordplay, archery, horse riding and hunting, not to mention diplomacy and war strategy. Sadly, if we want these, we would better off looking outside the British Royal Family.
Swordplay – strength and stamina would have to win out here. Black men have natural aptitude and should be King.
Archery – long arms and ability to focus are important. Korean women have a natural aptitude and should be Queen.
Horse riding and hunting – small women on large horses win equestrian events every year. Spanish girls should be Queen.
Diplomacy – of the last 10 winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, 3 have been from the United States: Jody Williams, Jimmy Carter Jr. and Al Gore Jr. An American should be King of England.
War Strategy – Sun Tzu was Chinese and Ghengis Khan was Mongolian. Someone from the Gobi desert should be King of England.
What’s that, you say? Those aptitudes are outdated?
You’re quite right. These days, the monarch needs to be good at two things: (1) Appeasing the tabloid media (and therefore the unwashed masses) by dressing snappily, waving happily, shaking hands with foreign leaders, sponsoring obscure charities and having spectacular relationship breakdowns in public (2) obeying British Law, or at least keeping it quiet when you have a drug habit.
Yes, we’ve reached the crux of the matter at last. It doesn’t matter if leadership traits are inherited. It doesn’t matter if the British monarch is male or female.
It doesn’t matter, because nothing that the monarch does matters. So you might as well leave the laws how they are, Vera. The only people who care about them are wieners like Alexander Downer who think that clinging to traditions somehow ennobles our savage, colonial spirits.
I’d rather be subject to the dominant female on Meerkat Manor, myself.
The Daily Mail ( Really Long Link ) reported on 21st April this year that Solicitor General Vera Baird intends to draft a bill, not only to end male primogeniture in the British Royal Family but to repeal the ban on marrying Catholics.
Says the newspaper article:
“The single equality bill to be drafted later this year, will bring together existing laws on sex discrimination, age, race, disability, sexual orientation and religion.
The Solicitor General told the Sunday Times: "I have always thought that what we have to do with the Royal Family is integrate them as far as possible into the human race."
She added: "The ban on Catholics should be abolished too, because that is discriminatory."”
Interestingly enough, it seems like the Australian government would have to agree to any such changes:
“Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay, who has raised the issue with successive prime ministers, has welcomed the move.
But he said Ms Baird was "naive" if she thought Westminster could act on its own to change the rules, as under the Statute of Westminster 1931 any change would have to be agreed by the parliaments in all countries which have the Queen as head of state.”
What I find bizarre is that Ms Baird claims to be crusading to change the law in the interests of the royals themselves, to try and make them more “normal”.
Actually, the NORMAL way for people to reach positions of responsibility and power in the developed world involves a great deal of study, passing of exams, proof of good character, extensive experience, and, finally, a vote by the masses.
What makes us think, in this day and age, that just because someone’s ancestors proved fit to rule, they themselves are inherently fit to rule?
Are leadership traits genetic?
First, I guess, we have to decide what good leadership traits are. People may disagree with me, but I think intelligence, honesty, courage, vision, competence, fairness and broad-mindedness are essential in a good leader.
Time to hit the science journals to find out what’s nature and what’s nurture.
A 1990 study ( Really Long Link ) conducted with identical twins separated at birth concluded that intelligence is 70% inherited.
More recently, a 2005 search for genes responsible for variations in intelligence ( Really Long Link ) were tentatively successful; they estimated that,
“Between 40% and 80% of the variation in human intelligence (IQ) is attributable to genetic factors.”
Honesty, or the lack thereof, on the other hand, seems to be mostly learned, as are many other moral values such as fairness and broad-mindedness. They are beneficial in some situations and harmful in others, so I suppose there is no clear way for nature to select for them. All nature can do is serve up a mixed bag and leave it to society to decide what is needed at any one point in time.
Some might argue that honesty is detrimental to an ambitious leader.
Courage?
I can’t find any evidence that courage is inherited, either.
Vision?
This trait is difficult enough to define, much less pin onto sections of chromosome. Part of it may be intelligence. Part of it may be the ability to make intuitive leaps. Part of it may be taught.
Although, if something has to be taught, who has better resources than the Royal Family? Who else would be allowed to fly helicopters around just for the heck of it? Money can probably make up for all sorts of character defects.
Competence, for example. This attribute is going to combine natural aptitude with the results of education and training. Education and training, you can pay for. Natural aptitude, probably not.
What should the King or Queen of England have a natural aptitude for?
Traditionally, the monarch would be expected to be competent at swordplay, archery, horse riding and hunting, not to mention diplomacy and war strategy. Sadly, if we want these, we would better off looking outside the British Royal Family.
Swordplay – strength and stamina would have to win out here. Black men have natural aptitude and should be King.
Archery – long arms and ability to focus are important. Korean women have a natural aptitude and should be Queen.
Horse riding and hunting – small women on large horses win equestrian events every year. Spanish girls should be Queen.
Diplomacy – of the last 10 winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, 3 have been from the United States: Jody Williams, Jimmy Carter Jr. and Al Gore Jr. An American should be King of England.
War Strategy – Sun Tzu was Chinese and Ghengis Khan was Mongolian. Someone from the Gobi desert should be King of England.
What’s that, you say? Those aptitudes are outdated?
You’re quite right. These days, the monarch needs to be good at two things: (1) Appeasing the tabloid media (and therefore the unwashed masses) by dressing snappily, waving happily, shaking hands with foreign leaders, sponsoring obscure charities and having spectacular relationship breakdowns in public (2) obeying British Law, or at least keeping it quiet when you have a drug habit.
Yes, we’ve reached the crux of the matter at last. It doesn’t matter if leadership traits are inherited. It doesn’t matter if the British monarch is male or female.
It doesn’t matter, because nothing that the monarch does matters. So you might as well leave the laws how they are, Vera. The only people who care about them are wieners like Alexander Downer who think that clinging to traditions somehow ennobles our savage, colonial spirits.
I’d rather be subject to the dominant female on Meerkat Manor, myself.
| 49 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
why?
Comment by Thoraiya Dyer
Demented World
Comment by Ryan B
Oh man... more often than not i totally forget we are even part of the commonwealth..
Then im watching the news, and im like "Govenor general who? Oooooh yeah!! That queen thing!!"
But then again we cant forget the queens biggest responsibiliy; posing for new coins and notes once a year!
(or do they use that same pic from 50 years ago? Maybe she does nothin afterall)