primogeniture

[sardith]

I was just reading that it was today in 1777 that Georgia formally adopted a new state constitution and became the first U.S. state to abolish the inheritance practices of 'primogeniture'. This was a huge departure from the English system, or most of the world at that time.

I know that in monarchial countries, 'primogeniture' is the word they use for succession order of the crown. The same was true, I believe in the Middle East. Would it be correct to say that those who believe that Hosni Mubarak's son is entitled to be President of Egypt are operating under the system of 'primogeniture'?

Also, if you go way back, would this word be considered similar to what they used in the Bible times for 'birthright'?

I would like to know more about this word, please, Dr. Goodword. Please give it a turn in your column.

Thanks,
Sardith

[LukeJavan8]

I stand to be corrected, but I think both refer to
"male" succession. The House of Commons in Britain
is discussing the heir to the throne, be the firstborn
male of female. I believe the Benelux and Scandanavian
Countries already allow first born, male or female, to
be crown-heir. But as I mentioned, I stand to be
corrected. I think in Scripture "birthright" was the
first born male: the Isaac/Ishmael contention, e.g.

[Slava]

Would it be correct to say that those who believe that Hosni Mubarak's son is entitled to be President of Egypt are operating under the system of 'primogeniture'?

Also, if you go way back, would this word be considered similar to what they used in the Bible times for 'birthright'?

To the first question, I'd say probably not. Egypt is supposedly a democracy and they have what they call elections, rigged though they may be. If Mubarak had managed to achieve this, it would have been his own choice, not necessarily an act of primogeniture. A case in point would be N. Korea, where the first son was passed over in favor of the second.

For the second question, I'll go for "in a way." I believe birthright would be something all males would have had back then. Primogeniture or ultimageniture could have been practiced then. All males would still be part of the birthright, but not necessarily in equal parts.

[LukeJavan8]

In Scripture times I believe (again I stand to be corrected) the
oldest son received 2/3 of the property and the rest shared
in the remaining 1/3. This meant younger siblings could
not really survive on their own, and depended upon their
oldest brother, who, because they still had 1/3 still had a
say in the way things are going. It also kept the
property stable.

I see they are refilming "Dallas" again with JR, Sue Ellen,
etc. It is the younger family concerned over the estates.