Talk:Primogeniture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since Cognatic (absolute) Primogeniture is also used in Belgium, Netherlands, Norway are we to believe that they all changed their succession laws after 1980? Or do they somehow differ from "full" Cognatic (absolute) Primogeniture? Rmhermen 23:44, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

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)

Contents 1 Agnatic 2 Confusion, but understandable... 3 Cognatic 4 Agnatic-cognatic 5 Quibbling 6 Authority

[edit] Agnatic

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 living 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)

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 [1]. —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)

[edit] Confusion, but understandable...

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)

[edit] Cognatic

There appears to be several interpretations of what actually strictly means "cognatic primogeniture", and those combating views appear to have grounds or reasons or references behind them. Thus, it is not Wikipedia's task to decide (by majority vote or voice vote or edit war or flaming or whatever) that one of those views gets accepted and others are rejected. The task of Wikipedia in this sort of situation is to present in the encyclopedia article the alternative meanings of "cognatic primogeniture" AND the reasons and references behind each definition/meaning, as well as examples of those usages.... 62.78.104.193 12:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chambers Dictionary has this: "cognatic succession the succession to the throne of the eldest child, irrespective of sex". Seems quite unambiguous to me. —Ashley Y 08:32, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

The mentioned "Chambers Dictionary" clearly shows its ineptitude in that very sentence you presented, by totally another reason: there is the word "succession" and then in the explanation it says "the CHILD succeeds". We know very well that succession may happen in other ways, so that for example children are not the first to succeed, but for example the brother of the predecessor is the first to succeed (cf agnatic seniority) and that such other successions are or have been common. By limiting its explanation to some implied idea that succession is always preferably to predecessors "child", the author of that distionary shows that he has not thought the thing through and that he has not familiarized himself with the topic he is writing about.

After taking note of that ineptitude, how can you expect that anyone takes that dictionary as authoritative on subjects of hereditary succession? I think that in this respect, the Chambers Dictionary and the sentence you presented here, is an example of some hasty work and of mediocre quality. I would not therefore rely on that dictionary's authority. 62.78.120.250 04:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could you please check whether the earlier printings of this Chambers Dictionary you referred to, have used another definition for "cognatic primogeniture".

This is a ridiculous quibble. The dictionary doesn't bother to spell out all the details of succession due to brevity, preferring to simply point out the significance of "cognatic" in an entry on "cognate". Chambers is well recognised as authoritative on the modern meanings of English words. —Ashley Y 05:34, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

No, this is not a ridiculous quibble. Rather, your behavior seems to be ridiculous. Brevity would have been easy to preserve in that dictionary, but your "authoritative" author simply did not bother to know what he was writing about. Brevity would have been preserved for example by saying "Cognatic succession is the succession to the throne irrespective of sex of the heir". if the meaning would be what you have wanted here. But the author at least oversimplified matters, which indicates that he has oversimplified also the meaning of cognatic (succession) here. Please notice also that "cognatic succession" is not necessarily same as primogeniture or seniority, thus the word "eldest" has no legitimate place in its definition. (I guess that your impatient mind soon wants to say that this point is another "ridiculous quibble", since it does not fit into your desires.) In my knowledge, however, "cocnatic succession" is something like "...is the succession to the throne or other inheritance which allows both males and females to be heirs". Please understand that I will not change my opinion in favor of your desire to require equality between genders in those definitions, since I happen to know very well that the usage of the word cognatic only means that both genders are allowed, but the genders may be treated somewhat inequally (and historically have thus been) - there could be a preference for males, but of course I accept that there could theoretically be a preference for females. If you compare this idea with what is known of the usage of "cognate" etc, you will realize that there nowhere is full equality required. Your cognate can be a person whose relationship with you is through fully uterine line, not for example through a line where every second link is female and every second is male (as you seem to require in order to fulfill your desire to have some sort of full equality between genders). 62.78.121.136 06:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some background: according to very reliable dictionaries/encyclopedias, for example in the field of sociological and archaeological studies, With "cognatic descent" scientists undestand "mode of descent reckoning where all descendants of an apical ancestor/ancestress through any combination of male or female links are included". Thus, cognatic descent simply is all descent. It is same as "consanguineal". Another word could be "cognatic kinship". Thus, "cognate" simply is a kinsman or kinswoman with whom one has at least one common ancestor. Thus, I argue, "cognatic primogeniture" and "cognatic succession" refer to a number of alternative lines of succession, the only confition is that the successor and the predecessor are "blood relatives". Therefore, several alternative systems of succession can be classified as "cognatic". What is important, is that in long-time literature at least one of those systems has been classified as "cognatic" - it is the system used in Spain, Britain etc. Very important is also to understand and give account to the fact that 25 years ago, there were NO monarchies where succession order took place irrespective of the gender of the child. The equal succession only then began, firstly in one country. The usage of "cognatic" in analytical texts dealing with systems of hereditary succession etc, had happened already for a century or several. During that time, up to 1980, the only meaningful meaning of "cognatic primogeniture" in research treating existing monarchies and their successions, was those systems of succession where females were allowed but happened to be surpassed when a male existed in the same series of siblings. The actual usage of the term must be taken into account. This is an encyclopedia, not an act of legislation. An encyclopedia cannot be a tool to define a term anew. An encycvlopedia should list the usages (also alternative meanings" of a term. A precise term for that system would of course be for example "male-preference primogeniture". It is all good and well to use precise terms, as far as possible. But since the term "cognatic" has been used about the said system, therefore it is

• unwise to try to limit nowadays the term "cognatic" to a meaning which does not include the said long-time usage
• incorrect to present "cognatic" as a precise system of succession, since it apparently is a group of such alternative systems.

Whereas it would be advisable to present "cognatic succession" and "cognatic primogeniture" as a wider group of alternative systems which have at least one common characteristic: they allow females to succeed. 213.243.190.131 14:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, we should represent the present (single) meaning of the word, just as the rest of Wikipedia is written in modern English. Of course, we should mention that "cognatic" had a different meaning earlier, but secondarily and preferably with references. In particular, this statement is unacceptably POV:

Therefore, it is recommendable not to use the term "cognatic primogeniture" - it will be more clever to use a less controversial, more precise term that describes the exact situation at hand there.

—Ashley Y 20:47, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Ashly in terms of this. Dictionaries are the modern interpetation of our language as spoken today. If the same word had various meanings it is documented there. It is true specific scientific communities have and use various language which means something different within that community, but as this is a larger encyclopediac work I would suggest that we use the most widely understood and accepted use for the word, and note any varience. It would be worth noting that cognatic may have ment something slightly different to earlier centuries. Wikipedia seems a broadly based encyclopedia in most cases. Drachenfyre

Dear Drachenfyre and dear Ashley, you seem to want to bring an anachronism here. Please remember that, as much you may want to further the ideology of feminism, you cannot change the events and usages of the past. History has already happened. 62.78.121.136 06:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The following claims by Ashley made 28.4.2005 contain grave anachronisms and a sad lack of knowledge of history as well as of sociological and archaeological concepts, and I have been obliged to correct them: Ashley had written: "An earlier definition of cognatic primogeniture referred to any form of primogeniture which allows females, and male-preference primogeniture in particular was known as agnatic-cognatic primogeniture. Today, "cognatic primogeniture" refers only to equal primogeniture (below). (Equal primogeniture) is also known as cognatic primogeniture today."

The chief problems with Ashley's writings are:

• even today, equal primogeniture is not the only form of cognatic primogeniture
• agnatic-cognatic primogeniture is not an old term, and therefore it is fully incorrect to try to say that something WAS known as that name. If something uses that name, its tense should be "IS".
• earlier, cognatic primogeniture referred to the same meaning as now is the definition of male-preferred primogeniture. In those days, there did not exist any use of equal primogeniture, therefore it is anachronistic to try to say that in those days, other forms of cognatic primogeniture were even known.

62.78.121.136 07:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The more correct rendering about the same issues is (as I wrote in the main article today):

Male-preference primogeniture is inheritance by the eldest surviving male child, but females may inherit provided the subject has no sons. Nowadays also agnatic-cognatic primogeniture is used in the same meaning. This is the usual feudal primogeniture in the Western European culture. Earlier, also the term cognatic primogeniture referred to this same meaning, but nowadays cognatic primogeniture has extended to refer to any form of primogeniture which allows females.

Absolute, equal or lineal primogeniture is inheritance by the oldest surviving child without regard to gender. This system was virtually unknown in monarchies until the late 20th century - for centuries until its invention, females, if entitled to succeed at all, were at least surpassed by a consistent preference of males. Today, some writers misleadingly refer by "cognatic primogeniture" only to equal primogeniture, although its long use indicates that it originally in practical situations meant the same as male-preferred primogeniture. The first country to adopt fully equal primogeniture was Sweden in 1980.....

62.78.106.114 09:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really doubt the above statements will stand up to full scrutiny. There have been far too many female monarchs throughout history for these sweeping statements to apply to all cultures.--Maviss 65.31.99.19 16:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agnatic-cognatic

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)

[edit] Quibbling

I made a check of contributions to this article, using http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Primogeniture&action=history and its comparison feature.

The results which I received, show that Ashley Y has not added any new piece of information to the article - her few contributions have been her "corrections" of already written terms. Some of which she has then surrendered.

It is reasonable to conclude that Ashley has not shown any additional knowledge, to expand the article. Whereas she has shown that she has some opinions of the correctness of the terms used - opinions that could be concluded to be feministically biased, at the expense of historical knowledge.

There is yet no substantial reply from Ashley listing her credentials in knowledge of history or archaeology or sociology.

In scientific world, persons are usually not taken seriously in debates if they have not, by their individual work, shown their own deep knowledge of the topic and also shown a capability to add to the existing knowledge. 62.78.104.171 10:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not at all impressed by your qualifications. I have provided a reference to an authoritative definition for the modern meaning of the word "cognatic". Please provide a modern dictionary reference that says otherwise. I think most people will agree that a well-respected dictionary such as Chambers carries more weight than an anonymous Wikipedia contributor claiming vague "credentials". And please note that I do not claim any authority of my own, I merely refer to the authority of others.

If you can prove your case with reference to authoritative sources, I shall yield. Otherwise I will have to revert your changes. —Ashley Y 22:40, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

[edit] Authority

"Cognatic succession", today, means specifically equal primogeniture. This is common modern usage:

• Chambers Dictionary has this: "cognatic succession the succession to the throne of the eldest child, irrespective of sex". This is an excellent brief dictionary definition, the anonymous user's nit-picking notwithstanding, and Chambers is a well-respected English dictionary.

• The alt.talk.royalty FAQ says the same thing, maintained by François Velde and presumably representing the collected wisdom of that newsgroup. But they didn't just pull that out of the air, they quote...

• The Monarchy and the Constitution, by Vernon Bogdanor, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995, page 42, which apparently has this for Cognatic Primogeniture: "the right of succession passes to the eldest child of the sovereign, regardless of gender, females enjoying the same right of succession as males"

I accept that "cognatic succession" may have had a broader meaning earlier, and that of course should be mentioned in the article. But in the absence of contrary evidence for the modern definition, I think that should conclude the matter for reasonable people.

I would also like to point out that am only interested in accurately reflecting current usage, and find the charge of "furthering the ideology of feminism" bizarre (nor am I female).

A person may be feminist without being a female. That sort of behavior is most often found in males who want to compensate "for past wrongs".

I shall correct this article (and others the anonymous user has changed) accordingly after 24 hours if no contrary evidence is presented. —Ashley Y 00:01, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

I am not as authority-dependent, apparently, as Ashley Y obviously is. Perhaps it is because I have studied genealogy for a couple of decades, which clearly is something which Ashley Y has not.

If you desire other authorities: Please read a book from the late 19th century, in French, Manuel de Généalogie (shortly "Manuel", which produced a large collection of royal family trees all around the world). There "primogéniture cognatique" is mentioned as the concept according to which Spanish and UK succession took place. Reference: M.Stokvis, "Manuel d'Histoire, de Généalogie et de Chronologie de tous les États du globe", Volumes 1, 2 and 3. Publisher: Leiden, from 1888 to 1893, Source Type: Book, Language: French.

It is somewhat unfortunate that Ashley Y wants hastiness of 24 hours, and timed it so that libraries are not easily accessible because of the weekend and our holidays surrounding 1 May. Since I have known that meaning of cognatic primogeniture for a long time, and regarded it as an established, I have not collected a full list of references in its support. I trust that library is quite full of such.

What I remember, however: In a German source, a book, explaining the claims to the principality of Orange after the death of Willem III, the rival claimants were dubbed as the "kognatisch" heir (King of Prussia) and the "agnatisch" heir (Jan Willem Friso of Nassau). It is totally clear that Prussia's claim did not come from equal primogeniture, but from a male-preference primogeniture, where the ancestress of the Prussian claimant, born a princess of Nassau, had transferred the hereditary right to the hohenzollern line, which had had sons in each generation since that.

The same from a text which told the history behind Isabel II of Spain's accession, and the rival don Carlos, "carlists" against "isabelinos". IfI recall it correctly, the word "cognatic" was there mentioned also about the expected succession by heirs of Isabel's younger sister when mentioning why Louis Philip wanted a marriage of that girl with his youngest son Antoine of Montpensier.

I recall a history text (book) which I read a decade or two ago, where Queen Victoria's succession was said having resulted from cognatic primogeniture, and agnatic primogeniture was mentioned as the alternative which was the other usual primogeniture in those days and according to which Hanover was inherited at the same time. This shows that during the time when equal primogeniture was not in use, the conceptual pair of agnatic and cognatic primogeniture, both in use in those days, had precisely those two meanings. Now, we know that Victoria succeeded, not thanks to her being her father's eldest child, but thanks to the fact that she did not have any brother, since a younger brother would have had preferential position.

Further, there are independent texts around in the internet where cognatic primogeniture is used in the meaning of male-preference primogeniture. For example, I have faced a few times a piece of text where someone had written "cognatic primogeniture" as the explanation of Elizabeth II's accession.

The most important logical reason to hold that cognatic primogeniture means also male-preference primogeniture is the fact that during the time when those genealogist concepts developed and were long used, the equal primogeniture did not exist and users referred to male-preference thing when using "cognatic primogeniture".

It is somewhat disturbing that Ashley Y, a person who in the discussion page of Talk:Naruhito some time ago revealed that (s)he then understood the terms agnatic and cognatic precisely wrong, precisely contrary to their all meaning, is now here dictating. It seems to me that Ashley Y is acting on basis of quite total ignorance.

Ashley Y has apparently confessed not having competence in these topics. And Ashley Y is obviously PARROTING something. Something she calls authority. However, that sort of conduct is dangerous for factual correctness:

• the parrot does not know the the reasoning, any original incertainties etc, behind the text which is parroting.
• the parrot has only someone else's authority behind the claims. And in that situation, it usually becomes too difficult to check the credentials of the authority in question.
• the parrot too easily becomes heated, as she is not genuinely interested in the question and does not want to use time and effort to reflect and study, but wants a rapid solution. I think that actually Ashley Y has now shown such signs of hastiness (or what is the 24 hours and a threat to make unilateral decisions soon).

Could anyone present cases from real world prior to 1980, where the eldest child of the monarch succeeded, explicitly irrespective of the sex??

Francois Velde, from whom I asked by email about that text in his website, wrote that he had not reflected that portion of the text carefully, and that he actually tends to agree with me. He is considering the issue, and it may take some time. Of course, you all are welcome to talk with Francois Velde himself.

Does anyone even have that Vernon Bogdanor's book, so that the quote could be checked, together with its surroundings and context... And who is Vernon Bogdanor? credentials, besides having published a book which may be a law book...

Ashley Y has presented only one book which (s)he has self read (or has it been read?): the Chambers. However, we know that Chambers is a wide collation, whose writers are probably not experts in all topics they write. The tendentious brevity indicates that information sometimes tends to be too simplified. Regarding that particular entry in Chambers, we see that with "succession", there the definition postulates only the next generation, "child", and only primogeniture, whereas we know that succession system in some cases gives, for example, predecessor's siblings rights over the next generation (= seniority) and we know that in addition of primogeniture, there are a number of other mechanisms of hereditary succession. Thus, my conclusion is that the writer of Chambers has here written the first impression that came to the mind, and not thought the question as a whole. Thus, the definition in Chambers is more like an example than a covering definition. And because this sort of backgroung is proven, it indicates that the same writer has possibly made a similar simplification with the word "cognatic", too.

In my opinion, Ashley Y tries to put too much emphasis to "modern" / "current". Besides the fact that the current usage has not shrinked to cover only the meaning which Ashley Y wants, and that also it did not have a broader meaning earlier but a meaning which is another than Ashley Y now presents, there is the fact that it has had at least two meanings in a way that existing books and discussion today (= currently = in our modern times) yet use also the other meaning than the one Ashley Y wants. Ashley Y is not able to make those genealogical, history, sociology, law and archaeology books disappear where cognatic primogeniture is used meaning precisely our male-preferred primogeniture. It should not be allowed in Wikipedia that the content of a term is changed towards a clearly more restricted meaning, or to another meaning, if the disappearance of the earlier meaning is not proven beyond reasonable doubt. I think there is no proof of disappearance of that "older" meaning of cognatic primogeniture.

Moreover, in these issues, we deal examples and cases which mostly are in history, and therefore yet a higher weight should be given to the meanings of the term that have been used in the past.

Of course I am not against Ashley Y making the article, nor other articles, better (though, for improvements, (s)he has to study more, in order to add something meaningful), but I am strongly against changes that try to claim one or more of following incorrectnesses:

• cognatic primogeniture is exact synonym of what we -in apparent consensus- understand with equal primogeniture
• agnatic-cognatic primogeniture is not a concept used today
• the system of succession whereby Victoria and Elizabeth II ascended, is not (a form of) cognatic primogeniture
• cognatic means something more restricted than all consanguineal relatives (restricted such as only the heir of the ELDEST child, or restricted in a way that cognatic is always totally irrespective of sex, or equal between sexes)
• primogeniture is the only form of hereditary succession

Regarding the use of "cognatic primogeniture" in other articles I want to point out that its meaning is not precise, but has at least two alternatives (even Ashley Y has conceded that at least in past it was used in another meaning). Therefore, if any other article aspires to preciseness or at least tries to avoid potential misunderstandings, the term "cognatic primogeniture" should not be used if equal primogeniture is meant, but the term "equal primogeniture" is apparently sufficiently precise to convey the thing there without inherent potential to misunderstandings. If I may remind Ashley y that the idea here is not her(him) to win at all costs, but to make Wikipedia better, this trying to avoid potential for misunderstandings.

In my knowledge, "cognatic succession" is the succession to the throne or other inheritance which allows both males and females to be heirs. Please note that cognatic only means that both genders are allowed, but the genders may be treated somewhat inequally (and historically have thus been: in cognatic successions of hereditary monarchies, there has existed a preference for males). "Cognatic descent" refers to the mode of descent reckoning where all descendants of an apical ancestor/ancestress through any combination of male or female links are included. It is practically the same as "consanguineal", however illegitimate issue typically excluded if talking about succession in monarchies. A cognate simply is a kinsman or kinswoman with whom one has at least one common ancestor. Thus, "cognatic succession" refer to a number of alternative lines of succession, the only condition is that the successor and the predecessor are "blood relatives". Therefore, several alternative systems of succession can be classified as "cognatic". Cognatic succession may take place using similar specific forms as any other succession: appointment or election, partition, seniority, primogeniture, etc.

In my understanding, cognatic primogeniture nowadays refers to any form of primogeniture which allows females.

So-called male-preference primogeniture (which earlier was the only form which was called cognatic primogeniture) is the usual feudal primogeniture in the Western European culture. In it, the lord is succeeded by his eldest son, and failing sons, by daughters. Great Britain and Spain are today continuing this old model of succession law.

In my understanding, the term cognatic primogeniture referred ealier only to this same meaning, but nowadays cognatic primogeniture has expanded to refer to any form of primogeniture which allows females. 62.78.104.236 08:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is yet no substantial reply from the anonymous user listing contrary evidence, something surely trivial for a researcher with two decades of study in genealogy. I'm disappointed, as I was hoping that the anonymous user might be justified and I might be able to leave this alone. But the desire for accuracy drives me forward, just as it earlier drove me to immediately retract my assertion concerning "agnatic" when I saw that I was wrong. I recommend the same concern for accuracy to the anonymous user if he or she wishes to continue to work on Wikipedia, and warn against getting proudly stuck in one's misconception against a tide of evidence.

The meaning of "cognatic" as it was in the 19th century is not at issue. The question is whether it has changed since then. I have presented evidence that it has, I await any evidence from the anonymous user that it has not. It seems the anonymous user does not so much disagree with the evidence as disapprove of the change, and wishes to promote this disapproval in this encyclopaedia, which really ought to stay neutral in such matters. I have no opinion on whether such a change is a good one, but merely note that we should reflect current usage, while of course mentioning earlier meanings for clarification.

The anonymous user also appears to be confused about the nature of science (here extended to lexicology). Actually, in the scientific world, persons are usually not taken seriously in debates if they cannot provide evidence for their theories (regardless of how much experience they claim). The anonymous user has not actually presented any books or any other evidence that support his or her views, preferring to recall some memory, or quote books too old to be relevant to a recent change, or else puffily allude to experience and qualifications.

I was going to correct the changes immediately, but I decided it would be wiser to allow some time for the anonymous user to present evidence. This has, so far, not been forthcoming. I shall correct the articles at the given time (unless the anonymous user manages to turn something up) as the balance of evidence presented so far clearly supports it. If at some later time contrary evidence is presented, it can of course be discussed here and further corrections made if necessary. I'd certainly be very interested in the specifics of what Mr. Velde has to say, particularly on the subject of the contemporary rather than historical meaning, that is, how the term is actually used today rather than how it "ought" to be used according to some earlier definition — assuming the anonymous user will present his views fairly. In the mean time you may find correct usage of "cognatic" by various royalty buffs (whom I don't doubt the anonymous user will now proceed to pour scorn upon) here: [2] [3] [4] —Ashley Y 10:54, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)