Talk:Patrilineality

Merge. Patrilineage is a stub of a stub and is compatible with this larger article. Lethiere 22:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

How does that fit into the context of the article? We are speaking about patrilineality and not ancient ideas about conception. --Sven Lotz 11:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is clearly relevant. Aristotle's one-seed theory could be used to justify an agnatic theory of relationship, while Galen's two-seed theory fits with a cognatic theory. And Galen lived around the time when Roman law was making the change from one to the other.

If you want the article to be confined to the legal and sociological issue, the part about Y chromosomes and mitochondrial Eve should also go; but once the scientific and medical side is mentioned at all, ancient theories are as relevant as modern, if not more so (as they were a possible influence on ancient institutions). --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There was a fairly miserable article on Agnatic succession (see old version here). As it was little more than a single sentence definition I've brought it over here as a subheading and redirected the original page. Analysis of how articles reference the topic indicate that many of them point to Patrilinearity anyway. I'm working on improving it here, and I've fixed most of the pages that linked to the aforementioned article Manning (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Adding the actual original content from the "fairly miserable" stub, to make the section understandable—because that omitted material actually defined the title term. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

…fails to explain the nature of this type of accession in any clearly understandable way, before it launches into a complex example. Attention from an expert please, who can explain directly, and in encyclopedic terms/level. what this technical term means (saving me another trip to Britannica). 71.239.87.100 (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Have made edits to structure and content from other WP articles, to strengthen this. Article still contains much on British monarchy that is tangential, and lacks clarity in defining the section title concept, and relating it to the article as a whole. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

This entire paragraph:

"Some European dynasties have had their traditional agnatic succession replaced with absolute primogeniture, meaning that the first child born to a monarch becomes the heir to the throne, regardless of the sex of the child. Great Britain and the Commonwealth recently made a move towards this form of succession.[9] After reaching an agreement in principle at a meeting of the heads of the 16 remaining Commonwealth monarchies in Perth, Australia in 2011, the law's passage took on a new sense of urgency in December 2012 when it was announced that the Duchess of Cambridge was pregnant (although, in the event, the child turned out to be male). The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 was passed into British law on 25 April 2013 but will only come into force once all 15 other Commonwealth Realms also approve it.[10]"

…should, in my option, be removed to the absolute primogeniture article, which lacks this information and is weaker for lacking it. Here, it distracts from the section, because it is largely irrelevant. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. FactStraight (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Political dimension in modern terms needs to be discussed. -Inowen (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply