So, in your case the whole concept of a dynasty doesn't exist?!
I fully agree that 'in practice' we belong to both families, however, in hereditary systems not everyone can be king/queen and in terms of royal work they had to choose: especially when princes and princesses married each other: they had to choose where to live: they couldn't be active members of both families, representing for example both Sweden and the Netherlands.
And who should belong to a royal family? At some point a large part of the country would all be 'princes and princesses' and all be part of that same royal family... if each and every descendant of anyone in the royal family would still be considered to be part of that same royal family.
As a side note: is it also problematic that the eldest gets preference over the younger siblings? Is that age discrimination or birth-order discrimination?
No, not at all, I am not arguing the concept of *dynasty* doesn't exist. I was responding to your questions regarding family (I don't consider myself a member of a *dynasty*) as well as the following two statements made by Mbruno [bold facing mine]:
"Many people support male-preference primogeniture
not because they are sexist , but rather because they are traditionalists who would rather see the Crown kept in the same ( patrilineal ) family rather than starting a new dynasty."
No, male-preference primogeniture is in fact sexist. This why many countries have abolished it.
"
The simplest and most straightforward definition is that one is a member of a given family when he or she uses the family's name. And the traditional naming convention, which had been observed in Europe for centuries, was that family names were transmitted in paternal line."
No, an artificial labeling system is
not the simplest and most straightforward definition of who belongs to a given family. Biology is the most simple and straightforward definition.
Furthermore, a naming system that automatically excludes a daughter's children but not a son's is sexist.
Yes, a *dynasty* is distinct from a family and it necessary to construct rules in order to define who is and isn't a member. But again, rules that automatically exclude a daughter's children but not a son's are sexist. And it is possible to formulate rules without incorporating male-preference primogeniture.
And yes, you make a good point. Giving preference to the eldest child over the younger is birth-order discrimination. For me it's not on par with gender-based discrimination and apparently the countries that have rejected male-preference primogeniture in favor of absolute primogeniture agree.
But at the same time, I would never defend my position by insisting it's not a form of discrimination when it is. Likewise, one cannot claim male-preference primogeniture isn't sexist.