We want girls to inherit titles, aristocrats say

[Michael Rhodes]

The laws of succession must be changed to allow noble families to pass down titles to their daughters as well as their sons, hundreds of members of the aristocracy declare today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10052614/We-want-girls-to-inherit-titles-aristocrats-say.html

More than 200 members of Britain’s most distinguished families have called on the Government to end the “outdated and manifestly unfair” laws of succession.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, they argue that the example of the Royal succession, where a first-born daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge could inherit the crown, should be followed by legislation for the nobility.

Calling for an end to “gender discrimination”, they say daughters must no longer be excluded from inheriting their father’s title and estate.

Among the signatories are Viscountess Linley, Lord Beaverbrook, Baroness Grey-Thompson, Baroness Kennedy and Amanda Murray, the eldest of Lord Braybrooke’s eight daughters. The demand is backed by more than 20 MPs so far, including Dr Sarah Wollaston, Aidan Burley and Crispin Blunt.

The campaign was begun by the Countess of Clancarty, Lady Liza Campbell, the Hon Sarah Long and the Earl of Balfour, who called themselves “The Hares” after Lord Trefgarne told the House of Lords the Royal succession Bill had “set running the hare of what happens to the hereditary peerage”.

The Countess of Clancarty, wife of the ninth Earl of Clancarty and mother of one daughter, said the aim of the campaign was simple: to achieve “equality for women in the peerage”.

Calling the current situation a “silly piece of inequality”, she said it was the “only example in modern British life where women are still treated as second-class citizens, enshrined in law”.

“We feel like this is the time for change,” she said. “If not now, when? I find it frustrating and slightly insane that we still have to fight for this.

“The whole idea is that boys are better than girls; it is better for a family to have a boy because they can look after the estate. As long as there is a playing field, how can we live with it not being level?”

The letter is also signed by Lord Monson, whose only son Alexander died in Kenya last year aged 28, found to have received “blunt force trauma” to the head. Lord Monson said: “With the death of my son last year, there is no male heir within eyesight of the next generation. So I think, why shouldn’t my daughter Isabella inherit the title? Like so many of her gender, she has ample, huge skills she could bring to the role.

“My view is that what’s good for the Royal goose is equally good for the noble gander. It would be sad if the Monson title just died out.”

Lady Liza Campbell, daughter of the 6th Earl of Cawdor, raised in “Macbeth’s castle” on the Moray Firth, said it was a simple matter of discrimination. Lady Campbell, who as a second daughter will not benefit from any change in law, said: “It’s been my observation, as a 21st-century woman, that something seems to be very archaic about it all.”

The letter in part states: “From now on, no Royal girl will be considered inferior to her brothers. While we applaud this sensible piece of legislation, we believe if gender equality can be granted to the Royal Family, it is only logical and just that it be granted to all families, including the 1,000 families who carry the UK’s hereditary titles.”

[John Horton]

Yet no-one shouts “Discrimination!” where age (or, to be more precise, position in family) is concerned.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to peerag...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Michael Rhodes]

and surely to properly end discrimination where peerages are concerned ALL the children of a peer surely have the equal right to inherit?

[Jonathan]

I don't see much of a connection with the change in succession to the crown. This has always worked differently from most peerages anyway. If a king had only daughters, they were next in line to the throne, whereas most peerages can not be inherited by females at all. So I find the argument linking this to the succession to the crown to be a weak one.

Also, each peerage has letters patent that specify how it is inherited. If new hereditary peerages were created today, I see no reason why they couldn't be inherited by the first born. But if we are to go back and override patents from centuries ago, perhaps we should also ask if they should still exist at all.

[Michael Rhodes]

I also think that any new hereditary peerages should be gender blind, but the old should be left well alone. Imagine some of the dynastic upsets if this private members bill succeeds?

[Michael Rhodes]

A

BILL

TO

Enable the succession of female heirs to hereditary peerages; and for 
connected purposes.

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and 
consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present 
Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1Female heirs to be eligible to succeed to hereditary peerages

Any hereditary peerage (“hereditary peerage”) in the peerage of England, 
Scotland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom (whatever the terms of the 
letters patent, Act of Parliament or other instrument, if any, creating, or 
5determining the succession of, that peerage) may be succeeded by a female heir 
provided that the requirements of section 2 have been fulfilled.

2Requirements for succession by female heirs

The requirements of this section are that—

(a)the incumbent of an hereditary peerage (“the incumbent”) has, in 
10accordance with the requirements of section 3, petitioned the Lord 
Chancellor in writing for a certificate establishing future succession;

(b)a certificate has been issued in accordance with section 4; and

(c)any female heir succeeding to that hereditary peerage—

(i)has attained the age of 21 years; and

(ii)15has satisfied the Lord Chancellor that she is the oldest surviving 
child legitimately born to the incumbent.

3Petition by the incumbent

(1)An incumbent may petition the Lord Chancellor for a certificate under section 
2 provided that he has—

(a)20taken all reasonable steps to discuss his intention to present such a 
petition with any legitimate children he has; and

(b)sent a draft of such a petition to any such children.

Hereditary Peerages (Succession) BillPage 2

(2)A petition under section 2 must be accompanied by—

(a)a declaration by the incumbent of his wish to be succeeded by any 
female heir who would be eligible to succeed under that section;

(b)documentation to establish any female heir’s right to succeed to the 
5peerage in accordance with the provisions of section 2 and a declaration 
of that female heir’s right to succeed to the peerage made by someone 
who is well acquainted with the incumbent and his family; and

(c)where the incumbent also has a son or sons, evidence that reasonable 
efforts have been made to inform the son or sons of the petition and to 
10provide the son or sons with a copy of the petition and associated 
documents prior to its submission.

(3)Any document or declaration under subsection (2) shall be endorsed by a 
solicitor, Justice of the Peace or a Notary Public.

4Processing of petitions

(1)15Within one week of receipt of a petition under section 2, the Lord Chancellor 
shall publish the name of the petitioner and the details of the hereditary 
peerage that is the subject of the petition.

(2)Any legitimate child of the incumbent of that peerage may lodge an objection 
(“an objection”) in response to that petition within 3 months of its publication.

(3)20An objection must—

(a)set out the reasons for the objection; and

(b)provide any available documentary evidence to support the objection, 
including, if desired, a declaration made by someone who is well 
acquainted with the incumbent and his or her family, before a solicitor, 
25Justice of the Peace or a Notary Public.

(4)In considering an objection the Lord Chancellor—

(a)may invite the persons who submitted the petition and objection or 
objections, and any person appointed by them to represent them, to 
appear in person or to submit further supporting documentation; and

(b)30shall have regard to whether it would be grossly inequitable to allow 
the provisions of section 1 to apply to the peerage in question, and in 
particular to—

(i)the financial consequences of so doing for the child making the 
objection; and

(ii)35whether or not the succession had previously been promised to 
the child making the objection.

(5)The Lord Chancellor shall publish his decision in the case of an objection and 
give his reasons not later than 12 weeks after it is lodged.

(6)Where the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that all of the conditions of section 2 
40have been met and no objection has been lodged under this section, or any such 
objection has not been upheld, the Lord Chancellor shall issue a certificate to 
that effect.

(7)Where the Lord Chancellor upholds an objection, succession shall continue 
according to the letters patent, Act of Parliament or other instrument, if any, 
45creating, or determining the succession of, that peerage.

Hereditary Peerages (Succession) BillPage 3

(8)In the event that an incumbent dies after a petition has been submitted, the 
hereditary peerage shall be vacant until the Lord Chancellor has issued a 
certificate or upheld an objection under this Act.

(9)A decision by the Lord Chancellor under this section is conclusive.

55Effects of succession under this Act

A woman who is, under the provisions of this Act, the holder of an hereditary 
peerage in the peerage of England, Scotland, Great Britain or the United 
Kingdom shall (whatever the terms of the letters patent, Act of Parliament or 
other instrument, if any, creating, or determining the succession of, that 
10peerage) shall—

(a)have the same right to receive writs of summons to attend the House of 
Lords, and to sit and vote in that House, as a man holding that peerage;

(b)be subject to the same disqualifications in respect of membership of the 
House of Commons and elections to that House as a man holding that 
15peerage; and

(c)have all right or interest to or in the peerage, and all titles, rights offices, 
privileges and precedence attaching thereto, and any right, interest or 
power (whether arising before or after succession in accordance with 
the provisions of this Act) in or over any estates or other property 
20limited or settled to devolve with that peerage.

6Succession: further provision

(1)Where a female heir succeeds to a hereditary peerage under the provisions of 
this Act—

(a)succession shall proceed thereafter as though section 1 applies to that 
25peerage, and

(b)the provisions of section 2 shall not apply, provided that any female 
heir succeeding to the peerage meets the requirements of section 2(c).

(2)Nothing in this Act shall accelerate the succession to any hereditary peerage.

(3)Where an incumbent holds more than one hereditary peerage the provisions of 
30this Act shall apply separately to each such peerage.

7Short title, commencement etc

(1)This Act may be cited as the Hereditary Peerages (Succession) Act 2012.

(2)This Act shall come into force on the day on which it is passed.

(3)This Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

[Michael Rhodes]

Daily Telegraph letter:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/10052344/Gender-equality-for-peeresses.html

[Jonathan]

Why does the Bill require that female heirs have reached 21 years of age? There's no age limit on succession to a peerage, only on sitting in the House of Lords which is largely irrelevant now anyway.

[malcolm davies]

The letter signatories should be careful what they wish for-if there is legislation passed to alter the descent of hereditary peerages,it follows that they can all be abolished.

If the legislation is to be enacted,there are the following problems;-

1.There is provision for objections by the existing heirs,but no basis set out as to what is a lawful objection and how it is to be determined.

2.It is not clear how the legislation will operate in respect of titles which become extinct.If the legislation is passed,the daughter of a peer who has no other heirs will have no rights unless a petition is made by the incumbent peer prior to his death to change the succession.

If this is a matter of gender equity,why should changing the succession depend on the actions of the incumbent peer-as I have said before on this topic,if the views of the peer are to be taken into account it should be the peer for whom the peerage was created.There are no doubt many examples where there is some evidence that the peer for whom the peerage was created did not want women to succeed to the peerage.Where that evidence is clear,why should the wished of the incumbent be paid any attention.

[marquess]

I personally  hope that the Bill fails, the solution is to create more hereditary peerages with new remainders as was suggested by an erudite commentator in the Telegraph article of 28th of April (this was the longest comment). 

[malcolm davies]

Michael,

             What it the status of this document?Has it been introduced as a private member's bill?

[Michael Rhodes]

It's a private members bill sponsored by Lord Lucas.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/hereditarypeeragessuccession.html

[malcolm davies]

Michael,

             Thank you for posting the link to the draft bill.

  The language of the draft suggests that the requirements of section 2 will apply to peerages which already allow female succession,and that means it imposes additional requirements before a female succeeds to a peerage.

On Monday, 13 May 2013 18:57:29 UTC+10, Michael Rhodes wrote:

[www.maltagenealogy.com]

I totally agree with your comments here Michael.. All new titles
created (hardly any hereditary ones) to be gender blind. Trying to
change all the Scottish, English, Great Britain and UK titles will be
interesting but then there are those from the Kingdom of Ireland as
well.

C.

On May 13, 7:38 pm, Michael Rhodes <mig73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

[Michael Rhodes]

Count Nikolai Tolstoy in a letter to the Daily Telegraph writes: "Proponents of the campaign to alter the succession to peerages profess their aim to 'resolve the situation as fairly as possible'. But this issue has little to do with fairness.

How can it be 'fair' that an eldest child succeeds regardless of sex, and not the youngest, or another? Perhaps succession should require an IQ test? Or a lottery or a ballot?

What is truly unfair, surely, is the fact that any woman in the land can make herself a peeress by marrying a peer, whereas no man can become a peer save by inheritance.

[Turenne]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:07:32 AM UTC+1, Michael Rhodes wrote:

Count Nikolai Tolstoy in a letter to the Daily Telegraph writes: "Proponents of the campaign to alter the succession to peerages profess their aim to 'resolve the situation as fairly as possible'. But this issue has little to do with fairness.

How can it be 'fair' that an eldest child succeeds regardless of sex, and not the youngest, or another? Perhaps succession should require an IQ test? Or a lottery or a ballot?

What is truly unfair, surely, is the fact that any woman in the land can make herself a peeress by marrying a peer, whereas no man can become a peer save by inheritance.

You are probably right in what you say, though there aren't many people that take Tolstoy's views on any matters particularly seriously.

RL

 

[Pat]

If all children were entitled to a claim on the title how would a decision be reached? Perhaps it could be left to the incumbent to decide which of his offspring should inherit the title but that could result in division within the family and great heartache for all involved. Plus what would happen if an incumbent died without making a will? Or perhaps each heir has to present their case to an outside body, but that could take years and could be expensive; leading to a situation where the family has to sell their assets including land to fund the varies claims - claims that would be made each time the holder of the family title dies. And if you followed this argument through to its logical conclusion why limit the right to inherit to just the children of a peer? Why not extend it to every descendent of the first holder of the title? The reply to which is there has to be some system to decide who inherits and having the eldest child regardless of gender succeed would seem to be the fairest of what is basically an unfair procedure.

As for Count Tolstoy's final point, if females were able to inherit titles there seems no reason why their husbands shouldn't have the same rights as women who marry peers.

The changes to the rules governing the succession to the crown were always going to raise this wider question of succession rights with regard to peerages and one assume baronetages. There are no easy answers to the issues that have been raised but for me it boils down to one question; in the 21st century can we really justify a system of of inheritance that still treats women as second class citizens? For me the answer to that question is no, and not just because of the basic inequality involved but because I fear that maintaining the status quo could eventually result in the abolition of all titles. The more women are denied equal rights when it comes to titles the more ammunition it gives to the opponents of the peerage, and through them to republicans who would see the abolition of the peerage as the first step to the abolition of the monarchy. 

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:07:32 AM UTC+1, Michael Rhodes wrote:

[John Horton]

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com [mailto:peerag...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Pat
Sent: 15 May 2013 16:38
To: peerag...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: We want girls to inherit titles, aristocrats say

 

If all children were entitled to a claim on the title how would a decision be reached? Perhaps it could be left to the incumbent to decide which of his offspring should inherit the title but that could result in division within the family and great heartache for all involved. Plus what would happen if an incumbent died without making a will? Or perhaps each heir has to present their case to an outside body, but that could take years and could be expensive; leading to a situation where the family has to sell their assets including land to fund the varies claims - claims that would be made each time the holder of the family title dies. And if you followed this argument through to its logical conclusion why limit the right to inherit to just the children of a peer? Why not extend it to every descendent of the first holder of the title? The reply to which is there has to be some system to decide who inherits and having the eldest child regardless of gender succeed would seem to be the fairest of what is basically an unfair procedure.

As for Count Tolstoy's final point, if females were able to inherit titles there seems no reason why their husbands shouldn't have the same rights as women who marry peers.

 

The changes to the rules governing the succession to the crown were always going to raise this wider question of succession rights with regard to peerages and one assume baronetages. There are no easy answers to the issues that have been raised but for me it boils down to one question; in the 21st century can we really justify a system of of inheritance that still treats women as second class citizens? For me the answer to that question is no, and not just because of the basic inequality involved but because I fear that maintaining the status quo could eventually result in the abolition of all titles. The more women are denied equal rights when it comes to titles the more ammunition it gives to the opponents of the peerage, and through them to republicans who would see the abolition of the peerage as the first step to the abolition of the monarchy. 

Replace “women” in the above with “junior members of the family” and the same argument applies. Why should junior descendants be treated as second-class citizens or denied equal rights? I’ve yet to see anyone put a case for discrimination based on sex being inadmissible whilst at the same time that based on family position being admissible. Choosing one person is ipso facto discrimination.

 

 

[Jonathan]

Replace “women” in the above with “junior members of the family” and the same argument applies. Why should junior descendants be treated as second-class citizens or denied equal rights? I’ve yet to see anyone put a case for discrimination based on sex being inadmissible whilst at the same time that based on family position being admissible. Choosing one person is ipso facto discrimination.

What about peers who are gay, or who are infertile, and so are unable to produce heirs male of their body lawfully begotten? Should we not allow adopted children also to succeed their parents? If we are to tinker with succession to peerages, surely sexual orientation needs to be consider in the same way as gender, as both are covered by the Equality Act?

I still think the best solution is to accept that the whole point of hereditary peerages is that they were created by letters patent at some point in the past, and the peerage is inherited according to its letters patent. There is nothing inherently discriminatory about the hereditary peerage; titles can be created that can be inherited by daughters (and I would like to see new ones created in the future).

Specific peers complaining about discrimination is farcical anyway, given that the whole basis of the peerage is one of privilege, discriminating between peers and mere commoners. If they are truly worried about inequality, perhaps they should give up their titles altogether.

[marquess]

Jonathan I couldn't agree with you more, if a few new hereditary peerages were created with generous remainders that would be a good thing.

On Monday, May 13, 2013 3:57:29 PM UTC+7, Michael Rhodes wrote:

[marquess]

As to a point raised by Pat about the more likely chance of titles being abolished if 'gender inequality' were to persist, I for one would hope that this would not be the case. Yet even if peerage titles were abolished officially,  in terms of social precedence it wouldn't mean a great deal of difference, Debretts and Burkes would still publish their bi or tri annual works. Perhaps an independent body would be set up just like it Italy to recognise successions. After all a  Hohenloe or a  Rospoli is still a prince with or without official recognition, a thousand years of tradition is not wiped out with the stroke or a pen nor created with one. 

On Monday, May 13, 2013 3:57:29 PM UTC+7, Michael Rhodes wrote:

[Turenne]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 2:39:26 AM UTC+1, marquess wrote:

As to a point raised by Pat about the more likely chance of titles being abolished if 'gender inequality' were to persist, I for one would hope that this would not be the case. Yet even if peerage titles were abolished officially,  in terms of social precedence it wouldn't mean a great deal of difference, Debretts and Burkes would still publish their bi or tri annual works. Perhaps an independent body would be set up just like it Italy to recognise successions. After all a  Hohenloe or a  Rospoli is still a prince with or without official recognition, a thousand years of tradition is not wiped out with the stroke or a pen nor created with one. 

It is interesting to note however, that a woman can't inherit the Ruspoli title of Princ(ess) of Cerveteri, neither can a woman head the princely house of Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingsfürst.

Interestingly; in Austria where all titles are banned including 'von' and 'zu', one noble lady when asked whether it mattered that she could no longer call herself 'Princess X' replied: "It doesn't matter; anyone of importance knows who I am".

RL

[Michael Rhodes]

We should allow a hereditary peer to nominate an heir from among all his or her children says the Hon Adam Bruce ....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10062854/My-father-has-two-earldoms-so-why-am-I-stuck-with-The-Hon.html

[malcolm davies]

Interesting to read the article and comments on it-the commenters seem unable to appreciate the point of the article which in fact argued no change should be made.

Not actually said in the article but a point that should be made is that there is nothing to stop the creation of a peerage for daughters of peers who had no sons and whose title becomes extinct at their death.There are numerous examples of this eg.

 1.The title of Earl of Uxbridge was recreated when the previous peerage became extinct and the estates were inherited by the Baylys.

 2.Likewise the Earl of Leicester was recreated when the Coke estates were inherited by the Roberts.

 3.Likewise the Earl of Bradford was recreated when the Newport estates were inherited by the Bridgemans.

On Friday, 17 May 2013 08:05:34 UTC+10, Michael Rhodes wrote:

[marquess]

I think that the article was most interesting in its argument that the male remainders of most peerages was given knowing that a certain amount of them would die out in a few generations. I think that what the main problem is, is that there are no more hereditary peerages being created- for if there were then one could simply just have more generous remainders. It was also interesting to read another Telegraph article dated 13th instant in which the gov said that it would be unfair to existing heirs to change the rules of succession to peerages, as opposed to the crown, for with the latter no one was deprived of their place in the line of succession. I think that this is a fair point and valid point. I also wonder what would be the general public's reaction to the creation of a few hereditary peerages? 50/50 condemnation or approval? There was also an interesting comment one one the articles, in which the commentator said :'And my Grandfather's grandfather was a King of England, but my Grandfather was plain Mr, or for a while, Lieutenant (RN).  Without primogeniture there can be no stability, no planning ahead.  If all the siblings are forever vying for Daddy's favour, hoping to inherit the title and the land, what chaos and family rows there would ensue. It was primogeniture that prevented our great estates from being broken up into an infinitude of small-holdings, and which, by the way, encouraged younger sons to go and build the Empire, or become Bishops.'  

On Monday, May 13, 2013 3:57:29 PM UTC+7, Michael Rhodes wrote:

[Shinjinee]

I agree that it is primogeniture that allowed the great estates to remain in one family's hands for generations (even if the estates sometimes passed through heiresses as for the Coke family, the Percy family etc none of which are patrilineally descended from the original Cokes or Percys, let alone the first earls of Leicester or Northumberland).  

Tinkering with the language of the original grants means a) that the heir of line of the original grantee does not usually benefit;  b) there is a strong likelihood, indeed certainty of legal battles within families.   On the other hand, this means that if the rules of succession are changed, a lot of hereditary peerages that would probably die out would thus survive.  This would be contrary to the normal lives of hereditary peerages, which tended to die out in the first two or three generations, allowing for new creations for newly important families to be represented in the Peerage.   

For legal battles, I can think of several cases where sisters of current peers have written about their claims to the peerage.  For example, Lady Liza Campbell who writes that her brother has welcomed his sisters on his estate.  If Lady Liza had a claim on the estate or made such a claim, would Earl Cawdor be quite so welcoming? (Especially given his well-known legal and other problems with his stepmother the Dowager Countess Cawdor).  In such a scenario, the peerage might become dormant and the lawyers would benefit.  Is that what Lord Lucas etc intend?  

As for Lord Braybrooke, didn't he inherit only because his predecessor had no sons but daughters?  And the remainder of that peerage was itself a giveaway to a favored field marshal who inherited the barony Howard de Walden, to allow his nephew who had no descent from the Howard family that built Audley End to inherit both Audley End and a peerage.   The Braybrookes got a peerage because their ancestor's uncle left Audley End and the other estates to their ancestor, and not to the rightful heir of line.   Not the first time that an heir has been deprived of an estate, and not the last.... in short, the Braybrookes are lucky to have a peerage and to have enjoyed a historic estate.  (Just because the government was more eager to benefit that field marshal than some of Nelson's admirals in later decades....)

Shinjinee

[marquess]

It has occurred to me that one could legislate in the following way: Firstly any extant peerage  which no longer has legitimate heirs according to its original patent of creation, such a peerage may now be inheritable by the eldest issue regardless of sex of the stemming from the first grantee of the peerage and in the case where the first grantee had no issue and was succeeded by special remainder such proviso will be applicable to the issue to the next holder of the peerage and in successive and likewise manner. 2 Second proviso of the act could be that: Where a peerage has become extinct but has legitimate female issue of the last holder such a peerage may in line manner of the first provision enjoy the same provisos of succession. If legislation were to be enacted in such a matter then no existing heir would be displaced only provision made for new heirs once the original patent has been played out. 

[sarac...@googlemail.com]

A study of the historic Scottish Peerage(before the Act of Union)
would be a good start,where a pragmatic and legalistic system of
resignations/regrants to and from the Crown ensures continuity.

On May 21, 2:48 am, marquess <marquessmarqu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> It has occurred to me that one could legislate in the following way:
> Firstly any extant peerage  which no longer has legitimate heirs according
> to its original patent of creation, such a peerage may now be inheritable
> by the eldest issue regardless of sex of the stemming from the first
> grantee of the peerage and in the case where the first grantee had no issue
> and was succeeded by special remainder such proviso will be applicable to
> the issue to the next holder of the peerage and in successive and likewise
> manner. 2 Second proviso of the act could be that: Where a peerage has
> become extinct but has legitimate female issue of the last holder such a
> peerage may in line manner of the first provision enjoy the same provisos
> of succession. If legislation were to be enacted in such a matter then no
> existing heir would be displaced only provision made for new heirs once the
> original patent has been played out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 3:57:29 PM UTC+7, Michael Rhodes wrote:
>
> > The laws of succession must be changed to allow noble families to pass
> > down titles to their daughters as well as their sons, hundreds of members
> > of the aristocracy declare today.
>

> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10052614/We-wan...

>
> > More than 200 members of Britain’s most distinguished families have called
> > on the Government to end the “outdated and manifestly unfair” laws of
> > succession.
>

> > In a letter to *The Daily Telegraph*, they argue that the example of the

[Pat]

With regard to adopted children I think it was the 4th Marquess of Aberdeen who publicly expressed a wish that adopted children could inherit as his title was due to pass to his nephew and not to his adopted sons. The other issue is that of illegitimate children. Like daughters and adopted children they can now inherit property but not titles. There are at least two peerages i can think of (the Earl of Harewood and Baron Langford) where the elder son will not inherit the title because although he has the same mother as his younger brothers his parents weren't married at the time of his birth. There are also several peers or heirs to peerages who have no legitimate children  but do have illegitimate sons and daughters. It surely can't be too long before the Pandora's box the government opened when it altered the laws of succession to the crown gets round to at least one of these two other issues. Given that there are more illegitimate children than adopted children in a position to inherit I would have thought the odds were on the former being raised first.

[Pat]

With official recognition comes legal protection. If peerages were abolished that would mean that the patents governing their succession would also be abolished. There would be nothing to stop a peer from naming anyone he liked to succeed him, and I don't just mean family members. I think it was the previous Duke of Manchester who tried to sell his dukedom until it was pointed out that wasn't a legal option but once that legal protection is removed there would be nothing to stop a peer selling his title to the highest bidder. There already exists a lucrative market for the title lord of the manor imagine what the going rate would be for a dukedom or an earldom. And an independent body to recognise successions would only work if everyone was willing to accept its decisions or its decisions were legally binding  - and I can't see any government that abolishes peerages agreeing to legalise a body set up to enable them to continue.

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 2:39:26 AM UTC+1, marquess wrote:

[Michael Rhodes]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/to-the-manor-born-the-female-aristocrats-battling-to-inherit-the-title-8656310.html

[marquess]

Out of curiosity didn't one of the Fortescue estates go to the daughters of a previous earl, and is not property of the dowager countess of Arran? Those with estates that have come to them through the male line would do well to remember they probably wouldn't have had them were it not for such a tradition. Look at Viscount Galway, the earls of Lauderdale landless peers who were passed over for daughters.

[Jonathan]

On Monday, June 17, 2013 4:46:36 PM UTC+1, Michael Rhodes wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/to-the-manor-born-the-female-aristocrats-battling-to-inherit-the-title-8656310.html

Is that actually a current article? According to the date, yes it is, which makes the following error quite shocking:

"The current Earl Kitchener, Emma's uncle, has no children, so the title will die out with him. In an interview with the Radio Times, he said: "If you're asking me if I find it ridiculous that… a perfectly sentient adult woman has no rights of inheritance whatsoever when it comes to a hereditary title, I think it's outrageous, actually."

As outrageous as the fact he died a year and a half ago?

I don't see how the Earl of Durham's claim "that it is normal all over the world for a wife to take her husband's name" is of relevance to this at all, quite apart from being wrong (let's start with 0.6 billion women in China...)

Are there many/any cases these days where land or property is tied to a title, and can't be left to whoever the peer chooses in his will? I seem to remember, for exmple, the Duke of Marlborough disinheriting the Marquess of Blandford so that he wouldn't get his hands on Blenheim, but of course he will still be the next duke.

The 5th Earl Fortescue's only son died in action in WWII, and the title went to his brother not to one of his daughters. Perhaps if the present earl is so keen on change, the title should go to their descendants, not to his own daughters.
 

[marquess]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 3:57:29 PM UTC+7, Michael Rhodes wrote:

The laws of succession must be changed to allow noble families to pass down titles to their daughters as well as their sons, hundreds of members of the aristocracy declare today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10052614/We-want-girls-to-inherit-titles-aristocrats-say.html

More than 200 members of Britain’s most distinguished families have called on the Government to end the “outdated and manifestly unfair” laws of succession.

I was referring to one of the estates, Castle Hill in Filleigh, Barnstable which I think went to one of the daughters of 5th earl, so some of the property traditionally associated with the earldom has gone out of the family.