Lord Simon of Wythenshaw - gender reassignment

[colinp]

I had a look through the Peerage pages in the latest Whitaker's - 2018 and noticed this statement next to Lord Simon of Wythenshawe (hereditary peer UK 1947) - "In dormancy since 2016 when the 3rd baron officially reassigned his gender".

I've not seen any stories about this in the papers or on the web.

I'm not sure though why the barony is now stated to be in dormancy.  When he succeeded to the peerage Lord Simon was the heir male lawfully begotten of the grantee's body -  he can only be deprived of that honour by his own volition in accordance with the disclaimer provisions of the Peerage Act 1963 or by Act of Parliament.  There is nothing in the Gender Recognition Act 2004 which deprives him of the peerage or indeed of any other property.  Indeed the 2004 Act provides in section 16 that "The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act— (a)does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour..." 

If Lord Simon had therefore had undergone gender reassignment prior to his father's death and if the 2004 Act had been in force he would have succeeded to the peerage notwithstanding that for all other intents and purposes the law treated him as a woman. 

Indeed the only effect would be that he is now perhaps to be referred to as Lady or Baroness Simon of Wythenshaw and should be listed by Whitaker's among the "Baronesses/Ladies in their own right"

It will be interesting to see what Debretts makes of the situation in their next edition.

[Peter FitzGerald]

I agree with your analysis. Section 16 of the 2004 Act makes it clear that gender recognition cannot affect the question of whether a person holds a peerage, so the title must continue to be active. Since section 9 makes it clear that (unless provided elsewhere in the Act) "the person's gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender", and since section 16 refers only to the "descent" of a title, it seems clear to me that the law recognises the current holder of this peerage as a woman holding a barony. Since a woman holding a barony is a baroness, that is what the holder is - the 3rd Baroness Simon of Wythenshawe.

[Richard R]

Very interesting post. 

I notice that Debrett states she does not use the title and neither does the title appear on the latest Roll of the Peerage (Dec 2016), which suggests she's made no moves to establish her claim to the title. 

I think we should take what Whitaker's states with a very large pinch of salt. I've found errors before in that publication - which they've corrected when pointed out to them.

[ThomasFoolery]

I think it would be Lady Simone of Wythenshawe.  

[colinp]

I said it would be interesting to see what Debretts makes of the situation in their next edition.  We now have the answer.

The barony of Simon of Wythenshawe is now listed as being dormant since 2016.  For the reasons set out above this seems completely wrong.  Incidentally Whitaker's 2019 repeats the same thing.

The 3rd Baron is now evidently Matilda rather than Matthew and changed name (by Change of Name Deed) and gender 2016 "whereupon the barony became dormant".  As mentioned above she should be listed as the 3rd Baroness Simon of Wythenshaw.

[andrewbe...@gmail.com]

There are two ways of looking at section 16: a positive and a negative. Your analysis is in the negative i.e. the fact of gender reassignment cannot be used to deprive someone of a peerage. The positive analysis (which perhaps was the reasoning behind it) means that someone cannot go through gender reassignment in order to claim a peerage e.g. a peer who has two daughters and one reassigns to a man, they cannot claim the peerage. I am not saying this is the analysis but rather this is an analysis.

On Friday, January 19, 2018 at 4:02:19 PM UTC, colinp wrote:

[marquess]

The law doesn't really have the ability to make a man into a woman nor a woman into a man, these things are set by nature as they have been since time immemorial. Of course if one is an hermaphrodite that is another matter. 

[malcolm davies]

Here are the relevant sections of the Gender Recognition Act 2004:-

9 General

(1)Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person´s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person´s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person´s sex becomes that of a woman).

(2)Subsection (1) does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued; but it does operate for the interpretation of enactments passed, and instruments and other documents made, before the certificate is issued (as well as those passed or made afterwards).

(3)Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation.

16 Peerages etc.

The fact that a person´s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act–

(a)does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour, and

(b)does not affect the devolution of any property limited (expressly or not) by a will or other instrument to devolve (as nearly as the law permits) along with any peerage or dignity or title of honour unless an intention that it should do so is expressed in the will or other instrument.

By virtue of s 9,had the gender reassignment occurred before Lord Simon succeeded to his peerage,he would probably have been ineligible to succeed.

However,s 16 probably means that his gender reassignment cannot be registered on the Roll of the Peerage(he is not on the Roll at the last revision, namely 31 December 2016.),but I don't think that if he now seeks to be put on the Roll,that his change of gender prevents him from being included on the Roll.

In terms of him seeking election to the House,that would be a matter for the committee of privileges to determine whether:-

(a) he was eligble for election

(b) whether he would be styled having regard to his change of gender.

I wonder whether Debretts and Whittakers contacted the College of Arms before pronouncing that the peerage was dormant.

[www.maltagenealogy.com]

According to wikipedia, the 3rd Baron succeeded since the death of his father, who didn't use the title in his lifetime since succession.

[Jonathan]

It's worth taking a look at Hansard from when the Bill was debated in the Lords in 2004:

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/2004/feb/03/gender-recognition-bill-hl#S5LV0656P0_20040203_HOL_387

Section 16 was clearly intended to prevent daughters from changing gender in order to inherit a title, but it also means that, exceptionally, it is birth gender that determines the descent of titles. However, there is no provision for someone who has changed gender to adopt the style appropriate to their new gender. This would have been provided for by Baroness Buscombe's Amendment 103, which was withdrawn. As Lord Evans of Temple Guiting explains:

"The Government have, since Committee, consulted the Palace and the Garter Principal King of Arms. We are in agreement that the best way to proceed in such rare cases—I underline "rare"—would be for the holder of the title to petition Her Majesty to ask that she change the form of address. There is a wide range of circumstances under which an individual may wish to adopt a different form of address as a result of the Bill. In addition to transsexual people themselves, the former or future spouse of a transsexual person may have a claim on a courtesy title.

Legislating for this multitude of circumstances would seem disproportionate given the very low frequency with which the situation would arise. It would also reduce Her Majesty's prerogative powers in this area. Accordingly, the Government are satisfied that the right to petition Her Majesty, which already exists and will continue to do so, is a sufficient and proportionate method of dealing with the matter."

I would therefore conclude that Lord Simon of Wythenshaw still holds the barony, but is only entitled to the style of a baron, not baroness, unless the Queen is petitioned. If he had a son, the son would still be the HA, although in fact the HP is a cousin. Lord Simon probably prefers simply to not use the title. I don't agree that this makes the title dormant, though.

[Al]

I must admit that rereading the clause doesn't seem to make things clearer: reminds me a bit of the old joke:

"Only three people have ever really understood the Schleswig-Holstein business—the Prince Consort, who is dead—a German professor, who has gone mad—and I, who have forgotten all about it."

I agree that nothing in the act can possible make a title dormant. I'm not sure about the address issue. The form of address is tied to the gender of the holder. If the gender changes but the holder remains the same I don't see that the address doesn't automatically change without the need for any petition.

[Jonathan]

I agree that nothing in the act can possible make a title dormant. I'm not sure about the address issue. The form of address is tied to the gender of the holder. If the gender changes but the holder remains the same I don't see that the address doesn't automatically change without the need for any petition.

I also previously believed that to be the case, until I was corrected by a poster on another site. Take for example the special remainders to the Mountbatten earldom or the Wolseley viscountcy (courtesy of Leigh Rayment):

"...and in default of such issue with remainder to his eldest daughter Patricia Edwina Victoria, Baroness Brabourne, by the name, style and title of Countess Mountbatten of Burma, of Romsey in the County of Southampton..."

"...and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, style, and title of Viscount Wolseley, of Wolseley, in the county of Stafford, and in default of such issue male the dignity of a Viscountess to Frances Garnet Wolseley, Spinster, only daughter of the said Garnet Joseph, Baron Wolseley, and after her decease, the dignity of a Viscount to the heirs male of her body lawfully begotten."

I think from that it seems the titles are not automatically interchangeable dependent on the gender of the holder, but that a different title must be specified for a female holder.

[www.maltagenealogy.com]

Succession is normally automatic till such time they renounce it. But yes he or she is still Baron Simon of Wythenshaw till such time.

[ThomasFoolery]

What would happen if he/she/whatever were given a new title today? Would he be Lord Simon of W. and Couness Simon of W?

[Al]

Interesting. While I'd not particularly noticed those examples there are a plethora of other peerages that are able to be held by or have been held by females (including those referencing a female in the LP) which have no such additional title reference and we have always used the female form. Your examples are the exception not the norm.

I'm not sure why they did what they did but there are plenty of examples of strange quirks in the LPs that come and go for no reason. Think of the late 18C fad of "Lord Smith Baron of Blah"

[Jonathan]

On Friday, 11 January 2019 10:22:12 UTC, Al wrote:

Interesting. While I'd not particularly noticed those examples there are a plethora of other peerages that are able to be held by or have been held by females (including those referencing a female in the LP) which have no such additional title reference and we have always used the female form. Your examples are the exception not the norm.

Do you have any examples of such peerages held by females? The most well known tend to be ancient titles that were not created by letters patent.

I agree that there is a lot of inconsistency, and rules and conventions seem to be decided by the Garter at the time. However, there is in any case a difference between using the feminine version of a title at the time of succession as opposed to changing to a feminine style at a later date, and the view of the then Garter was that the Queen should be petitioned in such cases.

[Al]

Almost any example before the Victorian period>>

I wonder if anyone will ever press the issue. Even a peer sitting in parliament is addressed as they wish not by the exact title they hold...

On Friday, January 19, 2018 at 4:02:19 PM UTC, colinp wrote:

[colinp]

An interesting development

From the House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings 11 May 2022:

"Barony of Simon of Wythenshawe in the Peerage of the United Kingdom The Petition of Matilda Simon claiming to have succeeded to the Barony of Simon of Wythenshawe in the Peerage of the United Kingdom and praying that the Clerk of the Parliaments might be directed to enter the petitioner as Lord Simon of Wythenshawe on the register of hereditary peers maintained under Standing Order 9(4) was presented and referred to the Lord Chancellor for a report to the House pursuant to Standing Order 10."

I assume she will have to petition the Crown separately to be known as Baroness Simon of Wythenshawe - see post by Jonathan 10 Jan 2019 above with extract from Hansard

[marquess]

An hereditary peerage is a traditional honour that ought not to be subject to the moral perverseness that seems to be pervading through modern society. I am sure that he can simply disclaim and legally be known by whatever appellation he choses.  

[john]

I do not wish to comment on your unreasonable views, this is not the place to discuss such issues. As was mentioned above, she has petitioned to be known as Lord Simon, so I cannot understand what bothers you, apart from her mere existence as a transgender.

[sven_me...@web.de]

Your hate speech is not aceeptable

marquess schrieb am Donnerstag, 12. Mai 2022 um 12:07:02 UTC+2:

[www.lordmountbattenofburma.com]

Marquess - you should be ashamed of yourself.  These comments are UNACCEPTABLE!!!  By all means, have your own views, you are obviously entitled to that... but this forum is not a place for such judgemental and disgusting comments.

[William H.S. Leeson]

While I shall probably regret offering my two cents' worth on the matter, given the recent emotional responses, I am inclined to believe that the title should never have been considered to be dormant in the first place.  Gender reassignment is a cosmetic surgery to help the recipient conform their looks to what they believe themselves to be.  But, until medical science advances to the point where chromosomes can be removed from (or added to) the recipient's DNA, "Lady" Simon was born, and will remain for the rest of his life, a man, despite outward appearances to the contrary;  much the same way as applying burnt cork and donning an Afro wig did not make the late Dai Francis a Black man.

[marquess]

In reply to those who say I should be ashamed of my views:  A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God. Book of Deuteronomy 22:5. Please never lecture me on what I should be ashamed of. Everyone whether he believes it or not will have to answer before God. The degenerate moral relativism of the present age doesn't change that, nor does it alter the Word of God. 

[malcolm davies]

Nobody on this forum should be criticising anyone else for exercising their right of free speech,particularly since is was not made in outlandish terms.

Back to the important point-the petition can only be refused,as to permit it does not comply with the letters patent creating the dignity.

If the present peer is distressed by this,he would be better advised to seek to have a life peerage as a baroness,having had a gender reassignment under s2 of the Gender Recognition Act.s16 of the Act clearly says it does not apply to peerages.

[sven_me...@web.de]

Free speech is not the same as hate speech

[gorgo...@gmail.com]

We constantly tolerate  your hate speeches. 

[www.lordmountbattenofburma.com]

WELL SAID Sven.... Marquess you use the Word of God to justify hate speech (utterly deplorable)... you can have your views by all means, but remember -

Hebrews 12: 14 -  Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord ... so how about it?  How about showing a bit of compassion, understanding, love?  rather than using the scriptures to justify yourself.  And yes, you should be ashamed of yourself.  I cannot believe that you think your comments are acceptable on this forum.   This is not a forum to spout your hate speech.... please can we just have a discussion about the peerage etc, rather than a religious lecture????   

Remember Marquess - 

Would you agree to me selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7 ???
To all those working on the Sabbath - . Exodus 35:2 clearly says they should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill them myself ?? - or should you do it ?
Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? 

?????????????????????????????

The Word of God - GOD IS LOVE... 

[William H.S. Leeson]

Interesting points, to be sure, but it does beg the question:  is the definition of "hate speech" these days anything with which one does not agree?

Our society is in a very sad state indeed when opinions, feelings, and fantasy outweigh facts, logic, and cold, hard, unfair reality.  Even sadder is when those who dare to offer dissent are characterized as somehow being inhuman monsters for even acknowledging it.  (Everyone around me is praising the Emperor, and gushing over his fabulous new outfit;  am I the only one who is noticing his circumcision?)

All these times do for me is make me very grateful that I never quit smoking.

[sven_me...@web.de]

absurd answer and with no respect for other people you should think about leaving here

[William H.S. Leeson]

At least I'm giving an answer that doesn't solely rely on calling your opinion "hate speech".

Nothing I have said in this thread is a lie.  The title of the Barony of Simon of Wythenshawe should never have been considered dormant, as the holder is very much alive (albeit missing some factory-original parts).  Gender reassignment is a cosmetic surgery (and note the emphasis on cosmetic).  Under current conditions, one's DNA cannot be altered on demand.  All true and pertinent facts.  Now, Sven, if you could actually prove me wrong in any of those statements, thus showing me to be a liar, then I will leave this group (and, even if I don't, time will take care of that for me soon enough).  Bonus points if you can, in your counter-argument, avoid using the terms "hate speech", "bigot", "fascist", or any other of the myriad terms used by people today to stifle open and honest discussion or to shoot the messenger because they don't like what they're hearing.

To be entirely fair, I cannot possibly comprehend the sheer, staggering level of self-hatred and loathing required for one to go to their doctor and ask "Take my penis away!!!"  And, while I try to keep an open mind about things, I can't help but to be just the tiniest bit insulted when someone presents me with an apple, and they become all venomously indignant when I refuse to call it an orange.  But, again, Sven, do please prove me wrong. 

Or, in other words:  kindly put up or shut up yourself.  (And maybe apologize to Marquess, while you're at it?)

[sven_me...@web.de]

There is no reason to apologize to Marquess, Marqess should apologize to everyone he offended. Your argument that the DNA is not altered is correct i never said otherwise but the whole way you are talking about people is just  wrong.

[William H.S. Leeson]

Thank you, Sven, for conceding to the veracity of my statement.  As for your contention about the whole way I am talking about people being wrong:  unless I am very much mistaken, no-one on this Earth has any say whatsoever in being born;  nor do they have any control over how, when, where, and to whom they are born, nor do they have any control over such attributes as their gender, skin colour, sexuality, or anything else.  So, if it is wrong for me in this "progressive and inclusive" age to say that people should simply accept the hand that fate has dealt them, and play the game with the cards that they are given, then I concede that you have me dead to rights on that point.

To quote the Serenity Prayer used in Alcoholics Anonymous (emphasis mine):  "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

[www.lordmountbattenofburma.com]

Well said Sven... it is Marquess who should apologise!

I'm all for having your own opinions, but there are times and places ... and no-one should use the "Word of God" and the right of free speech to justify hate and down right transphobia.  You can dress it up as much as you like - and all the time I have breath in my body, will always challenge it.

[www.lordmountbattenofburma.com]

Now I suggest we end this discussion... I am on here to learn about Peerage News - not for hate speech and transphobia.

[marquess]

Transphobia and hate speech, if that's what believing and trying to adhere to God's laws is considered to be in this degenerate age. Then continue huffing and puffing, you like everyone else will be held to account for all your actions in this world, whatever your beliefs are. 

[sven_me...@web.de]

Please leave this place once and for all. Nobody's got the right to discriminate people and that goes to religious fanatics as well

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Whoever you consider to be your god is not so considered by everyone. Your comments and those of another member in no way forward the discussion about the niceties of Peerage Law which is the proper issue on this forum. No one asked anyone's opinion about gender reassignment in general, and your decision to give your opinion, knowing full well that it would offend people and not contribute relevant information, can come only from someone whose only intention is to offend. There is no place here for people whose only intention is to offend others. Please restrict this discussion to the legal situation, and keep your irrelevant opinions to yourself.

[marquess]

My views are  not irrelevant as you put it, you speak of the term  peerage law as though it were divorced totally from the notion of God. My original response was simply to state that a peerage is a traditional honour which should follow traditional law.

 Also that Lord Simon of Wythenshaw can always disclaim and thus then choose whatever common appellation he wishes to be known as. The mere stating of this view opened up a flood of attack from those who feel I should have no opinion on the matter if it diverges from their own wokeish point of view. It was to that that I was responding. Just because others wish to close their eyes and call a dog a bird or an orange a stone, I choose not to do so. And it's not a matter of what I consider to be my God, but what is written in the Bible. The very notion hierarchy is an approximatative reflection of heavenly hierarchy.

[https:/www.maltagenealogy.com/LeighRayment/]

Marquess,

This titleholder didn't use the title of Barony upon succession and now suddenly wanting to use it to stir up change is curious to me for the basis of hereditary honours.. Maybe it may help the cause of succession to the other sex, similar to Spain to first born, no matter what sex you are. Though in the UK, they would prefer it to become extinct, rather then continue such honours for ever and ever. 

The titleholder still has the right to use the title, but if it didn't use it till now, raising concerns. But that is the titleholders choice and the House of Lords and Government of the day fault for not making changes to the nobility.

[www.lordmountbattenofburma.com]

who gives you the right to judge me or anyone else ???  So much for Christian values of love, compassion, tolerance and understanding.   You are just making yourself look foolish and stupid.... 

[www.lordmountbattenofburma.com]

Well said

[www.lordmountbattenofburma.com]

"if IT " - who is "it" ????

[www.lordmountbattenofburma.com]

Marquess - you seem to be very choosy on which verses of the Bible you follow !

[www.lordmountbattenofburma.com]

Marquess -  "it is not a sin to be transsexual.... You are what you are. If you’re transgender you’re transgender. If you’re intersex you’re intersex. If you’re gay you’re gay. It’s what you do with it, how you behave as a result of it. God loves each human being equally."

who said it ??? - The Most Rev & Rt Hon. Justin Welby,  by Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All England and the Metropolitan.

Now lets stop Bible bashing and you trying to take the moral high ground.  This forum is about the Peerage, not about your opinions.  You are welcome to have them, but this is not the place to justify the Word of God to YOUR own ends.  

[marquess]

Timor Domini principuim sapientiae; sapientiam atque doctrinam stulti despiciunt. 

[www.lordmountbattenofburma.com]

Marquess - you DISGUST ME... and Im not wasting any more time on your words of HATE. 

[colinp]

With some trepidation....

From the House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings 18 May 2022:-

Barony of Simon of Wythenshawe in the Peerage of the United Kingdom The Lord Chancellor reported that Matilda Simon had established her claim to the Barony of Simon of Wythenshawe in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. The Clerk of the Parliaments was accordingly directed to enter Lord Simon of Wythenshawe on the register of hereditary peers maintained under Standing Order 9(4).

[colinp]

The Telegraph has picked up the story - this was in yesterday's edition -  First trans peer a step closer as hereditary candidate claims seat (telegraph.co.uk)

[malcolm davies]

As has the Spectator:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/should-a-trans-woman-inherit-a-peerage-over-their-older-sister-

[https:/www.maltagenealogy.com/LeighRayment/]

Great argument !! Should she be allowed to retain the title above his elder sisters ?? Argument is now on to test the Hereditary Peerage for female inheritance. I personally believe as the present titleholder did not claim it while a man, now wants to claim it as a female, then his elder sisters have a bigger claim !.

[colinp]

The new Peerage Roll refers to her as:

SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE

Hereditary Baron in the Peerage of the United Kingdom: Matilda Lord Simon of Wythenshawe (otherwise styled as Matilda Lady Simon of Wythenshawe).  Surname: Simon.

[colinp]

See article in the Telegraph - presumably in today's Sunday paper (not got it yet)

Daughters excluded from peerage due to gender outraged by trans woman standing for Lords seat (telegraph.co.uk)

Daughters excluded from peerage due to gender outraged by trans woman standing for Lords seat

Matilda Simon, Baron of Wythenshawe [sic], allowed to stand in by-election under a legal loophole - because she was born a man

Aristocrat daughters have told a baron hoping to be the first transgender peer that they “can’t have it both ways”.

Matilda Simon, the 3rd Baron of Wythenshawe, is tipped to stand in a by-election to replace the Liberal Democrat Viscount Falkland, voted on by all sitting peers, with entries closing on May 15.

If successful, they would become the only woman, self-identified, among the chamber’s 92 hereditary peers, despite holding a title because they were born a man.

Daughters who have been shunned [?]  from their families’ hereditary lines because they are not men have called on Matilda Simon to “stop having her cake and eating it”.

The Barony was created in 1947 for Ernest Simon, the industrialist and former Lord Mayor of Manchester, mainly remembered for his slum clearances and housing projects in the city.

His son, Roger, the second Baron Simon, was a Left-wing journalist and one of the founders of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Matilda Simon, born in 1955, inherited the title because they were born male. 

Their elder sister, Margaret, who was born two years earlier, would have inherited the title if Matilda Simon had been born a woman.

Under a legal loophole in the Gender Recognition Act 2014, a person changing gender “does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour”. 

The Lord Chancellor approved Matilda Simon’s claim to the peerage in May last year, but they may have to petition to the King to be referred to formally as “Lady Simon” as opposed to “Lord”.

With more by-elections looming, even if Matilda Simon does not stand this time to replace Viscount Falkland, who was elected in 1999, women have hit out at the “absolute farce” and labelled it an “absurd” situation…………..

[Henry W]

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/house-of-lords-publications/records-of-activities-and-membership/register-of-all-hereditary-peers/register-of-hereditary-peers-running-list/

It appears that Lady Simon of Wythenshawe is no longer registered as a candidate for election as a hereditary peer.

I looked through the archive.org snapshots of that page.  She was listed on the register on both 17 August 2022 and 26 March 2023.  By the snapshot of 27 May 2023 (the page states at the top "Last updated 19 May 2023") she was no longer listed.  This was shortly after the candidate deadlines for the Lib Dem Whole House by-election that returned Earl RUSSELL.

I assume she opted to come off the register.