To wonder why older daughters of the landed, don't just identify as men to avoid being discriminated against because of their sex and to inherit?

[Pangurban1]

It is in the news that the Duke of Westminster has died, leaving oodles of dosh, property and a title. As primogeniture, for males only, was brought in by the Normans and remains unchanged in an inheritance like this, 2 women were passed by in favour of their young brother.

As identifying as someone of the opposite sex seems to be quite a moveable feast, I don't know why they don't just use this in order not to be discriminated against because of their sex.

Many people who say their are of the opposite sex have lived lives in complete accordance with their biology. Men who say they identify as a woman having provided and imparted their male gametes to sire children in the same way as any man does. Similarly, women who say they identify as being a man, have had their own female gametes fertilized and gestated a baby just like any other woman reproduces.

So, why doesn't a woman who is passed over, simply say she identifies as a man (for the purposes of inheritance, anyway) and not be discriminated against on the basis of her sex. You can change your birth certificate now, too. And it seems you don't have to do a thing differently except say you don't really identify as the sex you appear to be or have even reproduced as.

It would be interesting to see what would happen.

AIBU to think that something that would benefit a woman and prevent her from being discriminated against based on her sex would somehow not be recognized and would be the one time someone of one sex insisting they are really the other would be called out as a crock?

[LaurieFairyCake]

Because they've plenty of moolah already

Those Westminster women have tons of money

[LaurieFairyCake]

I wish they would though, it would be fabulous

[myownprivateidaho]

I would so love it if being tg became an establishment thing! Sadly they're more conservative than anyone.

[myownprivateidaho]

Oh just noticed this is a weird tg bashing thread! :(

[Batteriesallgone]

Surely the Duke would have a sensible will leaving plenty to his daughters. As for the title, only one person can have it so it's inherently unfair anyway.

[Pangurban1]

So, it is ok for women to be discriminated based on their sex. Irrespective of whether inheritance unfair or not.

It is only weird to think that is ok. Women being discriminated against not a discrimination very high up on the pecking order.

[Pangurban1]

Very excited about tg in the establishment. Not so excited about women not being discriminated against in the establishment. Very conservative view about women's equality.

[ForeverEyesOfBlue]

Now that would have made a FAR better Downton storyline than all that dull stuff about the entail...

[BillSykesDog]

There was an article about this in Tatler this month funnily enough. Nobody has tried it yet and the first person to do it would have to have a big expensive court case to do it, with no guarantee of success. It might not succeed and leave them with nothing. Even if it did succeed it might hugely deplete the fortune and lead to things like paintings/treasures/houses which had been in the family years having to be sold off which aristocratic families are always desperate to avoid. A lot of them (probs not Westminsters though) are asset rich but cash poor so would be devastated by such a court case so wouldn't be keen to do it.

Plus, a lot of them just expect to marry rich men.

[BillSykesDog]

And don't forget age discrimination - younger sons.

[BoffinMum]

If they can change the law of ascendancy to the throne as they were planning to if Prince George had been a girl, I have no idea why they can't do some kind of aristo class action and change all the entails at once. Now women have equal education to men it really is bizarre to keep on with the eldest son thing. Especially as there are one or two titles in existence that can be passed down the female kind anyway.

[Pangurban1]

Why would it lead to a court case? Who would take it? If a woman identifies as a man and get a new birth cert does that not make her a man in the eyes of the law?

Would the estate and assets not be frozen if the person to inherit is in dispute?

[BoffinMum]

Line

[madgingermunchkin]

Because being the one with the title and the responsibility isn't all fun and giggles .

The onus is on you to perseve the estate for future generations, to invest wisely to make sure that there is enough money to keep the water running because they are bloody expensive bottomless pits to run
To have hundreds of people jobs and livelihoods depending on you and your decisions
To marry wisely to a woman who can put up with living in a freezing cold (because it's too expensive to "heat"!) mausoleum.


Why the hell would you want all that when you can just collect your trust fund, marry who ever you want and live a very nice life, thank you very much.

[BoffinMum]

Pang urban, all titles/estates have a legal entail defining this stuff. Predates tg issues though.

[Felascloak]

I thought it had been changed boffin?

It would be an interesting test case of how easy it is to be taken as a member of the opposite sex when significant financial gain is involved.

[Batteriesallgone]

it bothered me about the monarchy, because we all pay for them and I didn't like the rule that boy children were more important than girl children.

Private families? Meh. If they are bothered surely a few of the big families should get together and push for a rule change? I don't really know how the whole thing works. Couldn't a Duke give away money/assets to daughters and sons equally in his lifetime so then there would be very little being subject to the primogeniture rules? If he was bothered about the inequality I mean.

[BoffinMum]

I used to run one. Bloody nightmare. And yes, freezing even with modern heating, as you can't keep all the fires going without staff snd radiators are quite bad for the plasterwork etc (where you have them), we lived in two rooms most of the time (nice rooms, admittedly!)

[BoffinMum]

It's s very symbolic thing and also affects whole swathes of the country where employment is linked to estate businesses.

[MrHannahSnell]

Hasn't Sweden just done this and swopped a Crown Prince for his older sister who's now the Crown Princess?

[BoffinMum]

It costs about £70k pa plus just to keep a smallish stately ticking over (without any massive refurbishments)

[fakenamefornow]

Genius!

Although could it be described as an oxymoron, equality within the aristocracy.

[emotionsecho]

I thought the change in the rules for the Royal Family was going to be the same for the rest of the aristocracy? Or is it just applicable from the date of the change?

[Pangurban1]

You can't change your age on your birth cert, though. To change from younger to a first born.

It would be interesting to be able to change your age to reflect how you feel about stuff. You could get half price stuff if you could put a later date of birth to reflect a younger age. Travel. Educational subsidies.

Conversely, you could get an earlier retirement age and pension if you changed it the appropriate date of birth. Those sleepless nights with a baby definitely quickened the deterioration of my body and added a few years wear and tear than may be usual for my chronological age.

[lalalalyra]

MrHannahSnell Sweden did it in 1980. Carl-Philip had taken the Crown Prince title on his birth despite having an older sister, but only for 7 months when she got it back.

It has been done in the UK, but not retrospectively. So Princess Charlotte wouldn't be dropped down by a younger brother, but Princess Anne is still below Andrew and Edward here.