Primogeniture and TWAW

InionEile and ChattyLion - the sexism couldn't be more stark, when described accurately like that.

What Inion said ^ in that excellent post.
What’s sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. (The gander still gets to own all the swans...)
The rich and powerful know this politics is all nonsense and have been careful to make sure that patriarchy (based on sex but using gender as its flying monkeys) will always win out.

Finding out that gender transition doesn't apply to primogeniture, lordly titles or the Catholic priesthood is 80% of the reason I became gender critical. It tells you all you need to know. TWAW if male-born people want to access female spaces and destroy the rights to safe spaces that women have fought for over centuries.

But when it comes to TMAM - nope. No deal. Transmen don't get to acquire male privilege when they transition, only in a limited sense if they are perceived day-to-day as biologically male, so the entire movement is bullshit.

There is no way for female-born people to avoid oppression on the basis of our biology. We continue to be oppressed on the basis of our reproductive biology with no exceptions while male-born people get to identify whatever way they like and threaten us while they're at it. The 'TWAW' line is pure patriarchy, male privilege at its worst.

I think the Masons do now take transmen.
Would make a good discrimination case if a woman who didn't identify as a man was being discriminated against on the grounds of gender reassignment status.

CountFosco it would make a good crossword clue

First thoughts, I am sure someone can come up with a better one:

Cross word over blue blood leads to red mist in the stalls (5, 7)
Answer: trans peerage

Andrew hasn't been next in line for almost 40 years.

I was assuming Charles was a woman and therefore not first in line, if Charles had been born Charlotte then Andrew would be Prince of Wales.

Can you imagine how smug and entitled he would be? The smugness scale would need to be recalibrated.

God I miss 2013...of Charles is a TW then Camilla would be a Lesbian and it would put a new spin on those letters he wrote to her about wanting to be her tampon.

A lot has changed since 2013 in the field of gender.
If they were re-writing the succession act now, would it be done in the same way?
I don't remember anyone saying that TWAW back in 2013.

There are some historic aristocratic trans people who tested the law (pre GRA), but there wasn't much publicity around them at the time. Few years old and very interesting article in Tatler.

Anne has very clearly put herself and her children out of the "running ". Her kids don't have titles nor do her grandchildren.

re: Anne - the position of the second born child would remain 'frozen' as that is what was laid down for all those born before the Act came in. Unless she renounced it, or did something which disqualified her totally (do any such things still exist?)

If this Act proves to be unfit for purpose, because if the freezing or for any other reason, then a new one will be needed.

The reason for the freezing was that the line of succession really is enormous, and goes back to all sorts of descendants of Queen Victoria (at least) and even the thought of unpicking and reordering was just Too Much.

If Anne becomes a trans man, does that stand?

bellinisurge
The WASPI women situation is interesting in this area of discussion.

A legal loophole waiting for someone to challenge it.

"They didn't change it for anyone born pre Charlotte"

That is because there were no changes to be made - they 'froze' it at that point. Only subsequent events are covered.

So either they could carry on, because now it's simply promigeniture, not make primogeniture. Or use the RC precedent, which would mean that only the person directly involved steps out of the succession, as they do not do this for DC who are adult and unchanged (can be done for unborn DC, and also minors who convert with their parents)

I wonder if they have made it official that William definitely succeeds Charles? Otherwise Anne could be thinking of muscling in.

No I would be surprised if the changes could be done retrospectively.
Someone would've thought that one out already,
or so you'd think...

Come on Anne

The fact that primogeniture was explicitly excluded from the act has always seemed smelly to me. As I understand it, Charles can declare themselves a woman and nothing would change.

This line of questioning could garner some interesting responses from those planning to destroy the GRA. They are desperate to remove the spousal visa but somehow have not made it a talking point that they intend to ensure that a female who transitions is treated in law as though they have always been male. I wonder why.

(I'm also not certain I've managed to stay within guidelines. I did try).

TimeLady
Presumably if the oldest son becomes a transwoman though, you'd still get the Earl of X resplendent in the family tiara and pearls
In other words
The lord becomes a lady but not allowed the title, yet he is allowed to swan off wearing the family tiara clutching his pearls.

This really is a comedy sketch waiting to be written

They didn't change it for anyone born pre Charlotte.
So, according to the OP's question, surely it would be Andrew and his "line" next.
Can't wait for all the WASPI transwomen to try and muscle in on a massive inequality for their own benefit should Labour win the election.

"Obviously for future generations they've changed it so that men don't take precedence over women, but I don't think that rule applies to the current mob - ie Andrew is ahead of Princess Anne"

It applies to the situation before the change in the law. Changes after that are covered by the new Act, and so would not lose place (yes, they were expecting changes by birth to more DC, but this would be covered too)

Well, since they changed the law at about the time of Princess Charlotte's birth, it would make no difference to the Royal family (as the change would be after the Act)

But even if that act had not been brought in, a younger brother would not supplant the legitimate heirs already in the succession. Only future DC can have their place revoked by change to parent (such as in the abdication, when there were no children). Those already born continue where they are. If someone became ineligible (as has happened with Catholicism) only they, and any descendants who also became RC were excluded. Those who continued in a permitted faith/denomination would remain.

This may not apply to non-Royal primogeniture, and there can be different rules for different titles and estates. They would probably have to be decided in Court, if no family agreement can be reached.

I wish someone would ask Jo Swinson on her current media merrygoround whether LibDem proposed GRA reforms include laws around hereditary titles and peerages.

Andrew hasn't been next in line for almost 40 years.

No, but if Charles were a woman, then his children would no longer be next in line. That's how it works. It would be Andrew and then his children.

Of course, as has already been pointed out, the gender recognition laws don't apply to primogeniture (how very convenient), but if they did, then it would be Andrew.

(Obviously for future generations they've changed it so that men don't take precedence over women, but I don't think that rule applies to the current mob - ie Andrew is ahead of Princess Anne).

I dunno, because if TWAW then that means Charles was always a woman, and that just hasn't been recognised. So William would not be next after Charles, because Charles was always a woman so Andrew has always been the heir, it's just that we all need to catch up...

Obviously this is all mental.

Which shows you exactly what the powerful really thinking about TWAW etc

sorry - you already pointed that out donquixote!