Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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?

79 replies

Pangurban1 · 11/08/2016 21:01

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?

OP posts:
Heathen4Hire · 11/08/2016 22:24

I once saw a programme about the British Rothschilds. The progeny to inherit is chosen by the titled. I think Rothschild chose his daughter to inherit when he's gone because he can't rely on his eldest son.

VanillaSugar · 11/08/2016 22:25

My brother was at school with an aristo boy who inherited the lot when his father died. Except his older sister lives in and runs the house. Sadly she can't inherit the title which will die out as aristo boy won't be having any children to pass the title onto. The house will go to the sister's children.

Noctilucent · 11/08/2016 22:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pangurban1 · 11/08/2016 22:32

"all titles/estates have a legal entail defining this stuff"

But nothing would be technically in breach of all that legal entail stuff. It is just that someone who was being passed over would be saying they shouldn't be passed over as they are a man in the eyes of the law. It trumps everything doesn't it. They would have a birth cert stating they were born male. Could anyone challenge that?

I'm not concerned for the rich folks! It just seems that there are so few ways that it could be in favour of women's rights and it seems the one time it could be used in women's favour. It would be interesting to see how it would be handled.

It could be done retrospectively, challenging a present incumbent. Is the birth cert showing the new identity the only one on record or does the original one still apply in any way?

OP posts:
Pangurban1 · 11/08/2016 22:39

Noctilucent, there would still be one person inheriting the lot. Only it would go to a female who was passed over by a male. The female would be saying she identified as a male and it should go to her instead of her younger brother.

I personally don't care if the estates are broken up. Would that be a bad thing for the common good. However, If it does go to one person, why always pass the female. It is not the 18th 12th century.

OP posts:
thisisafakename · 11/08/2016 22:41

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

No, they did this 36 years ago, when she became crown princess.

Noctilucent · 11/08/2016 22:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pangurban1 · 11/08/2016 23:02

If there is a movement to change this discrimination against women, that is all well and good. Are there any challenges at the moment I wonder? In the meantime it would be useful to women to not let the great get in the way of the good enough.

This could be a device to ensure women are not discriminated against until they have full equality before the law in these type of inheritances.

OP posts:
Atenco · 11/08/2016 23:20

Pangurban
Thanks, best laugh I've had all day. I do wish someone would to that

I don't buy that it is a burden, you don't see any of the heirs to these fortunes saying no thanks, or calling themselves women to avoid it.

gonetoseeamanaboutadog · 11/08/2016 23:23

Yes, you are being unreasonable to suppose that a title and some cash is worth lying to the world about what gender you are. Believe it or not, some things are more important.

BestZebbie · 11/08/2016 23:25

The obvious issue being that it is distressing and traumatic to have to live and be recognised as a gender that doesn't match your internalised self-image, so it wouldn't be as simple as just "saying they are a man" - as if it were ever that simple anyway!

Gini99 · 11/08/2016 23:29

The technical answer to your question is because section 16 of the Gender Recognition Act (currently the way of changing the law's recognition of your sex) says:

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."

see Act

SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace · 11/08/2016 23:30

But maybe they really really feel that they are men, because even as little children, they always played with the little hotels on Mayfair and not the ones on Old Kent road? Maybe being wealthy and powerful has always sort of chimed with them in a way that not being wealthy hasn't?

Mumoftwoyoungkids · 11/08/2016 23:34

I suspect this will happen sooner or later. Not to let Susan inherit over her younger brother but in a family where there are no sons - only daughters - to stop the title going the third cousin Stanley (who everyone suspects is actually the grandson of the butler anyway) or to prevent the title going to the gambling / drug addicted eldest son.

SatansLittleHelper2 · 11/08/2016 23:40

Meh, I doubt theyre searching down the back of the sofa for money.

Pangurban1 · 11/08/2016 23:45

Discrimination against women based on their sex is very important. If changing your sex to the opposite sex is lying, why does the law now allow a person to do it? Even with my female body, I could be a male in the laws eyes. If you're dealing with reality, how could that ever not be a lie about my sex?

However, as the law allows a person to put change their birth cert to the opposite sex, it would not be lying in the eyes of the law. If it prevented a woman being discriminated against because of their sex, all the better. Probably the best use of this legal device I have come across so far. To prevent discrimination that disadvantages a person in favour of another simply because of their sex.

OP posts:
OlennasWimple · 11/08/2016 23:46

The Act of Succession as amended means now that princesses can inherit the throne ahead of princes, but it isn't retrospective. So a freak accident wiping out most of the royals wouldn't see Anne on the throne if Andrew or Edward were still around

Pangurban1 · 11/08/2016 23:51

Well, exactly. Maybe they identified as male because they always felt they should not be discriminated and should not be disbarred from inheriting like happens to females.

Maybe they spent their childhood playing 'the Duke'. Just like a dude then! Not like a girl who played being passed over and letting her little brother play 'inherit everything'.

OP posts:
Pangurban1 · 12/08/2016 00:10

Gini, you're kidding.

So in this instance, in a way females are discriminated against because of their sex, in the inheritance of property, the law is really calling tg a crock. It doesn't recognize it as a real change in sex where it would override inbuilt discrimination against women.

A man will never lose his rights by dint of his sex even if he changes his birth cert to an acquired female status and a woman identifying as a male doesn't prevent her from being discriminated against because of her femaleness.

So men retain all their privileges based on their sex and women have to shove over irrespective of any acquired identity.

So, they built in a prevention against women using this device in a way that I can see which would favour them in any way.

Weren't there any rights groups up in arms at this fundamental, visceral, inbuilt discrimination against females because of their sex?

OP posts:
BillSykesDog · 12/08/2016 06:11

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?

It would take a court case because as the law stands it is legal. It would need a legal challenge under human rights or anti-discrimination law for the status quo of it not applying to titles and peerages to be declared illegal and set a precedent to change things. It would need to be legally done, it wouldn't just be a matter of 'I've changed my birth cert so that changes everything', it would have to go through a full legal process to establish that it actually changed things and clarify what those changes meant. The person having their rights taken away would have a right to legal review of that as well as the person claiming rights, so it's not a one way street.

And as I said, this all requires a daughter yo actually take it up. And none have wanted to yet.

madgingermunchkin · 12/08/2016 06:19

I can't remember which one, but one of the daughters of another Duke had said that it is right that her younger brother inherits and that she doesn't think it should change.

And Atenco it is a burden, but this men are brought up knowing that it is their duty and responsibility to do so. And no one wants to go down in history as the one who lost/shirked the family fortune/estate. There is an awful lot of pressure that an "outsider" won't see or understand.

Egosumquisum · 12/08/2016 06:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Felascloak · 12/08/2016 07:25

I bet it was added by the Lords ego. That's really shocked me. Seems like again, one rule for us and one rule for them.

Aussiemum78 · 12/08/2016 07:28

Inherited titles are stupid and should be abolished. Including the monarchy.

It's ridiculous to inhereit any title or job just for being born into a family.

Egosumquisum · 12/08/2016 07:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Swipe left for the next trending thread