Trans and the monarchy?

[3timeslucky]

I was in a discussion about inheritance (and wills being made based on age-old sexist grounds) and it got me wondering how the line to a throne would be affected by one of those in-line deciding they were trans. If the line to a throne (or other title) was based on the male line could a woman self-ID herself to leapfrog over the born men?

Are there other sex-based entitlements (aside from the basics like safety and privacy and the ones we've seen in sport and women's awards) that could just be wiped out by self-ID?

It's not relevant any more, since the law has been changed to make the eldest child the heir, regardless of sex.

Though that does not apply to inheriting titles and estates, in which case the male sex retains the priority, regardless of 'identification '.

Don’t think boys come before girls now in our monarchy so girls would be in age line any way so no need to self id, does that make sense. If inheritance was left to ‘all my sons’ then maybe. Or all ‘male descendants ‘ and vice versa then I really don’t know.

The law has already been changed wrt to succession in the monarchy so that the first born is next in line whether they’re female or male, so in that context it no longer matters.

But succession of other titles still goes to the first born male, and guess what? That is specifically exempted in the GRA. Specifically. No woman can identify as a man and claim the inheritance ahead of her younger brother.

Imagine that.

It’s almost like everybody (including the TRAs who happily went along with this) knows exactly what penis privilege is, and how real and and deeply rooted it is in our society.

Irrelevant as far as the British monarchy is concerned. All those born after the law changed go by age, nit sex. Those in the succession before the change maintain their place (irrespective of change of circumstances) - there wasn't. a big reshuffle, so that part is essentially fossilised.

For other hereditary titles, it may need to be sort d out in court as and when need arises, as there is no precedent.

And before the law was changed to allow the first born to succeed to the throne regardless of sex, obviously the GRA exception would have applied there too. So when that exception was written, it was conceived of as applying to the monarchy, it’s just the subsequent changes that have rendered that no longer applicable.

For other hereditary titles, it may need to be sort d out in court as and when need arises, as there is no precedent.

But there is an explicit law, as described upthread.

The law clearly does not believe, in this instance, that people can change sex, or be born in the wrong body. Funny that, indeed.

Gender Recognition Act 2004

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.

That really says it all. So they cannot claim that they had not considered the idea of gratuitous self-ID.

Is that the only situation where sex is considered immutable?

Yes, I cross posted (slow typing).

There's no need to tell me off or talk to me as if I'm dim.

Off topic but a reminder that both Prince William and Prince Harry are supporters of Mermaids, describing their work as 'amazing'. They even invited Susie Green to Buckingham Palace

Yes, I agree that Mermaids is amazing - but not in the way that the Princes think. It's amazing that the Establishment embraced the charity in the first place and gave it a veneer of respectability.

I think their support will bite them on their royal bottoms. It will be no less than they deserve, because without their endorsement, the Big Lottery, Comic Relief and public servants might have scrutinised Mermaids more closely.

It's almost as if they thought that (even with the "onerous" requirements for a GRC in the original act) people might transition for personal gain. Obviously that would never happen with self ID. I wonder if the clause that protects the inheritance of males will remain in a reformed GRA whilst they throw women under the bus.? You really couldn't make this shit up.

The founder or leader of the campaign Daughters Rights popped up on a thread a couple of weeks ago. Their bill was due for a reading in Parliament, but I never heard what happened. Even she wasn't aware that obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate does not require surgery - but she was aware that even a GRC can't enable a peer's natal daughter to become enough of a son to inherit the title, and thus stand for election to the House of Lords.

The law about the monarchy changed a few years ago - around the time Prince William married, to head off any problems should his first child have been female.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_Crown_Act_2013

Everybody knows that a person born without a penis should never be allowed to usurp the natural born rights of a person born with a penis.

That’s the bottom line. That’s how we have male primogeniture, and also how we have transactivism. The two merge seamlessly.

What would happen if Prince George decided he was ‘born in the wrong body’ and self id’d as a woman/transitioned would he then get the title of Queen? Serious question.

Prince/ss Georg/ina would face no legal impediment in becoming monarch. At the point of accession, many new monarchs take a regnal name (like the Pope and the Queen's abdicating uncle), so changing name is no problem at all.

As for the actual title, I suppose a gender-neutral hypothetical Georg/ina could ask to be Monarch Alex. The pronouns would mess things up, though, as conveniently "his" and "her" begin with the same letter. I look forward to a future in which Christmas cards are delivered not by HMPO but Xie Majesty's Post Office, and James/Jane Bond serves on Xie Majesty's Secret Service.

Though that does not apply to inheriting titles and estates, in which case the male sex retains the priority, regardless of 'identification '

That is not correct. A hereditary title- meaning the ability to be call oneself Duke, Marquess, Earl etc retains male priority. Actual land and property follows normal rules of testacy or intestacy. Males do not have priority.

Are there not estates that are tied to the title?

Yes there are estates that are entailed to the Male line (there goes that capitalisation thing again).

The fact that this has been specifically excluded absolutely reveals the lie in this whole circus.

But succession of other titles still goes to the first born male, and guess what? That is specifically exempted in the GRA. Specifically. No woman can identify as a man and claim the inheritance ahead of her younger brother.

However, if a person has gone the full journey, had the OP, changed birth certificate etc, then there is absolutely no record, no poof, that they were formerly male -- how could it possibly be applied to them? Surely such a case could easily be dismantled by a good lawyer?

In the above case I mentioned in my last post: I am of course talking about MtoF transpeople. How could a transwoman (ie male) claim) a sex-specific inheritance or title if they have no evidence that they were ever male?

However, if a person has gone the full journey, had the OP, changed birth certificate etc, then there is absolutely no record, no poof, that they were formerly male

The birth certificate they get is just a copy they can use at work or whatever, the original birth record isn't altered. That's what I was told.

Really? I didn't know that. But anyway; I suppose they could always keep a photocopy of the original for "exceptional" situations like this. It beggars belief, the entitlement.

Debrett's Guide to the Peerage exists precisely to compile the (legitimate) heirs to titles. Oscar Wilde referred to it as the finest work of fiction in the English language. It provides a very public record that the wife of an aristocrat produced a son or a daughter, with dates and names.

It's not only a question of being able to call oneself duke or whatever. The Daughters Rights campaign exists to remind us all that Tony Blair tackled the ridiculousness of the structure of the House of Lords, but he did not abolish the rights of all peers to sit there and make laws. Instead, 92 peers are elected by their peers. Almost all of them are, by rule of male primogeniture, men, and this anomalous situation will continue until the law is changed. And, as has been said above, the inheritance of titles, and thus the chance to stand for the House of Lords, is specifically exempted under the GRA.