Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Primogeniture and TWAW

35 replies

EverylittleAlps · 09/12/2019 03:51

If Trans Women Are Women, no further debate, does that mean that if Charles were to come out as trans tomorrow, the line of succession would immediately alter and Andrew would have to be our next king?

OP posts:
sashh · 09/12/2019 04:20

What a horrible thought. Both PC in a dress and Andrew as next in line.

Would make a great TV comedy though.

FredaFrogspawn · 09/12/2019 05:46

A trans man cannot overtake their younger brother to inherit a title. And a trans man can’t join the masons. A trans woman who was in the masons before transitioning can remain in this Male only group.

RiddleyW · 09/12/2019 05:51

There’s a specific carve out for inheritance. Which is hilarious. I suppose lawmakers think women would nefariously pretend to be trans to inherit. Obviously men would never pretend to be trans to get in a women’s prison though, completely different!

ElluesPichulobu · 09/12/2019 06:22

the GRC legislation specifically excluded the nobility from having to recognise that TWAW or TMAM in any title or inheritance. obviously with all the main parties promising to reform the GRA that exception may go.

merrymouse · 09/12/2019 07:00

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

donquixotedelamancha · 09/12/2019 07:12

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

I think OP's point is that that is because the line is through Charles. If Charles were a woman then Andrew would have male-preference Primogeniture over him.

However the 2013 succession act got rid of that anyway so the point is moo.

Also the GRA specifically excludes primogeniture so, no OP, rich people know what a woman is when it comes to excluding them from inheritances.

RealityNotEssentialism · 09/12/2019 07:12

Err no because they have already changed it back in 2013 I think. So sex doesn’t matter for the inheritance of the throne for anyone born after that date.

Plus there are various people ahead of Andrew in the line, namely: William, George, Charlotte, Louis, Harry, Archie (yes, I hate myself for knowing that). But basically your scenario would literally never happen. I don’t think you thought it through.

TimeLady · 09/12/2019 07:13

Presumably if the oldest son becomes a transwoman though, you'd still get the Earl of X resplendent in the family tiara and pearls.

This is the smoking gun that proves no-one making the law at the time believed that transmen are actually men (or TWAW). I'm surprised it's not used more.

merrymouse · 09/12/2019 07:19

Weird to think that there are still 92 seats in the House of Lords reserved for hereditary peers, the peerages are still allowed to pass exclusively down the male line, and that the 2004 GRA includes the clause:

"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."

merrymouse · 09/12/2019 07:20

If Charles were a woman then Andrew would have male-preference Primogeniture over him.

No, see above.

merrymouse · 09/12/2019 07:23

sorry - you already pointed that out donquixote!

Dolorabelle · 09/12/2019 07:23

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

RadicalFern · 09/12/2019 08:50

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.

RoyalCorgi · 09/12/2019 08:52

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).

AbsintheFriends · 09/12/2019 08:58

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

EdithWeston · 09/12/2019 09:12

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.

EdithWeston · 09/12/2019 09:16

"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)

bellinisurge · 09/12/2019 09:22

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.

WrathofFaeKlop · 09/12/2019 09:32

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 Grin

emerencemaybehopeful · 09/12/2019 09:36

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).

WrathofFaeKlop · 09/12/2019 09:43

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

EdithWeston · 09/12/2019 09:53

"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)

WrathofFaeKlop · 09/12/2019 09:53

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

A legal loophole waiting for someone to challenge it.

WrathofFaeKlop · 09/12/2019 09:57

If Anne becomes a trans man, does that stand?

EdithWeston · 09/12/2019 10:08

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.

Swipe left for the next trending thread