In the news:
Son and heir? In Britain, daughters cry no fair
The practice of primogeniture — in which titles and estates pass only to male heirs — may seem as out of date now as denying women the vote, but it’s still the law for the British aristocracy.
The New York Times
LONDON — Viewers of “Downton Abbey” saw the family-destroying potential of primogeniture in the first episode, when the Titanic sank and Lord Grantham, father of three daughters, was left with no obvious heir.
Luckily, the distant cousin who emerged as the next in line proved willing to ditch his dreary day job, marry one of the daughters and cleverly produce a son before his own abrupt demise last season.
But what of those poor, no-prospects daughters, forced to look alluring and wait around for suitable husbands?
The practice of primogeniture — in which titles and estates pass only to male heirs, even negligibly related ones excavated from other continents — may seem as outrageous and antediluvian as denying women the vote, but it remains the law of the land in Britain.
“My father always said, ‘Remember to wear a safety belt, because your face is your fortune,’ ” said Liza Campbell, daughter of the 25th Thane of Cawdor, and now, after her father’s death, sister of the 26th.
Also known as the Earl of Cawdor, the current thane, Colin, is the middle child among five children. But he is the oldest boy and was always considered the most important, for title-continuity purposes. “I love my brother, but it’s a peculiar situation,” said Campbell, 53, an artist and writer who grew up on the family’s Scottish estate — 50,000 acres, plus castle — but now lives in London. “There’s one chosen one in the family, and everyone else is superfluous to requirements.”
Until recently there has been little appetite to change the law, a reflection in part of Britain’s inability to decide whether its aristocracy is an essential part of its identity, a quaint vestige of the past, or a bit of both. “The posh aspect of it blinds people to what is essentially sexism in a privileged minority, where girls are born less than boys,” Campbell said.
New monarchy rule
The issue has been percolating through Parliament since the recent passage of a law allowing the monarchy to be passed on to the monarch’s firstborn child, regardless of sex (this means that William and Kate’s impending baby will become the third in line to the throne, whether it is a boy or a girl).
New legislative proposals would allow peerages — basically, inherited titles and the estates that can come with them — to be passed on this way, too, to the oldest child rather than the oldest son.
“We seem to have not got rid of titles, but I think since we have them, I would like to see them gender-blind,” said the bill’s sponsor in the House of Lords, Lord Lucas of Crudwell and Dingwall, who because of a historical quirk is one of the few hereditary peers whose titles can pass to girls as well as boys.
The House of Commons sponsor, Mary Macleod, a Conservative, pointed out that of 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords, just two are women. “It only affects a few people, but it’s symbolic,” she said of the proposal.
The current rules have created all manner of family trouble. “When we were growing up, it was always, ‘When your brother lives here,’ ” said a woman who grew up on a grand estate she loved, only to have her younger brother inherit it when their father died.
The woman, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said no one questioned the system. “Even though my father had witnessed his mother’s near-collapse at not inheriting the house she grew up in, he did not adjust his own behavior toward his daughter,” said the woman, now in her late 50s.
She is lucky: Her brother lets her and her children visit the house whenever they want. Some sisters are not so fortunate. The children of the late Lord Lambton, for instance, have been locked in a nasty dispute over his multimillion-pound estate, which when he died in 2006 passed down entirely to his youngest child and only son, Ned.
Three of his five daughters have sued their brother, claiming that since Lord Lambton spent his last decades in his villa in Italy, his estate should be subject to Italian law, which does not have primogeniture. They are asking for $1.5 million apiece. The brother has countersued in English court.
The situation is distressing in a different way for the Earl and Countess of Clancarty, who have an 8-year-old daughter but no one to take over the family title, which is hundreds of years old. “There’s a feeling of the line stopping with you after all these centuries,” the countess said. “The title and any family memorabilia would go to someone we don’t even know. If they even exist, they would probably be in Australia.”
No to “forced heirship”
Interestingly, no one is campaigning to take the matter further by, say, requiring that estates be divided among all the children and not left to just one. The system has kept intact for centuries many of Britain’s grandest estates, including Blenheim Palace, home of the Duke of Marlborough; Chatsworth, home of the Duke of Devonshire; and Highclere Castle, home to the Earl of Carnarvon (and to Lord Grantham, in TV land).
In Europe, estates have been broken up and fortunes diluted because of laws meant to make it impossible to disinherit even unsatisfactory children. These “forced heirship” laws require that a portion of an estate must be divided among the deceased’s children and spouse, and they apply in Scotland as well as much of the Continent, said Roderick Paisley, professor of Scottish law at the University of Aberdeen.
In Britain, Lady Clancarty and others have started an online petition urging Parliament to enact the proposals and end sex discrimination among hereditary peers. Recently, dozens of people signed a supportive letter in The Telegraph newspaper. But many others refused.