How is it taking sides
I didn't say they would be taking sides. I CLEARLY stated the BRF "may want to avoid
accusations that they are taking sides." This is a point that has been made in other Internet forums.
There is a campaign in the UK to do away with male-only primogeniture within the peerage and allow daughters to succeed even if they have younger brothers. By creating gender-blind titles, the BRF
could be seen as taking sides. If there's a move to ban ostrich feathers in hats and Camilla shows up with an ostrich feather hat, she
could be seen as taking sides, whether that was her intention or not.
We have no idea how other peers feel about if titles should be inherited by women. Other then people's opinion on what the peers think.
Yes, we certainly do know how some peers feel about this. They have made their opinions known in many online articles and websites. These are just a few:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ts-battling-to-inherit-the-title-8656310.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_(Titles)_Bill
https://www.facebook.com/EqualityForWomenInThePeerage?ref=stream
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ssion-rules-blue-blood-daughters-8735041.html
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-12-06/debates/13120659000675/Equality(Titles)Bill(HL)
There are titles which are inheritable by women. Its actually common with older Scottish titles. One of said inheritors was at the wedding sitting with the family, Lady Saltoun. The only difference is that it is male preference, so sons still take preference over daughters, though daughters can inherit.
But there are MANY other titles that daughters can't inherit, meaning the title becomes extinct if there are no sons. And, as you state, sons still take preference over daughters. Lady Saltoun is only Lady Saltoun because she doesn't have a brother.
They also can petition to have the queen allow a daughter to inherit. The queen has had no problem doing this. The Earl of Burma is a prime example. She had no concern for 'being accused of taking sides' when she allowed Louis' daughter to inherit his title.
The Queen did NOT ALLOW Earl Mountbatten of Burma's daughter to inherit his title. Because he had no sons the letters patent creating the title in 1947 stated that it could be inherited by "his eldest daughter Patricia Edwina Victoria, Baroness Brabourne...and the heirs male of her body lawfully begotten; and in default of such issue to every other daughter lawfully begotten of the said Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas, Viscount Mountbatten of Burma, successively in order of seniority of age and priority of birth and to the heirs male of their bodies lawfully begotten..."
This was done to avoid the title becoming extinct at Lord Mountbatten's death. The daughters were allowed to succeed only because he had no sons. And notice that while Lord Mountbatten's daughters could succeed to the title, THEIR daughters couldn't.
It really is time to stop whinging about 'well the next generation can....' and realize its time for change. If the royal family wants to continue to be considered relevant, it needs to modernize at times. The regular peerage, non royals, is one thing. But the Duke of Sussex is a royal peerage. Its not enough the royals 'slim down'. They need to actually make steps to show they aren't archaic.
Why is it if Charlotte was born first she would be queen, but if Harry has a daughter she cant inherit?? Gender equality needs to be equal.
I agree. Where in my post did I say I didn't?
This is what I stated: "I suspect the Queen prefers the traditional ways." That's why I don't think Harry's title will be gender-blind. The Queen's preferences matter, not mine or yours. So if you don't like whinging about the next generation, please direct your posts to her. ?
The Queen might pleasantly surprise me but if not we'll probably see changes when Charles or more likely William are King.