10 hours ago
If my father can't hand his title to a woman, boys will continue to dominate
Is it not staggering that, in 2025, only a male can inherit a hereditary title along with the possible land, house and seat in Parliament that come with it? More than a decade ago, Parliament voted to remove male bias in the royal family's succession laws, yet it remains ingrained elsewhere in Britain.
Concurrently, I see an endless stream of foreigners coming to my current home of California to take advantage of its liberal rules on assisted fertility. They harvest embryos with IVF and choose the gender of the embryo to be implanted into their, or a paid surrogate's, uterus. Among the people I know who do this, they so often choose a male.
Some friends choose to do IVF in California because they cannot get pregnant naturally. But I also know some who are doing it solely to select the gender of their offspring. It's legal in the USA – they call it 'family balancing' and it's a very common request – whereas in the UK, it is illegal. I only learnt this recently. Now that I'm aware, I cannot help but see the link to our archaic primogeniture rights in Britain – and feel compelled to speak out.
If daughters do not have inheritance rights in the UK, we are simply reinforcing, in law, the idea that boys are better. This makes it more likely that people will continue choosing boys at Californian IVF clinics. The boys will continue to dominate – and that's just wrong.
In my opinion, this gender discrimination is not a problem that affects just the 0.001 per cent – it is an issue that affects the psyche of a nation, and perhaps, inadvertently, multiple nations. This archaic rule reinforces the idea that a daughter is a disappointment. Incapable. Obsolete. It's a global mindset, and as long as Great Britain continues to favour boys over girls, it only strengthens that mindset worldwide.
I believe the hereditary title and the possible estate that accompanies it should go to the eldest born, irrespective of gender. In these gender-transitioning times, this statement is more important than ever. As my father, the Earl of Balfour – a man with four daughters, of whom I am the second, and no sons – has suggested previously, the bizarre status quo might mean that my elder sister, Lady Willa Franks, could be eligible to inherit his title if she chose to change her gender. If males who transition to females are allowed to compete as women in the Olympics, then a female who transitions to male can surely inherit a castle. As it stands, when my father dies, his title will go to his younger brother Charles, and then onto Charles's son (his second-born child, because of course it will bypass Charles's firstborn, a daughter).
I am the second daughter of an Earl; I have nothing to gain personally by fighting this fight (unless I transition from female to male and 'usurp' my older sister – now there's a thought). Nor do I have anything to lose. 'If you see an injustice, speak out,' people say – and I cannot remain silent, even if the dinosaurs in the House of Lords take umbrage. Some 91 hereditary peers remain in the Lords, having inherited their titles because they have penises. Sir Keir Starmer plans to remove them altogether but seems less concerned about the fact it is still called the House of Lords. It should be renamed the House of Peers.
The reverberations of a change to our primogeniture rules would, of course, extend beyond the IVF clinics of California. I am not motivated by the young girls missing out on British dukedoms, though I think about them often. I am thinking about those girls in Afghanistan or Sudan who are denied the chance to go to school by overbearing fathers who deem them more useful as servants at home. I am fighting for them just as much as for my kind, community-serving older sister, who would be a perfect candidate to inherit my father's title and the responsibilities that come with it. I want to make this change for them – because the world is one and equal opportunities matter. That's why I support the 'Land for Women' campaign by the Legacy of War Foundation, which promotes the economic empowerment of women through land ownership.
Some argue that the system of hereditary titles should be abolished altogether – although it would seem daft to me to erase the unique and beautiful thing that is British history. But even then, there are still houses and estates – jewels of the nation that are unique and need able custodians. (Come and live in the USA and you'll start to understand the sheer magic of an Anglo-Saxon castle or a Baroque stately home.) These custodians can be just as well female as male – with whatever gendered partner, husband, wife, companion or team of supporters to help, of course. Both are qualified for such a role. The late Queen Elizabeth II – a most capable manager and matriarch – proved that for 70 years.
I am not a feminist (a word too female-heavy for me); if I must call myself anything, it is 'gender equalist'. Ideally, I'd class myself simply as 'human' in a time when women have earned the right to vote and the right to equal education and employment opportunities. I do not mean that we excel at the same things – no; we may all overlap in certain tasks, but women excel in some areas that men do not, and vice versa, with myriad overlaps in between. The world would not function if it were not for both sexes. And if owning and running a stately home is akin to raising a child, as many suggest, then clearly a female is as capable as any man in the role.
Award them to the firstborn, be they male, female, transgender or non-binary. It's a small change that will make a big impact. And please, let's do it soon, Sir Keir – before those American IVF clinics select even more boys for their customers and discard the girls forever.
