We don't actually know what the letters patent on Cambridge say. But since the title will merge with the throne, it is a different matter than Harry's. Harry's title will not merge, so if he is like Andrew and only has daughters, the title would end. How do you know for a fact, you state 'she won't' do you have a source we don't?
I have no such magic source - I read elsewhere here that William's titles were created with the typical heirs male.
What distancing from the peerage? The queen has great respect for it, and has made no move to slim it down. The royal family yes, in the sense those who are paid for by the tax payers, but the peerage is another matter all together. All we have to do is look at Louis Mountbattan, whose title was made to allow females to inherit, to know there isn't an opposition to such change. And her full hearted acceptance of equal primogeniture, shows she seems open to even more.
The distancing from the peerage may not be HM's choice, but there is a sliming down by natural means in occurrence here. Since 1965 all peerages created have either been royal or life. With the "heirs male" requirement attached to the existing hereditary peerages then it means that with time there is going to be a natural slimming of the peerage as the hereditary peers become extinct due to a lacking of male heirs. In the future, if the only hereditary peerages created continue to be royal dukedoms, this means that eventually the only hereditary peers will be ones descended from royals.
As for Louis Mountbatten, he is the exception to a rule, not a rule in itself. Other peerages have gone extinct during HM's rule, or threatened to do so, and she has not acted to save them in favour of female inheritance.
It would be quite easy when any title goes extinct because of lack of male heir, be recreated for the female heir, and at that time the letter patents be changed. It would cost the royal family nothing, as the peerage receives no money, and since the change in house of lords, no extra rights either.
I really don't see this happening. HM no longer creates non-royal hereditary peers. It's that simple.
I though that changes to letters patent meant government intervention and was not within her personal gift - is that right?
That's right. HM cannot alter LPs, parliament has to do so. She could, theoretically, issue new LPs creating new titles to allow for the prevention of the extinction of endangered titles, as was done with Louis Mountbatten. However, as no non-royal hereditary peerage has been created since 1965 and HM hasn't taken measures to ensure the preservation of Andrew's titles, I doubt this is going to happen.
How would it be showing her as being out dated? Peerages exist, and until they all die out, they will. By saying, okay there are dukes, but there can also be duchesses, it would prove that they are modernizing. By allowing women to inherit titles and not just the throne, how is that archaic?
1. Creating non-royal hereditary peerages is seen as outdated. Therefore preserving hereditary peerages can also be seen as outdated.
2. There are duchesses (and female equivalents of other titles). There are women who have been created peers. There are also some peerages which allow for female inheritance, just not the vast majority.
3. Altering peerages in order to allow for female inheritance, however, is altering a system that is seen as archaic - not for its inherent sexism but for its inherent classism. That the Queen no longer creates non-royal hereditary peers means that any steps she takes to allow for female inheritance (not that she really can take any without creating hereditary peerages, which she doesn't do anymore) is seen as preserving an archaic system.
And what purpose? Does it matter? Last I looked, aristocracy doesn't hold any government position. They don't tax the serfs any more. The only ones affected by a title, are the family themselves. Its not like when the title goes extinct, that the money and land reverts back to the common people. The daughters inherit the estate and money, just not the title.
How exactly is it controvercial to allow equal inheritance? Love to here how that is controvercial.
Daughters inherit money and estates with or without titles. Therefore the only thing being preserved here is the title - which in itself is seen as a part of an archaic system.
I can imagine future royal peerages also being lifetime peerages as well.
I can see this happening in the future, but I hope it happens in the distant future.
Interestingly, the Duke of Devonshire's heir, Lord Burlington, has two children. The eldest is a girl, Lady Maud Cavendish.
This happens in a lot of families. The Duke of Devonshire's heir apparent is his eldest son, the Earl of Burlington, whose heir apparent is his eldest son, Lord Cavendish.
