Questions about British Styles and Titles 2: Sep 2022 - Aug 2023

[JSH]

That reminds me of something I have been wondering about: On the one hand, most royal watchers (and yes, the Countess of Wessex) argue that the Wessex and Sussex children are legally or at least legally entitled to be Princess/Prince unless and until the 1917 Letters Patent are explicitly replaced by new Letters Patent, regardless of any other expression of the monarch's will - but on the other hand, no one seems to question the validity of the 2012 Letters Patent creating the Cambridge children Princess/Prince even though it contravened the 1917 Letters Patent (which prohibits new creations of Princesses/Princes), and nobody appears to question that William is truly the Prince of Wales even though the monarch has not issued letters patent to formalize it.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not take sides on the argument about letters patent versus other expressions of the monarch's will concerning royal titles. However, in general, the deference to Letters Patent seems to be argued selectively, and I cannot help but wonder if there is some unconscious bias being projected because William being Prince of Wales and the Cambridge children being Princess/Prince from birth feel "correct" to most royal watchers, whereas male-line grandchildren being denied the status of Princess/Prince is more controversial.

I don't see any connection between the cases you state. In the Wessex and Sussex case the Letters Patent of 1917 hold because there has been nothing to contradict them. In the case of the Cambridge children the Letters Patent of 2012 does contradict those of 1917 and they are newer so they take precedence. There is nothing unusual here. 1917 holds unless supplanted with newer (as in 2012).

 

[Heavs]

That reminds me of something I have been wondering about: On the one hand, most royal watchers (and yes, the Countess of Wessex) argue that the Wessex and Sussex children are legally or at least legally entitled to be Princess/Prince unless and until the 1917 Letters Patent are explicitly replaced by new Letters Patent, regardless of any other expression of the monarch's will - but on the other hand, no one seems to question the validity of the 2012 Letters Patent creating the Cambridge children Princess/Prince even though it contravened the 1917 Letters Patent (which prohibits new creations of Princesses/Princes), and nobody appears to question that William is truly the Prince of Wales even though the monarch has not issued letters patent to formalize it.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not take sides on the argument about letters patent versus other expressions of the monarch's will concerning royal titles. However, in general, the deference to Letters Patent seems to be argued selectively, and I cannot help but wonder if there is some unconscious bias being projected because William being Prince of Wales and the Cambridge children being Princess/Prince from birth feel "correct" to most royal watchers, whereas male-line grandchildren being denied the status of Princess/Prince is more controversial.

Well there were people here and elsewhere that said the COW was "wrong" when she stated that her children could decide when they turned 18 and technically it has never been proven that they could, even though it seems unlikely to say the least that she just made that up.

Until I read this and further researched it I was of the opinion that LPs were necessary in all matters and that Louise and James were "really" HRH but substantially changed my opinion afterwards:

At the time, many people have expressed the notion that a press release was not sufficient to modify the Letters Patent of 1917, and that Louise could not be deprived of her "rights" without letters patent. The fact is that royal styles and titles are a matter of royal prerogative, that does not require the advice of the government (the Letters Patent of 1917 were issued without any such advice). The sovereign's will and pleasure is all that matters, and she can change styles and titles as she pleases (see the documents concerning the style of the Duke of Windsor's wife and issue, in particular the view of the Law Officers that "the right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances", their view of the "undoubted powers of the Sovereign from time to time to determine the ambit within which the style and title of Royal Highness should be enjoyed", and the opinion of Sir Geoffrey Ellis that "precedence not regulated by law is substantially that granted at Court and this is a question for the Crown"). How that pleasure is publicized, by letters patent, warrant, press release or verbal declaration, is immaterial.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm#Wessex

But considering the Succession to the Crown Act was a big deal - removing male primogeniture by Acts of Parliament/government in 16 realms then it is as well to make sure everything is as formal as possible to make sure titles matched status in case George was Georgina.

With the Wessexes they were never likely to come to the throne so a press release expressing monarch's will and parents' agreement was sufficient. Perhaps HM also did not want to set a "laid in stone" precedent for Harry's future children at that time either which might have happened if she issued an LP for the Wessex children.

With William he was never not going to be POW and yes it's not particularly controversial so "Monarch's will" is sufficient. Perhaps LPs will be issued at some point or perhaps Charles is unwilling to deal with the "what about Archie and Lili?" question that might pick up steam if he started issuing LPs for others.

Also the Wessex announcement was nearly 24 years ago at this point and things have changed significantly in that time.

 

[wartenberg7]

A very good and academic explanation why all wives of Kings are The Queen:

 

[Mbruno]

Archie and Lilibet are now officially Princes of Sussex!
The website of the British Royal House appears updated from this Thursday with the titles.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

I suppose some people who expected King Charles III to "slim down" the monarchy will be disappointed by his decision to keep Archie's and Lilibet's princely titles.

The burden of removing titles has now been shifted to the next generation and will probably fall on King William V (assuming in this discussion that he will indeed be King one day).

With Charlotte ahead of Louis in the line of succession, it will be hard to justify that her children will not be HRHs while her younger brother's children will (according to the Letters Patent of 1917). So either King William V extends the title of Prince/Princess to all his grandchildren, in both maternal and paternal line, or he keeps it only for Prince George's children.

Maybe the Earl and Countess of Wessex should start calling themselves the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh- maybe then that will force a response from King Charles.

It is a different suituation. Archie and Lilibet automatically became Prince/Princess xxx of Sussex when King Charles III ascended the throne. Reversing the LPs of 1917 would require a formal significance of the King's will and pleasure.

The title of Duke of Edinburgh on the other hand is currently merged with the Crown. Edward cannot use it unless the title is recreated for him (and his heirs) by new Letters Patent.

It could be argued, however, that Louise and James should start calling themselves Princess/Prince since they have, to quote the Sussexes' latest statement, the same "birthright" to use the title as Archie and Lilibet.

Maybe there are waiting for Edward to become Duke of Edinburgh so that James and Louise can then become "Prince/Princess [xxx] of Edinburgh".

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I suppose some people who expected King Charles III to "slim down" the monarchy will be disappointed by his decision to keep Archie's and Lilibet's princely titles.

The burden of removing titles has now been shifted to the next generation and will probably fall on King William V (assuming in this discussion that he will indeed be King one day).

With Charlotte ahead of Louis in the line of succession, it will be hard to justify that her children will not be HRHs while her younger brother's children will (according to the Letters Patent of 1917). So either King William V extends the title of Prince/Princess to all his grandchildren, in both maternal and paternal line, or he keeps it only for Prince George's children.

Many people have argued that although the slimming down of Prince/Princess titles has reportedly been Charles III's wish for decades, it would nevertheless be unfair or at least "poor optics" to put it into practice at a time when the first affected generation would include the first biracial children of a senior royal.

So, if they are to be consistent, those same people ought to support Charlotte's children becoming Princess/Prince rather than removing Prince/Princess titles from Louis's children. By their same logic, it would be unfair or at least poor optics to slim down at a time when the first affected generation would include the children of the first female senior royal who has not been designated as inferior to males.

 

[Mbruno]

Many people have argued that although the slimming down of Prince/Princess titles has reportedly been Charles III's wish for decades, it would nevertheless be unfair or at least "poor optics" to put it into practice at a time when the first affected generation would include the first biracial children of a senior royal.

So, if they are to be consistent, those same people ought to support Charlotte's children becoming Princess/Prince rather than removing Prince/Princess titles from Louis's children. By their same logic, it would be unfair or at least poor optics to slim down at a time when the first affected generation affected would include the children of the first female senior royal who has not been designated as inferior to males.

Pragmatically someone will always have to be first affected person. Postponing the decision because X, Y, or Z would make it "unfair" for that first person only shifts the burden, as I said, to the next monarch.


I am one of the posters who thought it would be bad optics to take away the Sussex kids' titles and I believe that is why Charles didn't do it. But I feel sorry now for William because he is the one who will have to "demote" some of his own grandchildren.

I honestly don't think that the British public will agree to an increase in the number of HRHs (by making grandchildren in maternal line HRHs too) and, in that case, the only way to be "fair" to Charlotte is to take away the titles from Louis' children also. William can argue that new rule is gender neutral since its based on primogeniture, rather than gender (only the children of the eldest child of the King are HRHs), and that the fact that the eldest child happens to be male in the first generation to which the new rule will apply is just a random coincidence.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Pragmatically someone will always have to be first affected person. Postponing the decision because X, Y, or Z would make it "unfair" for that first person only shifts the burden, as I said, to the next monarch.

I am one of the posters who thought it would be bad optics to take away the Sussex kids' titles and I believe that is why Charles didn't do it.

I'm not sure I understand: It would be pragmatic but still bad optics?

The point I was trying to make is that if taking away titles from children is thought to be bad optics because of their parent's race, then taking away titles from children should also be thought to be bad optics because of their parent's gender.

William can argue that new rule is gender neutral since its based on primogeniture, rather than gender (only the children of the eldest child of the King are HRHs), and that the fact that the eldest child happens to be male in the first generation to which the new rule will apply is just a random coincidence.

I think you meant to say "in the first generation to whose children the new rule will apply".

It could likewise be argued, factually, that the new rule would be race neutral since it is based on primogeniture, rather than race, and the fact that the eldest child did not marry a biracial woman in the first generation to whose children the new rule would apply is just a random coincidence. It is the same in that respect.

 

[Mbruno]

I'm not sure I understand: It would be pragmatic but still bad optics?

The point I was trying to make is that if taking away titles from children is thought to be bad optics because of their parent's race, then taking away titles from children should also be thought to be bad optics because of their parent's gender.


I think you meant to say "in the first generation to whose children the new rule will apply".

It could likewise be argued, factually, that the new rule would be race neutral since it is based on primogeniture, rather than race, and the fact that the eldest child did not marry a biracial woman in the first generation to whose children the new rule would apply is just a random coincidence. It is the same in that respect.

"First generation" is the direct object of the sentence "the rule will apply to the first generation". Replacing "first generation" with a relative pronoun, it becomes "the first generation to which the rule will apply".


Semantically, you could argue that rule applies to the children of the first generation, rather than "the first generation" , in which case, using a relative clause, you would indeed get " the first generation to whose children the rule will apply". But both sentences are grammatically valid.


On your point, what I said is that, if you postpone a decision on titles because it is bad optics or unfair to someone, you will end up facing the risk of postponing it forever or, at least for a long time, because it is inherent to changing a rule that someone will inevitably be the first affected person and someone will argue that, for whatever reason, that first person is being treated unfairly.



Having said that, I don't think it will be bad optics if Charlotte's children are not HRHs as long as Louis' children aren't HRHs either, which eliminates any gender bias. Again, George is a boy simply by random chance, but the rule on giving HRHs only to the children of the King's eldest child in gender neutral.



And, in Meghan's case, the "bad optics" is not that the primogeniture rule is race-based, which, as you argued, it is not. The "bad optics" is that it would apply to some people born before the rule change (Archie and Lilibet) and not to others (Beatrice, Eugenie, etc.). In William's case, the rule change could be implemented before Charlotte's and Louis' children are born and explicitly apply only to people born thereafter, so there would be no double standards.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

"First generation" is the direct object of the sentence "the rule will apply to the first generation". Replacing "first generation" with a relative pronoun, it becomes "the first generation to which the rule will apply".

Semantically, you could argue that rule applies to the children of the first generation, rather than "the first generation" , in which case, using a relative clause, you would indeed get " the first generation to whose children the rule will apply". But both sentences are grammatically valid.

I wasn't criticizing your grammar (which is better than mine, I'm sure ?), only noting that it is the children who will be affected, not the parent. You wrote that "the eldest child happens to be male in the first generation to which the new rule will apply", but the first generation to whom the hypothetical new rule would apply would be the children of George, Charlotte, and Louis, and the genders of those not yet existing children are unknown.

On your point, what I said is that, if you postpone a decision on titles because it is bad optics or unfair to someone, you will end up facing the risk of postponing it forever or, at least for a long time, because it is inherent to changing a rule that someone will inevitably be the first affected person and someone will argue that, for whatever reason, that first person is being treated unfairly.

I agree. That is why, although the King's decision to allow parents (but only if the royal-born parent is male!) to make the decision for their children may be good optics for him in the short term, I do not think it will be advantageous to the monarchy in the long run to give members of the family veto power over any modernizations that affect their children.

And, in Meghan's case, the "bad optics" is not that the primogeniture rule is race-based, which, as you argued, it is not. The "bad optics" is that it would apply to some people born before the rule change (Archie and Lilibet) and not to others (Beatrice, Eugenie, etc.). In William's case, the rule change could be implemented before Charlotte's and Louis' children are born and explicitly apply only to people born thereafter, so there would be no double standards.

Thanks for clarifying your position. I think you see the matter a bit differently from many of those whom I was addressing, as many have also called it bad optics for Archie not to be a prince during Elizabeth II's reign even though that decision was made before he was born.

 

[Durham]

I would be amazed if any children of either Charlotte or Louis were HRH's. It would go against the grain of the times.

And if it were to pass then there is no way that Charlotte would be treated any differently than Louis. That would also go against the grain of the times.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I would be amazed if any children of either Charlotte or Louis were HRH's. It would go against the grain of the times.

And if it were to pass then there is no way that Charlotte would be treated any differently than Louis. That would also go against the grain of the times.

The UK seems though to be bucking the European trend.

Since the 1917 Letters Patent any changes have been to INCREASE the number of eligible persons not decrease the number.

I do think Charles wants to reduce the number of HRHs but he doesn't want it to affect his descendants ... strange I know. I do think he would like to remove it from Beatrice and Eugenie but he doesn't know how to do that without also affecting Archie and Lilibet as well as any future children of Charlotte and Louis.

Charles is too weak to do anything that might upset Harry further and so will do exactly what his mother did and bury the question and leave it for William to sort - unlike Margrethe II who took the initiative rather than leave it to Frederick.

Personally I don't see it being that hard:

From xxxx date the descendants of Elizabeth II who will be HRH Prince or Princess of the UK will be:

The children of the Sovereign
Spouses of the children of the Sovereign
The grandchildren of the Sovereign via the heir apparent
The spouses of any grandchildren of the Sovereign via the heir apparent.
The children of the heir apparent in each succeeding generation.

That LP (hypothetical I know) would mean the following would be HRH Prince/Princess (and any more senior title):

William, Catherine, George, Charlotte, Louis
Harry, Meghan
Andrew
Edward, Sophie
Anne, Tim

Of the above list only George would pass on HRH to his children while George, Charlotte, Louis and Andrew's spouses, should they marry/remarry would all be HRH - gender equality with Charlotte's spouse being HRH but Louis's children not.

As my LPs only apply to the descendants of Elizabeth II it doesn't affect the HRHs of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra and spouses. As they are the last of their line to be able to pass it on it doesn't matter and would be cruel to remove it now after a lifetime of service to QEII.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I would be amazed if any children of either Charlotte or Louis were HRH's. It would go against the grain of the times.

And if it were to pass then there is no way that Charlotte would be treated any differently than Louis. That would also go against the grain of the times.

There is a way that the children of Princess Charlotte could be HRH's.
Princess Charlotte marries a foreign Prince who is a HRH.

 

[Sa83]

My impression is that Charles does believe in and want the slimmed down monarchy. However, after Megxit I think he probably thought the optics of changing the Letters Patent would look like he was deliberately denying Archie & Lili their royal titles and so avoided making changes. I think he possibly thought Harry & Meghan would not bother using the titles for Archie & Lili as they are making their lives in America and so thought there was no need to take action and cause further friction with the Sussexes.
I do support the idea that HRHs should be limited to the children of the monarch and children of the direct heirs. However, I think a letters patent will need to be issued before Charlotte & Louis have children and should not be made retrospective to avoid any future arguments on the issue.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

For news and discussion of the Earl of Wessex's creation as Duke of Edinburgh, see here.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...sex-titles-32557-post2536457.html#post2536457

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Obviously Andrew isn't currently using his HRH, but if he was to remarry Sarah, would there be any justifiable reason why she would be denied an HRH of her own?

The palace's comment on the new Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet has now answered the question:

However, they [Archie and Lilibet] will not be HRHs. A palace source said: “The use of the style HRH would come through their father and the Duke of Sussex’s HRH is in abeyance.”

Sources close to the Sussexes pointed out that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie still have their HRHs even though their parents no longer have theirs. The palace argues that that is because they already had their HRHs when their parents lost theirs.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/princess-lilibet-christening-harry-meghan-2023-nppf8tc7v​

So, because any second wife of the Duke of York, and any children from that second marriage, would have gained their HRH from Andrew at a time when his own right to use it was in abeyance, he would also not be able to transmit the right to use the HRH to his second wife and their children.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't trust the palace anymore (after the letter I received from them about the titles of the Wessex children which Sophie has contradicted).

George V's Letters Patent have no distinction between HRH and Prince - they go together.

Not using in certain situations, which is what The Queen stated was to happen for Harry, Meghan and Andrew is all that was stated by The Queen via the palace. There was no use of the term abeyance but simply that for commercial purposes Harry and Meghan not use HRH and Andrew not use it in his legal action.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There was no use of the term abeyance but simply that for commercial purposes Harry and Meghan not use HRH and Andrew not use it in his legal action.

It was communicated that the HRH would no longer be used at all for the Sussexes and in any official capacity for the Duke of York. It was not only applied to commercial and legal purposes.


"The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family."

https://www.royal.uk/statement-her-majesty-queen-0

"The Duke of York will no longer use the style ‘His Royal Highness’ in any official capacity."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-prince-andrews-military-titles-25940221

 

[Iluvbertie]

It was communicated that the HRH would no longer be used at all for the Sussexes and in any official capacity for the Duke of York. It was not only applied to commercial and legal purposes.


"The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family."

https://www.royal.uk/statement-her-majesty-queen-0

"The Duke of York will no longer use the style ‘His Royal Highness’ in any official capacity."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-prince-andrews-military-titles-25940221

'not use' doesn't mean 'not hold' or 'is in abeyance'.

Louise and James don't 'use' the Prince or Princess styles - but they have them.

The CC for 12th September 2022 says 'their royal highnesses' as a collective for Andrew, Edward, Anne and Sophie when attending the Service of Thanksgiving in Edinburgh for the late Queen. If Andrew's HRH was no longer his that would have been an incorrect statement.

Later in the same entry it refers to 'their royal highnesses' for the same group as going on a walkabout.

So the CC refers to Andrew as a 'royal highness' after the Queen died and there is nothing more 'official' than something that appears in that record.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

'not use' doesn't mean 'not hold' or 'is in abeyance'.

Louise and James don't 'use' the Prince or Princess styles - but they have them.

When the palace source said "in abeyance", I believe their meaning was "not use", not "not hold".

But thank you for pointing out that the palace continued to use HRH for the Duke of York after saying he would no longer use it in any official capacity - perhaps they would argue that this is not the same as the Duke himself using it, but the public might not easily understand it.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Not sure where to post this, although it is somewhat related to this post from few months ago:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/order-of-precedence-6536-63.html#post2508746

James being promoted to courtesy Earl of Wessex while his older sister remains Lady Louise has drawn a bit of attention to male primogeniture, and Buckingham Palace was asked about Louise using a lower title than James. Buckingham Palace refused to comment.

https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/...elined-as-even-her-brother-receives-new-title

Royal sources yesterday stressed that in effect both James and Louise were now both using ‘subsidiary’ titles as children of a duke.

While Buckingham Palace would not comment on why the King did not offer an alternative title to Lady Louise to even the situation, it could be that she simply did not want one.

Many people have said that those campaigning to end gender discrimination in peerage succession are out of touch or worse and that most of society stands behind male-only succession. But if that is true then I don't see why Buckingham Palace couldn't have given a forthright answer, something like "The custom is that peerages are granted only to male heirs. This also applies to the Earldom of Wessex."

This is not comparable to questions about the royals' personal lives, where the Palace has a policy (in theory) of not answering. Louise using a lower title than James is a matter of public law and style, not their private lives, so it seems to me that the Palace's refusal to comment on it implies there is at least a slender amount of controversy regarding male primogeniture. But please do correct me if I am reading too far into it.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Not sure where to post this, although it is somewhat related to this post from few months ago:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/order-of-precedence-6536-63.html#post2508746

James being promoted to courtesy Earl of Wessex while his older sister remains Lady Louise has drawn a bit of attention to male primogeniture, and Buckingham Palace was asked about Louise using a lower title than James. Buckingham Palace refused to comment.

https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/...elined-as-even-her-brother-receives-new-title



Many people have said that those campaigning to end gender discrimination in peerage succession are out of touch or worse and that most of society stands behind male-only succession. But if that is true then I don't see why Buckingham Palace couldn't have given a forthright answer, something like "The custom is that peerages are granted only to male heirs. This also applies to the Earldom of Wessex."

This is not comparable to questions about the royals' personal lives, where the Palace has a policy (in theory) of not answering. Louise using a lower title than James is a matter of public law and style, not their private lives, so it seems to me that the Palace's refusal to comment on it implies there is at least a slender amount of controversy regarding male primogeniture. But please do correct me if I am reading too far into it.

Was Louise’s title and style supposed to change? Daughters of Dukes are styled Lady and Edwards Dukedom is for his lifetime only. I do think you are reading too far into it.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Was Louise’s title and style supposed to change? Daughters of Dukes are styled Lady and Edwards Dukedom is for his lifetime only. I do think you are reading too far into it.

Thank you for the feedback, but it seems you did not understand what I wrote or what I meant by "reading too far into it", as my "reading" had nothing to do with Louise's title and style being "supposed to change".

 

[Somebody]

I don't see what has changed in essence. James was using one of his father's subsidiary titles (as his heir) and still is using one of his father's subsidiary titles (just a different one, now his father is a dyke, so his previous title is now the subsidiary title).

Louise was styled as a Lady as daughter of an earl and now still is styled as a lady as the daughter of a duke. If Louise and James would have had a younger brother (let's call him Thomas), his style would have changed from The Honarable Thomas M-W to Lord Thomas M-W.,

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am confused. Is your comment "I don't see what has changed in essence." meant to respond to the Mail article, my post, or SirGyamfi1's post?

If it is a response to my post: So you are saying that if Buckingham Palace had been asked a question about male primogeniture in, say, 1923, they would have responded in the same way (refusal to comment)?

If it is a response to the Mail article: It is not the first time that the Mail and other newspapers have published articles about male primogeniture or specifically about Louise being bypassed for James. That is indeed not a "change". But the recent dukedom news has refocused attention on it.

 

[Alison H]

The Palace possibly didn't want to say anything that would spark headlines about male only primogeniture. It's not really a subject in the news because, apart from royal dukedoms and earldoms, nobody's really that bothered about who's the next Duke of A or Earl of B. One duke's daughter, and I'm afraid I can't remember whom, did go to the press and say that it wasn't fair, but people weren't that interested.

 

[Lilyflo]

The Palace possibly didn't want to say anything that would spark headlines about male only primogeniture. It's not really a subject in the news because, apart from royal dukedoms and earldoms, nobody's really that bothered about who's the next Duke of A or Earl of B. One duke's daughter, and I'm afraid I can't remember whom, did go to the press and say that it wasn't fair, but people weren't that interested.

The woman you mention is Charlotte Carew Pole and her campaign is here:
https://daughtersrights.co.uk

This link takes you to the latest position in parliament and I think it will progress (if slowly!)
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/...-gender-inequality-in-the-line-of-succession/

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The woman you mention is Charlotte Carew Pole and her campaign is here:
https://daughtersrights.co.uk

This link takes you to the latest position in parliament and I think it will progress (if slowly!)
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/...-gender-inequality-in-the-line-of-succession/

I think the major people who were part of it were Lady Kinvara Balfour and probably Julian Fellowes. Charlotte Carew-Pole is a baronet’s daughter (part of the gentry) not necessarily nobility.

 

[Lilyflo]

I think the major people who were part of it were Lady Kinvara Balfour and probably Julian Fellowes. Charlotte Carew-Pole is a baronet’s daughter (part of the gentry) not necessarily nobility.

Charlotte founded the campaign - listen to her talk about it here.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The woman you mention is Charlotte Carew Pole and her campaign is here:
https://daughtersrights.co.uk

This link takes you to the latest position in parliament and I think it will progress (if slowly!)
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/...-gender-inequality-in-the-line-of-succession/

I looked her up and came across a Glamour Mag article where it is indicated around the time H&M were expecting their first child, she was campaigning for change in primogeniture if they had a daughter born first.

 

[Lilyflo]

I looked her up and came across a Glamour Mag article where it is indicated around the time H&M were expecting their first child, she was campaigning for change in primogeniture if they had a daughter born first.

Charlotte probably did have something to say about it but her campaign pre-dates that - she founded it in 2015.