- Joined
- Aug 21, 2017
- Messages
- 11,295
- City
- BC
- Country
- Canada
It's interesting to read the various arguments. It seems that the main problem that they expect to get support for is that by keeping the rules as they are a portion of the seats in the house of Lords (called 'the other place' in the House of Commons) is designated for men.During the session of Parliament which is coming to a close, discussions were held on two private members' bills to allow females to succeed to peerages: one bill proposed to allow female succession but with priority for sons over daughters, another proposed equal rights for women. As usual for governments regardless of political party (even though the current Prime Minister supported female succession when he was a backbench MP), the Government declined to support either bill, though it only commented on the first (son-preference) bill.
The debates can be found here.
Those who want daughters to inherit if no sons are available often have a personal interest at stake - while also stressing the importance of a gradual introduction to female inheritance given the far-reaching consequences of introducing absolute primogeniture immediately. The other bill therefore intends to imply this principle gradually by excluding the heirs that have already been identified. Several members refer to the changes in the line to the throne and advocate for the rest of the peerage to follow suit (although excluding any royal titles from the application of this bill).
Does anyone know more about Lord Lucas? He is against reviving titles that became extinct (part of the proposal for inheritance of women when no men are available) and explained that he would have a claim to the title Duke of Kent otherwise...
The debate on full equal primogeniture was scheduled to continue later this month, however, I assume the upcoming elections might put a stop to that.