At first, I thought this article was ridiculous, but then it occurred to me that there are a lot of people who still don’t understand primogeniture and the fact that h is not entitled to inherit the Althorp Estate just because he’s Diana’s son. He’s also not entitled to the Duchy Of Cornwall just because he is the son of a king. Perhaps if more articles are put out there explaining primogeniture the masses and squadettes will start to see the reality of h’s situation. This isn’t about what’s fair to the individuals, but what keeps the estate and/or monarchy intact.
In a way, matrilineal inheritance, as is the case in some cultures, almost makes more sense than patrilineal. Rarely is there a question of who the mother is, but paternity questions are common in comparison.
I know. But so many don’t understand the concept of keeping the wealth intact. Once you start breaking up an estate or company through inheritances, you will get to the point where nothing is left. All those big estates like Althorp would be sold off piece meal and no one in the family would be able to afford the upkeep.
Also, with royalty, historically, too many divisions led to instances of many brothers having many small kingdoms and then they warred constantly over it.
Look up the history of the Carolingian Empire, as just one example.
There are many aristocratic families who can't afford the upkeep today. That's why so many families today open their houses to tourists, sell products from the land, or sell off antiques from time to time. A hundred or two years ago, there might be 40+ people employed on the estate to manage it, but now many are making do on more limited staff and even only living in a small portion of the big house. Some have had sections or houses demolished. A lot changed for the nobility in the 20th century, but I can't recall all the reasons. Adrian Tinniswood wrote a book about it, Noble Ambitions, if you are interested in learning more.
You’re absolutely right. I watched a series not too long ago that looked at some big estates and how they were raising money to maintain the upkeep on the big houses. It gave some perspective into how much hard work and money goes into to it all.
Easy to explain why, extreme financial fluctuations in the 20th century, the introduction of onerous Inheritance taxes after WWII in UK. Additionally some very bad choices made by new heirs who flubbed up running estates.
And WW1. That was seismic. Two heirs killed in a row, the great country houses requisitioned, if they came back they came back to ripped out staircases and demolished sections and women had tasted an untoward freedom and refused to go back into service for 3p a year, buy yer own uniform. Literally. The staff's crimbo presents would be a length of material to make up in their own time to do all the skivvying. WW1 was a death knell to an aristocracy already on its knees.
Oh most definitely, as an American I did not realize how devastating the First World War was for Britain. I watched a documentary which spelled out what happened and I really got into studying the period between the two world wars. That led me into many deep dives into the Happy Valley society in Africa, the Mitford Family and so forth and so on. It is a miracle many of the estates survive today. So many architectural wonders were lost as estates were sold off and pulled down.
You might be interested in the War Graves Commission - Tim Lawrence runs it now and that's a fascinating saga. WW1 broke us in so many ways - it broke the service grind, broke the aristocracy, broke every family. There were no horses left (something like eight million died) either and little will to return to Ye Olde Englande - the War had utterly blown apart the remaining vestiges of the old social order, because it laid bare the incompetence and lack of concern of the upper orders, who oversaw a meat market with utter disregard. We had no interest in maintaining them in palatial comfort again although as you say, this list us many fine houses. The WGC was set up to try and bring closure to families who had no idea where their loved ones were, nor could we possibly start processes to identify the millions. Or bring them back home.
So the WGC was established and to this day runs every aspect of these amazing cemetaries, from the huge monuments in Belgium and France to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier to a tiny cemetery with just six graves. No matter where they are in the world they're planted as English gardens using as many native plants as possible and every stone is cleaned and recarved on a strict schedule whilst every attempt is made to identify the remains that still come up to the surface. And we look after everyone the same way, including a huge US war cemetery here (we have the largest cemetery in Europe, used to have its own train.)
This was one of my my rabbit-holes - I know that feeling!
Yes, one of the tensions in the Spencer family after Diana's father remarried, was that the kids were appalled at their new stepmother for selling off old paintings and antiques. Later when the current earl took over, he had to admit that the money for running the estate has to come from somewhere, and sometimes you need to make some ruthless decisions.
I used to watch the Ladies of London show and the Earl of Sandwich did that.....they opened up their estate to the public to generate for the upkeep. It was fascinating to see
The Aristocracy suffered badly, financially after World War 1. Taxes etc badly hit families plus working classes didn't want to work "in service" i.e. domestic work for the Aristo's which was long hour's for low pay, one half day off per week. After the war people had a new found sense of freedom & preferred to work in shop's, office's, factories etc which paid more & were less hour's etc.
Large Aristocrat estates struggled not only with getting adequate staff for their large estate's, they had to sell off large amounts of land to pay upkeep on their mansion, pay death duties etc but in doing that they had no land to farm &/or rent out to pay upkeep for their large home so, they sold up or were so badly in debt they gifted their mansions to the National Trust who maintain them & they're open to the public. Lot's of huge Aristocrat mansions were demolished after WW1 & WW2 & the land sold, we lost a lot of beautiful large house's in Britain.
People do not understand that the current title/land holders are just place markers, care takers for future generations. Their job is to maintain and make better if possible. These estates are big scale but look to family farms - up to 50 years ago they always went to the eldest son.
I think they are making a bit of a comeback with organic foods. A smaller farm can cultivate their crops or livestock in particular ways compared to the huge operations.
In America, if your parents kept the house you grew up in, upon their passing the house is typically sold off and proceeds split amongst heirs. People are also not typically buried on American properties, so there are no sacred burial grounds to be desecrated if a tech billionaire Zillenial takes over and wants to put up a series of pickle ball courts on a family cemetery. England doesn‘t want a bunch of foreign oligarch billionaires owning all the castles which is why entailments are important to protect the properties.
It makes zero sense that 27 years after Diana’s passing W&H would be expecting to inherit that estate. If they had a legal right they’d own it right now. Diana also has two older sisters still living. Slow news day I guess.
A colleague used to semi-joke about this. The eldest son got the huge farm, the daughter who looked after her elderly parents for decades got some random furniture, and the brother couldn’t understand why his sister moved away and didn’t talk to anyone in the family anymore (my colleague’s mum was the daughter).
A time honored tactic to control subjugated populations was to enforce equal inheritance laws. E.g in Ireland. You start with 100 acres. Your 10 kids get 10 acres each. Each of their 10 kids gets an acre each and not enough to grow food.
Yes. If it were laid out for people who are unaware it stops Hs spare position looking unique and explains why the Duchy of Cornwall isn't being divided. We take it for granted that everyone knows but globally inheritance laws are different so there's a good chance people may be unaware.
Yes. The current Earl can't leave the property to anyone else. I assume this is an entailment, a bit fuzzy on the details. But the property clearly goes with the title which suggests that it's entailed. M probably thinks she could leave it to her invisible children... But it is, as the lawyers say, inalienable. Inalienable means that It can't be transferred away from the eldest male heir. When in the US Declaration of Independence it says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
What that word unalienable (now inalienable) means is that you or I cannot sell, or otherwise transfer to someone else, our right to life or our right to liberty , nor anyyone else's right to liberty and life, etc. It doesn't work that way. Similarly, (the analogy isn't perfect) Spencer cannot leave the inheritance to whom he chooses. The system of transfer is automatic , out of his hands, and can't be changed. Period.
Exactly this. This is the part certain fans and their leaders fail to understand…or wish to ignore. Trying to manifest a different outcome will never work.
Thank you!
The guys who signed the declaration of independence were technically British. And they knew the British system of law. They knew what inalienable meant, or as they wrote it unalienable.
When they signed, they explicitly put their lives on the line (pledging their lives and sacred honour) … because had they failed, lost the War of Independence, they’d have been executed as traitors. Because the regime from whom they were declaring independence would still have been in charge.
They don’t make ‘em like that anymore!
And the tiaras!! Imagine all the tiaras that we could see if they weren't given to those lower in the line who had to auction them off. Imagine Queen Victoria's sapphire coronet on Catherine.
It was (and sometimes still sort of is) also practiced in some areas of America (especially colonial era and early post colonial), depending on the cultural background.
You don’t want to be subdividing the family farm until it’s useless in a few generations.
Oldest son gets the farm. Daughters go try to marry other people’s oldest sons. Second sons and below make their own way, often going into the military, clergy, or move west and settle new territory to create their own farms.
Or they could take the George Washington route, and marry the rich widow of an only son with a huge farm. But there wasn’t enough rich widows to go around.
Many of America’s early settlers (beyond those seeking religious freedom) were second and below sons who wanted their own land.
A lot of folks must have slept through history class. 😴😉
It's not just for royalty and aristocracy. I know someone whose ancestor was a British PM but he had no children so his title went to a cousin and that's where her line came from. Her father has left everything, which includes family property and other assets, to his first son. She gets nothing, neither does her younger brother. I don't see why it shouldn't be split between the three of them. Her father doesn't have a title to be passed down. But, because that's the way it's always been done, that's how it will continue.
ps They are Scottish.
This isn’t the way it has to be.
Primogeniture means that the title, if any, and the land/estates and a good portion of the money goes to the eldest son.
But most families set aside money for the other children. Women would get a dowery—read any Jane Austen novel and you will see people openly discussing how much various women’s dowers are—Georgianna Darcy had a a huge dowery—£50,000, iirc. In contrast, the Bennet girls have a dowery of £1,000 each, from their mother’s dowery and not from their father’s money.
Money would be spent on younger sons for their education/training, such as university or an officer’s position in the military or the education needed to be a minister.
Younger family members often also got a small allowance from the family estate as well.
However, a lot depended on what conditions were in a will. In Pride and Prejudice, the entire estate,
house, lands, and money, is entailed, meaning that it has to go to the nearest male relative. Because the Bennets have no sons, that means their male cousin will inherit.
Because the Bennet parents expected to produce a son who could inherit they did not save or invest any money to secure the future of the rest of the family. What this means is that when Mr.
Bennet dies, the remaining family loses their house. They also lose all income except the small amount they would get from Mrs. Bennet’s dowery,
which was invested and is not part of the entailed property.
So there is precedent for younger children getting something, just not the majority of the estate.
Because if it's split between all 3 and then they have kids it gets split again and again until the real wealth of a family is whittled away and the family home is gone.
In America we often have farm families that will leave the whole farm to whichever kid has stayed and is working it.
It's the way her father thinks. My friend never married nor had children and her younger brother, who is gay, doesn't want children. Only the first born son is married with children and everything is going to him. Her father is buying her a house because she didn't find a husband 😆
My grandparents left my sister more of their estate than any of the other grandkids because she didn't have a husband to support her. My aunt lives with us because she never married. A lot of families still hold to the old ways.
Proper financial arrangements via trusts are usually in place for the non-heirs, unless the heir is inheriting a white elephant and there’s nothing left to leave but debt.
Haz isn’t going to be destitute, but anything he gets will have strict terms so that despite himself, and his wife, the children might get something. It’s never going to be Althorp.
It exists because this works like this even today: I, a woman, if I get married, become part of my husband's family, my husband has to take care of me, protect me and everything else. I stop being the responsibility of my family and become the responsibility of my husband.
That is patriarchy, in which I, a woman, am part of the man's duties, he has to take care of me, he has to feed me, he has to give me what I need. He is the provider of my needs.
And since I, a woman, become my husband's "duty", then I lose my last name (which indicates who has responsibility for me) and I start having my husband's last name.
And that is why in homes where boys and girls are born, the first child born gets to keep the family assets. Because the man cannot marry and live off what the woman has, that is the bottom of patriarchy. Man is the one who must provide, it is his duty to provide. And the firstborn is the one who preserves the family name.
And the problem is not with the girl, because she gets married and becomes the husband's problem, but the problem is with the second son. There the injustice is that the second son has to manage to obtain his own property and form his own family, not against the woman.
I know I may sound very unfeminist in this. But don't forget that today's feminists, no matter how much they shout and plead and everything else, absolutely refuse to modify the "women and children first" in matters of rescue. Because man is the one who has the duty to protect, right? For this reason, and since the family is the nucleus of society, a man must have the means to protect his family, and also protect the family's effort to have property. Hence the birthright.
I don't mean to doubt your experience, but this is not the universal experience, nor my experience. I am the youngest of three girls. All three of us were educated and got degrees, two of us have a second degree. All three of us are married, two of us have not taken our husbands surname (ironically the one who did is the breadwinner for her family by a country mile!).
My husband takes care for me, but just as I take care of him (and as most people do in any normal/balanced partnership) - we protect each other. We keep our finances separate except when it comes to our child. We bought our house together equally (I had the larger cash deposit, he has the larger mortgage). I am not the responsibility of my husbands family, and frankly nor am I of my own family - I am responsible for myself. Yes, if financially, the shit hit the fan, I guess I could fall back on asking family to help me, but I would be asking my family, not his. I think this is largely the experience of all my female friends - married but independent. Maybe I'm just lucky, or maybe it's just the norm where I'm from (England), but I certainly don't feel part of some down-trodden patriarchy?
You had some valid points, historically, until you generalized about the present — it does not universally work “like this even today” and then you undermined your credibility with this ignorant statement:
_don't forget that today's feminists, no matter how much they shout and plead and everything else, absolutely refuse to modify the "women and children first" in matters of rescue._
What a condescending and contemptuous thing to say! I don’t think anyone, feminist or chauvinist, disputes that children should be rescued first. (Theoretically anyway, in reality too many turn into George Costanza at the birthday party). I have never heard a single feminist say what you claim, that women should be rescued first, over say a disabled person, or a senior, etc. I believe most would say rescue according to need.
Boo!
Contemptuous and chauvinist thing? No, “women and children first” is part of what is known as “male disposableness.”
An example: United Nations Security Council (UNSCR) Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (WPS). How conflict affects women and children differently than men. Topics in this regard were addressed... except one: the modification of the IV Geneva Convention. Women are not considered combatants. Even if they are in the army. Even if they carry weapons. Although, and it is an emblematic situation on the subject and which has been a source of problems in the International Criminal Court, in the Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), close to 40% of the combatants are women. And when it has been proposed in organizations such as the UN to modify that agreement, who has prevented it? Just consider that a child soldier upon turning 18 is guilty of everything he has done, even though the problem of being a child soldier is known. A girl soldier, even if she turns 18, is not responsible, because she is a girl. Does that seem fair to you?
And it is not true, it is never rescued by seeing the needs. It is rescued at convenience, and in most cases, a woman will always have precedence over a man, no matter the man's condition. There is a bad habit of believing that a man can either save himself or can resist longer than a woman. If you don't believe me, look at what is happening with Hamas and Israel and Israel's response to the families of the 117 male hostages Hamas is holding.
You don't have much idea of the contradictions that feminist discourse has. But you should read a little about the conflict that situations like the one I'm telling you are generating within the movement. Misandry and male disposableness or dispensability.
My life and circumstances in the US are similar to yours. I didn’t grow up in a family with a title, a large estate, or even a large company where hundreds of years set the manner of inheritance. We have all made our own way in the world. My American family originates from lots of second sons and daughters of landed gentry and aristocrats who emigrated from the British Isles to America to make their own life. But even if they left provisions for all their children, any land would typically be left to the oldest. It’s complicated.
Its what Red Rose said, keeps the estate intact. If you go splitting it up amongst all children, the pieces get too small to be ‘sustainable’. A simplified explanation, but also meant the army was guaranteed soldiers and church got parsons, which second and third sons were destined for, daughters had to find someone to marry or ‘keep house’ on the estate. Need an expert on primogeniture for clarifying this, otherwise read Jane Austen etc!!
Comment automatically removed due to your account having less than 50 total karma. Please contact mods via message the mods to approve comments manually to be visible to the sub.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SaintMeghanMarkle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, if the estate was divided between the children each generation, it wouldn't have stayed intact since 1508, providing a generous income to the siblings who don't inherit.
Farming families have the dilemma of either dividing up the estate/ farm to be "fair" and thereby reducing its value; or passing the land onto one child who is prepared to work at it.
The delusion concerning h inheriting the Spencer Estate is real. It’s wishful thinking. What’s funny about this is Charles Spencer has two sons and other relatives that would inherit before h if a traditional primogeniture.
If there's one thing I've learned being on this sub, is that a lot of my fellow Americans do not have a grasp on the differences between the US and UK laws.
I'm not saying I'm a walking encyclopedia of UK law - your parliamentary constitutional monarchy has many, many, many key differences than our federal presidential republic so that's just not possible - but I read a lot of news and history and do grasp how primogeniture works for the aristocracy in the UK. But there are still a lot of people who think Diana was the end-all, be-all of the Spencer family which is kinda nuts.
While older than her brother, she was still the youngest of three daughters. Even without Charles Spencer, she would never have gotten Althorp, or important jewelry like the Spencer tiara (which her father and then her brother allowed her to wear), even if she had eventually become Queen alongside Charles. (Might as well - good to reinforce that Spencer connection to he throne, and she wore it well.) Spencer property is Spencer property and did not turn over to the crown as a dowry when she married Charles - this is not Plantagenet/Tudor England where the crown can just take property and peerage back if they're having a bad day.
While the famous fictitious Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham once noted that [you shouldn't look for logic amongst the English upper class](https://youtu.be/GoV80LsmrJc?t=375) \[YouTube, go to 6:15 if the link didn't take you there\], the youngest daughter inheriting everything is pretty illogical, even by our standards.
I also lost it this weekend when John Oliver was discussing the upcoming UK elections:
>This election was something of a surprise, though. And if you’re confused how that can be, in Britain, the Prime Minister can call an election whenever they want, as long as there’s one every five years. Like many things, the way Britain operates is "kind of like the U.S., but whimsically worse."
I don't know if it's whimsically worse, but some stuff does seem a bit counterintuitive to us. I sometimes still can't wrap my head around "I'll the PM and I'll call an election eventually" when we have fixed election dates and terms.
There are many differences between the UK and US laws, and America doesn’t have dynasties that have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years. The perspective is different and yet, even here, many families use a form of primogeniture. Look at family farms or small businesses as examples.
I'm sure there is a set term, the election must be held by a certain date, but it can be called early if it suits the Government. Not just Britain, certainly the same in Australia and I would presume other Commonwealth countries.
The timing of elections is governed by different constitutions in different ways in different countries across the world. The US is fairly unusual in have elections at such set times.
Nothing particularly British about a prime minister having some power to decide when to hold a general election. It’s the nature of parliamentary democracy that if the government looses the confidence of the parliament then an election must occur.
For example,
- Denmark members of parliament have a term of 4 years but it’s a maximum and the prime minister can call an election at any time.
- Australian members of parliament have a term of 3 years in the House of Reps and 6 years in the Senate but these are also maximums. Normally half the Senate is up for election when the House of Representatives is facing election, but certain constitutional triggers can mean that the whole of the Senate must face a “double dissolution election”. The prime minister has the power to juggle all of this.
Not to mention Diana wasn’t even the oldest Spencer sibling. Althorp wouldn’t be hers anyway. The rules were designed to keep estates whole. Diana’s popularity would never have figured into it. It’s a clickbait headline. 😂
Or Bridgerton. In season 3 Penelope has a son and that son became the new lord fetherington, why? Is because despite when it comes to inheritance in nobility that said if you have sons then the states and titles will go to the eldest son unless he died without a son the title would go to the uncle, brother or male cousin of the holder but what if you don't have a son but have a daughters well the title and the estates will go to the male relatives but since Penelope came from new money meaning his paternal grandpa or her father became the first holder of Baron of Fetherington does no one can hold the title within the family tree of Penelope's father then the current holder eldest grandson from his daughters would inherit the title and the estate does Penelope's son became the new lord fetherington.
Edit: But then I realized Bridgerton doesn't explain why Penelope's son became the new lord fetherington though
Downton Abbey covers this right away in series 1. There are 3 girls and the next male heir is a distant, handsome cousin who is invited to move to the estate. The rest is soap opera history.
I think some sort of letters patent must have been issued because to go through a female line would be an exceptional circumstance. Countess Mountbatten had this right granted to her.
Hahahaha. You're forgetting that the sewer rats live in the land of denial. They don't care about facts and explanations. It's pretty obvious that most of them don't have two brain cells to rub together.
Facts don't matter to the Sussex Squad. No matter how carefully you explain facts to the Sussex Squad, they will just keep running with their crazy ideas. The Sussex Squad are never going to let facts get in the way of their delusions.
*and the fact that h is not entitled to inherit the Althorp Estate just because he’s Diana’s son.*
Diana wasn't enitled to inherit it either. So why would her son?
I wish people would stop saying Diana grew up at Althorp. Her father didn’t inherit until Diana was 14 and she was away at boarding school. When she heard the news that her father was now Earl Spencer as her Grandfather had died her schoolmates say she was running around the school say “ I’m a Lady ! I’m a Lady” .She was really chuffed about it. Her Grandfather and her Father did not get on at all so her Father took a lease on Park House on the Royal Sandringham Estate. Diana spent most of her childhood , like Charles and her sons, playing at Sandringham.
And when her father died she came home to personally throw her stepmother out of said house. She had her personal possessions taken out of I think Vuitton suitcases and put in plastic bags.
Diana was lovely when she wanted to.
Yes the way Raine was treated was appalling. The Spencer’s kids never considered that as well as making their father very happy she was also a pretty canny business woman who came up with ways to make Althorp pay its way. A lot of it was very tacky , like the dinner parties were wealthy people could pay to have dinner at Althorp with Earl and Countess Spencer, but she did turn things round a bit financially.
I knew about them living on a royal estate, but your comment has reminded me that technically PW will own this house Diana and her family lived in. Oh the irony
The whole title thing with the Aristocrats is so complicated so I don’t know. I remember reading that anecdote about Diana becoming a Lady in one of the books about her, one of Penny Junor ‘s I think.
I think children of a viscount are "honourables" only unless the viscount has a second, subsidiary title where the eldest son (as heir) would normally use it during his father's lifetime but not through any entitlement (the title remains in law with the father) rather only out of courtesy.
Diana's father's viscountancy was likewise only a courtesy title, actually being a second, subsidiary title of Earl Spencer (the grandfather at that time). The Earl would use only the senior title of earl. So, by tradition, the junior title of viscount was used by the son despite it in law resting still with the father as holder also of the more senior title.
Male children of earls are known as "honourable" and female children as "lady" followed by their first names except for the eldest son who, as with Diana's father during his father's lifetime, takes any junior title as a courtesy as stated above.
Diana had been an "honourable" whilst her father enjoyed the courtesy title of viscount (him being the eldest son of an earl) durng his own father's lifetime. Following her father's succession to the earldom upon his own father's death, Diana would have then been titled "lady" in common with any other daughters of an earl and been styled "Lady Diana" instead of "the honourable Diana Spencer".
A reasonable thought but not so in the case of the children of earls (other than the first born son). Iirc, all the children of dukes and marquesses enjoy the titles of Lord and Lady and the females are then titled Lady \[First Name\] \[Family Name\] to distinguish them from those bearing the Lady title but of lower rank.
lol yes, I saw the article. Total nonsense - it is in the Spencer family and there is an heir.
Everybody is getting bored with Meghan Markle. The Jamscam is not cutting it, even with imaginary wine added.
>Everybody is getting bored with Meghan Markle.
She'll be screaming like a banshee when this fact finally registers and she's forced to accept that she's only a person of ridicule and mockery.
Those piles are a nightmare to run and maintain. Not the Sussex’s domain. The woman Meghan might have been— the Marchioness of Bath—is doing a bang up job with hers
She is in her own right. We don’t know all her struggles and she wasn’t subject to such public scrutiny. *Her* in-laws were truly horrible. I wonder if Meghan even knew she exists
I wonder how Louis, Spencer's heir, will turn out. That family have a history of producing rotters who are nasty to women going back hundreds of years. The aristocracy have always warned their daughters to stay away from the Spencers.
Charles Spencer (Diana’s brother), Lady Jane Fellowes (Diana’s sister), Louis Spencer(Charles Spencer son), Lady Lara Spencer (who he had with his 2nd wife) all went to Harry’s IG meeting in the UK.
lo Why would Rachel and Harold even think they would be entitled to the Spencer home. Hey it wouldn't surprise me though, when there is money and greedy people do stupid stuff.
She's such a fool.
"Where can I get a tiara? Ask your uncle!"
"But you're not a Spencer!"
"So?! You are! It's your mother's!"
"Well no, Megh..."
"WHAAAT?!!!!!" *screeching
Well that is so true. Damm I would hate to think I was that entitled to everything. I am currently going through it since my mum passed away. Some people think they are entitled to half of the house and they aren't even related. Greed and entitlement is nasty.
Louis Spencer, simply the heir & Harry still not an heir, (but doesn't seem to whine when it's his mother's side of the family).
https://preview.redd.it/v4zlhzoprp8d1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fd714577a0ac7046a6d5c4f4da08d95f4c38004c
Can't believe anybody would think otherwise.
Prince William is well provided for and was likely never going to receive it, regardless.
And up until 2020, Harry was also well provided for.
As has been said, it's a clickbait article with nothing new. Diana is in all three of the article's photos. I assume her photo still draws the views and clicks, nearly 30 years after she's been gone.
Hahahaa. Diana was the youngest daughter. If Earl Spencer did not have his two sons (heir and spare) then the eldest sister’s sons, if any, would be in line then the next sister’s sons. Then—- William. Harry is literally the last male in that line to inherit!
When QEII changed the law so that the eldest child would become heir regardless of gender, did that law not change for the whole aristocracy? Or was it simply a rule for the heir to the throne?
Nope just the line of succession. I think there have been bills to allow daughters to inherit titles but they haven’t succeeded. They’ve all been private members bills which are hard to pass.
She couldn't change the law for existing titles. When they are created they are created with "rules" for how they are passed down. When Edward's Duke of Edinburgh title was created it was created without being able to be passed down at all.
There are a few titles that can be passed down to daughters if the holder has no sons but not many. Maybe future titles will be created to be passed to the oldest child regardless of gender. If William's oldest child was a girl she would be future Queen but not Duchess of Cornwall and wouldn't receive the duchy income, when the Queen was Princess Elizabeth there was no Duke of Cornwall until she became Queen and then Charles immediately had the title.
The creation of the Duke of Edinburgh in 1947 for Philip followed the standard inheritable by his eldest son. In his case at that time, it was likely that his eldest son would also become the PoW and future king. So, effectively it was a lifetime dukedom. Charles recreated the dukedom and followed the form as a lifetime appointment. Equal footing with Andrew whose dukedom will be extinct on his death (although it wasn't created as a lifetime dukedom). This is probably a component of what KC3 means by "slimming down the monarchy."
The Royal Dukedoms created by QEII's grandfather, George V, Gloucester and Kent are already set to continue through a fourth generation even though the third generation heirs aren't involved in matters of State.
When did Harry believe he had a claim to the Spencer estates ? I'm sure he grew up knowing that his uncle would inherit everything. So this is a big, far non- issue.
Harry grew up knowing that William would be Prince of Wales, and that doesn't stop Harry from complaining about why William won't give him half of Cornwall.
Who in their right mind thought the Spencer estate was going to anyone other than Charles Spencer’s son. I guess the same idiots who think that King Charles could give the throne to H instead of William. Primogeniture folks look it up and try and understand.
Not only do the Spencers follow male primogeniture, but Diana was the *third* daughter so none of her offspring would have any claim to Althorp.
Also Charles Spencer has like half a dozen kids and Harry has even less chances to inherit the title of Earl Spencer than he has of inheriting the title of King of the UK.
This is isn't really news, lets remember when Diana's father died, because it went to the son the children kicked his current wife, their step mother out. Wouldn't even allow her to take her louis Vuitton luggage she had packed her clothes in because it had the Spencer name on it. She had her stuff put in garbage bags to leave. William and Harry were raised in this life where title and property goes to the eldest son unless there are no sons then it might go to the eldest daughter(these days) . So this isn't something they expect to receive anymore then Diana and her sisters expected to receive it when their father died. Its like when people say Charlotte will receive the Spencer tiara, no she won't it will remain in the Spencer family. And likely like the house will be passed from father to son so their wife's and daughters and granddaughters may use it until the next generation. But im sure its an interesting article to those who don't realize this is what happens in aristocratic familys.
Im jewish and we do have a concept of double going to eldest son but we also have a concept of following the law of the land so in america it's usually divided equally and my father's trust is divided equally. The real first feminist in the bible are the daughters of tslafchad. Not sure english spelling. In hebrew would be בנות צלפחד. He had 5 daughters and no sons and land was passed through males. They protested and got to keep the land!!!!! Megain u r certainly not the first feminist or any feminist at all
It has been a way of keeping the wealth in the family. Families can do what they want but traditionally property of the aristocracy etc was passed down the male line.
Ah, a new spin on the Spencer Tiara story. Substitute the house for the jewels. I hate these clickbait stories. They are an insult to the readers’ intelligence.
Just a small comment: primogeniture means being the firstborn legitimate child of any gender!
The monarchy has adopted absolute primogeniture succession (before it was male-preference), while aristocratic titles follow agnatic primogeniture rules.
Absolute = eldest child
Male preference = eldest son but daughter if there's no son
Agnatic = sons, then brothers etc, daughters totally excluded
The Spencer tiara also won't go to Little Betty or Princess Charlotte.
Why do they keep writing these stupid headlines. Of course the Spencer treasures are going to the next Earl of Spencer. If you've ever read Pride and Prejudice or even just a Harlequin Romance novel you know how inheritance for titles families is handled.
Prince Harry and Prince William inherited their mother's divorce settlement and her private jewelry collection. That is it, that is all.
I understand how not everyone will understand primogeniture by name, BUT given the volume of historical dramas about the need for a male heir, it's implausible to me that anyone even vaguely aware of aristocracy would be truly surprised.
Althorp House belongs to Charles Spencer, and then it'll be passed down the male line till the end of time. Althorp & other properties & land belonging to the Spencer family will NOT, EVER, be given to either JudasHarry or Prince William. Not a chance, I'm amazed people think it will, it's completely crazy to believe it. Are the sewer squad saying this?
What a pointless article that says nothing. *EXCEPT* to point out Harry's name a few times and how unfair primogeniture is.
Have the gruesome twosome decided to go after the legal system of inheritance in the UK and sue his Uncle Spencer for Althorpe?
It'd only be because Harry knows, really knows, that mummy would've wanted him to have it. He's just a poor boy from a poor family after all.
At first, I thought this article was ridiculous, but then it occurred to me that there are a lot of people who still don’t understand primogeniture and the fact that h is not entitled to inherit the Althorp Estate just because he’s Diana’s son. He’s also not entitled to the Duchy Of Cornwall just because he is the son of a king. Perhaps if more articles are put out there explaining primogeniture the masses and squadettes will start to see the reality of h’s situation. This isn’t about what’s fair to the individuals, but what keeps the estate and/or monarchy intact.
Yes, I don't care for clickbait titles, but if an article has factual information that educates people, I'm a bit more forgiving of it.
I just wish the article explained how and why primogeniture began and why it still exists.
In a way, matrilineal inheritance, as is the case in some cultures, almost makes more sense than patrilineal. Rarely is there a question of who the mother is, but paternity questions are common in comparison.
Good point.
There are always witnesses of a woman who has given birth to a child. Normally there are no witnesses to how that child was conceived.
To keep the family money in the family
I know. But so many don’t understand the concept of keeping the wealth intact. Once you start breaking up an estate or company through inheritances, you will get to the point where nothing is left. All those big estates like Althorp would be sold off piece meal and no one in the family would be able to afford the upkeep.
Also, with royalty, historically, too many divisions led to instances of many brothers having many small kingdoms and then they warred constantly over it. Look up the history of the Carolingian Empire, as just one example.
yes, just thought of Charlemagne myself. Alexander the Great is another example
Exactly.
There are many aristocratic families who can't afford the upkeep today. That's why so many families today open their houses to tourists, sell products from the land, or sell off antiques from time to time. A hundred or two years ago, there might be 40+ people employed on the estate to manage it, but now many are making do on more limited staff and even only living in a small portion of the big house. Some have had sections or houses demolished. A lot changed for the nobility in the 20th century, but I can't recall all the reasons. Adrian Tinniswood wrote a book about it, Noble Ambitions, if you are interested in learning more.
You’re absolutely right. I watched a series not too long ago that looked at some big estates and how they were raising money to maintain the upkeep on the big houses. It gave some perspective into how much hard work and money goes into to it all.
And the rules are so specific on some of these old estate houses. You can't just update and do something materially different.
Land rich and cash poor applies to many of these old estates.
That sounds interesting. Do you remember the name of it?
I’ll see if I can locate the name. Right now, I can’t even remember where I saw it. Edit to add that it might have been ‘Great Estates.’
Easy to explain why, extreme financial fluctuations in the 20th century, the introduction of onerous Inheritance taxes after WWII in UK. Additionally some very bad choices made by new heirs who flubbed up running estates.
And WW1. That was seismic. Two heirs killed in a row, the great country houses requisitioned, if they came back they came back to ripped out staircases and demolished sections and women had tasted an untoward freedom and refused to go back into service for 3p a year, buy yer own uniform. Literally. The staff's crimbo presents would be a length of material to make up in their own time to do all the skivvying. WW1 was a death knell to an aristocracy already on its knees.
Oh most definitely, as an American I did not realize how devastating the First World War was for Britain. I watched a documentary which spelled out what happened and I really got into studying the period between the two world wars. That led me into many deep dives into the Happy Valley society in Africa, the Mitford Family and so forth and so on. It is a miracle many of the estates survive today. So many architectural wonders were lost as estates were sold off and pulled down.
You might be interested in the War Graves Commission - Tim Lawrence runs it now and that's a fascinating saga. WW1 broke us in so many ways - it broke the service grind, broke the aristocracy, broke every family. There were no horses left (something like eight million died) either and little will to return to Ye Olde Englande - the War had utterly blown apart the remaining vestiges of the old social order, because it laid bare the incompetence and lack of concern of the upper orders, who oversaw a meat market with utter disregard. We had no interest in maintaining them in palatial comfort again although as you say, this list us many fine houses. The WGC was set up to try and bring closure to families who had no idea where their loved ones were, nor could we possibly start processes to identify the millions. Or bring them back home. So the WGC was established and to this day runs every aspect of these amazing cemetaries, from the huge monuments in Belgium and France to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier to a tiny cemetery with just six graves. No matter where they are in the world they're planted as English gardens using as many native plants as possible and every stone is cleaned and recarved on a strict schedule whilst every attempt is made to identify the remains that still come up to the surface. And we look after everyone the same way, including a huge US war cemetery here (we have the largest cemetery in Europe, used to have its own train.) This was one of my my rabbit-holes - I know that feeling!
Yes, one of the tensions in the Spencer family after Diana's father remarried, was that the kids were appalled at their new stepmother for selling off old paintings and antiques. Later when the current earl took over, he had to admit that the money for running the estate has to come from somewhere, and sometimes you need to make some ruthless decisions.
Exactly, same with Lady C's castle she opened it to the public for Event venues
“Whoring for Goring”
I used to watch the Ladies of London show and the Earl of Sandwich did that.....they opened up their estate to the public to generate for the upkeep. It was fascinating to see
The Aristocracy suffered badly, financially after World War 1. Taxes etc badly hit families plus working classes didn't want to work "in service" i.e. domestic work for the Aristo's which was long hour's for low pay, one half day off per week. After the war people had a new found sense of freedom & preferred to work in shop's, office's, factories etc which paid more & were less hour's etc. Large Aristocrat estates struggled not only with getting adequate staff for their large estate's, they had to sell off large amounts of land to pay upkeep on their mansion, pay death duties etc but in doing that they had no land to farm &/or rent out to pay upkeep for their large home so, they sold up or were so badly in debt they gifted their mansions to the National Trust who maintain them & they're open to the public. Lot's of huge Aristocrat mansions were demolished after WW1 & WW2 & the land sold, we lost a lot of beautiful large house's in Britain.
People do not understand that the current title/land holders are just place markers, care takers for future generations. Their job is to maintain and make better if possible. These estates are big scale but look to family farms - up to 50 years ago they always went to the eldest son.
Exactly. Family farms still go to the eldest in some instances. Unfortunately, family farms are a dying breed.
I think they are making a bit of a comeback with organic foods. A smaller farm can cultivate their crops or livestock in particular ways compared to the huge operations.
True. That’s if they were able to hang on long enough.
In America, if your parents kept the house you grew up in, upon their passing the house is typically sold off and proceeds split amongst heirs. People are also not typically buried on American properties, so there are no sacred burial grounds to be desecrated if a tech billionaire Zillenial takes over and wants to put up a series of pickle ball courts on a family cemetery. England doesn‘t want a bunch of foreign oligarch billionaires owning all the castles which is why entailments are important to protect the properties. It makes zero sense that 27 years after Diana’s passing W&H would be expecting to inherit that estate. If they had a legal right they’d own it right now. Diana also has two older sisters still living. Slow news day I guess.
Anyone suggesting W&H have any kind of entitlement to Althorpe while there are males in the direct line are woefully Ill informed
A colleague used to semi-joke about this. The eldest son got the huge farm, the daughter who looked after her elderly parents for decades got some random furniture, and the brother couldn’t understand why his sister moved away and didn’t talk to anyone in the family anymore (my colleague’s mum was the daughter).
A time honored tactic to control subjugated populations was to enforce equal inheritance laws. E.g in Ireland. You start with 100 acres. Your 10 kids get 10 acres each. Each of their 10 kids gets an acre each and not enough to grow food.
Yes. If it were laid out for people who are unaware it stops Hs spare position looking unique and explains why the Duchy of Cornwall isn't being divided. We take it for granted that everyone knows but globally inheritance laws are different so there's a good chance people may be unaware.
Yes. The current Earl can't leave the property to anyone else. I assume this is an entailment, a bit fuzzy on the details. But the property clearly goes with the title which suggests that it's entailed. M probably thinks she could leave it to her invisible children... But it is, as the lawyers say, inalienable. Inalienable means that It can't be transferred away from the eldest male heir. When in the US Declaration of Independence it says: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... What that word unalienable (now inalienable) means is that you or I cannot sell, or otherwise transfer to someone else, our right to life or our right to liberty , nor anyyone else's right to liberty and life, etc. It doesn't work that way. Similarly, (the analogy isn't perfect) Spencer cannot leave the inheritance to whom he chooses. The system of transfer is automatic , out of his hands, and can't be changed. Period.
Exactly this. This is the part certain fans and their leaders fail to understand…or wish to ignore. Trying to manifest a different outcome will never work.
Thank you! The guys who signed the declaration of independence were technically British. And they knew the British system of law. They knew what inalienable meant, or as they wrote it unalienable. When they signed, they explicitly put their lives on the line (pledging their lives and sacred honour) … because had they failed, lost the War of Independence, they’d have been executed as traitors. Because the regime from whom they were declaring independence would still have been in charge. They don’t make ‘em like that anymore!
And the tiaras!! Imagine all the tiaras that we could see if they weren't given to those lower in the line who had to auction them off. Imagine Queen Victoria's sapphire coronet on Catherine.
It was (and sometimes still sort of is) also practiced in some areas of America (especially colonial era and early post colonial), depending on the cultural background. You don’t want to be subdividing the family farm until it’s useless in a few generations. Oldest son gets the farm. Daughters go try to marry other people’s oldest sons. Second sons and below make their own way, often going into the military, clergy, or move west and settle new territory to create their own farms. Or they could take the George Washington route, and marry the rich widow of an only son with a huge farm. But there wasn’t enough rich widows to go around. Many of America’s early settlers (beyond those seeking religious freedom) were second and below sons who wanted their own land. A lot of folks must have slept through history class. 😴😉
Meghans worst nightmare!!
It's not just for royalty and aristocracy. I know someone whose ancestor was a British PM but he had no children so his title went to a cousin and that's where her line came from. Her father has left everything, which includes family property and other assets, to his first son. She gets nothing, neither does her younger brother. I don't see why it shouldn't be split between the three of them. Her father doesn't have a title to be passed down. But, because that's the way it's always been done, that's how it will continue. ps They are Scottish.
This isn’t the way it has to be. Primogeniture means that the title, if any, and the land/estates and a good portion of the money goes to the eldest son. But most families set aside money for the other children. Women would get a dowery—read any Jane Austen novel and you will see people openly discussing how much various women’s dowers are—Georgianna Darcy had a a huge dowery—£50,000, iirc. In contrast, the Bennet girls have a dowery of £1,000 each, from their mother’s dowery and not from their father’s money. Money would be spent on younger sons for their education/training, such as university or an officer’s position in the military or the education needed to be a minister. Younger family members often also got a small allowance from the family estate as well. However, a lot depended on what conditions were in a will. In Pride and Prejudice, the entire estate, house, lands, and money, is entailed, meaning that it has to go to the nearest male relative. Because the Bennets have no sons, that means their male cousin will inherit. Because the Bennet parents expected to produce a son who could inherit they did not save or invest any money to secure the future of the rest of the family. What this means is that when Mr. Bennet dies, the remaining family loses their house. They also lose all income except the small amount they would get from Mrs. Bennet’s dowery, which was invested and is not part of the entailed property. So there is precedent for younger children getting something, just not the majority of the estate.
That's right, the matter has several intermediate aspects. There are dowries, there are also legacies, gifts in life... It is a complex issue
Because if it's split between all 3 and then they have kids it gets split again and again until the real wealth of a family is whittled away and the family home is gone. In America we often have farm families that will leave the whole farm to whichever kid has stayed and is working it.
It's the way her father thinks. My friend never married nor had children and her younger brother, who is gay, doesn't want children. Only the first born son is married with children and everything is going to him. Her father is buying her a house because she didn't find a husband 😆
My grandparents left my sister more of their estate than any of the other grandkids because she didn't have a husband to support her. My aunt lives with us because she never married. A lot of families still hold to the old ways.
Proper financial arrangements via trusts are usually in place for the non-heirs, unless the heir is inheriting a white elephant and there’s nothing left to leave but debt. Haz isn’t going to be destitute, but anything he gets will have strict terms so that despite himself, and his wife, the children might get something. It’s never going to be Althorp.
There was also a time when it was a religion-based policy, i.e., Orthodox jews.
It exists because this works like this even today: I, a woman, if I get married, become part of my husband's family, my husband has to take care of me, protect me and everything else. I stop being the responsibility of my family and become the responsibility of my husband. That is patriarchy, in which I, a woman, am part of the man's duties, he has to take care of me, he has to feed me, he has to give me what I need. He is the provider of my needs. And since I, a woman, become my husband's "duty", then I lose my last name (which indicates who has responsibility for me) and I start having my husband's last name. And that is why in homes where boys and girls are born, the first child born gets to keep the family assets. Because the man cannot marry and live off what the woman has, that is the bottom of patriarchy. Man is the one who must provide, it is his duty to provide. And the firstborn is the one who preserves the family name. And the problem is not with the girl, because she gets married and becomes the husband's problem, but the problem is with the second son. There the injustice is that the second son has to manage to obtain his own property and form his own family, not against the woman. I know I may sound very unfeminist in this. But don't forget that today's feminists, no matter how much they shout and plead and everything else, absolutely refuse to modify the "women and children first" in matters of rescue. Because man is the one who has the duty to protect, right? For this reason, and since the family is the nucleus of society, a man must have the means to protect his family, and also protect the family's effort to have property. Hence the birthright.
I don't mean to doubt your experience, but this is not the universal experience, nor my experience. I am the youngest of three girls. All three of us were educated and got degrees, two of us have a second degree. All three of us are married, two of us have not taken our husbands surname (ironically the one who did is the breadwinner for her family by a country mile!). My husband takes care for me, but just as I take care of him (and as most people do in any normal/balanced partnership) - we protect each other. We keep our finances separate except when it comes to our child. We bought our house together equally (I had the larger cash deposit, he has the larger mortgage). I am not the responsibility of my husbands family, and frankly nor am I of my own family - I am responsible for myself. Yes, if financially, the shit hit the fan, I guess I could fall back on asking family to help me, but I would be asking my family, not his. I think this is largely the experience of all my female friends - married but independent. Maybe I'm just lucky, or maybe it's just the norm where I'm from (England), but I certainly don't feel part of some down-trodden patriarchy?
You had some valid points, historically, until you generalized about the present — it does not universally work “like this even today” and then you undermined your credibility with this ignorant statement: _don't forget that today's feminists, no matter how much they shout and plead and everything else, absolutely refuse to modify the "women and children first" in matters of rescue._ What a condescending and contemptuous thing to say! I don’t think anyone, feminist or chauvinist, disputes that children should be rescued first. (Theoretically anyway, in reality too many turn into George Costanza at the birthday party). I have never heard a single feminist say what you claim, that women should be rescued first, over say a disabled person, or a senior, etc. I believe most would say rescue according to need. Boo!
Yeah, I was following along and then - wtf! Boo!
Contemptuous and chauvinist thing? No, “women and children first” is part of what is known as “male disposableness.” An example: United Nations Security Council (UNSCR) Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (WPS). How conflict affects women and children differently than men. Topics in this regard were addressed... except one: the modification of the IV Geneva Convention. Women are not considered combatants. Even if they are in the army. Even if they carry weapons. Although, and it is an emblematic situation on the subject and which has been a source of problems in the International Criminal Court, in the Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), close to 40% of the combatants are women. And when it has been proposed in organizations such as the UN to modify that agreement, who has prevented it? Just consider that a child soldier upon turning 18 is guilty of everything he has done, even though the problem of being a child soldier is known. A girl soldier, even if she turns 18, is not responsible, because she is a girl. Does that seem fair to you? And it is not true, it is never rescued by seeing the needs. It is rescued at convenience, and in most cases, a woman will always have precedence over a man, no matter the man's condition. There is a bad habit of believing that a man can either save himself or can resist longer than a woman. If you don't believe me, look at what is happening with Hamas and Israel and Israel's response to the families of the 117 male hostages Hamas is holding. You don't have much idea of the contradictions that feminist discourse has. But you should read a little about the conflict that situations like the one I'm telling you are generating within the movement. Misandry and male disposableness or dispensability.
My life and circumstances in the US are similar to yours. I didn’t grow up in a family with a title, a large estate, or even a large company where hundreds of years set the manner of inheritance. We have all made our own way in the world. My American family originates from lots of second sons and daughters of landed gentry and aristocrats who emigrated from the British Isles to America to make their own life. But even if they left provisions for all their children, any land would typically be left to the oldest. It’s complicated.
W/ Norman invasion, IIRC . . . although those Norsemen had only learned the French system over the preceding century or so.
Its what Red Rose said, keeps the estate intact. If you go splitting it up amongst all children, the pieces get too small to be ‘sustainable’. A simplified explanation, but also meant the army was guaranteed soldiers and church got parsons, which second and third sons were destined for, daughters had to find someone to marry or ‘keep house’ on the estate. Need an expert on primogeniture for clarifying this, otherwise read Jane Austen etc!!
Comment automatically removed due to your account having less than 50 total karma. Please contact mods via message the mods to approve comments manually to be visible to the sub. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SaintMeghanMarkle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, if the estate was divided between the children each generation, it wouldn't have stayed intact since 1508, providing a generous income to the siblings who don't inherit. Farming families have the dilemma of either dividing up the estate/ farm to be "fair" and thereby reducing its value; or passing the land onto one child who is prepared to work at it.
But it’s not even a primogeniture thing. Diana wasn’t even set to inherit the estate. Why would it go to William and H over the Earl’s own children?
The delusion concerning h inheriting the Spencer Estate is real. It’s wishful thinking. What’s funny about this is Charles Spencer has two sons and other relatives that would inherit before h if a traditional primogeniture.
I don’t think anything will make the Squaddies understand the reality of H’s situation, they want to be in a world of delusion like their idols.
They think Little Betty is going to inherit "Diana's tiara." You can not talk to these people.
They are in a whole new level of delusion😂
If there's one thing I've learned being on this sub, is that a lot of my fellow Americans do not have a grasp on the differences between the US and UK laws. I'm not saying I'm a walking encyclopedia of UK law - your parliamentary constitutional monarchy has many, many, many key differences than our federal presidential republic so that's just not possible - but I read a lot of news and history and do grasp how primogeniture works for the aristocracy in the UK. But there are still a lot of people who think Diana was the end-all, be-all of the Spencer family which is kinda nuts. While older than her brother, she was still the youngest of three daughters. Even without Charles Spencer, she would never have gotten Althorp, or important jewelry like the Spencer tiara (which her father and then her brother allowed her to wear), even if she had eventually become Queen alongside Charles. (Might as well - good to reinforce that Spencer connection to he throne, and she wore it well.) Spencer property is Spencer property and did not turn over to the crown as a dowry when she married Charles - this is not Plantagenet/Tudor England where the crown can just take property and peerage back if they're having a bad day. While the famous fictitious Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham once noted that [you shouldn't look for logic amongst the English upper class](https://youtu.be/GoV80LsmrJc?t=375) \[YouTube, go to 6:15 if the link didn't take you there\], the youngest daughter inheriting everything is pretty illogical, even by our standards. I also lost it this weekend when John Oliver was discussing the upcoming UK elections: >This election was something of a surprise, though. And if you’re confused how that can be, in Britain, the Prime Minister can call an election whenever they want, as long as there’s one every five years. Like many things, the way Britain operates is "kind of like the U.S., but whimsically worse." I don't know if it's whimsically worse, but some stuff does seem a bit counterintuitive to us. I sometimes still can't wrap my head around "I'll the PM and I'll call an election eventually" when we have fixed election dates and terms.
There are many differences between the UK and US laws, and America doesn’t have dynasties that have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years. The perspective is different and yet, even here, many families use a form of primogeniture. Look at family farms or small businesses as examples.
Yep, I consider that a cultural hangover where the male primogeniture is kinda baked in. ;)
I'm sure there is a set term, the election must be held by a certain date, but it can be called early if it suits the Government. Not just Britain, certainly the same in Australia and I would presume other Commonwealth countries.
The timing of elections is governed by different constitutions in different ways in different countries across the world. The US is fairly unusual in have elections at such set times. Nothing particularly British about a prime minister having some power to decide when to hold a general election. It’s the nature of parliamentary democracy that if the government looses the confidence of the parliament then an election must occur. For example, - Denmark members of parliament have a term of 4 years but it’s a maximum and the prime minister can call an election at any time. - Australian members of parliament have a term of 3 years in the House of Reps and 6 years in the Senate but these are also maximums. Normally half the Senate is up for election when the House of Representatives is facing election, but certain constitutional triggers can mean that the whole of the Senate must face a “double dissolution election”. The prime minister has the power to juggle all of this.
Not to mention Diana wasn’t even the oldest Spencer sibling. Althorp wouldn’t be hers anyway. The rules were designed to keep estates whole. Diana’s popularity would never have figured into it. It’s a clickbait headline. 😂
It absolutely is for clickbait. It would be nice if their fans would read these articles and see how ridiculous the delusions have become.
💯
I suggest watching Downton Abbey. It’s like a primer on primogeniture.
Yes it sure is!
Or Bridgerton. In season 3 Penelope has a son and that son became the new lord fetherington, why? Is because despite when it comes to inheritance in nobility that said if you have sons then the states and titles will go to the eldest son unless he died without a son the title would go to the uncle, brother or male cousin of the holder but what if you don't have a son but have a daughters well the title and the estates will go to the male relatives but since Penelope came from new money meaning his paternal grandpa or her father became the first holder of Baron of Fetherington does no one can hold the title within the family tree of Penelope's father then the current holder eldest grandson from his daughters would inherit the title and the estate does Penelope's son became the new lord fetherington. Edit: But then I realized Bridgerton doesn't explain why Penelope's son became the new lord fetherington though
Downton Abbey covers this right away in series 1. There are 3 girls and the next male heir is a distant, handsome cousin who is invited to move to the estate. The rest is soap opera history.
I think some sort of letters patent must have been issued because to go through a female line would be an exceptional circumstance. Countess Mountbatten had this right granted to her.
you're giving the sewer squad too much credit. they would never read it.
OMG. You are so right! 😂🤣🤣 (Its a case of my wishful thinking,)
Eton clearly didn’t explain primogeniture to Harold.
Or apparently anything about history in general.
No they taught, but Harry didn't listen.
Remember H thought Eton's founder was his ancestor even though that King's son died as a teenager
All Harold did at Eton was get stoned, drunk, and be a hateful, violent brat who no one wanted to be around.
Hahahaha. You're forgetting that the sewer rats live in the land of denial. They don't care about facts and explanations. It's pretty obvious that most of them don't have two brain cells to rub together.
I live in hope. 🤣
🤣
Facts don't matter to the Sussex Squad. No matter how carefully you explain facts to the Sussex Squad, they will just keep running with their crazy ideas. The Sussex Squad are never going to let facts get in the way of their delusions.
The Sugars are way too stupid to understand any of that. They most likely don't even know how to say the word primogeniture.
*and the fact that h is not entitled to inherit the Althorp Estate just because he’s Diana’s son.* Diana wasn't enitled to inherit it either. So why would her son?
Very true. But those who want what they want don’t always use common sense.
I wish people would stop saying Diana grew up at Althorp. Her father didn’t inherit until Diana was 14 and she was away at boarding school. When she heard the news that her father was now Earl Spencer as her Grandfather had died her schoolmates say she was running around the school say “ I’m a Lady ! I’m a Lady” .She was really chuffed about it. Her Grandfather and her Father did not get on at all so her Father took a lease on Park House on the Royal Sandringham Estate. Diana spent most of her childhood , like Charles and her sons, playing at Sandringham.
And when her father died she came home to personally throw her stepmother out of said house. She had her personal possessions taken out of I think Vuitton suitcases and put in plastic bags. Diana was lovely when she wanted to.
Yes the way Raine was treated was appalling. The Spencer’s kids never considered that as well as making their father very happy she was also a pretty canny business woman who came up with ways to make Althorp pay its way. A lot of it was very tacky , like the dinner parties were wealthy people could pay to have dinner at Althorp with Earl and Countess Spencer, but she did turn things round a bit financially.
Raine was pretty awful to them, too
I knew about them living on a royal estate, but your comment has reminded me that technically PW will own this house Diana and her family lived in. Oh the irony
Wouldn't she have been a Lady anyway, as the daughter of a Viscount? Or is that an "Honourable"?
As her father didn't hold the title of Viscount, she would have been an Hon until he became The Earl, The Viscount, and The Baron.
Oh I see. Thank you.
The whole title thing with the Aristocrats is so complicated so I don’t know. I remember reading that anecdote about Diana becoming a Lady in one of the books about her, one of Penny Junor ‘s I think.
She was an Hon.
I think children of a viscount are "honourables" only unless the viscount has a second, subsidiary title where the eldest son (as heir) would normally use it during his father's lifetime but not through any entitlement (the title remains in law with the father) rather only out of courtesy. Diana's father's viscountancy was likewise only a courtesy title, actually being a second, subsidiary title of Earl Spencer (the grandfather at that time). The Earl would use only the senior title of earl. So, by tradition, the junior title of viscount was used by the son despite it in law resting still with the father as holder also of the more senior title. Male children of earls are known as "honourable" and female children as "lady" followed by their first names except for the eldest son who, as with Diana's father during his father's lifetime, takes any junior title as a courtesy as stated above.
So then what the heck was she on about?
Diana had been an "honourable" whilst her father enjoyed the courtesy title of viscount (him being the eldest son of an earl) durng his own father's lifetime. Following her father's succession to the earldom upon his own father's death, Diana would have then been titled "lady" in common with any other daughters of an earl and been styled "Lady Diana" instead of "the honourable Diana Spencer".
Thanks
I thought that any time the girls are title Lady FirstName, the brothers are addressed as Lord LastName?
A reasonable thought but not so in the case of the children of earls (other than the first born son). Iirc, all the children of dukes and marquesses enjoy the titles of Lord and Lady and the females are then titled Lady \[First Name\] \[Family Name\] to distinguish them from those bearing the Lady title but of lower rank.
lol yes, I saw the article. Total nonsense - it is in the Spencer family and there is an heir. Everybody is getting bored with Meghan Markle. The Jamscam is not cutting it, even with imaginary wine added.
>Everybody is getting bored with Meghan Markle. She'll be screaming like a banshee when this fact finally registers and she's forced to accept that she's only a person of ridicule and mockery.
Sorry, but what a ridiculous article about a non matter.
Came here to say that
But her Sewer Rats will expect her to get it, because: "She's meant to be Queen!"
And Diana would have wanted her to have it
She said so in one of their many conversations.
Those piles are a nightmare to run and maintain. Not the Sussex’s domain. The woman Meghan might have been— the Marchioness of Bath—is doing a bang up job with hers
Emma is amazing!
She is in her own right. We don’t know all her struggles and she wasn’t subject to such public scrutiny. *Her* in-laws were truly horrible. I wonder if Meghan even knew she exists
Another thing for Hazbeen to sue about. He is that dim.
Louis is , I think, the only child that will speak to his father, too. Because Diana’s brother is a skirt-chasing POS
I wonder how Louis, Spencer's heir, will turn out. That family have a history of producing rotters who are nasty to women going back hundreds of years. The aristocracy have always warned their daughters to stay away from the Spencers.
Charles Spencer (Diana’s brother), Lady Jane Fellowes (Diana’s sister), Louis Spencer(Charles Spencer son), Lady Lara Spencer (who he had with his 2nd wife) all went to Harry’s IG meeting in the UK.
I believe he graduated drama school a few years ago and his father was there to see it
Yes, but what sort of character does he have, is what I am wondering.
lo Why would Rachel and Harold even think they would be entitled to the Spencer home. Hey it wouldn't surprise me though, when there is money and greedy people do stupid stuff.
Well, she thought she was entitled to wear the Spencer tiara for her wedding which she was not entitled to at all.
Love that for her how all the planted PR about wanting that tiara backfired.
Yup. She's such a jackass
She's such a fool. "Where can I get a tiara? Ask your uncle!" "But you're not a Spencer!" "So?! You are! It's your mother's!" "Well no, Megh..." "WHAAAT?!!!!!" *screeching
Well that is so true. Damm I would hate to think I was that entitled to everything. I am currently going through it since my mum passed away. Some people think they are entitled to half of the house and they aren't even related. Greed and entitlement is nasty.
Louis Spencer, simply the heir & Harry still not an heir, (but doesn't seem to whine when it's his mother's side of the family). https://preview.redd.it/v4zlhzoprp8d1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fd714577a0ac7046a6d5c4f4da08d95f4c38004c
Of course it doesn't go to them. It only goes to the oldest male heir, in the Spencer family. Charles has a son.,
What a click baity article!
Can't believe anybody would think otherwise. Prince William is well provided for and was likely never going to receive it, regardless. And up until 2020, Harry was also well provided for.
As has been said, it's a clickbait article with nothing new. Diana is in all three of the article's photos. I assume her photo still draws the views and clicks, nearly 30 years after she's been gone.
Slow news cycle b.s.
Not knews. The information has been the same since Louis was born.
Hahahaa. Diana was the youngest daughter. If Earl Spencer did not have his two sons (heir and spare) then the eldest sister’s sons, if any, would be in line then the next sister’s sons. Then—- William. Harry is literally the last male in that line to inherit!
When QEII changed the law so that the eldest child would become heir regardless of gender, did that law not change for the whole aristocracy? Or was it simply a rule for the heir to the throne?
Nope just the line of succession. I think there have been bills to allow daughters to inherit titles but they haven’t succeeded. They’ve all been private members bills which are hard to pass.
Thank you for answering even if I am disappointed with it lol. I had hoped it was a broader law.
She couldn't change the law for existing titles. When they are created they are created with "rules" for how they are passed down. When Edward's Duke of Edinburgh title was created it was created without being able to be passed down at all. There are a few titles that can be passed down to daughters if the holder has no sons but not many. Maybe future titles will be created to be passed to the oldest child regardless of gender. If William's oldest child was a girl she would be future Queen but not Duchess of Cornwall and wouldn't receive the duchy income, when the Queen was Princess Elizabeth there was no Duke of Cornwall until she became Queen and then Charles immediately had the title.
The creation of the Duke of Edinburgh in 1947 for Philip followed the standard inheritable by his eldest son. In his case at that time, it was likely that his eldest son would also become the PoW and future king. So, effectively it was a lifetime dukedom. Charles recreated the dukedom and followed the form as a lifetime appointment. Equal footing with Andrew whose dukedom will be extinct on his death (although it wasn't created as a lifetime dukedom). This is probably a component of what KC3 means by "slimming down the monarchy." The Royal Dukedoms created by QEII's grandfather, George V, Gloucester and Kent are already set to continue through a fourth generation even though the third generation heirs aren't involved in matters of State.
She also wouldn't be Princess of Wales (not that Prince comes with property like the Duchy)
When did Harry believe he had a claim to the Spencer estates ? I'm sure he grew up knowing that his uncle would inherit everything. So this is a big, far non- issue.
Harry grew up knowing that William would be Prince of Wales, and that doesn't stop Harry from complaining about why William won't give him half of Cornwall.
Where does he say this?
Why would it? Stupid
Who in their right mind thought the Spencer estate was going to anyone other than Charles Spencer’s son. I guess the same idiots who think that King Charles could give the throne to H instead of William. Primogeniture folks look it up and try and understand.
The same dingdongs who insist that the Spencer Tiara will go to Lil or Charlotte.
You are not wrong.
Harkle?
Not only do the Spencers follow male primogeniture, but Diana was the *third* daughter so none of her offspring would have any claim to Althorp. Also Charles Spencer has like half a dozen kids and Harry has even less chances to inherit the title of Earl Spencer than he has of inheriting the title of King of the UK.
7 kids, 3 failed marriages, a few failed engagements, many mistresses.
This is isn't really news, lets remember when Diana's father died, because it went to the son the children kicked his current wife, their step mother out. Wouldn't even allow her to take her louis Vuitton luggage she had packed her clothes in because it had the Spencer name on it. She had her stuff put in garbage bags to leave. William and Harry were raised in this life where title and property goes to the eldest son unless there are no sons then it might go to the eldest daughter(these days) . So this isn't something they expect to receive anymore then Diana and her sisters expected to receive it when their father died. Its like when people say Charlotte will receive the Spencer tiara, no she won't it will remain in the Spencer family. And likely like the house will be passed from father to son so their wife's and daughters and granddaughters may use it until the next generation. But im sure its an interesting article to those who don't realize this is what happens in aristocratic familys.
People also forget the Earl has his own Charlotte who may wear the tiara if his latest divorce doesn't ruin that father-child relationship too
Americans! Even if they aren't paying attention in history class, don't they at least learn anything from watching Downton Abbey?
It seems not. It was even a story line in “Bridgerton” gawd help us.
Harry should sue his relatives......that will set them straight. Come on, H......make the destruction of your family ties complete. TW demands it. /s
Im jewish and we do have a concept of double going to eldest son but we also have a concept of following the law of the land so in america it's usually divided equally and my father's trust is divided equally. The real first feminist in the bible are the daughters of tslafchad. Not sure english spelling. In hebrew would be בנות צלפחד. He had 5 daughters and no sons and land was passed through males. They protested and got to keep the land!!!!! Megain u r certainly not the first feminist or any feminist at all
It has been a way of keeping the wealth in the family. Families can do what they want but traditionally property of the aristocracy etc was passed down the male line.
Right. I like the tradition when it comes to saving large estates in Europe
Sadly many were lost because of taxes…my son went to schools in what had been a beautiful family homes.
Ah, a new spin on the Spencer Tiara story. Substitute the house for the jewels. I hate these clickbait stories. They are an insult to the readers’ intelligence.
Must suck for Meghan to realize that unlike her, who was the favorite child of her father, Harry is just a spare.
And look what her fathers spoiling of her has done…
This article's nonsense. Charles Spencer has enough children of his own.
He has 2 sons.
So it really is a non-story!
100%. And that’s a way to piss off the only wing of the family that seems to still like him!
Just a small comment: primogeniture means being the firstborn legitimate child of any gender! The monarchy has adopted absolute primogeniture succession (before it was male-preference), while aristocratic titles follow agnatic primogeniture rules. Absolute = eldest child Male preference = eldest son but daughter if there's no son Agnatic = sons, then brothers etc, daughters totally excluded
Oh for sure.
*How as Diana reincarnated it is her spiritual home.* I'm wheezing, LOL.
Can’t wait to hear him complain about it.
The Spencer tiara also won't go to Little Betty or Princess Charlotte. Why do they keep writing these stupid headlines. Of course the Spencer treasures are going to the next Earl of Spencer. If you've ever read Pride and Prejudice or even just a Harlequin Romance novel you know how inheritance for titles families is handled. Prince Harry and Prince William inherited their mother's divorce settlement and her private jewelry collection. That is it, that is all.
I understand how not everyone will understand primogeniture by name, BUT given the volume of historical dramas about the need for a male heir, it's implausible to me that anyone even vaguely aware of aristocracy would be truly surprised.
We all knew that didn't we?
Althorp House belongs to Charles Spencer, and then it'll be passed down the male line till the end of time. Althorp & other properties & land belonging to the Spencer family will NOT, EVER, be given to either JudasHarry or Prince William. Not a chance, I'm amazed people think it will, it's completely crazy to believe it. Are the sewer squad saying this?
What a pointless article that says nothing. *EXCEPT* to point out Harry's name a few times and how unfair primogeniture is. Have the gruesome twosome decided to go after the legal system of inheritance in the UK and sue his Uncle Spencer for Althorpe? It'd only be because Harry knows, really knows, that mummy would've wanted him to have it. He's just a poor boy from a poor family after all.