The Telegraph never heard of Salic Law?

As a self-proclaimed feminist the Duchess of Sussex would no doubt wish her children to enjoy the same benefits and opportunities as each other, regardless of gender.

But the Government has placed a major obstacle in her way by failing to back a move that would have meant first born daughters inheriting their parents’ titles.

That means that if in the coming weeks Meghan Markle gives birth to a daughter the title of Earl of Dumbarton, bestowed on Prince Harry when they married, will not be passed on to their first child.

Under Britain’s unique hereditary laws the first born daughters of the nobility do not enjoy the same right as their first born sons to inherit their titles, which in some cases…

Umm, unique?

13 comments on “The Telegraph never heard of Salic Law?

  1. “the same benefits and opportunities as each other”

    What first attracted you to the Queen’s grandson Prince Harry- was it that your kids would have the same benefits and opportunities as everyone else?

  2. Female children in Britain can become queen in the absence of younger male princes and salic law prohibits this.

    Philip the Fair of France had three sons, a grandson and a daughter, Isabelle of France who was mother of Edward III.

    Philip was succeeded by his eldest son, then his grandson and then his other two sons who were childless.

    Salic Law in France meant that Isabelle was ruled out of the succession which effectively ended the Capetian line and ignited the English claim to the throne of France and the Hundred Years War.

  3. The Telegraph seem to be going the way of the Tory party.

    First SJWs crawl under its skin and lay eggs. It dies and is eaten from the inside out and now, it’s just the insects moving that give it the look of life…

    How much more Royal privilege does the Duchess of Sussex’s daughters need.

    Also Duchess keeps auto correcting to douche.

    Ha!

  4. Upwardly mobile Meg could always call her Earl after the American tradition of weird ungendered first names, this would have the woke benefit of the infant not having to change xer name should the sprog later go spaghetti alphabet on the Royal Family. Perhaps this is part of the whole home birth scheme: we’ll never know its sex while it remains gender neutral.

  5. ‘Under Britain’s unique hereditary laws the first born daughters of the nobility do not enjoy the same right as their first born sons to inherit their titles’

    You SJWs are right: It’s time to get rid of titles.

  6. UNIQUE???? Japan has just been through 80 years of existential angst due to the royal family continuously sprogging girls. Until 2005 the royal family was on the point of dying out.

  7. Is Megan Marbles against uniquefemale privilege too?

    Had she been William’s wife she would become Queen, whereas Queen Elizabeth’s partner is a mere Prince

    It was reported Sweden’s Queen to be’s fiancée had a hissy-fit when courtiers explained he would never be King Tantrum.

  8. The toppling of Theresa: Day 24
    “…This descent of the Conservative Party into May’s personally choreographed danse macabre appears to be blinding it to the most lethal existential crisis of their history. Perhaps it will take a historian of the party to point it out. This is exactly what Robin Harris does here. On one level, he says no more than we have been arguing for months on these pages, but his pulling together of all the strands of their idiocy, hubris and incompetence, makes for a devastating analysis.

    He asks: What is the point of the Party?..”

    Seemingly May doesn’t watch, listen to or read News; she hides from it and remains dangerously ignorant of public and party opinion

  9. “Queen Elizabeth’s partner is a mere Prince”: partner? Bloody partner? He’s her consort.

  10. It was reported Sweden’s Queen to be’s fiancée had a hissy-fit

    Fiancée??

    ‘Struth, I wonder how a lezza royal couple will go down with all the loyal new Swedes they’ve imported.

  11. “Ljh
    April 28, 2019 at 11:16 am

    Upwardly mobile Meg could always call her Earl after the American tradition of weird ungendered first names, this would have the woke benefit of the infant not having to change xer name should the sprog later go spaghetti alphabet on the Royal Family. Perhaps this is part of the whole home birth scheme: we’ll never know its sex while it remains gender neutral.”

    Uhm, ‘Earl’ is a male name in American. I mean, people will name their kids anything, but a boy named Sue still has a girl’s name.

    I’m not sure where you get this ”ungendered first names” thing from. If you mean we don’t have specific attachments to denote gender – like the Spanish ‘a’ or ‘o’ endings – well, neither do you. Or are you going to tell me “Jeremy” and ‘Timothy’ are explicitly gendered but ‘William’ or ‘Matthew’ are not?

  12. ‘dearieme
    April 28, 2019 at 8:52 pm

    “Queen Elizabeth’s partner is a mere Prince”: partner? Bloody partner? He’s her consort.’

    So he’s her doxy? moll? inamorata? Goomah?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.