Royalty/Nobility and Gender

[Tatiana Maria]

But why the King’s sisters? They weren’t even heirs under old rules.

Not sure why you use that as an argument against leaving them inheritances, as you were the one who pointed out that the Bertils leaving their inheritances to Carl Philip had nothing to do with the rules of succession to the throne (to which Victoria is the heir, not Carl Philip).

Again, I was responding to your argument that Victoria was bypassed because she was already the heir to other assets. I pointed out that Carl Philip too was already the heir to other assets, just like Victoria. Madeleine and the King's sisters are not.

The Bertil’s gifted the assets to whoever they wanted to and that’s that.

You made this point earlier and I responded to it at the time:

Regarding the assets of Prince Bertil and the royalist family friend, it was up to them to give up their assets to whoever they wished be it a bus driver, a charity or anyone else.

Of course, that was the point. It was up to them to give their assets to whoever they wished - and they did not wish their assets to belong to a female future monarch, or to charities or bus drivers, but to a male royal.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

[...] him wanting to have his branch of the family as a separate one with his daughter succeeding him. I wouldn’t simply say it’s natural, but just self-serving especially when some of them may have older sisters but now that they have daughters instead of sons, the bending of the old rules comes into play.

It is somewhat self-serving when men only support female headship or inheritance rights for their daughters when they do not have sons.

It is far more self-serving when men insist on male-only or male-preference succession which allows them to inherit over their sisters and female cousins.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

It is somewhat self-serving when men only support female headship or inheritance rights for their daughters when they do not have sons.

It is far more self-serving when men insist on male-only or male-preference succession which allows them to inherit over their sisters and female cousins.

It’s even more self-serving in the former because the succession rights to family headship and “assumption” to the title is Salic or male line only. Secondly, it was like this in the time when there actually was a monarchy so it cannot be changed legally or recognised. Thirdly, the person in question is inheriting assets that were bought off other family members, so there’s no issue of an inheritance. The brides father tried to get his line of the family recognised as a separate branch of the Waldburg branch by the Gotha genealogy handbook, but his request was denied. Franz Clemens is also not head of the family as his line is actually a side branch.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It’s even more self-serving in the former because the succession rights to family headship and “assumption” to the title is Salic or male line only.

So the reason you consider men denying family headship to all women to be less self-serving than men denying family headship to most but not all women is that... women were already denied family headship? I do not follow your logic.

Please bear in mind that my comment was a response to your general comment on women's rights and not about the Hohenems case.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

So the reason you consider men denying family headship to all women to be less self-serving than men denying family headship to most but not all women is that... women were already denied family headship? I do not follow your logic.

Most of the time, “awarding” headship in the deposed German nobility to women is only because the last male head only has daughters and there being no other male line heirs to contest decisions so it somewhat self-serving.

My response to your post, is that it’s denied because women were already denied headship prior to the de recognition of noble titles in Austria and Germany.

Plus the men during the time of the monarchy couldn’t just pass down headship, coat of arms, titles to women without receiving permission from authorities (in Austria’s case, the Kaiser and committee of nobles) as well as sending information to the Gotha handbook.

Nobles cannot legally personally pass down titles to any of their children regardless of gender because there are letters patent, charters and decrees that clearly stated how the succession would operate. Additionally, in a hypothetical scenario do you think that if Franz Clemens had one older daughter, but 4 younger sons with the eldest son succeeding, do you think he would be trying to contact the gotha genealogy handbook to present his branch of the family as a separate branch and request that his eldest daughter be recognised as heiress to titles which aren’t legally, socially or by courtesy recognised?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

So the reason you consider men denying family headship to all women to be less self-serving than men denying family headship to most but not all women is that... women were already denied family headship? I do not follow your logic.

My response to your post, is that it’s denied because women were already denied headship prior to the de recognition of noble titles in Austria and Germany.

[...]

Plus the men during the time of the monarchy couldn’t just pass down headship, coat of arms, titles to women without receiving permission from authorities (in Austria’s case, the Kaiser and committee of nobles) as well as sending information to the Gotha handbook.

Nobles cannot legally personally pass down titles to any of their children regardless of gender because there are letters patent, charters and decrees that clearly stated how the succession would operate.

[...]

And prior to the derecognition of noble titles in Austrian and Germany, the authorities who issued the male-only charters and denied permission to women to inherit were men.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

And prior to the derecognition of noble titles in Austrian and Germany, the authorities who issued the male-only charters and denied permission to women to inherit were men.

Yes, and in the event of a woman being an heiress, the arms and titles would be joined with her husband’s. Additionally, the spouse in question would also have to be the woman’s social equal in terms of rank and prestige.