I cannot even begin to imagine having £10.127 billion at my disposal. But that’s what Hugh Grosvenor, 7^th Duke of Westminster has in his piggybank. Oh, I wish….!

He will have married Olivia Henson on 7 June 2024 at Chester Cathedral, and Prince William will be an usher. Prince George also has a role, although I’m not sure what it is. But for the newly married couple it seems “….the Hereditary Titles (Female Succession) Bill could change everything for their future children and is the reason that the Duke has his family’s vast wealth and not his older sister, Lady Edwina Louise Grosvenor….”

Titles such as Grosvenor’s have traditionally always passed down from son to son, whether or not there were daughters, even if they were firstborn. Daughters could therefore never be known as the Duchess of Westminster in their own right, only as, for example, Lady Edwina Grosvenor.

But now the Hereditary Titles (Female Succession) Bill — proposed by Conservative MP Harriet Baldwin — was set to be given a second reading on 21 June (until the General Election was called) and could still change everything for future noble children when debated, because daughters will then be considered next in line and will inherit titles. Should the new bill eventually pass — it will bring the nobility into line with the royal family.

The Succession to the Crown Act (2013) means that for the first time a daughter will come before a younger son. This is why Princess Charlotte is for the present the heir of her elder brother Prince George, and before her younger brother Prince Louis. Prior to the 2013 Act Princess Charlotte would have been in third place, after both brothers.

If we look to the past for the impact of male primogeniture, we need only think of the hoops Henry VIII went through in his quest for that all-important son. And the agonies he caused his unfortunate wives. Atrocious man. There was also the need of his father, Henry VII, to legitimise Elizabeth of York in order to marry her. She was the oldest child of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, but her tiresome younger brothers rather got in Henry’s way. Alive, the no-longer-baseborn boys had a far better claim to the throne than Henry himself. Having legitimised them, he had to be sure they were well and truly GONE before he tied the royal knot. I don’t think he ever knew for certain if he’d been successful, but recent research by Philippa Langley and her colleagues would suggest he wasn’t. He must have chewed feathers about the whole sorry business. Another atrocious man. But, like his monstrous son, he got away with his sins. But I don’t think either of them were happy men. Good. Serves them right.

You can read more about the implications of the Grosvenor wedding here Could the Duke of Westminster’s wedding change an ancient English law? | Tatler and here Could the Duke of Westminster’s wedding change a 300-year-old English law? (msn.com)