# British titles and same-sex marriage **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 11, 2009, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-titles-and-same-sex-marriage/506007 "2009-08-11T00:42:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-titles-and-same-sex-marriage/506007/21 "2009-08-11T04:43:35Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Sir Elton John’s partner, David Furnish is still “Mr David Furnish”. If Sir Elton was married to a woman his wife would be “Lady John”. I don’t know if any members of the peerage have entered into a civil partnership yet, but my WAG would be that their partnet wouldn’t automatically get any kind of courtesy title or precedence. AFAIK the Queen hasn’t issued any directive on this yet. Elton John is a Knight Bachelor. I’m fairly certain only the wives of peers get to be Lady. ETA: Never mind, that’s not true. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-titles-and-same-sex-marriage/506007/22 "2009-08-11T04:47:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Elton John is a Knight Bachelor. I’m fairly certain only the wives of peers get to be Lady. No. The wife of Sir Forename Lastname is Lady Lastname. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-titles-and-same-sex-marriage/506007/23 "2009-08-11T16:41:19Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Given that marriage is currently restricted to opposite-sex couples, if your first statement is true (and it is) then your second statement is true but trite; it tells us nothing new. It is simply a corollary of the first. You can omit it, and what you have left is still a complete statement of established practice in this regard. All cases in which a title has _not_ passed on marriage are fully accounted for by pointing to your first statement alone. So it’s not really meaningful or accurate to treat your second statement as a second, independent condition for the acquisition of a title by marriage. > > It’s like defining a square as “an equilateral quadrilateral with two right angles”. If it’s an equilateral quadrilateral and it has one right angle, then the other three angles will also be right angles, so observing that it has a second right angle (and a third, and a fourth) doesn’t tell us anything additional about the square. BUT if marriage were extended to same-sex couples then it _would_ be relevant to consider both ways of phrasing who can currently receive titles by marriage. > [@UDS](#): > > In the UK, a child born to a surrogate mother is treated in the first instance as the child of the woman who carried it, regardless of the source of the genetic material involved. However this can be set aside either by an adoption order or by a “parental order” under s. 30 of the _Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990_. A parental order can be made only in favour of a married couple, one or both of whom has contributed genetic material. > > As far as I can see, a parental order is intended to act pretty much like an adoption order, and so would not result in any title passing to the child, even though it would be the genetic child of one or both of the couple in whose favour the parental order was made. > > If same-sex marriage is ever legalised, s. 30 will need to be amended it if is to be available to a same-sex couple who participate in a surrogacy arrangement. (Currently the section assumes that every marriage will involve a “husband” and a “wife”, and makes slightly different provision for husbands and wives, so it would be inoperable if applied to a same-sex couple.) Its unlikely, though, that it would be amended so as to allow a titled spouse transmit their title to the child, given that a titled spouse in an opposite-sex marriage cannot currently transmit a title through the use of a parental order. > > **On preview:** Just to clarify, British titles do not pass to adopted children (or to non-marital children). Actually, even two men can be listed on the birth certificate as the child’s parents, not including the surrogate mother at all. Two women can also be listed if the child was conceived via donor insemination. Inclusion on the birth certificate is of major importance when it comes to parental rights and responsibilities. It means that it’s not necessary for the non-biological parent to adopt the child. Almost anyone can get a parental responsibility order, if permitted to by the others with PR (usually the biological parents, presuming they have PR) and by the court. The HFEA 2008 was what brought about most of these changes. [Link](http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11402.html). I’m not sure how that would affect inheritance of titles - after all, the parents are named on the birth certificate, so the child is not adopted. It’s not only gay couples that are affected by this change, either, it’s straight unmarried couples having IVF (straight married couples have always been able to put the father down on the birth certificate). Still, since iillegitimate children don’t have the right to inherit titles, I guess that would apply to children born outside of a straight marriage, even if they were born within a civil partnership. That certainly is something that might change if we ever get full same-sex marriage. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-titles-and-same-sex-marriage/506007/24 "2009-08-12T01:08:49Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > BUT if marriage were extended to same-sex couples then it _would_ be relevant to consider both ways of phrasing who can currently receive titles by marriage. Yes, it would. But, right now, it isn’t, so you can’t say that your second statement applies as an independent condition. If and when same-sex marriage arrives, either Parliament or the courts will have to decide whether your second statement is to apply as a condition. Until that decision is made, we can’t say that it applies as a condition. > [@SciFiSam](#): > > Actually, even two men can be listed on the birth certificate as the child’s parents, not including the surrogate mother at all. Two women can also be listed if the child was conceived via donor insemination. Inclusion on the birth certificate is of major importance when it comes to parental rights and responsibilities. It means that it’s not necessary for the non-biological parent to adopt the child. > > Almost anyone can get a parental responsibility order, if permitted to by the others with PR (usually the biological parents, presuming they have PR) and by the court. > > The HFEA 2008 was what brought about most of these changes. [Link](http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11402.html). > > I’m not sure how that would affect inheritance of titles - after all, the parents are named on the birth certificate, so the child is not adopted. It’s not only gay couples that are affected by this change, either, it’s straight unmarried couples having IVF (straight married couples have always been able to put the father down on the birth certificate). > > Still, since illegitimate children don’t have the right to inherit titles, I guess that would apply to children born outside of a straight marriage, even if they were born within a civil partnership. That certainly is something that might change if we ever get full same-sex marriage. The default position under HFEA is that the woman who carries a child under a surrogacy arrangement is treated as the mother “for all purposes”. Her husband, if she has one, is treated as the father for all purposes, unless it is shown that he did not agree to the surrogacy arrangement. Unless this default is set aside, the birth certificate will reflect it. Despite the “all purposes” language, the Act creates an exception for “the succession to any dignity or title of honour”, so if the surrogate mother or her husband are titled, the child will not inherit that title. The default can be set aside either by adoption or by a “parental order” under the HFEA. (Note that this is not the same thing as a “parental responsibility order” under the child care legislation.) Consequently if you want a birth certificate showing the genetic parents rather that the surrogate mother and her husband, you need either an adoption order or a parental order. Titles do not pass by adoption. HFEA is silent about the effect of a parental order on a title, but the general intention seems to be that a parental order acts in the same way as an adoption order, so I doubt that a title would pass under a parental order. The net result is that a child born under a surrogacy arrangement will not inherit a title either from his or her surrogate parents or from his or her genetic parents. The child will have no choice but to bung a large sum of money to the party currently in power to secure a new title. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-titles-and-same-sex-marriage/506007/25 "2009-08-12T01:47:07Z")
If [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtesy_titles#Adopted_children) is correct then Her Majesty has decided that adopted children of peers are entitled to the same styles as biological children, but do not have any right of succession to the peerage itself. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-titles-and-same-sex-marriage/506007/26 "2009-08-12T10:05:08Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > I don’t know if any members of the peerage have entered into a civil partnership yet, but my WAG would be that their partnet wouldn’t automatically get any kind of courtesy title or precedence. Lord Smith of Finsbury, the former Labour minister Chris Smith, has a civil partner. And, yes, that partner gets no title or precedence. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-titles-and-same-sex-marriage/506007/27 "2009-08-12T11:23:34Z")
According to the amusing TV quiz ‘Quite Interesting’, Henry VIII wanted to marry Anne Boleyn, so gave her the title of Lord Pembroke to achieve this. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-titles-and-same-sex-marriage/506007/28 "2009-08-12T15:58:43Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Yes, it would. But, right now, it isn’t, so you can’t say that your second statement applies as an independent condition. If and when same-sex marriage arrives, either Parliament or the courts will have to decide whether your second statement is to apply as a condition. Until that decision is made, we can’t say that it applies as a condition. But _both_ do automatically apply, tautologically. Only men can pass titles to a spouse, and only women can have titles passed to them. Neither apply as an indedependent condition, they both apply tautologically. That simply is true. I’m really not sure why you’re arguing that it’s untrue. 😕 > [@](#): > > The default position under HFEA is that the woman who carries a child under a surrogacy arrangement is treated as the mother “for all purposes”. Her husband, if she has one, is treated as the father for all purposes, unless it is shown that he did not agree to the surrogacy arrangement. Unless this default is set aside, the birth certificate will reflect it. Despite the “all purposes” language, the Act creates an exception for “the succession to any dignity or title of honour”, so if the surrogate mother or her husband are titled, the child will not inherit that title. > > The default can be set aside either by adoption or by a “parental order” under the HFEA. (Note that this is not the same thing as a “parental responsibility order” under the child care legislation.) Consequently if you want a birth certificate showing the genetic parents rather that the surrogate mother and her husband, you need either an adoption order or a parental order. Titles do not pass by adoption. HFEA is silent about the effect of a parental order on a title, but the general intention seems to be that a parental order acts in the same way as an adoption order, so I doubt that a title would pass under a parental order. > > The net result is that a child born under a surrogacy arrangement will not inherit a title either from his or her surrogate parents or from his or her genetic parents. The child will have no choice but to bung a large sum of money to the party currently in power to secure a new title. I was correcting your statement that a parental order can only be made in favour of a married couple. Under the HFEA 2008, this is no longer true. Seriously, the HFEA has made tons of significant changes to the stuff you’re talking about - the 1990 act is not a good one to reference now. At least we totally agree about titles passing on to children via adoption or parental orders, and that was the question posed in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-titles-and-same-sex-marriage/506007/29 "2009-08-12T18:27:39Z")
> [@glee](#): > > According to the amusing TV quiz ‘Quite Interesting’, Henry VIII wanted to marry Anne Boleyn, so gave her the title of Lord Pembroke to achieve this. That’s true. Well, at least it’s true that he gave Anne Boleyn the title of Marchioness of Pembroke, but they were already married when he did so. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-titles-and-same-sex-marriage/506007/30 "2009-08-12T20:08:59Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > That’s true. Well, at least it’s true that he gave Anne Boleyn the title of Marchioness of Pembroke, but they were already married when he did so. Nope, Anne was raised to the peerage on September 1st, 1532. She and Henry VIII married (in secret) on January 25th, 1533. She was the first royal mistress to be given a title _in her own right_. Normally when the king fancied a married woman it was her husband would be given things like land, court positions, appointments, or a title in exchange for cooperation in the use of his “property”. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2009, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-titles-and-same-sex-marriage/506007/31 "2009-08-13T05:20:48Z")
> [@scifisam2009](#): > > But _both_ do automatically apply, tautologically. Only men can pass titles to a spouse, and only women can have titles passed to them. Neither apply as an indedependent condition, they both apply tautologically. That simply is true. I’m really not sure why you’re arguing that it’s untrue. 😕 I’m not saying that they are untrue; I’m saying that they are not independent conditions, and therefore you cannot assume that they would apply as independent conditions if same-sex marriage were possible, as your post 11 above seems to assume. If and when same-sex marriage is possible; that is a decision which Parliament or the courts will have to make, and neither of them has made it yet. We cannot therefore say that a man could not acquire a courtesy title by marrying a titled man (although we can speculate that that is the decision that parliament would make). > [@scifisam2009](#): > > I was correcting your statement that a parental order can only be made in favour of a married couple. Under the HFEA 2008, this is no longer true. Seriously, the HFEA has made tons of significant changes to the stuff you’re talking about - the 1990 act is not a good one to reference now. You’re quite right. My bad. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-titles-and-same-sex-marriage/506007.md?page=1)