Has female trans person made an inheritance (property and/or title) case against a younger male sibling?
For that question to become relevant, you’d need a jurisdiction that both (1) incorporates male primogeniture as a rule of its inheritance law and (2) recognises gender transitioning. I doubt such a legal system exists, so I find it hard to believe that the question ever arises.
Well, not for everyday inheritance, but the UK recognizes gender transitions and uses male primogeniture to determine who the monarch is. That could be a interesting situation someday!
Not any more.
(But does that apply to other British inherited titles?)
Depends on the title. When a new peerage is created by means of a royal letter patent, that letter patent also defines the rules of succession. For new titles this doesn’t matter, since - subject to few exceptions such as the royal dukedoms - all new peerages are life peerages that can’t be inherited; but of course there are still lots of old inheritable peerages around that were created long ago. As I understand it, most English and post-Union British titles are entirely limited to male heirs (“heirs male of the body lawfully begotten” is a common wording), whereas in Scotland there are, to my knowledge, many old titles that do not differentiate by gender for the rules of succession. So I could see that in some of the titles that make such a distinction, litigation could arise from a gender transition. As I understand it, such litigation involving a disputed peerage would take the form of a petition to the Queen, who would delegate it to the House of Lords, which would, in turn, delegate it to a committee, whose recommendation the Queen would follow when ruling on the dispute. Such cases are super rare.
This has happened in fiction (20 some years ago in a book by Lois McMaster Bujold)
I was going to mention the ineffable Lord Dono too 
Heh, make that three of us. (It should be noted that the legal system in the book in question is heavily predicated on the general principle of “Don’t be a jerk,” which the other claimant to the title violates flagrantly.)
I thought I’d read all her books - which one was this?
A Civil Campaign. Revolving around the Emperor’s wedding. Which was a relatively minor part of the book, aside from the preparations going on in the background. Major plot points include:
- Inheritance of the Vorrutyer countdom, Lady Donna → Lord Dono, as the more traditional heir was a cousin who was on the more psychopathic side of the family.
- Inheritance of the Vorbretten countdom… the existing Count’s great grandmother, it turned out, had had an affair with a Cetagandan during the occupation. meaning his grandfather was not actually the son of the Count, rendering the line of succession rather in question. I think Rene’s argument was that g-gfather may have known that g-father wasn’t his biological son, and named him heir anyway. At least in that case, the more traditional heir, a cousin who’d had no expectations, was NOT a jerk.
- Miles’ attempt to woo, with several hilariously disastrous scenes resulting.
The two Countdoms were at play because, while inheritance through male primogeniture was the norm, in theory the existing Count could name anyone he liked, and I gather the Council of Counts could vote to accept or deny a successor.
I seem to remember that in Gentleman Jole or perhaps Flowers of Vashnoi, there was mention of allowing absolute primogeniture, i.e. letting a daughter become the next Count, but I may be misremembering.
There is the traditional institution of Balkan Sworn Virgins where a AFAB person takes an oath to live as a man and is given all the rights of a man (except the right to marry a woman) including the right in inherit.
The reasons people would have to do this go far beyond being transgender in the modern sense, but it is a definite intersection of “only men can inherit” and “socially recognized gender transitions”.
It might not be a law of the nation. You could have someone in any old country writing a will that says “I leave all of my possessions to my eldest son”, or the like. I’m pretty sure that such a will would be valid in the US, which would open up the question of whether a trans man counted as a “son”.
The 2004 Gender Recognition Act explicitly stated that the descent of peerages was unaffected by its provisions. In other words, the issue was anticipated and deliberately avoided. Of course, a claimant might well argue that this is wrong and outdated. But the law is clear.
If I recall correctly, the Count could name any male he liked, and the Council of Counts would almost always rubberstamp the choice - but Donna’s transition was sufficiently unusual that the Council was in an uproar (I think it’s clear that if Donna had been born Dono, the prior Count would have had no difficulty naming a younger male heir)
But I think the issue was also that he hadn’t named one when he died. He had no children, and hadn’t indicated a clear preference in who should succeed him, so the title defaulted to oldest living male relative - which happened to be the guy who likely murdered the old duke in the first place. Dono was older, but as a female, wasn’t eligible to inherit, until he went to Beta Colony for a sex change. So now he was the oldest living male relative, but only if the government recognized the validity of sex reassignment.
Yes that’s right (in my understanding). Dono claimed right of succession by age and current gender, and by Count’s (implied) choice (since Donna had administered for the aged Count for several years before his death).
I think this is not a question of defining “son” under the law of the land, it’s merely a question of interpreting the testator’s intention.
Suppose the testator had several sons and daughters; the eldest child, Alice, is a daughter, and the eldest son is Bob. In 2019, Alice transitions to male and begins to use the name Alexander. In 2022, the testator dies, and the will with the text you describe is discovered. But this will dates back to 2015. Then I’d say it’s reasonable to argue that by saying “my eldest son”, the testator meant Bob; Alice/Alexander could not have been meant because, at the time of writing, the testator could not know of the future gender transition and therefore would not have anticipated that the words “my eldest son” could ever reasonably refer to Alice. This is irrespective of whether Alice’s transition to Alexander is recognised under the law of the jurisdiction, it’s simply a matter of finding out what the testator would possibly have meant.
Contrast this with the scenario where the testator wrote the will with that text in 2020, after Alice’s/Alexander’s gender transition. Assume further that we know that the testator knew of the gender transition, and we have no indications that the testator had any kind of personal reservations against that transition or disapproved of it. Then I’d argue that the words “my eldest son” in the will were most likely intended to refer to Alice/Alexander. Again, it’s not a question of what qualifies as “son” under the law of the land but in the intentions of the testator.
Couple of different points come to mind -
-
To all the LMB fans, bravo, I knew there were more reasons to love the dope, but finding fellow fans is always a good one.
-
Regarding Lord Dono, one fact that was brought up in the novel, and would likely be pertinent to this thread, is that Lord Dono is a functioning male. While I fully agree that our modern definition of ‘gender’ by personal preference is the best we can accomplish, a society that did have a legal requirement of male primogenitor inheritance would likely tie it to being able to continue said chain of inheritance. So a trans-male using current technology may not be able to fulfil the function of such a (HIGHLY) theoretical society. Which is why there were jokes about Lord Dono’s . . . ahem . . . new equipment being the the most key part.
-
The Vorkosigan books ‘main’ planet of Barrayar are even more male-focused than certain other primogenitor societies, in that Agnatic succession (in which the oldest female could inherit as long as they were themselves descended from the eldest male line - although their children would not be eligible) - which is brought up as Aral Vorkosigan uses it to dismiss his arguably better claim to the throne than the current emperor.
-
Primogeniture is largely (but not exclusively) tied to the so-called Judeo-Christian societies (two very distinct societies IMHO, but that’s a different thread), in which it was the default, but not only method of property and authority transmission.
https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1753&context=facultypub
Has a few detailed examples, predominantly from the OT which were quite detailed, although probably too long to go over in detail here, which included examples of children by concubines, surrogates, and other non-spousal females, as well as examples of inheritance by slaves brought into the family as sons. So, and this is IMHO territory more than FQ, but I would suspect that given the breadth of such examples, a case could easily be made for the situation laid out in the OP.
- Islamic law has very detailed rules for inheritance based on a quota system among the heirs, and often female heirs are only given a half share, but as in all such things, the various practices are not monolithic, and have (and likely will) changed over time and by region.
So back to the OP, we would need to find a current society that has Primogenitor status as default, but recognizes trans status, and doesn’t require a detailed inheritance document stating the deceased preferences. The closest we have is the UK examples already detailed above, and as @Schnitte pointed out, would likely be delegated to the House of Lords and those empowered by them to make a final decision.
The other examples would likely be entirely religious in nature (various sects, often small) and likely to run afoul of the courts if a challenge was brought in a secular arena.
Otherwise we’re back to examples from fiction, which would be more fun in IMHO or Cafe Society.
Missed my edit window, sorry
Back to Lord Dono, and to @Schnitte 's comments on how it would work via the House of Lords IRL.
The society in the novel has a similar structure, although the equivalent of the House of Lords retains real power, and voted on the issue themselves. And (IMHO territory again) the decision was made as much upon realpolitik reasons as facts of law, which I suspect would be true for the OP as well. There was a great deal of trading upon personal likes and dislikes for the parties involved, legal and social scandals (real and manufactured), as well as the chances to change the voting preferences which would normally be a once-in-a-lifetime event.
So there, as likely IRL, it would reflect less on the law, as to whom the change could be made to serve.
Sorry for the double post and poor editing, I shouldn’t be posting this late/early, but the LMB reference drew me in.
Not directly the OP circumstance but the case of Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet of Craigievar set a lot of the precedence in the UK.
He was the 4th child and christened Elizabeth.
I highly recommend the podcast to properly explain the circumstances.
On the death of his elder brother in 1965 the barony passed to his brothers oldest daughter but the baronetcy was subject to primogeniture and passed to Ewan.
This was challenged by his first cousin John. After a three year and secret trial Ewan’s claim was recognised.
Ewan held the baronetcy until his death in 1991, and was succeeded by John.