My daughter is the victim of a flawed system I'm not alone in my concerns. Lady Clare Kerr, daughter of Tory politician Michael Ancram, 13th Marquess of Lothian, has broken traditionally silent ranks to say: "There is certainly a conversation to be had with regard to moving even one step forward to where the Royal family were before this recent change." Neither Lady Clare, who is married to the Tory minister Nick Hurd, nor her younger sister Lady Mary will inherit their father's title, which will pass on his death to an uncle. As will any property tied to it, including land and family heirlooms from paintings to spoons. She added: "In the absence of a son there should be no reason a daughter should not inherit - and once that has been established it is difficult to argue against girls inheriting if they are the firstborn." Earlier this summer, a bill to enable the succession of female heirs to hereditary peerages was introduced to the House of Lords by Conservative peer Lord Lucas. It has yet to receive a second reading. Only a small proportion of such private members" bills get passed into law but the Government's response to this one will be interesting. For the truth is that primogeniture is deeply discriminatory, both financially and practically. Before the 20th century, few women were educated to run large estates (excepting the famous Bess of Hardwick - who married four times and was the powerhouse behind the Dukes of Devonshire and the development of their enormous estates, which include Chatsworth in Derbyshire). But now, with more females than men achieving top grades at GCSE, A-level, and degree and doctorate level in almost every subject, it is ludicrous to suggest that any woman couldn't run the greatest estates in the land. Look at Alison Nimmo CBE, who in January this year became chief executive of the Crown Estate, the Monarch's own property company, which delivered £2 billion to the taxpayer last year. Look, too, at the Duchess of Rutland who, while being estranged from the Duke, actually runs the family's vast Rutland estates - and gets up at 4am to do so. She describes her husband as the chairman, while she is acknowledged as a brilliant CEO. How sad for the Duchess, then, that her three daughters will be automatically passed over when His Grace dies, regardless of their potential as chatelaines, trained by their mother. Instead Lady Violet Manners, 19, and her sisters Lady Alice and Lady Eliza will watch the family seat, Belvoir Castle, pass to their 13-year-old brother Charles, the Marquess of Granby. And if not him, there is a younger boy, too. An heir and a spare indeed. The Channel 4 programme, The Aristocrats, has exposed the dilemmas the current Duke of Marlborough has faced over whether to allow his troubled heir to the titles, Jamie Blandford, to inherit the estate as well. Looking at the treasure trove that is Blenheim Palace, it is hard to summon sympathy. But before you shrug and say "a plague on all their houses," remember that, very often, thousands of jobs could depend on whether it is an incompetent firstborn who inherits a massive land-based business - or a younger, cleverer child who might be better at the job. The initial plot of Downton Abbey revolved around this issue, too, when the immediate heirs of Lord Grantham (the father of three daughters), who are not sons but cousins, are lost in the sinking of the Titanic. Finally, middle-class Matthew from Manchester turned up, fell in love with Lady Mary and restored the natural order of things - allowing family and estate to stay together. Downton was set 100 years ago. Little has changed. Equality is a simple concept. We all get the same opportunities - good or bad. As US activist Charlotte Bunch explains: "Feminism is an entire world view, or gestalt, not just a laundry list of women's issues." The hereditary principle is no less part of that. You can't say that equality is the next Princess of Wales, but not the next Duchess of Rutland. It doesn't wash. Curiously, this is where my husband, Nick Trench, and I don't entirely concur. Nick is a republican and would rather the aristocracy "fades away" in importance naturally and over time. He still uses his title professionally for the simple reason that his work requires it - he is one of the remaining hereditary peers in the House of Lords. However, he does agree that the question of physical inheritance matters. If you have true equality between people, why should an older child be able to inherit one thing deemed to be so special? If handing down possessions matters, most fair-minded parents split their goods equally between all their children. And he believes that this country should come in line with most European states, which have changed their rules of succession to make them gender neutral, leaving the UK in a minority, with Spain, Monaco and Liechtenstein. In my heart, it's simple. Not to be able to pass on certain precious possessions to daughters would cause heartache to many families - after all, who among us doesn't prize at least one item of good furniture or a carriage clock with a wonderful family story attached? Why should a name be any different? Lady Sybilla Hart on female succession My three favourite monarchs have been women - Elizabeth I, Victoria and, of course, Elizabeth II. On the basis of their outstanding reigns, I don't have a problem with the proposed change in the law of succession for the monarchy. But should these adjustments filter through to the peerage? If they did, I would inherit the title of my father, the Marquess of Reading, instead of my younger brother. Some might make a compelling argument along the following lines: if the purpose of the peerage is to mark out forever as exceptional the illustrious deeds of a forebear, this can be achieved just as well (and maybe even better - because fewer peerages would be lost for lack of a male heir) by permitting female succession. However, the most important aspects of both the monarchy and the peerage are their respective constitutional roles. As the peerage loses its political weight, doesn't it just become a repository for pomp and show? Since the last government watered down the constitutional role of the peerage to such an extent that it barely exists, isn't the debate about succession in the peerage largely meaningless? People only fight over succession in a family business if the shares pay a dividend. A peerage used to pay a significant political dividend to the holder - a seat in the House of Lords had value and was transferable between generations. Now that the political and constitutional aspect of the peerage has largely dropped away, does succession matter at all? There is, however, a precedent to support female succession. A number of Scottish titles are constructed to permit it (and a number of English titles have been lost because they did not). I am a traditionalist and therefore generally prefer to keep things the way they are, unless there is a particularly strong reason to change them. I would have thought a compromise position might suffice; couldn't it be permitted in instances where there is no male heir? I am not entirely sure I would want to be a Marquess and I can guarantee that my husband wouldn't want to be a Marchioness!