Ship of Fools: Prince Harry's kids

Thread: Prince Harry's kids Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020380

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Prince Harry's kids will be American citizens by virtue of their mother's citizenship. Just think, what if one of their kids becomes the President of the United States while in line for the throne?

You Brits are always playing long. It could be a way of bringing us Yanks back into the fold.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

One of my fantasies, although we'd have to split you up into three or four dominions to prevent you dominating the CTH games.

Seriously though, Harry's kids will be selling diet plans and flogging perfumes for a living.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

Doesn't that depend on their mum keeping her American citizen and/or giving birth to them on US soil? The Queen may not be best pleased with a dual-citizenship granddaughter-in-law -- the young lady would be liable for taxes to a foreign state.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

It has just been announced Meghan will be applying for British Citizenship. So, false alarm.

But, technically, American citizenship is by birthright based on the parent's citizenship regardless of where they were born. Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, ran for the Presidency but he was born in Mexico. Still, he was able to run because his parents were American citizens.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

If, as a dirty foreigner, I acquire US citizenship, I must renounce any titles of nobility that I might happen to have. But I don't think the act of acquiring a title of nobility places an American's citizenship in jeopardy. There are precedents - The Duchess of Windsor, and Princess Grace of Monaco, for example, and I'm pretty sure that Princess Grace, at least, maintained her US citizenship.

So there's no reason for Ms. Markle not to maintain her US citizenship after her marriage; this would naturally include maintaining her obligation to pay US taxes on her worldwide income. And would also mean that any children she might have would inherit her citizenship.

[ 29. November 2017, 01:24: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
But, technically, American citizenship is by birthright based on the parent's citizenship regardless of where they were born. Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, ran for the Presidency but he was born in Mexico. Still, he was able to run because his parents were American citizens.

I could never figure that one out.

But President Obama was investigated over and over and over because of his Kenyan father -- despite the fact that he was born in the United States and his mother was a native-born American.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

The whole "who qualifies as a natural citizen" game can get pretty complicated. E.g., John McCain being born in the Panama Canal Zone. It was eventually decided that he qualified, but there was a lot of argument.

I suspect there may be special circumstances where the US may informally allow dual citizenship for an American marrying into another country's royal family. E.g., American Lisa Halaby became Queen Noor of Jordan. I don't know about her citizenship; but I wouldn't be surprised if the US gov't casually ignored it. I presume she did have to become a Jordanian citizen. Actresses Rita Hayworth and Grace Kelly are other examples.

Pardon a loaded cross-Pond question, but how much of an issue is their future kids' mixed ethnic heritage apt to be? (And no, I don't mean American.) If, someday, they were close in line to the throne, would it be a problem then?

I don't mean to be insulting. It's just that, AFAIK, the British royals (at least the high-level ones) have always been very white. I don't know how Catherine of Aragon might have been regarded at the time, if she had a Mediterranean complexion.

Thx.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

LC--

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If, as a dirty foreigner, I acquire US citizenship, I must renounce any titles of nobility that I might happen to have.

You'd also have to swear to renounce any allegiance to another country. It's part of the oath you'd take.

I don't know how that works out in practice, because lots of immigrants seem to retain a strong connection to their old country. But it may primarily mean what your allegiance would be in wartime.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Technically, US citizens can't hold noble titles, but I haven't heard of anyone arrested for it. Hell, one of the Real Housewives of New York, Luann de Lesseps, was married to a count and proudly bore the title countess all over the place. And she didn't have to duck when the police drove by, either.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

rofl, just generally.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

You are assuming, Gramps49, that we want the US back. We've got enough problems of our own without taking on another 300 million ...

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Our Federal Parliamentarians are going through a difficult period, with more and more of them shown as retaining citizenship of another country. That's a factor disqualifying them from standing for either house of Federal Parliament. Quire a few of those now shown to be disqualified were born in Aust to parents who had taken Aust citizenship but not renounced that which they previously had - the oath does not include that.

This has worked to the disadvantage of the present government. The Labor Party office carries out rather more detailed checks than do the other parties, and that's where most of the problems have arisen.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

When the von Trapp family (yes, that one) became Americans, they had to drop the "von", which is a noble title.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You are assuming, Gramps49, that we want the US back. We've got enough problems of our own without taking on another 300 million ...

Oh, but in the musical "Hamilton", King George III sings to the US "You'll...be...BACK! You'll see. You'll remember you belong to me".
[Biased]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I don't know how that works out in practice, because lots of immigrants seem to retain a strong connection to their old country. But it may primarily mean what your allegiance would be in wartime.

Probably. It certainly doesn't preclude dual citizenship, which has been explicitly allowed for a small number of decades.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
But, technically, American citizenship is by birthright based on the parent's citizenship regardless of where they were born. Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, ran for the Presidency but he was born in Mexico. Still, he was able to run because his parents were American citizens.
I could never figure that one out.

But President Obama was investigated over and over and over because of his Kenyan father -- despite the fact that he was born in the United States and his mother was a native-born American.

Simples. Romney was white and Obama is black.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Prince Harry's kids will be American citizens by virtue of their mother's citizenship. Just think, what if one of their kids becomes the President of the United States while in line for the throne?

You Brits are always playing long. It could be a way of bringing us Yanks back into the fold.

As this can only happen with campaign reform, it’s an exciting prospect.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Pardon a loaded cross-Pond question, but how much of an issue is their future kids' mixed ethnic heritage apt to be? (And no, I don't mean American.) If, someday, they were close in line to the throne, would it be a problem then?

I'd say almost a complete non-issue, for multiple reasons:

1. The chance of Harry's kids being closer to the throne than "the King's cousin" is basically zero. It might get a Hurrumph in certain quarters, but only from the sort of person who has already hurrumphed about the names of Mark Phillips's daughters.

2. Ms. Markle is an attractive successful actress. That mostly trumps her complexion.

3. She's not that black. She doesn't style her hair in a "black" style. There's not much there to frighten the horses.

Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :

Queen Charlotte of Mecklenburg Strelitz, the wife of George III, was considered by many to be a mulatto because of her dark complexion and general appearance...it may or may not be true but her appearance was used to promote the anti slave trade movement..
Similarly Philippa of Hainault, the wife of Edward lll, was Portuguese and described as 'brown all over" and rumoured to have "Moorish blood". Philippa was very successful in keeping the king's Plantagenet temper in check and saved a a number of people from execution, including the Burgers of Calais.

What's the problem?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Fuzzipeg--

As I said in my last paragraph, the British royal line has been very white, AFAIK. I have no problem with Meghan or her future children. I'm just not sure what the view is in Britain.

Thanks for the info, though. [Smile]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You are assuming, Gramps49, that we want the US back. We've got enough problems of our own without taking on another 300 million ...

Although it does currently have the honour of being the ony country more incompetently governed than our own. Just.

Golden Key - I think your question is perfectly reasonable, and the Spectator has been quoted a lot in social media for trying to find reasons why she is not suitable - comparing her to Wallace Simpson. Because they can't in fact say "We don't want a black person marrying into OUR royal family."

And yes, there will be a lot of people trying to disown Harry, because they are racist shits who hate anyone who doesn't live in cosy Middle England. But tough. They will justify it as being permissible because he is not in direct line to the throne (he and his family are unlikely ever to be monarchs).

Tough.

There is an interesting possibilty that this blood line may, in future generations, cross again with the Monarch, and introduce this into the Royal family again. Her children will be princes and princesses, and so highly eligible for marriage, and their children will have the royal blood, so would always be considered a good match for future generations.

As long as they don't look too like the staff.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I'm not entirely sure about this, so I'm preparing to be proven wrong - and don't really care very much anyway.

I think that technically the British royals are also nationals of various other nations and dominions and thus could get passports for various other countries should they wish to. The Queen herself has no passport but the other Royals travel on British passports.

But I don't think there is any particular reason why the younger Windsors couldn't (for example) move to live in Canada and travel around on Canadian passports.

I don't know that this situation is precisely the same for every country that counts HM as Queen - but I'm reasonably sure that Canada at least officially has them as the "Canadian" Royal family.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

1. Ms Markle has stated her intention of becoming a UK citizen.

2. My understanding is that the US doesn't look kindly on its citizens taking out citizenship of another country, to the extent that the State Department views anyone who does as losing their US citizenship.

3. QED any offspring of Ms Markle and Prince Harry will be UK citizens.

As for the nationality of the current royals: certainly Prince Philip is a UK citizen - definitely not Greek since the then Greek government stripped his family of its citizenship at the time he was exiled from Corfu as an infant.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Her children will be princes and princesses...

Will they? I thought I had heard that things had changed, and only the heir apparent and his offspring are entitled to be called prince or princess, unless a special exception is made. I think a special exception gave Prince William's children titles.

Moo

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
. My understanding is that the US doesn't look kindly on its citizens taking out citizenship of another country, to the extent that the State Department views anyone who does as losing their US citizenship.

If an American takes out citizenship in another country, they lose their US citizenship, but if they're born with multiple citizenship, they can keep it.

My older daughter was born in Belfast, NI, and she can claim citizenship in three countries, the US, the UK, and the Irish Republic. She can claim US citizenship through her parents; she can claim UK citizenship because she was born in the UK; she can claim Irish citizenship because the Irish Republic says that anyone born anywhere in Ireland is a citizen of the Republic.

Moo

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
If an American takes out citizenship in another country, they lose their US citizenship, but if they're born with multiple citizenship, they can keep it. ...

If only.

quote:
In 1990, the U.S. State Department adopted new regulations which presume that an individual does not intend to give up citizenship when performing one of the above potentially expatriating acts.[58] If asked, the individual can always answer that they did not intend to give it up; this is sufficient to retain their citizenship.[59] Hence, the U.S. effectively allows citizens to acquire new citizenships while remaining a U.S. citizen, becoming a dual citizen.

Dual Citizenship

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
There is an interesting possibilty that this blood line may, in future generations, cross again with the Monarch, and introduce this into the Royal family again. Her children will be princes and princesses, and so highly eligible for marriage, and their children will have the royal blood, so would always be considered a good match for future generations.

Well, there is a corollary to long-standing hypothesis which says that any children Harry and Meghan may have wouldn't have any royal blood anyway...

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Her children will be princes and princesses...
Will they? I thought I had heard that things had changed, and only the heir apparent and his offspring are entitled to be called prince or princess, unless a special exception is made. I think a special exception gave Prince William's children titles.

Moo

Presuming that Charles succeeds (which I suspect will be some years away), then the non-princely children will become grandchildren of a sovereign, therefore automatically princes & princesses (all according to George V's warrant). However, the Queen can just make them princely if she feels like it. As the royal corgis are said to quite like Ms Markle, I think that we can safely assume that this will be likely.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Gosh - Markle The Sparkle might one day, in future generations, be responsible for giving Ukland a BLACK King or Queen...

[Big Grin]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Gosh - Markle The Sparkle might one day, in future generations, be responsible for giving Ukland a BLACK King or Queen...

IJ

If one goes by the one-drop rule, we already have a black monarch in situ. Queen Charlotte (wife of George III) was descended from Maura Gil, a Moroccan, as well as a descendant of Ines Hernandez Estevez, daughter of a converted Moorish shoemaker and mistress of King Joao I of Portugal (1357-1433, husband of Philippa of Lancaster), and through that union ancestress of the Braganza family.

There is also a Berber line through an Emir of Cadiz and the Almoravids but my insomnia has not facilitated my ability to wade through the 10 centuries involved.

But perhaps more importantly in symbolic terms, Ms Markle brings into the House of Windsor the blood of the descendants of slaves, which is perhaps more relevant to modern consciousness than the informality of mediaeval Iberian family life.

[ 29. November 2017, 14:13: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Augustine the Aleut says:

quote:
Ms Markle brings into the House of Windsor the blood of the descendants of slaves.

Probably a good reason for The Grabber-in-Chief to refuse an invitation to the wedding (should he receive one). The lady is (pale) BLACK, and therefore, presumably, persona non grata to the racist bastard in the WHITE House... [Disappointed]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Technically, US citizens can't hold noble titles, but I haven't heard of anyone arrested for it. Hell, one of the Real Housewives of New York, Luann de Lesseps, was married to a count and proudly bore the title countess all over the place. And she didn't have to duck when the police drove by, either.

Not quite true. The United States government and the governments of the individual states are forbidden from granting a "Title of Nobility" to anyone, and "no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust" within the U.S. government can accept a title "without the Consent of the Congress". If you're an ordinary American citizen (i.e. not someone "holding [an] Office of Profit or Trust") there's no prohibition against accepting a foreign title of nobility.

Those who become American citizens through the naturalization process are typically required to give up connections to the country of their former allegiance (including titles of nobility), but that's a different question as to whether citizens can accept such titles later.

[ 29. November 2017, 14:40: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

This brings to mind the unique instance of Winston Churchill, who was knighted in 1953 and made an honorary US citizen in 1963.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

HCH--

I happened to be wondering about his citizenship last night. He didn't get citizenship from his American mother?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
HCH--

I happened to be wondering about his citizenship last night. He didn't get citizenship from his American mother?

In those days, one didn't. Before 1934, children born outside the US could not inherit citizenship through one's (US citizen) mother. There was no retroactive effect.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I did a cursory review of Jennie Churchill's biography and could not find anywhere where she gave up her American citizenship She was known to talk the title of Lady Rudolph Churchhill after her marriage so that might have been the point where she lost her citizenship.

Someone up thread mentioned the Von Tropps had to give up the "Von" title when they became Americans. I don't think that is the case. I know of a number of families who kept the title. I grew up with a Von Weller. I also know of a number of Irish and Scottish American families who kept the "O'" designation.

Also, someone mentioned that Lady Meghan wears her hair straight, therefore, she is not that black. May I remind you Michelle Obama and her daughters also wear their hair straight. Tell them they are not that black. In the United States, common law simply says if you have one drop of African blood in you you are black. A lot of White Nationalists have discovered, to their chagrin, they are black.

[ 30. November 2017, 01:41: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Gramps--

Re "von":

I was the one who posted it. I thought Maria mentioned it in one of her books. I may be wrong.

I'm poking around online. If I find something, will post it.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I wouldn't worry about Markle's ethnicity. There have been nasty rumors about Harry's parentage all his life.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

AA--

Thanks for the info! [Smile]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Gramps--

Re "von":

I was the one who posted it. I thought Maria mentioned it in one of her books. I may be wrong.

I'm poking around online. If I find something, will post it.

Ok, I looked around. I may have gotten confused from their frequent use of "Trapp Family" when performing in the US. I didn't find anything that said what they did at their citizenship ceremony.

But at the site for the US Custom & Immigration Service, in the "Oath Of Allegiance" section, I found:

quote:
C. Renunciation of Title or Order of Nobility

Any applicant who has any titles of heredity or positions of nobility in any foreign state must renounce the title or the position. The applicant must expressly renounce the title in a public ceremony and USCIS must record the renunciation as part of the proceedings. [5] Failure to renounce the title of position shows a lack of attachment to the Constitution.

In order to renounce a title or position, the applicant must add one of the following phrases to the Oath of Allegiance:

•I further renounce the title of (give title or titles) which I have heretofore held; or

•I further renounce the order of nobility (give the order of nobility) to which I have heretofore belonged. [6]

An applicant whose country of former nationality or origin abolished the title by law, or who no longer possesses a title, is not required to drop that portion of his or her name that originally designated such title as a part of his or her naturalization. [7]

I'm not quite sure whether the last paragraph means that, once you've formally relinquished the title, you can keep the name; or if you somehow lost/sold your title in your homeland, you can keep it in your name as an American citizen.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The 'O' in 'O'Reilly' and so on isn't a nobility thing, it's simply a clan or patronymic designation similar to the Scottish 'Mac' or 'Mc'.

The Welsh equivalent is 'ap' or 'ab' meaning son of ...

As in 'Powell- from ap Hywel, or 'Bowen' from ab Owen.

I don't know much about 'Von' but get the impression it's more of a nobility thing, but would be very surprised if the Von Trapps dropped it in the US, as a stage name at least.

'Ladies and gentlemen ... the Trapp Family!' doesn't have the same ring.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'm not quite sure whether the last paragraph means that, once you've formally relinquished the title, you can keep the name; or if you somehow lost/sold your title in your homeland, you can keep it in your name as an American citizen.

"von" and "zu" in Germany used to be regulated by law: their use was restricted to the minor nobility, and as such they were aristocratic titles.

With the advent of the Weimar republic in 1919, the legal status of the aristocracy was abolished, and the "von" and "zu" particles simply became part of people's surnames.

So pre-1919, being called "von Trapp" was a noble title, and so you would be expected to become Mr. Trapp in the US. Post-1919, being called "von Trapp" had no special legal status, and so you could keep it as your name.

[ 30. November 2017, 13:04: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on :

This is a daft discussion.

a) Prince Harry's fiancee is applying for British nationality.Will she give up her American right or have dual nationality. We don't know yet.

2) It is highly unlikely that their kids, should they want some, will ever be King/Queen.

3) Their kids will be British.

4) In the light of Trump's Tweets, do you think they will want to live in the States.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So pre-1919, being called "von Trapp" was a noble title, and so you would be expected to become Mr. Trapp in the US. Post-1919, being called "von Trapp" had no special legal status, and so you could keep it as your name.

When I lived in Germany in the 1950s, I got the impression that people were not free to add 'von' to their name if they could not prove they were entitled to it.

Moo

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

wild haggis says:

quote:
This is a daft discussion.

Indeed, but it takes our minds off the ghastliness of Other News e.g. The Crawling Chaos 'in charge' of Great America, and his hateful malevolence... [Mad]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Tangent alert
Weren't the Von Trapps Austro-Hungarians, not Germans?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
This is a daft discussion.

Yes. And?

quote:

3) Their kids will be British.

This is undeniably true. If Ms. Markle doesn't abandon her US citizenship, they'll also be American.

quote:
4) In the light of Trump's Tweets, do you think they will want to live in the States.

By the time any of their children are making decisions about where they should live, Trump and his tweets will be nothing more than a embarrassing chapter in the history books.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I don't know much about 'Von' but get the impression it's more of a nobility thing, but would be very surprised if the Von Trapps dropped it in the US, as a stage name at least.

It does have nobility as I known South African acquaintances* who dropped it in South Africa because it had no relevance there. They told stories of how some German individuals changed their attitude towards them once they discovered they were actually 'Von'.

Jengie

*Just checked the spelling of their name and found that the one I knew best is quite famous. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent alert
Weren't the Von Trapps Austro-Hungarians, not Germans?

Yes. And Austrian law was a little different - the aristocracy was stripped of their territorial particles, so in 1919, Ritter von Trapp became plain Georg Trapp within Austria.

Outside Austria, he preferred to keep his von.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
But, technically, American citizenship is by birthright based on the parent's citizenship regardless of where they were born. Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, ran for the Presidency but he was born in Mexico. Still, he was able to run because his parents were American citizens.
I could never figure that one out.

But President Obama was investigated over and over and over because of his Kenyan father -- despite the fact that he was born in the United States and his mother was a native-born American.

Yes. The clincher here is that there is a clause in the constitution that says the President must not just be a "citizen" but must be a "native-born" citizen. The definition of that has not been parsed out. Most think it means you have to be born on American soil-- hence the "birther" movement's attempt to show Obama being born in Kenya. But there are others who have suggested it simply means you have to be a citizen from birth (i.e. even if Obama were born in Kenya he would be a citizen from birth due to his mother's citizenship-- as would Harry's kids if mom doesn't relinquish citizenship). If/when it comes up it may end up being decided by the Supreme Court. And every now and then, when it's convenient for one party or the other, suggestions will be made of a constitutional amendment to remove the problematic phrase altogether so naturalized citizens can run.

Beyond that "American soil" also has delicate parsing. McCain was born in Panama, but on an American military base, so it was said that qualified.

All of these issues were raised during George Romney's campaign but he exited the race before they could be resolved.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Beyond that "American soil" also has delicate parsing. McCain was born in Panama, but on an American military base, so it was said that qualified.

Ah, that's easy. HRH will just need to run to the US embassy when she's in Labour... [Two face]

OK, before some pedant comes along I know that isn't actually US soil so maybe the JFK memorial in Great Windsor Park... The tabloids would love that...
[Biased]

AFZ

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Beyond that "American soil" also has delicate parsing. McCain was born in Panama, but on an American military base, so it was said that qualified.
Ah, that's easy. HRH will just need to run to the US embassy when she's in Labour...

OK, before some pedant comes along I know that isn't actually US soil so maybe the JFK memorial in Great Windsor Park... The tabloids would love that...

AFZ

I think the embassy would work as long as she takes care not to say she's in "labour" but rather make clear that she is in "labor".

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Beyond that "American soil" also has delicate parsing. McCain was born in Panama, but on an American military base, so it was said that qualified.
Ah, that's easy. HRH will just need to run to the US embassy when she's in Labour...

OK, before some pedant comes along I know that isn't actually US soil so maybe the JFK memorial in Great Windsor Park... The tabloids would love that...

AFZ
I think the embassy would work as long as she takes care not to say she's in "labour" but rather make clear that she is in "labor".

and not, indeed, in Labour....

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

The kid just needs to arrive at one of these.

One of the advantages of being fairly close to the Peace movement is that you pick up odd quirks like this.

Jengie

[ 30. November 2017, 16:44: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes. The clincher here is that there is a clause in the constitution that says the President must not just be a "citizen" but must be a "native-born" citizen. The definition of that has not been parsed out. Most think it means you have to be born on American soil-- hence the "birther" movement's attempt to show Obama being born in Kenya. ...

Yes. This is something that from over here has always been a bit puzzling. Unless there's something I've completely misunderstood, it's quite clear that he was born on Hawaii. It's even fairly easy to find photographs of his birth certificate on the web which says exactly that. And unless everything I've been taught about geography is rubbish, Hawaii is part of the USA.

Or have I missed something?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yes. This is something that from over here has always been a bit puzzling. Unless there's something I've completely misunderstood, it's quite clear that he was born on Hawaii. It's even fairly easy to find photographs of his birth certificate on the web which says exactly that. And unless everything I've been taught about geography is rubbish, Hawaii is part of the USA.

Or have I missed something?

You think you've seen actual photographs of the birth certificate, but our beloved(?) ex-Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has "proof" that they're forgeries!

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

During World War 2, Princess Juliana of the Netherlands lived in Canada. When she became pregnant, the Canadian parliament passed a law saying that wherever she was when she gave birth, that place, at that particular time, was Dutch.

Moo

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
You think you've seen actual photographs of the birth certificate, but our beloved(?) ex-Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has "proof" that they're forgeries!

He may do, but does anybody who has any credibility agree with him?

And as a tangent, is it lawful public expenditure for a county in a totally different state, not Hawaii, to be commissioning, hiring allegedly expensive forensic experts in a different continent and presumably dedicating its own police resources over five years, to this investigation?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
During World War 2, Princess Juliana of the Netherlands lived in Canada. When she became pregnant, the Canadian parliament passed a law saying that wherever she was when she gave birth, that place, at that particular time, was Dutch.

I've heard that there was a suite in one of the big London hotels that was made temporarily part of Serbia at some time for the same reason.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
You think you've seen actual photographs of the birth certificate, but our beloved(?) ex-Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has "proof" that they're forgeries!
He may do, but does anybody who has any credibility agree with him?

And as a tangent, is it lawful public expenditure for a county in a totally different state, not Hawaii, to be commissioning, hiring allegedly expensive forensic experts in a different continent and presumably dedicating its own police resources over five years, to this investigation?

When Joe was Sheriff (many long years!) he could do whatever he wanted to and spend all the money he wanted to. One good thing happened on Election Day 2016 -- he finally lost his re-election bid. (Obviously a good pal of Trump, who pardoned him for his conviction for criminal contempt of court.)

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
You think you've seen actual photographs of the birth certificate, but our beloved(?) ex-Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has "proof" that they're forgeries!
He may do, but does anybody who has any credibility agree with him?

Unfortunately there was a whole yoo-hoo-load of nazi sympathizers and other sycophants who thought that God spoke through his mouth. I don't know if that's true now that (thank God) he's no longer in office, but it may be.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
During World War 2, Princess Juliana of the Netherlands lived in Canada. When she became pregnant, the Canadian parliament passed a law saying that wherever she was when she gave birth, that place, at that particular time, was Dutch.
I've heard that there was a suite in one of the big London hotels that was made temporarily part of Serbia at some time for the same reason.

*constitutional geek alert*
It was by Order in Council (formal decision of cabinet, and therby possibly legislation by prerogative), and the hospital where she delivered was declared to be extra-territorial for the day in question, allowing anybody who wished to think so (the Dutch government in exile, in this case) to believe that it was not Canada, and quite possibly somewhere else (the Netherlands, in this case).

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Enoch--

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes. The clincher here is that there is a clause in the constitution that says the President must not just be a "citizen" but must be a "native-born" citizen. The definition of that has not been parsed out. Most think it means you have to be born on American soil-- hence the "birther" movement's attempt to show Obama being born in Kenya. ...
Yes. This is something that from over here has always been a bit puzzling. Unless there's something I've completely misunderstood, it's quite clear that he was born on Hawaii. It's even fairly easy to find photographs of his birth certificate on the web which says exactly that. And unless everything I've been taught about geography is rubbish, Hawaii is part of the USA.

Or have I missed something?

It's puzzling here, too. Basically, it was political; plus racist (conscious and otherwise); and people overwhelmed by a sense of his difference, and their being willing to accept just about any explanation, in order to make their world feel normal again.

There was a lot of fuss about the short form of his birth certificate vs. the long form. IIRC, he'd provided the short form. But Hawai'i doesn't normally provide the long form. IIRC, they finally did.

IIRC, Hawai'i hadn't been a state all that long (1959, IIRC), when he was born there. And it's far away from the mainland, and seems rather exotic.

It didn't help that a Kenyan relative remarked that he *was* born there--a way of claiming him as their own, and being proud of him.

Then there was claiming he's a Muslim. He never has been. His father was; and, I think, Islam considers the son of a Muslim man to also be Muslim. Sen. John McCain, a Republican (the other party), shut that idea down when a woman asserted it at a town hall meeting. I suspect some people still believe, and think there's a cover-up.

T still occasionally tries to push the birther nonsense.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Augustine the Aleut says:

quote:
Ms Markle brings into the House of Windsor the blood of the descendants of slaves.
Probably a good reason for The Grabber-in-Chief to refuse an invitation to the wedding (should he receive one). The lady is (pale) BLACK, and therefore, presumably, persona non grata to the racist bastard in the WHITE House...

IJ

I think the only people who want to see Trump at the wedding are Trump himself and the editor of the Daily Mail. The security implications are going to be a complete 'mare. So I suspect that it will be as low key and informal as it will be possible for these occasions to be. If Harry really wants to troll the orange man child, he will doubtless see to it that Mr Trump is not on the guest list and his friend Mr Obama is.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

What's all this "blood" thing. It is meaningless. It's the chromosomes that matter. And, with only 46 to play with, once you get back past six generations, the chances of inheriting one from any particular ancestor are decreasingly small. (And yes, there may have been swapping going on between them, but even so, small.) Though with royals, the chances of having picked up inheritance from any particular ancestor are higher than for us plebs, I wouldn't put too much weight on Charlotte or Philippa.
And, as for "slave blood", what weight should be placed on that idea? No-one chose slavery. Any taint should belong with the enslavers.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

We are all, without exception, descended from African hunter gatherers.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

And the Roman Empire enslaved most of the population of Britain, so we are probably all descended from slaves if you go back far enough.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm not sure that's strictly true, Jane R. There were loads of slaves across the entire Roman Empire, of course, but most of the population of Britain would have continued as small-farmers during the Roman occupation.

The population in the towns would have been a mixture of native British and people from all over the Empire, including retired soldiers (Roman citizenship was part of the deal) as well as administrators, officials and what-have-you.

Julius Caesar certainly enslaved thousands of Gauls but the impression I get of the Roman invasion and occupation here was that the process was more gradual and although there was stiff resistance initially - and subsequently from the Ordivices and Silures and most famously, of course, in Boudicca's revolt - by and large it was a gradual process of Romanisation. Indeed, in the south-east of England that had already begun to a certain extent before the invasion itself.

That's not to say the Romans were all sweetness and light, of course they weren't.

But it's clear from records found on Hadrian's Wall that they used to pay British contractors for labour and supplies etc.

Slaves weren't purely a Roman thing either. There were plenty of slaves in Anglo-Saxon England for instance.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Besides, those of us who are descended from Anglo-Saxons, Norsemen and Norman-French are descended from people who arrived here after the end of Roman rule anyway.

Most of us are a mix of Romano-British and Saxon and Scandinavian with the upper-crust descended from Norman knights.

Recent DNA research shows a lot of original 'ancient British' blood, even in those areas of England traditionally seen as predominantly Anglo-Saxon.

It's all a bit of a mix.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Referring to Enoch's question about the birther movement,and the subsequent Kenyan birth claim, I also recall that, after Obama's first Presidential win, there was a burst of musical excitement in Ireland, about how "there's no-one as Irish as Barack O'bama".

And in relation to the OP, you're a bit late. The theory of Yank influence on the Brits trying to "make America Great Britain again" was blogged here.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... Most of us are a mix of Romano-British and Saxon and Scandinavian with the upper-crust descended from Norman knights. ....

I agree on the rest but I suspect the genetic influence of the Normans is negligible. There weren't very many of them. They were half Scandinavian anyway. And there's hardly anyone left who can trace descent from them in the male line, yet alone all the mothers, maternal relatives etc anyone will have by now. Besides, the oldest extant noble families are largely descended from new men of the late middle ages or the Tudor period.

Even the royal family were only half Norman once you get past Henry I. He made a point of marrying a daughter of the King of Scotland who was herself claimant to the Anglo-Saxon throne that had preceded the conquest.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Probably not noble families no, because they were enobled in different reigns as suggested, but one of my paternal grandparent's ancestors are documented in Domesday (as an existing Saxon family, living in a Saxon house that still exists) and the other paternal grandparent is documented to farming stock in a localised identified area from fairly early on. Land owning families, even in a small way, are easier to trace back a long way.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Thought on Norman inheritance. Some cling to this still.

We used to notice that when the families that appointed the rectors turned up in church, they were physically different from us peasants. Taller - more Norse looking (with Norman short hair). That they sat in front of us made this very noticeable. Mum used to characterise them as Normans.

I was taught by someone who claimed to be descended from William de Warrene, one of the Conqueror's close supporters. For a long time I doubted this, thinking she was as likely to be descended from a rabbit keeper, but it turned out she did have an ancestry that made it possible. After she told us this, I went home and told the family, to which my Dad replied that I should tell her her people stole our land. Which I did, and to her credit, she didn't take it badly!

My sister was at school with a de Sautoy, who became an actress, and subsequently met the mathematician Marcus of that ilk. She asked him if they were related, and he responded that shortly after the family arrived at Pevensey, there was a family row, and the two branches had had nothing to do with each other since the 11th century.

I currently have in my house someone who claims descent from on of the Conqueror's gang, and the sense of entitlement endures.

[ 02. December 2017, 10:31: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :

Harry started out as 3rd in line. He is currently fifth and will soon slip to 6th with the birth of Catherine's third sprog.

Princess Margaret was 3rd as well. Who knows or cares about her children or grandchildren? Prince Henry of Gloucester was the next male heir to the Queen's father. Who knows anything of his children and grandchildren beside genealogical freaks? And we won't even think of the Kents and their spawn. Or the Lascelles. Or even the current Princess Royal's heirs and descendants who trail after the lineages of her three brothers.

I suppose someone keeps track. Never know when North Korean missiles will rain down on the Home Counties and the current royal family is exterminated.

But really, after you slip past 12th in line, the whole thing is just fantasy.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Although it does currently have the honour of being the ony country more incompetently governed than our own. Just.

You think?

quote:

As long as they don't look too like the staff.

Or too ginger?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I have been told that a disproportionate number of Britons who are top in wealth or noble rank have Norman names.

Moo

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

O, to blazes with all these foreign usurpers! As a good Scot, I still yearn, sigh, peak, and pine for the restoration of HM King Francis II.

Yes, I know - that link is a few years old...

[Two face]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
O, to blazes with all these foreign usurpers! As a good Scot, I still yearn, sigh, peak, and pine for the restoration of HM King Francis II.

Yes, I know - that link is a few years old...

How many members does the Royal Stuart Society have? Enough to field a cricket team?

Repealing the Act of Settlement 1701 probably would not have even the theoretical effect envisaged by the article in the Telegraph. As far as I know, this has never been tested, but if succession to the Crown follows the rules applicable to succession to landed property before the C19 and C20 reforms, descent is traced not from some ancient ancestor but from the person last seised.

Since the person presently seised is undoubtedly Elizabeth II, if the Act were to be repealed in her lifetime, on her death, descent would be traced from her, including only those descended from the 'first purchaser', but this time without the exclusion of those currently excluded for Popery. If it were repealed during the reign of Charles III, descent would be traced from him on the same basis.

Who 'the first purchaser' would be in this situation, who knows? Possibly Cerdic, possibly William I, possibly Henry VII, possibly, James I and VI, possibly George I. But there are enough people descended from those more recently seised for this to be unlikely to be relevant.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

[Killing me]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

On the assumption of two breeding children per generation, three and a half generations a century, and no inbreeding, everyone in Britain was descended from William the Conqueror and all his cronies by about 1800. Obviously the inbreeding was something chronic, but there were more than two children per generation so it wouldn't have taken more than a couple more generations.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
O, to blazes with all these foreign usurpers! As a good Scot, I still yearn, sigh, peak, and pine for the restoration of HM King Francis II.

Yes, I know - that link is a few years old...

IJ

The table of descent reminds me that Anne Hyde was the last woman born a commoner to become mother of a queen regnant - she was mother of 2 queens regnant in fact.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thinking about it a bit while engaged on some of the D domestic life. What I said was on one hand far too general and should have been limited to England and the UK. On the other hand, it was too limited and should have said any person who became monarch of England or the UK. I nearly said married to a monarch as well, but IIRC, the Queen Mother's mother was born a Cavendish-Bentinck, but a commoner.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Oh for a like and a haha button.

[Yipee]

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

Tangential thought: One trusts that, in the event of Mr Trump's deferred visit to the UK going ahead, the entire remaining military might of the country will be deployed to keep the President away from Ms Merkle. But will that be enough?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Ms. Markle, if you please.

Rhymes with sparkle.

I'll see myself out, and will close the door with me on the other side of it.

IJ

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Thinking about it a bit while engaged on some of the D domestic life. What I said was on one hand far too general and should have been limited to England and the UK. On the other hand, it was too limited and should have said any person who became monarch of England or the UK. I nearly said married to a monarch as well, but IIRC, the Queen Mother's mother was born a Cavendish-Bentinck, but a commoner.

Only those who have had a week-long flu in a house full of royal biographies would be aware of the consternation in ruling houses across Europe when the then Duke of York (later George V) married Princess Mary of Teck as she was but a Serene Highness. Queen Victoria didn't mind, however, so that ended the discussion. While there was also disapproval of the marriage 30 years later of a mere earl's daughter -- a commoner-- to a later Duke of York (who became George VI), post-war dispossessed ruling houses had much less influence in such matters.

By the tenor of the comments of the 1890s, one gets the impression that a marriage to Ms Markle would have been as incredible to the writers as would have been a marriage to a mere Serene Highness.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thanks - I was not aware of any real consternation. She had of course been engaged previously to George's older brother who died suddenly and unexpectedly, so I assume that the same occurred then as well.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
During World War 2, Princess Juliana of the Netherlands lived in Canada. When she became pregnant, the Canadian parliament passed a law saying that wherever she was when she gave birth, that place, at that particular time, was Dutch.
I've heard that there was a suite in one of the big London hotels that was made temporarily part of Serbia at some time for the same reason.
*constitutional geek alert*
It was by Order in Council (formal decision of cabinet, and therby possibly legislation by prerogative), and the hospital where she delivered was declared to be extra-territorial for the day in question, allowing anybody who wished to think so (the Dutch government in exile, in this case) to believe that it was not Canada, and quite possibly somewhere else (the Netherlands, in this case).

I am such a geek.

It was the maternity suite at the Ottawa Civic Hospital, not the entire hospital, so it only affected Princess Juliana and the medical staff attending her in practice. No other patients were affected. The rest of the hospital was still part of Canada and its province of Ontario.

The registrar might have been a bit at a loss as to whether to issue a birth certificate or not.

The whole thing hinged on the fact that the Netherlands practices citizenship by descent, not citizenship by birth in a territory as Canada does.

The entire affair was probably written off under the heading of "War Powers" and "Foreign Affairs", both Crown prerogatives. Or better yet, "Too Silly to Care." (from Ontario's point of view).

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

cliffdweller:

quote:
Yes. The clincher here is that there is a clause in the constitution that says the President must not just be a "citizen" but must be a "native-born" citizen.

No clincher here, cliffdweller. The term in the US Constitution is "Natural Born." True, it is not clearly defined in the constitution, but case law defines natural born as anyone born either on American soil OR born to a U.S. citizen regardless of where they reside.

Ted Cruz was born in Calgary Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. By virtue of his American mother's citizenship, he is considered a Natural Born American citizen. There was no question of his right to stand for the presidency. But, then, he passes for being more white than Hispanic.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

There was a move to ditch the "natural-born" clause, specifically so that Arnold Swarzenegger could be president. (This was either when he was governor of California, or just after.)

Fortunately, it didn't get very far. I actually think the natural-born clause is a good thing, putting aside the difficulties in figuring it out. It gives immigrants a chance to acclimate, learn the language, etc. IIRC, the original concern was to keep nobles and such from coming over here, becoming president, and taking over the country on behalf of their true country.

There are downsides. Madeleine Albright couldn't be president, and I think she would've been awesome.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
cliffdweller:

quote:
Yes. The clincher here is that there is a clause in the constitution that says the President must not just be a "citizen" but must be a "native-born" citizen.
No clincher here, cliffdweller. The term in the US Constitution is "Natural Born." True, it is not clearly defined in the constitution, but case law defines natural born as anyone born either on American soil OR born to a U.S. citizen regardless of where they reside.

Ted Cruz was born in Calgary Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. By virtue of his American mother's citizenship, he is considered a Natural Born American citizen. There was no question of his right to stand for the presidency. But, then, he passes for being more white than Hispanic.

hmmm... a quick google search confirms you are correct. And yet... the birther movement. And Cruz' citizenship WAS brought up and questioned, if only briefly, with the promise that (much like with George Romney noted above) "we'll look it into it" if he got the nod. So, at least in the popular mind, it's enough of an open question to be exploited by political opponents-- even then there's nothing there.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0