It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could Meghan and Prince Harry win back the US?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Horsey mouth is a Brit in-joke about nobility and royals.
And yes I agree minor royals do better over the pond than here in the UK.
It's why I mused the possibility of a royal POTUS 40 odd years from now.




posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Annee

Horsey mouth is a Brit in-joke about nobility and royals.
And yes I agree minor royals do better over the pond than here in the UK.
It's why I mused the possibility of a royal POTUS 40 odd years from now.


Thanks. I asked why the term Horsey-Mouth -- because I suspected it was a British term.

Yes, the potential is definitely there. Meghan could get fed up with royal nonsense -- escape England to the USA -- to have her child in America.

She would then be under US law. It could nullify any agreement she made with the Crown.

However, IMO -- the only logical progression of government is a Global one. I think that is more likely to happen first.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

It's an interesting thought for sure.
The Crown and Judiciary are separate though and fiercely territorial in the UK. We have a Crown Prosecution and the judiciary decides.

I actually do want any child of theirs to be born in the US now, just for the potential constitutional questions in the future.

Regarding world government, my nation is going solo leaving the EU so who knows what the future is!
edit on 11-2-2018 by CornishCeltGuy because: added final paragraph



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy


I hear their first child will be called Arthur, and when crowned will be "King Arthur of the Western Colonies" under "New Britannia" thirty years from now.........



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy


I hear their first child will be called Arthur, and when crowned will be "King Arthur of the Western Colonies" under "New Britannia" thirty years from now.........

Haha no there can only be one king at a time so the US would have to deal with being a Principality


'Arthur, President Prince of the free' has a good sound to it I reckon
edit on 11-2-2018 by CornishCeltGuy because: added final sentence



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Obama was born with dual citizenship....his words, not mine.


However, I actually already made a thread with this exact topic and some smarty pants said Harry’s and Meghan’s child would have to seek permission from Congress due to the Emoluments clause.

Or something like that.

At that time I looked it up and felt they had it correct though.

ETA:

Ah...here it is...

Title of Nobility Clause
edit on 2/11/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy


I liked the sound of "King President Arthur" of the "Western Colonies" under King George of Earth. Lord of the Lizard People and Ruler of the Snacks called Humans!!!!!! Bwahahahaha

edit on 11-2-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-2-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Boadicea

Obama was born with dual citizenship....his words, not mine.


However, I actually already made a thread with this exact topic and some smarty pants said Harry’s and Meghan’s child would have to seek permission from Congress due to the Emoluments clause.

Or something like that.

At that time I looked it up and felt they had it correct though.


Ooh sorry, please link to your thread and mods will close this one I imagine.
Now I'm really unsure, I'm seeing claims for both sides of the argument!

Just read your link and it seems the law only refers to public officials 'receiving' honours and titles while employed, not born with them.
Potential loophole?
edit on 11-2-2018 by CornishCeltGuy because: added final paragraph



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   
The approach suggested in the OP is not an uncommon one for imperialist crooks to gain power in other countries.
The Royal family are perhaps the biggest crooks in the history of our earth. I would not put any bloodline shenanigans past them if it helps their rotten globalist agenda.

Besides, if Obama can be President, then anyone can - from anywhere in the world.
edit on 11/2/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I just dug up the wrong clause...it's the Emoluments Clause. Here's a link to the comment from that thread: Link

No need to close this thread! Mine didn't get a lot of action and I am genuinely interested in the topic.




posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Haha yes! I wouldn't put it past them either!
Hence this thread, if it's legally possible then in such an event they truly would be the most powerful family firm in the world



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I just dug up the wrong clause...it's the Emoluments Clause. Here's a link to the comment from that thread: Link

No need to close this thread! Mine didn't get a lot of action and I am genuinely interested in the topic.


Thanks for the link

It's interesting for sure, from what I read it looks to me that if the child is born on US soil they can be president. Is that how you interpret it as well?
Born overseas looks like a definite no though.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I just dug up the wrong clause...it's the Emoluments Clause. Here's a link to the comment from that thread: Link

No need to close this thread! Mine didn't get a lot of action and I am genuinely interested in the topic.



Yes, this is what I mentioned in the other thread the OP made and linked.

Situations like what the OP mentioned are why the Emoluments Clause were written in. It was a very real threat back in those days, so it was added in.

This kid would be in line for the English throne and have very real conflicts of interest in the hypothetical situation, so it's a non-starter.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   
This marriage is a disaster waiting to happen, another Andrew/Fergie debacle in the making.

More white trash marrying into the royal family.

Train. Wreck.

As far as POTUS, Obama wasn't born here and he made it to the "O", so who knows.
edit on 2/11/2018 by Lurker1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Reading it again, I can see an argument to be made... but as written, it only forbids the "acceptance" while in office. It does not forbid the president from "holding" a previously granted title.

And think how that would work. There is nothing to say that the child could not run for president, and could not be elected president, and could not be sworn into office. So any action taken by Congress would be after the fact, and would require actually stripping the president of his title -- not merely deciding if he could accept the title. And I think there is a case to be made that if the people elect him president knowing that he holds a foreign title of nobility, and that's obviously okay with them, then what right does Congress have to change the will of the people? If the people didn't want him to have it, they wouldn't elect him.

In Prince Harry's case, I would also think a case could be made that his child was not "granted" a title. It's the child's birthright. It's not like anyone will sit around considering, "Hmmmmm... should we grant Prince Harry's child the title or not?" It's a done deal before his children are even so much as a twinkle in Harry's eye. Is it even possible for the child to denounce his princehood? I don't know how. He could refuse to be king and abdicate the throne if offered, but by definition he will always be the child of a prince, and therefore he will always be a prince.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I can only see them moving to the US if the intrusion into there personal lives gets to much to handle and that Meghan doesn't want the public job so to speak.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Apparently, I linked to the wrong clause. Sorry.

But if its true that Congress could approve someone holding a title like Harry's and Meghan's child would, then I can't imagine our Congress standing in the way...backstabbers that they are. Plus, Meghan's a pre-Revolutionary War kind "progressive" and "feminist."

(Also, and I mean this in all seriousness, their child will have a black grandmother. That almost guarantees they would approve and everyone better get on board or else.)


edit on 2/11/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Boadicea

Apparently, I linked to the wrong clause. Sorry.


It's okay. The Nobility Clause page includes the Emoluments Clause further down the page. I had read it before posting my first comment.

I had also meant to add in my first reply, I do think the Emoluments clause could forbid any payment from the Crown/Britain during the duration of his presidency. That seems clear enough, no matter what is decided about the title.

Oddly enough, in such a scenario -- no matter what Congress would do -- it's possible that the child could be President of the USA and later be King/Queen of Britain. Even if Congress did strip him of his title, Britain doesn't have to.


But if its true that Congress could approve someone holding a title like Harry's and Meghan's child would, then I can't imagine our Congress standing in the way...backstabbers that they are.


Yeah, they were trying to change the NBC requirement long before Obama came along. They'd probably see it as the perfect opportunity to trash any/all requirements for who can run for prez. They want a free-for-all.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Thanks for the interesting replies folks

So do we all agree that if the Prince or princess is born on US soil then they could legally stand for president? Albeit with caveats.
Resigning from a title means nothing though, still part of the family firm.
If their child was born in the US I'd be major foil hat conspiracy mode, forty or fifty years is a long time to win a populace over, and as previously mentioned the minor royals seem to have greater popularity in the US compared to the UK.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
I asked in another thread if Meghan and Prince Harry had a child born in the US could that child become POTUS and therefore in essence reclaim the fine land of America for the British Crown. Apparently being a 'natural born citizen' they could?


As a natural born citizen, the child would be entitled to be "considered" for the post of President.

However, there's another U.S. Law that requires anyone serving in such a high office must "reject" any title of nobility from any foreign state.

So, to meet both criteria, and actually become President, the child would have to "renounce" his British title to Royalty.







 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join