Is there still any point to the US President having to be a natural-born citizen of the United States?

[giblets]

Yes. I'm pretty sure he deliberately getting simple historical facts wrong on purpose just to get some attention.

[Dr Strangelove]

And whose reign were they born under....? Please give the time frame during which either one of those men was a "subject of the Queen".

They were both born during the reign of George II. Queen Anne died in 1714 and was succeeded by George I. George I died in 1727 and was succeeded by George II. George II died in 1760 and was succeeded by George III. Hamilton was born either in 1755 or 1757, Paine was born in 1737.

[molly bloom]

Yes, and? Neither Hamilton, nor Paine were born under the reign of George III.

And ? Paine refers to the current monarch, George III, in 'Common Sense'. That means he at least considered himself a subject of George III, even if only for the sake of the political argument.

Have you considered how truly absurd it is that you cannot even quote the relevant passage from the particular Act of Settlement that supports your claim ?

[Sava]

Yes. I'm pretty sure he deliberately getting simple historical facts wrong on purpose just to get some attention.

It's sad, really.

[molly bloom]

It's sad, really.

Given that he 'teaches' it's appalling and frightening.

[Ben Kenobi]

They were both born during the reign of George II. Queen Anne died in 1714 and was succeeded by George I. George I died in 1727 and was succeeded by George II. George II died in 1760 and was succeeded by George III. Hamilton was born either in 1755 or 1757, Paine was born in 1737.

And a thank you to the good Dr.

[molly bloom]

And a thank you to the good Dr.

Why ? Do you enjoy being made to look foolish ? Are you a secret masochist ?

[Ben Kenobi]

And ? Paine refers to the current monarch, George III, in 'Common Sense'. That means he at least considered himself a subject of George III, even if only for the sake of the political argument.

Erm, have you read 'Common Sense'? He argues that as a free man - he is not to be subservient to George III, and that he insisted he ought to be governed by his elected peers, not by the King chosen at random.

Have you considered how truly absurd it is that you cannot even quote the relevant passage from the particular Act of Settlement that supports your claim ?

What? The part that declared that the children of the electress Sophia of Hanover shall inherit the crown after Queen Anne? Are you contesting this historical fact.

Also - the Electress was not the oldest child either. She was simply the only non-Catholic. The only reason she took the throne is because of prejudice, not competence. In 1714 - here's the actual inheritance for the throne of England. She was 32nd in line, behind the Kings of Spain, France, the Queen of Austria, the Queen of Poland, King of Sardinia, Duke of Modena.

Half of Catholic europe was higher up in line for the succession than Sophia.

James VI/I
/Charles I
//Charles II
//James II/VII(dead by 1714)
///James Francis Edward Stuart
//Mary Stuart(dead by 1714)
//Anne Stuart(dead by 1714)
/Mary Princess of Orange(dead by 1714)
//William III of Orange(dead by 1714)
/Henry Stuart Duke of Gloucester(dead by 1714)
/Henrietta Stuart Duchess of Orleans(dead by 1714)
//Maria Louise d'Orleans Queen of Spain(dead by 1714)
//Anne Marie d'Orleans Queen of Sardinia
///Victor Amadeus Prince of Piedmont
///Charles Emmanuel III King of Sardinia
///Marie Adelaide Duchess of Savoie(dead by 1714)
////Louis XV King of France
///Maria Luisa Queen of Spain(dead by 1714)
////Louis I King of Spain
////Ferdinand VI King of Spain
/Elizabeth Stuart
//Henry Frederick(died young)
//Charles I Louis(dead by 1714)
//Rupert I(dead by 1714)
//Maurice(dead by 1714)
//Edward, Count Palatine of Simmern
///Luise Marie of the Palatinate(dead by 1714)
///Anne Henrietta of Bavaria
////Louis Prince of Conde(dead by 1714)
/////Louis Henri Duke of Bourbon
/////Charles Count of Charolais
/////Louis Count of Clermont
/////Marie Anne Eleonore de Bourbon
/////Louise Elizabeth Princess de Conte
/////Louise Anne Countess de Charolais
/////Marie Anne de Bourbon
/////Henrietta Louise de Bourbon
/////Elizabeth Alexandrine de Bourbon
////Maria Therese Princess of Conti
/////Louis II Armand Prince of Conti
/////Louis Adelaide de Bourbon
////Anne Marie de Bourbon(dead by 1714)
////Louise Benedicte Princess of Maine
/////Louis Auguste Prince of Domnes
/////Louis Charles Comte d'Eu
/////Louis Francoise Princess of Maine
////Marie Anne de Bourbon Duchess of Vendome
///Benedicta Henriette of the Palatinate
////Charlotte of Brunswick(died by 1714)
/////Francesco Duke of Modena
/////Enrichetta Duchess of Modena
////Wilhelmina Holy Roman Empress(died by 1714)
/////Maria Josepha Queen of Poland
/////Maria Amalia of Austria
//Henrietta Marie of the Palatinate(died by 1714)
//Sophia Electress of Hanover

[Ben Kenobi]

Why ? Do you enjoy being made to look foolish ? Are you a secret masochist ?

You asserted that they derived their citizenship as subjects of George III. Off by a digit apparently. But who cares about accuracy?

[molly bloom]

Erm, have you read 'Common Sense'? He argues that as a free man - he is not to be subservient to George III, and that he insisted he ought to be governed by his elected peers, not by the King chosen at random.

The point being that the monarch he argued vehemently to be freed from was male, not female. Was George III, not the very dead Queen Anne.

What? The part that declared that the children of the electress Sophia of Hanover shall inherit the crown after Queen Anne? Are you contesting this historical fact.

No, I've read the Act. I note however, you're still not quoting the relevant part or parts which support your earlier statement.

Half of Catholic europe was higher up in line for the succession than Sophia.

Boring. The usual snowjob to disguise your mistake.

But who cares about accuracy?

Clearly not you, since you ignore it with such assiduity. When George II died, as mortals tend to, Paine and Hamilton became subjects (however reluctantly) of the next monarch.

That's how it works in the real world.

[Ben Kenobi]

The point being that the monarch he argued vehemently to be freed from was male, not female. Was George III, not the very dead Queen Anne.

The argument that King George III had no legitimate standing for governing the people of America is a point well taken, given the succession of George I.

No, I've read the Act. I note however, you're still not quoting the relevant part or parts which support your earlier statement.

Well, if you agree that this is the important part and agree with the historical assessment that it's crucial to the subsequent elevation of the Hanoverians, what's the problem here?

Boring. The usual snowjob to disguise your mistake.

Fact. Sophia was 32nd to inherit and behind 3 Queens and four Kings. Are you going to claim that they were *all* incompetent rulers because they were Catholic? Also fact, she was the only non-Catholic who could inherit at the time. It was Sophia or no one else.

Clearly not you, since you ignore it with such assiduity. When George II died, as mortals tend to, Paine and Hamilton became subjects (however reluctantly) of the next monarch.

What made them subjects was the Act of Settlement which, through prejudice appointed a King. Again - they had no legitimacy so I can see where Paine is coming from.

That's how it works in the real world.

The real world where Paine's argument prevailed?

[giblets]

The argument that King George III had no legitimate standing for governing the people of America is a point well taken, given the succession of George I.



Well, if you agree that this is the important part and agree with the historical assessment that it's crucial to the subsequent elevation of the Hanoverians, what's the problem here?



Fact. Sophia was 32nd to inherit and behind 3 Queens and four Kings. Are you going to claim that they were *all* incompetent rulers because they were Catholic? Also fact, she was the only non-Catholic who could inherit at the time. It was Sophia or no one else.



What made them subjects was the Act of Settlement which, through prejudice appointed a King. Again - they had no legitimacy so I can see where Paine is coming from.



The real world where Paine's argument prevailed?

Thomas Paine's arguments in Common Sense had nothing to do with whether George I was the legitimate successor of Anne.

[molly bloom]

The argument that King George III had no legitimate standing for governing the people of America is a point well taken, given the succession of George I.

Sheer tedium. Back to the point. What you said :

Paine and Hamilton were both subjects of the Queen. and further ....

Legally, he was subject of the Queen - Queen Anne, via the Act of Settlement in 1701, providing for the Hanoverian Succession.

I note your reluctance to quote the relevant part of the Act providing for the sovereignty after death of Anne I Stuart. I may have missed the part where she became immortal- is this some 'research' you've been undertaking ?

What I said:

The usual snowjob

and you replied :

Fact.

For once you were right.

[Ben Kenobi]

I note your reluctance to quote the relevant part of the Act providing for the sovereignty after death of Anne I Stuart. I may have missed the part where she became immortal- is this some 'research' you've been undertaking ?

What reluctance? Nobody contests Hanoverian Succession owes itself completely to the Act of Settlement.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thomas Paine's arguments in Common Sense had nothing to do with whether George I was the legitimate successor of Anne.

If parliament can choose for itself who is king - then why should not the American people have the same right?