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

[molly bloom]

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

Which you're still doggedly resisting quoting. Not big on reading 18th Century English ? Give it a try.

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

That and Sophia's descent from James I & VI.

[giblets]

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

...was never Thomas Paine's argument.

[Ben Kenobi]

Holland, without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchical governments in Europe

hereditary succession in the early ages of monarchy could not take place as a matter of claim, but as something casual or complemental; but as few or no records were extant in those days, the traditionary history stuff'd with fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of a few generations, to trump up some superstitious tale conveniently timed, Mahomet-like, to cram hereditary right down the throats of the vulgar

Like Henry VII did?

As to usurpation, no man will be so hardy as to defend it; and that William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not to be contradicted. The plain truth is, that the antiquity of English monarchy will not bear looking into.

Seems odd.

If the first king was taken by lot, it establishes a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary succession

Again - this is precisely the argument made here. If the English people have the right to select their king - then the American people have the same right.

The whole history of England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and two minors have reigned in that distracted kingdom since the conquest, in which time there has been (including the revolution) no less than eight civil wars and nineteen Rebellions

And again:

Twice was Henry prisoner to Edward, who in his turn was prisoner to Henry. And so uncertain is the fate of war and the temper of a nation, when nothing but personal matters are the ground of a quarrel, that Henry was taken in triumph from a prison to a palace, and Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign land; yet, as sudden transitions of temper are seldom lasting, Henry in his turn was driven from the throne, and Edward re-called to succeed him. The parliament always following the strongest side.

Again - is this not what I've been saying here?

It is interesting that he does not advance this precise argument here. You can come to the understanding as to why:

that the government of England is nearly as monarchical as that of France or Spain.

For my argument advances the superiority of the Catholic claim. Yes, Paine hated Catholics. It's not surprising in the least that he would avoid his strongest argument as to the legitimacy of George I.

[Ben Kenobi]

That and Sophia's descent from James I & VI.

For which there were 32 others in the succession ahead of her in 1714, including the Kings of France, Spain and Sardinia, the Queens of Austria and Poland, and the Duke of Modena.

[giblets]

Isn't pride supposed to be a sin? Just admit when you're wrong. Everyone makes mistakes.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just admit when you're wrong, Gribbler. Everyone makes mistakes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh Ben, just when I think you can't be more hardheaded and idiotic, you prove me wrong .

[Ben Kenobi]

just when I think you can't be more hardheaded and idiotic, you prove me wrong

Thanks!

I'm glad my gribbler impression went over so well.

[kentonio]

Holland, without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchical governments in Europe

This brought to you by the guy who spent a week arguing that the leader of the Dutch Republic was actually a King..

[Ben Kenobi]

This brought to you by the guy who spent a week arguing that the leader of the Dutch Republic was actually a King..

One wonders what Paine would have thought of the spectacle of the Dutch 'Republic' officially becoming a monarchy in 1815 through the elevation of the House of Orange.

I argue that the conflict was the usual Catholic/Protestant one. The Dutch didn't want a Catholic king (the Habsburgs), so they made up their own. Paine at the time would have argued otherwise, but Paine was wrong. The Stadtholder was a hereditary office restricted to the House of Orange - king in all but name.

[Dr Strangelove]

Before the War of Dutch Independence the Netherlands was a duchy, the Duchy of Brabant, which included what is now Belgium also. Some Dutch burgers petitioned the duke for the right to worship in their own reformist churches, the duke responded by execting them and putting their towns to the sword then calling in more troops to burn out every last vestige of protestantism from his duchy. It looked like the beginning of another crusade just like the Albigensian Crusade. (See my sig.) The Dutch revolted because they wanted to live. By pushing the Hapsburg troops out of northern Brabant they ensured that most of the carnage and massacre of the ensuing decades long war would be confined to southern Brabant - catholic Belgium.

[Ben Kenobi]

By pushing the Hapsburg troops out of northern Brabant they ensured that most of the carnage and massacre of the ensuing decades long war would be confined to southern Brabant - catholic Belgium

Yes, and this is why today, nobody lives in Belgium whereas the Netherlands thrives. The Habsburgs were just as much Dutch as Spanish by this point.

[Dr Strangelove]

Actually the largest contingent of the troops employed by the Hapsburgs in the War of Dutch Independence were English. It was the great era of mercenaries.

Actually the Hapsburgs were originally German, and Brabant was part of the "Holy Roman Empire".

[pchang]

Every time BK posts a teacher in Canada cries a little

[DinoDoc]