Meghan Markle: Citizenship and Religious Conversion

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Fijiro

Duchess of Gloucester is Danish.


Princess Michael of Kent - Czech
Autumn Philipps - Canadian

We know the DoG is from Denmark-the question was does she still have Danish citizenship

[Fijiro]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

We know the DoG is from Denmark-the question was does she still have Danish citizenship

I have not seen anything to indicate that the Duchess of Gloucester gave up her Danish citizenship. So I would assume she is a dual citizen.

Also, I have not seen anything to indicate that Princess Michael of Kent gave up her Czech citizenship, or that Autumn Philipps gave up her Canadian citizenship. So I would assume that they too are dual-citizens.

.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

But they are accepting a foreign national for 5 years and her children, who are actually in line to the throne, for at least 18 years. I would say dual citizenship for life isn’t that far of a stretch.

IMO, the children potentially being dual citizens for 18 years is a complete red herring as they will not be conducting royal engagements or representing the government when they are children.

As regards a transitional 5 years, as mandated by due process and regulation, becoming permanent, I think that is indeed a far stretch.

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Or is this another we don’t have to make an effort, but you must do everything above and beyond?

More like, we welcome you to our land, give you a wedding "the stuff fairy tales are made of", we put you at the pinnacle of society, access to resources and a lifestyle you are not accustomed to or could previously only imagine, provide you with round the clock security. In return, you agree to support your husband who, as a grandson of the monarch and the second son of the next monarch, will carry out engagements in support of crown and country. In return, you commit to serve the UK, and the UK above all else. No surprises there!

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by muriel

More like, we welcome you to our land, give you a wedding "the stuff fairy tales are made of", we put you at the pinnacle of society, access to resources and a lifestyle you are not accustomed to or could previously only imagine, provide you with round the clock security. In return, you agree to support your husband who, as a grandson of the monarch and the second son of the next monarch, will carry out engagements in support of crown and country. In return, you commit to serve the UK, and the UK above all else. No surprises there!

She does serve the UK. And she has done so since before her marriage. Last I checked, she’s not carrying out work on behalf of the American government.

And since you are on the topic of the law and how that makes it ok for her to represent the monarch as a foreign national. The law also indicates the government is ok with someone having dual citizenship. So I still don’t see them having any issue with it.

[Fijiro]

Originally Posted by muriel

IMO, the children potentially being dual citizens for 18 years is a complete red herring as they will not be conducting royal engagements or representing the government when they are children.

As regards a transitional 5 years, as mandated by due process and regulation, becoming permanent, I think that is indeed a far stretch.



More like, we welcome you to our land, give you a wedding "the stuff fairy tales are made of", we put you at the pinnacle of society, access to resources and a lifestyle you are not accustomed to or could previously only imagine, provide you with round the clock security. In return, you agree to support your husband who, as a grandson of the monarch and the second son of the next monarch, will carry out engagements in support of crown and country. In return, you commit to serve the UK, and the UK above all else. No surprises there!

Same as Duchess of Gloucester, who as far as I know still holds her Danish citizenship. I have not seen any record of her rescinding her Danish Citizenship.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by JR76

It's only been possible for Danish citizens to hold dual citizenships since 2015 so I'd assume that the Duchess is a British citizen.

Originally Posted by Fijiro

Question is, did she give up her Danish citizenship after naturalization?

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

We know the DoG is from Denmark-the question was does she still have Danish citizenship

Originally Posted by Fijiro

I have not seen anything to indicate that the Duchess of Gloucester gave up her Danish citizenship. So I would assume she is a dual citizen.

As JR76 pointed out, Danish citizens have only been allowed since 2015 to hold dual citizenship, so it can safely be assumed that the Duchess of Gloucester only holds British citizenship.

Originally Posted by Fijiro

Also, I have not seen anything to indicate that Princess Michael of Kent gave up her Czech citizenship, or that Autumn Philipps gave up her Canadian citizenship. So I would assume that they too are dual-citizens.

.

The nationalities of Autumn Phillips and Princess Michael of Kent are not relevant as they are not working members of the BRF and do not represent the crown or the UK in any way.

[Ista]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

She does serve the UK. And she has done so since before her marriage. Last I checked, she’s not carrying out work on behalf of the American government.

And since you are on the topic of the law and how that makes it ok for her to represent the monarch as a foreign national. The law also indicates the government is ok with someone having dual citizenship. So I still don’t see them having any issue with it. Hell, wasn’t your Foreign Secretary dual citizen until he got fed up with an IRS bill?

I have no idea if Meghan will retain her US citizenship, but if she chooses to do so, it would send a distinct message about her commitment to the country she has chosen to represent. It might not be the message she intends, but a message nevertheless.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by muriel

This may well be hypothetical as we don't quite know what Meghan actually intends to do. However, IMO, it is a terrible message to take to the government and people of the UK that Meghan will represent them (as it comes with the role of consort to a member of the royal family) but frankly is unwilling to commit to sole UK citizenship. If there were to be a conflict of any sort (not necessarily a military one) between the UK and the US, what side would she be on? The BRF are part and parcel of the soft diplomacy that we engage in. What side would her interests lie? As you can see the issues are complex, and that is why you can't sit on the fence on this one. Mary of Denmark, Maxima of the Netherlands have all given up their previous citizenships to join the royal families they married into.

Yes,but they were offered their new nationality before they married. I think this is a very different thing from Meghan, who had to stay US-American even though she represents the queen already in the highest places. So IMHO it is up to her to repell or keep her US-citizenship just as she wishes to.

Originally Posted by muriel

More like, we welcome you to our land, give you a wedding "the stuff fairy tales are made of", we put you at the pinnacle of society, access to resources and a lifestyle you are not accustomed to or could previously only imagine, provide you with round the clock security. In return, you agree to support your husband who, as a grandson of the monarch and the second son of the next monarch, will carry out engagements in support of crown and country. In return, you commit to serve the UK, and the UK above all else. No surprises there!

There is no way she agreed "to serve the Uk and the Uk above all else". She is still an US-American and her baby will be one as well. Her baby will be a member of the BRF, but that's something else entirely. When it is time to accept the British citizenship, she mighjt or might not get rid of her Us-American passport, but till then she is US-American and has a right to stay that till the end of her life.


Btw - couldn't Harry have applied for an US-American citizenship, now that he is married to an US-American?

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

Yes,but they were offered their new nationality before they married. I think this is a very different thing from Meghan, who had to stay US-American even though she represents the queen already in the highest places. So IMHO it is up to her to repell or keep her US-citizenship just as she wishes to.

Not quite. The law and regulations of the land will take their course. Once she is a British subject, there will be an expectation that she will renounce her US citizenship. If she chooses not to, the message, intended or otherwise, will be clear to all.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Ista

I have no idea if Meghan will retain her US citizenship, but if she chooses to do so, it would send a distinct message about her commitment to the country she has chosen to represent. It might not be the message she intends, but a message nevertheless.

Bottom line is the British government has created a scenario where a foreign national is representing their head of state, and they seem ok with government officials carrying dual citizenship as well. I would think the latter would've been a bigger risk than a member of royal family who carries out duties that either are told by the government or for charitable causes only. If the split loyalty is such an issue and so important for the British, they can simply not allow dual citizenship. It's rather easy. As it stands, this doesn't seem to be a concern for them.

Originally Posted by muriel

Not quite. The law and regulations of the land will take their course. Once she is a British subject, there will be an expectation that she will renounce her US citizenship. If she chooses not to, the message, intended or otherwise, will be clear to all.

Here's my issue with that. The law and regulations of the land is taking course if she does not renounce. The law of the land is allowing dual citizenship. Even at high levels of government, apparently. And that is a choice of the government. So, in terms of expectation, who is it from? It's obviously not from HM or the government.

[Ista]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Here's my issue with that. The law and regulations of the land is taking course if she does not renounce. The law of the land is allowing dual citizenship. Even at high levels of government, apparently. And that is a choice of the government. So, in terms of expectation, who is it from? It's obviously not from HM or the government.

The difference, I suspect, lies in the difference between being a member of government, and being member of the BRF. The law allows for dual citizenship, but there are emotional and symbolic considerations that might affect perception.

And I distinctly remember comments that it would be nice if Boris could be shipped back to the US, so even members of government don't get a pass in public perception.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Here's my issue with that. The law and regulations of the land is taking course if she does not renounce. The law of the land is allowing dual citizenship. Even at high levels of government, apparently. And that is a choice of the government. So, in terms of expectation, who is it from? It's obviously not from HM or the government.

The law of the land may well allow dual citizenship for its subjects, but the overall message to the people of the land is that this is not somebody who is willing to fully commit to her role as a Princess of the UK, and probably does not see it as a permanent home. This may not be the message that Meghan wants to put out. It just does not pass the sniff test.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

There is no way she agreed "to serve the Uk and the Uk above all else". She is still an US-American and her baby will be one as well. Her baby will be a member of the BRF, but that's something else entirely. When it is time to accept the British citizenship, she mighjt or might not get rid of her Us-American passport, but till then she is US-American and has a right to stay that till the end of her life.


Btw - couldn't Harry have applied for an US-American citizenship, now that he is married to an US-American?

I don’t think so . He would have to be a permanent resident in the United States first before applying for citizenship.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Ista

The difference, I suspect, lies in the difference between being a member of government, and being member of the BRF. The law allows for dual citizenship, but there are emotional and symbolic considerations that might affect perception.

And I distinctly remember comments that it would be nice if Boris could be shipped back to the US, so even members of government don't get a pass in public perception.

I'm assuming it's when they are against whatever he's saying at the moment when those comments are made. I wouldn't exactly hold petty comments as the view of the government. The view of the government is that this isn't a problem.

Originally Posted by muriel

The law of the land may well allow dual citizenship for its subjects, but the overall message to the people of the land is that this is not somebody who is willing to fully commit to her role as a Princess of the UK, and probably does not see it as a permanent home. This may not be the message that Meghan wants to put out. It just does not pass the sniff test.

I find it interesting that people seem to think it's enough of a commitment when someone who, at the minimum, has influence over laws that can affect its citizens' lives, but not when it's someone who carries out official business only as she is told by the government. But my point is, you were on the law of the land, and that where I was. You can't use the law of land as a standard to say something is ok, and then turn around and say it's not enough.

And just to be clear, you are free to hold your personal opinion, but we are talking about what we think the government or BRF's expectations are.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by muriel

The law of the land may well allow dual citizenship for its subjects, but the overall message to the people of the land is that this is not somebody who is willing to fully commit to her role as a Princess of the UK, and probably does not see it as a permanent home. This may not be the message that Meghan wants to put out. It just does not pass the sniff test.

Boris Johnson was a dual citizen and he felt he had to renounce his US citizenship , so I suppose most people would expect the same from the Duchess of Sussex.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Boris Johnson was a dual citizen and he felt he had to renounce his US citizenship , so I suppose most people would expect the same from the Duchess of Sussex.

He only renounced because the IRS sent him a tax bill that he called outrageous. Not because the position he held in government. In fact, I'd argue it played a very little, if any, part at all in his decision. He was a government official long before he renounced.

Originally Posted by Kataryn

Btw - couldn't Harry have applied for an US-American citizenship, now that he is married to an US-American?

He would be able to apply for residency if they decided to live in US. Obviously, they aren't, so he'll never be eligible for US citizen unless something drastically changed and they moved here. Naturalization requires a number of years of residency first. At this point in time, 3 years since it'd be through his marriage to a US citizen.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

But my point is, you were on the law of the land, and that where I was. You can't use the law of land as a standard to say something is ok, and then turn around and say it's not enough.

I think my position was perfectly clear, but let me articulate this for you one more time. The law of the land determined that it would take 5 years for her to become a British subject. The sniff test, or the court of public opinion, will determine what message it sends out if, longer term, a working Princess who carries out engagements on behalf of the Crown and government, is unwilling to solely be a UK subject.

[MARG]

To be honest, with the theoretical but ewuallu mind blowing tax consequences and possibility of shall we say 'information requests' Meghan could already be a fast-tracked UK citizen once the Treasury Office, Foreign Office, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Office, and Prime Minister realize the implications of her citizenship.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by MARG

To be honest, with the theoretical but ewuallu mind blowing tax consequences and possibility of shall we say 'information requests' Meghan could already be a fast-tracked UK citizen once the Treasury Office, Foreign Office, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Office, and Prime Minister realize the implications of her citizenship.

I think we would know by now if she had been fast-tracked, so I find it unlikely.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by MARG

To be honest, with the theoretical but ewuallu mind blowing tax consequences and possibility of shall we say 'information requests' Meghan could already be a fast-tracked UK citizen once the Treasury Office, Foreign Office, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Office, and Prime Minister realize the implications of her citizenship.

I think once it's announced that they won't fast track her citizenship. They need to stick to that, or if there are circumstances that has caused the decision to change, they need to announce it.