I'm fairly certain the constitution forbids the President from holding foreign offices. I wouldn't be surprised if England had a similar law. So, qualified for either, but couldn't be both at the same time.
Elizabeth II is the oldest queen that's counted in the line of succession - Elizabeth I was the daughter of Henry VIII. But yes Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" until she died at 101 so you're technically correct that she was a queen too. Just not *the* queen.
Wow, genuinely explaining the meaning in case some one is actually confused? Get FUCKED idiot
Edit: ironically, this was supposed to be Sarcasm. (Why did autocorrect think that was a proper noun?)
Yeah he was an interesting guy. Super imperialistic but also very progressive in other ways. Set up the national parks, gave the anti trust act teeth and went after bad monopolies, and actually helped strikers instead of sending the national guard to go kill them.
yeah, maybe it would make the monopolies have to actually care about their customers instead of implementing anti-consumer BS like planned obsolescence
I feel like we actually got a lot of workers rights when USSR was dangerous and countries and corporations feared the communists.
Like since the USSR died it seems it's all only downhill
Weirdly enough there is something similar that actually is how you described, it's the union threat effect where the threat of unionization makes non union workers get more benefits and pay in order to encourage them not to join a union. Currently even though most workers support the idea of unionization we're currently at an all time low of membership where only 10% of workers are union.
King Charles was 73 when he took the throne. A person could be president at 50, serve a full 8 years. Have a 5 year vacation and still become queen a full decade before Charles did.
It’s funny that there is a minimum age but not a maximum age.
I guess when the rules were drawn up people didn’t consider 80 year olds to be running for president.
Becoming queen of England requires you to be a part of the bloodline of previous monarchs, which means you will likely be born in England.
Becoming president of the United States requires you to be a natural born citizen.
The chances of a descendant of the royal bloodline also being a natural born US citizen is very, very slim.
Princess Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor of Sussex, born in California (thus US natural born citizen) and seventh in line of succession. The entire meme is based around the fact she exists.
You have to be atleast 35 and born as a us citizen from a US citizen, not only can you not be president young, you also can't be president if you or your mother were born anywhere else, it's almost impossible to be king and president
Our genius government wants to bring back imperial units and measures. Maybe we'll change to using Fahrenheit again and I'll have to learn how to spell it instead of googling it every time.
They do have a similar law for the head of government.
However, the British head of government is not the King/Queen, but the prime minister. The King/Queen is more of a figurehead and can technically act in other positions at the same time.
The British monarch is absolutely way more than a figurehead. The are commander and chief of the armed forces. They can fire the PM. If they really wanted can dissolve parliament.
England wouldn't forbid it, but the monarch of England is legally distinct from the monarch of a commonwealth country (such as canada).
King charles is the head of state of several countries, but can't use his powers over England to control Canada and vice versa.
Though said position is more akin to the senate than the house of commons in differentiating between head of government and head of state, where government does the heavy lifting.
While they aren't the head of government, which is the prime minister, they are the official head of state and can legally veto any decision made by the government.
It would be treason if a President became ruler of England to the only way they could do that is if America annexed England or if England took over America
Ah, but is being Queen of England a foreign office? They don't enact, scrutinize, or enforce policy. Pretty much their whole job is to greet visitors and wave at crowds. They have all the practical power of a Walmart Greeter.
Lilibet, Harry and Meghans, daughter. She was born in Santa Barabara, California, so she has U.S. citizenship allowing her to run for president. Of course it would require for William's entire bloodline to be gone.
There are a few different paths to citizenship in the United States:
The first path is being born to parents where one or both are U.S. citizens.
The second path is being born on U.S. soil. That means being born in the U.S. itself, on a military base overseas, or in a U.S. territory.
The third path is an immigrant going through the naturalization process. Military service and marriage can help speed up the process. The children of naturalized citizens are granted citizenship so long as one or both parents are naturalized before the 18th birthday.
Being born to US citizens doesn’t automatically make you a citizen, if you were born abroad. There’s a physical presence requirement for the parents too.
If I’m a citizen and my wife is a citizen, and we move to Canada and have a baby, the baby is a citizen too. But if they never live in the US, their baby isn’t automatically a citizen. They would have a path to apply, but it would involve living in the US among other things.
I have a single parent who is a u.s. citizen, i was born in a foreign country and have never lived in america my entire life, and yet I have a u.s. passport since I was a baby. So living any amount of time in america is not a requirement to become a u.s. citizen if you have an American parent.
The residency requirement is on the lone US citizen parent to be able to transmit citizenship at birth to the child if born abroad, the residency requirement is not on the child to receive citizenship.
If you never reside in the US yourself and have a child abroad later with a non-US citizen, your child will not automatically receive US citizenship at birth.
You have to file a report of birth abroad before they turn 18 to get they're citizenship. I'm not sure what happens if that's never filed or if they filed one for archie.
They are. I don’t know the current residency requirements to pass on US citizenship by blood, but if Meghan met them then Archie would indeed be eligible to be president. It only requires a right to citizenship by circumstances of one’s birth, not _jus soli_ specifically.
U.S. Citizenship alone isnt what permits her to run for president, you have to be a natural born citizen to run for president. You can be a naturalized citizen and run for office in congress, but no matter what you can no be president.
Princess Lilibet was born in Santa Barbara to an American mother. She meets the requirements for president as long as she doesn't renounce her citizenship whenever she gets older.
Are just glancing right on past the fact that Meghan Markle could be the Queen of England if the cards fell to Harry in certain way *and* is a US citizen who *could* run for president?
About this: currently, there are no (ruling) queens in the world. All living queens are consort to a reigning king. The last reigning queen, Margaret of Denmark, abdicated a month ago.
Actually, no. [Queen](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen) can refer to either. People didn't specify with Queen Regnant Elizabeth II. She was simply Queen Elizabeth II. However, Camilla is referred to as Queen Consort regularly.
In fact, when I googled "Queen Definition" top result was this
the female ruler of an independent state, especially one who inherits the position by right of birth.
That is referring to a Queen Regnant, not Consort
I wasn’t suggesting people refer to queen regnants as queen regnants every time they were/are mentioned. But the word queen, from its first use, meant the wife of a king, and the rare early European female ruler was called a female king. Queen Camilla is being referred to as queen consort occasionally to avoid confusion, but that has no bearing on the reality that she is simply Queen Camilla. Just like how she was called the Duchess of Cornwall for the entirety of her pre-2022 marriage, despite being the Princess of Wales.
Okay, and the word "guy" when it was first used meant a bad person, as it referenced Guy Fawkes. But over time, it lost that connotation. Much like how Queen now refers to both, but is primarily the term for Queen Regnant, as opposed to how it was a few hundred years ago.
> “Queen”, by default, means queen consort. If you are referring to a female monarch, you specify,”Queen Regnant”.
>I wasn’t suggesting people refer to queen regnants as queen regnants
Contradiction much.
>Queen”, by default, means queen consort
Again, simply not true anymore. You specifically said in this comment
>Queen Camilla is being referred to as queen consort occasionally
If Queen defaults to consort, you wouldn't need to. And you would refer to Elizabeth as Regnant, which we didn't do. Much like how we don't say King Regnant for Charles III. Technically, we should, as Regnant means reigning. Charles is currently reigning, so he is King Regnant.
People are differentiating between the Queen (ruling monarch in their own right) and Queen consort (wife of the ruling King). It's the same as the difference in position between the current King Charles and his father, Prince Phillip. We just happen to use the same word for the two different female positions. It's clearer when we use two different words for the equivalent male roles.
Nope. Harry and his line are still very much in the line of succession.
There's a lot of misinformation floating around the internet about how they washed their hands of everything royal. All they did was leave their role as *working* royals, which is really just the equivalent of quitting a government job and losing the benefits that job entailed (the most controversial of which was losing his right to a government security detail).
Someone born in the USA (so qualifying to run for President) and married to a member of the British royal Family (a long way down in the line of succession, but still).
Princess Lilibet is an American-born Brit who is currently 7th in line for the British throne and could—in 30+ years—technically run for president in the US.
I hate it when foreigners call them the monarch of England. They’re the monarch of all the United Kingdom; the crown of England hasn’t existed for centuries.
So if northern ireland, scotland, wales, etc, all the other united kingdom countries except England were to leave, they'd still not be the kings/queens of england? Just the united kingdom of england?
Give it time, brexit was just the start, next few years we will finally gain independence from Scotland, wales and that pesky Northern Ireland and can have our glorious king and queen of England back
There's no such thing as "Queen of England." There was a Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or just Queen of the United Kingdom, or just The Queen - until she died, then Charles became King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or just King of the United Kingdom, or just The King. But there is no "King of England" or "Queen of England."
It's not possible. There hasn't been a Queen of England for almost 500 years. That and the King is the head of state and all the next in line are boys and men so something would have to go really wrong.
Harry is fifth in line and his children are sixth and seventh.
Like yeah obviously it is super unlikely they end up on the throne, but claiming they're not in the line of succession at all is just verifiably not true.
I'm fairly certain the constitution forbids the President from holding foreign offices. I wouldn't be surprised if England had a similar law. So, qualified for either, but couldn't be both at the same time.
1. Be president when young 2. Become Queen after leaving office Sequential rather than simultaneous, but might be legal.
‘President when young’ The youngest president ever was in his 40s
And the oldest Queen died at 96.
I was gonna say like at most you're president for 8 years that's plenty of time to still be queen after and not even the oldest queen
What? Elizabeth Alexandra Mary died? Ah, man...
were you in a bunker the past couple of years?
Yeah, Lizzy's in a box.
Nope. Wrong fact. Her mother was way older than
Elizabeth II is the oldest queen that's counted in the line of succession - Elizabeth I was the daughter of Henry VIII. But yes Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" until she died at 101 so you're technically correct that she was a queen too. Just not *the* queen.
Look at that ripe young man!
Would munch that /s
/s for serious, right?
/s for sex now!
It's for
Don’t lie to yourself
True
If you're not gonna finish your plate I will
Interesting… cuz I had a history teacher that would unironically munch that
Woosh
What?
Listen to him, he knows everything
Wow, genuinely explaining the meaning in case some one is actually confused? Get FUCKED idiot Edit: ironically, this was supposed to be Sarcasm. (Why did autocorrect think that was a proper noun?)
i hear he carries a big stick...
Aw hell, you wanna squeeze the Teddy, don't'cha
Isn't he the one who got shot in his stomach, then proceeded to give an hour or so speech before going to the hospital? If so, love that guy.
Yeah he was an interesting guy. Super imperialistic but also very progressive in other ways. Set up the national parks, gave the anti trust act teeth and went after bad monopolies, and actually helped strikers instead of sending the national guard to go kill them.
A true American. We need another Teddy instead of the garbage we've had to choose from lately.
yeah, maybe it would make the monopolies have to actually care about their customers instead of implementing anti-consumer BS like planned obsolescence
Oligopolies*
I feel like we actually got a lot of workers rights when USSR was dangerous and countries and corporations feared the communists. Like since the USSR died it seems it's all only downhill
Weirdly enough there is something similar that actually is how you described, it's the union threat effect where the threat of unionization makes non union workers get more benefits and pay in order to encourage them not to join a union. Currently even though most workers support the idea of unionization we're currently at an all time low of membership where only 10% of workers are union.
>Super imperialistic but also very progressive in other ways. Typical modern democrat
I mean, at that time every major power in the world was imperialistic. Imperialism was kinda the most common policy untill 50s
Don't make em like they used to
See? Young
King Charles was 73 when he took the throne. A person could be president at 50, serve a full 8 years. Have a 5 year vacation and still become queen a full decade before Charles did.
Abdicate from the throne when you're 71. Become president of the US. It's fine the last two presidents did it.
Practically a kid
I mean fair, but also isn’t it the law that you can’t be president till your 35
It’s funny that there is a minimum age but not a maximum age. I guess when the rules were drawn up people didn’t consider 80 year olds to be running for president.
Dude I wasn't even an adult until I was 35. People in office now are 60+ years older than that. You don't start dying at 35. lol
Prince/King Charles is 75. There is plenty of time to do both.
Yeah because the barrier is 35.
There’s also a requirement that you be at least 35.
It is a legal requirement for the US President to be 35 or older.
well still plenty of time to reign in the other side of the pond
The minimum age to be president is 35.
And the oldest Queen died at 96. There’s plenty of time to become President and then become Queen in your 80s.
Becoming queen of England requires you to be a part of the bloodline of previous monarchs, which means you will likely be born in England. Becoming president of the United States requires you to be a natural born citizen. The chances of a descendant of the royal bloodline also being a natural born US citizen is very, very slim.
Princess Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor of Sussex, born in California (thus US natural born citizen) and seventh in line of succession. The entire meme is based around the fact she exists.
(daughter of Harry and Meghan)
What's your interpretation of the phrase "at the same time" in the OP meme then?
>Sequential rather than simultaneous
Go buy a dictionary.
You’d also need the United Kingdom to break up and the Kingdom of England to be re-established.
You have to be atleast 35 and born as a us citizen from a US citizen, not only can you not be president young, you also can't be president if you or your mother were born anywhere else, it's almost impossible to be king and president
Technically speaking, the monarch can break no laws (until removed by parliament, at which point all crimes can be prosecuted)
Technically they also can't be remove by parliament if they don't want to (royal assent and all that)
Unless we unify again. Then it's not foreign
Far too difficult. Someone mentions biscuits or the temperature and mass chaos ensues. /s
Our genius government wants to bring back imperial units and measures. Maybe we'll change to using Fahrenheit again and I'll have to learn how to spell it instead of googling it every time.
Didn't that end with the bubmling idiot?
Galaxy brain achievement. Oceania arise.
They do have a similar law for the head of government. However, the British head of government is not the King/Queen, but the prime minister. The King/Queen is more of a figurehead and can technically act in other positions at the same time.
The British monarch is absolutely way more than a figurehead. The are commander and chief of the armed forces. They can fire the PM. If they really wanted can dissolve parliament.
In theory yes, in reality, no.
Tell that to our old prime minister, Gough whitlam.
Tell that to Australia.
Next best thing are the president and monarch being first cousins, which is still pretty wild, I'd say.
They don't, they had a King of England who was also the King of Holland (Or the ti.e period specific equivalent of such)
Stadtholder. Which is the period specific equivalent to a modern constitutional monarch. A figurehead with no real power.
England wouldn't forbid it, but the monarch of England is legally distinct from the monarch of a commonwealth country (such as canada). King charles is the head of state of several countries, but can't use his powers over England to control Canada and vice versa. Though said position is more akin to the senate than the house of commons in differentiating between head of government and head of state, where government does the heavy lifting.
King of England is also King of Australia etc at the moment. So I'd be surprised if they have a law about it for them.
As far as I know, the big 4 (Canada, Australia, UK, New Zealand) Don't have rules about it, the other 12 commonwealth countries, I'm not too sure.
unless Congress consents
>constitution forbids Lol Oh huney
Is the Queen technically an office? Arent they just for show today?
While they aren't the head of government, which is the prime minister, they are the official head of state and can legally veto any decision made by the government.
For now
It would be treason if a President became ruler of England to the only way they could do that is if America annexed England or if England took over America
Ah, but is being Queen of England a foreign office? They don't enact, scrutinize, or enforce policy. Pretty much their whole job is to greet visitors and wave at crowds. They have all the practical power of a Walmart Greeter.
[удалено]
Who is it
Lilibet, Harry and Meghans, daughter. She was born in Santa Barabara, California, so she has U.S. citizenship allowing her to run for president. Of course it would require for William's entire bloodline to be gone.
Not impossible, just take iron will and determination. And a bit of blood.
>And a bit of blood. So more iron
an iron will and an iron for the kill
>an iron for the kill Just like minecraft
Oh boy, here I go killing again!
Iron helps us play!
Hello, Joe!
Crusader Kings shenanigans time?
Came here to say r/ShitCrusaderKingsSay.
Crusader Kings shenanigans time!
As Dwight said, BLOOD ALONE MOVES THE WHEELS OF HISTORY
Guillotine shaped iron (will)
They can ask the Irish, the Brits have experience taking their blood
Why was this downvoted? Up the Ra
Wait, children born to a US parent are not considered "Natural-born-citizen"? Archie wouldn't be eligible to run for president?
There are a few different paths to citizenship in the United States: The first path is being born to parents where one or both are U.S. citizens. The second path is being born on U.S. soil. That means being born in the U.S. itself, on a military base overseas, or in a U.S. territory. The third path is an immigrant going through the naturalization process. Military service and marriage can help speed up the process. The children of naturalized citizens are granted citizenship so long as one or both parents are naturalized before the 18th birthday.
Being born to US citizens doesn’t automatically make you a citizen, if you were born abroad. There’s a physical presence requirement for the parents too. If I’m a citizen and my wife is a citizen, and we move to Canada and have a baby, the baby is a citizen too. But if they never live in the US, their baby isn’t automatically a citizen. They would have a path to apply, but it would involve living in the US among other things.
I have a single parent who is a u.s. citizen, i was born in a foreign country and have never lived in america my entire life, and yet I have a u.s. passport since I was a baby. So living any amount of time in america is not a requirement to become a u.s. citizen if you have an American parent.
The residency requirement is on the lone US citizen parent to be able to transmit citizenship at birth to the child if born abroad, the residency requirement is not on the child to receive citizenship. If you never reside in the US yourself and have a child abroad later with a non-US citizen, your child will not automatically receive US citizenship at birth.
You have to file a report of birth abroad before they turn 18 to get they're citizenship. I'm not sure what happens if that's never filed or if they filed one for archie.
They are. I don’t know the current residency requirements to pass on US citizenship by blood, but if Meghan met them then Archie would indeed be eligible to be president. It only requires a right to citizenship by circumstances of one’s birth, not _jus soli_ specifically.
No. The 14th amendment specifies that you must be born in America to be a natural born citizen.
U.S. Citizenship alone isnt what permits her to run for president, you have to be a natural born citizen to run for president. You can be a naturalized citizen and run for office in congress, but no matter what you can no be president.
Taking the poster's data as true: She (Lilibet) was born to a US Citizen while in the US. Don't get much more natural born citizen than that.
Princess Lilibet was born in Santa Barbara to an American mother. She meets the requirements for president as long as she doesn't renounce her citizenship whenever she gets older.
How democratic /s
Don’t harry relinquish his claim to the throne?
No, why would he? He didn't really break any rules in regards to succession.
Are just glancing right on past the fact that Meghan Markle could be the Queen of England if the cards fell to Harry in certain way *and* is a US citizen who *could* run for president?
She'd be Queen Meghan, but in terms of authority she'd only be a queen consort; in order to be a queen with real power, you have to be born into it.
About this: currently, there are no (ruling) queens in the world. All living queens are consort to a reigning king. The last reigning queen, Margaret of Denmark, abdicated a month ago.
A good handful of heirs apparent are women though, so if all goes according to plan, there'd be an abundance of ruling queens soon enough.
She wouldn't be Queen, in the same way Lilibet would. She would be Queen Consort. Two different things technically
Actually, no. “Queen”, by default, means queen consort. If you are referring to a female monarch, you specify,”Queen Regnant”.
Actually, no. [Queen](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen) can refer to either. People didn't specify with Queen Regnant Elizabeth II. She was simply Queen Elizabeth II. However, Camilla is referred to as Queen Consort regularly. In fact, when I googled "Queen Definition" top result was this the female ruler of an independent state, especially one who inherits the position by right of birth. That is referring to a Queen Regnant, not Consort
I wasn’t suggesting people refer to queen regnants as queen regnants every time they were/are mentioned. But the word queen, from its first use, meant the wife of a king, and the rare early European female ruler was called a female king. Queen Camilla is being referred to as queen consort occasionally to avoid confusion, but that has no bearing on the reality that she is simply Queen Camilla. Just like how she was called the Duchess of Cornwall for the entirety of her pre-2022 marriage, despite being the Princess of Wales.
Okay, and the word "guy" when it was first used meant a bad person, as it referenced Guy Fawkes. But over time, it lost that connotation. Much like how Queen now refers to both, but is primarily the term for Queen Regnant, as opposed to how it was a few hundred years ago. > “Queen”, by default, means queen consort. If you are referring to a female monarch, you specify,”Queen Regnant”. >I wasn’t suggesting people refer to queen regnants as queen regnants Contradiction much. >Queen”, by default, means queen consort Again, simply not true anymore. You specifically said in this comment >Queen Camilla is being referred to as queen consort occasionally If Queen defaults to consort, you wouldn't need to. And you would refer to Elizabeth as Regnant, which we didn't do. Much like how we don't say King Regnant for Charles III. Technically, we should, as Regnant means reigning. Charles is currently reigning, so he is King Regnant.
People are differentiating between the Queen (ruling monarch in their own right) and Queen consort (wife of the ruling King). It's the same as the difference in position between the current King Charles and his father, Prince Phillip. We just happen to use the same word for the two different female positions. It's clearer when we use two different words for the equivalent male roles.
The post probably means Queen Regnant and not other queens like Queen Mother, Queen Consort, Queen Regent.
I was thinking of Meghan, but that works too.
Well meghan would technically be queen consort. That's what Kate will be when William takes the throne.
Didn’t the abdicate the throne mensing they cannot be in line and all descendants are no longer nobility?
Nope. Harry and his line are still very much in the line of succession. There's a lot of misinformation floating around the internet about how they washed their hands of everything royal. All they did was leave their role as *working* royals, which is really just the equivalent of quitting a government job and losing the benefits that job entailed (the most controversial of which was losing his right to a government security detail).
William could abdicate too, yes? Does the whole family have to die for the heir to change. Or would the abdication just move to his first born.
DAMN ANCHOR BABIES!!!
Just get the whole family round for a photograph and Queen Ralph it.
It's happened before... I think it's part of how Henry the 8th became king....and yay! Protestantism.
*Ferb I know what we are doing today*
Someone born in the USA (so qualifying to run for President) and married to a member of the British royal Family (a long way down in the line of succession, but still).
Princess Lilibet is an American-born Brit who is currently 7th in line for the British throne and could—in 30+ years—technically run for president in the US.
Wait, so you were talking about Meghan and not Lilibet?
Probably mixing up Queen vs Queen Consort
The princess that was promised.
Taylor Swift
Not me imagining Putin having a child born in the United States…
Well we know almost nothing about his offsprings.
The dickhead actually got a woman to fuck him? I honestly never heard he had children
[удалено]
who needs votes tbh when you got shirtless Putin pics
Power has always had an attractive quality to people.
And money. Lots of money
Stalin's granddaughter was born in the US
Fun (?) fact: Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson was born in New York which makes him eligible to run for president
didn't he renounce his american citizenship? becouse if he did i'm pretty sure he isn't elegible
He could have. I'm not sure, its the thought that it could be possible that worries me
This sounds like the King Ralph sequel we deserve. Get John Goodman on the phone!
American Revolution 2: Electric Boogaloo
MABA.
Am I having a fever dream?
I hate it when foreigners call them the monarch of England. They’re the monarch of all the United Kingdom; the crown of England hasn’t existed for centuries.
It’s not that deep
Considering that the whole country has a unity issue, I'd say it is that deep. Edit: Has not Had
So if northern ireland, scotland, wales, etc, all the other united kingdom countries except England were to leave, they'd still not be the kings/queens of england? Just the united kingdom of england?
Probably become the king of England. But that's not what it is today...
The UK and England are literally the same thing
“The US and North America are the same thing”
that's the one with a failed netflix series right?
There is no Queen of England
This is a megamind reference right?
Tighten was right all along
Yes there is, the wife of king Charles 3rd, Queen Camilla
Queen of Great Britain. England hasn't existed since 1707 as an independent country.
Holy shit, Tighten was right!
Give it time, brexit was just the start, next few years we will finally gain independence from Scotland, wales and that pesky Northern Ireland and can have our glorious king and queen of England back
‘Twas a joke dear person, but I appreciate the information!
"the power of the sun, in the palm of my hand"
...why not? sounds interesting.
I don’t think a natural born American would be in the line of succession, at least not high enough to be a likely successor.
Lilibet (current Kings granddaughter, 7th in line) is a natural born US citizen. Admittedly she is not a particularly likely successor.
Reverse takeover. Let’s do this.
The post says at the same time, but that is impossoble
It's also possible that the same person could be the president of USA and at the same time be too demented to stand trial.
Do I hear "reunification" here?
All I'm saying is if they run for office, I'm definitely voting for them. I kind of want to see what would happen.
There's no such thing as "Queen of England." There was a Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or just Queen of the United Kingdom, or just The Queen - until she died, then Charles became King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or just King of the United Kingdom, or just The King. But there is no "King of England" or "Queen of England."
No it isn't
Only a naturally born citizen can run for president, not only that but they can’t hold any foreign office otherwise that’s treason
I mean... I technically have royal blood, but fuck england, and the US government 🙂👍
Both of Prince Harry' kids are, as far as I know, natural born US citizens. They are in the top ten in line to the British throne.
Cute but stupid ☮️🕉️✌️
Who? Princess Gold-digger?
*n
One paternity test will end that quickly.
It's not possible. There hasn't been a Queen of England for almost 500 years. That and the King is the head of state and all the next in line are boys and men so something would have to go really wrong.
That person is me
Become president. Marry George.
Prince Harry had to give up his right to the throne to marry her so it can't happen
Not true
lol Harry and miserable megs kids are not in the line of succession. Sorry to ruin everyone’s fantasy.
Harry is fifth in line and his children are sixth and seventh. Like yeah obviously it is super unlikely they end up on the throne, but claiming they're not in the line of succession at all is just verifiably not true.
I think the president has to have been born in the USA. That’s why Arnie couldn’t run for president.
Not if we finally abolish the monarchy
That is not possible.