We have friends from England who became U.S. citizens several years ago. They have dual citizenship and said the U.S. allows that with the UK and vice versa.
US does not specifically allow dual citizenship. It simply does not prohibit it. If you are a dual citizen, you better abstain from voting in foreign elections. Although as I understand it, very few naturalized citizens have been stripped of their US citizenship to this date. This might change…
She does not have to from either a US or UK perspective. It’s a question of if she will choose to.
She can, but the financial implications don’t make it attractive.
The US cannot strip citizenship for that reason, as affirmed by Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967). But as stated, things can change. It’s moot in this case since, while UK royals can vote, by tradition, they don’t.
As I understand it, members of the royal family do not vote in British elections. They are supposed to be apolitical.
Oh I know perfectly well that the royals do not vote. That was just in reply to a post that stated that the US “allows” dual citizenship. There is a difference between “allowing” and “not disallowing.”
Well I guess I’m one that doesn’t understand the difference.
@rosered55 - my college roommate and I got up early to watch the wedding of Diana and Charles. Loved every moment of it…though sadly the tv we had was my parents old black and white.
When Kate and William wed, I got up early to fully take in the event. I remember S2 bursting with laughter when he saw me sitting on the couch wearing a faux velvet and gold crown from the kid’s old dress up box!
I can’t wait the H and M’s and I have plenty of time to acquire more props!
I and all my children hold dual U.S./Canadian citizenship. We know probably close to 150 friends just here in Toronto who are in the same position. It was ‘disallowed’ until about 10-15 years ago. And, no, it doesn’t stop any of us from voting in elections in both countries.
I’m looking forward to seeing St. George’s Chapel on TV during the wedding. It seems to have such an interesting history, which will give the commentators something to talk about besides Meghan’s dress.
I think a capacity of 800 is adequate for the wedding of the “spare.”
Only in the UK would they call a church of that size a “chapel.”
This is a fantastic story! Meghan sounds like someone who wants to make positive changes.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/meghan-markle-shook-advertising-world-181657968.html
I wonder if they will use her first name with her royal title in formal settings, which is Rachel. They don’t say, “HRH Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge”, they use Catherine.
I’m guessing that they won’t, @conmama. Harry doesn’t use his real first name much. He’s almost always referred to as Harry, which is a nickname, rather than Henry, which is his actual name.
Look at their formal engagement announcement. The heading calls him Prince Henry of Wales, which is his actual title, but the text of the announcement refers to him as Prince Harry. And she’s Ms. Meghan Markle in both places.
I don’t think she needs to be Rachel unless she wants to be.
On another note: There are clips on Twitter of Harry and Meghan doing some sort of official visit in Nottingham. She’s shaking hands with people on one side of the street, and he’s handling the other side – just as though she had been doing this for years. I think that her previous professional experience may make her the best-prepared new royal in history. Even Kate, who knew for almost a decade that she would end up in her current role, didn’t seem as immediately comfortable with it.
Unlike Charles and Diana, I think people will actually be as excited, if not more, to have the boys on their side for a walk about. I know I would. They just seen like the greatest guys.
Well, in formal settings, they would use the correct format. So for Kate, it’s HRH the Duchess of Cambridge (no first name, no comma). As for instances there a first name is used (which is never according to strict protocol), I’d assume they will use Meghan which is not a nickname like Harry, but rather her preference to use a middle name. This has precedent. George VI’s first name was Albert and Victoria’s was Alexandrina, Mary of Teck, consort of George V, was christened Victoria Mary (and a bunch more names.) While George VI was known as Prince Albert (or Bertie) before he became Duke of York , Victioria and Mary were known, at least in common usage, as Princess Victoria and Princess Mary (or more informally, like Harry, by a nickname, Princess May.)
I have never gotten the adoration of Diana and the opprobrium for Charles and Camilla. The latter were prevented from marrying in their youth. Despite dutifully marrying others–being forced to marry a highly inappropriate, completely incompatible, official virgin in his case–they remained ultimately steadfast to one another. I, for one, am happy that they were finally allowed to marry and find their happy ending.
In the old days, future kings were indeed required to marry suitable mates for reasons of state, but they were allowed to live their own romantic lives mostly out of the public view. Poor Charles wasn’t to be allowed to have that option.
The only reason Diana gets a pass in the here and now is because she is dead, if she had lived, there is no way that beatification would have taken place. She and Markle both have sold their souls in so many ways for some perceived advantage. And it is very expensive when the media owns you. Even successful actors whose bread and butter is over exposure (as opposed to Markle’s fame related to the firm) learn to despise the hand that feeds them.
I don’t see why you say Markle has sold her soul for perceived advantage.
I certainly think that she will probably have to give up one part of her life in order to marry him. Seems like a sacrifice to me.
Diana, on the other hand, clearly knew exactly what she was getting into–except for the part where she expected the prince to dump his older, long-term lover in favor of her youthful charms–and had in fact positioned herself for the role.
I think Diana was too young to know what she was getting into. With many years in teaching 19 & 20 year olds, I am constantly reminded of the fact that their prefrontal cortexes aren’t yet fully formed and they have no idea what they want to do next month, let alone what they want to do for a career, etc. She was living in a romantic fantasy similar to the ones created by her step-grandmother, Barbara Cartland, in all of those fairy tale romance books. She was also very needy from the dysfunction created by her own parents’ divorce. I think the royal family learned quite a bit from the Diana/Charles disaster about expecting the heir to marry a virginal young woman.
Diana was raised in that milieu. Her older sister had DATED Charles. Believe me, every girl who dated Charles was constantly in the British tabloid press.
I agree that she seemed to have an unrealistic romantic fantasy and was very needy, but then, although apparently a kind person, she wasn’t very bright, she had limited education, etc. All reasons why she was a dreadful choice for an intellectually-inclined, university educated man 12+ years her senior with whom she shared virtually no interests.
Charles was not allowed to marry Camilla because she had had A Past: ie, like many if not most of the young women her age at that time she had had a prior boyfriend. Just ridiculous.
[QUOTE=""]
intellectually-inclined, university educated man>>>
[/QUOTE]
Charles? He is not known for his intellect LOL. He got into Cambridge the british backdoor way, he was vastly underqualified. The royals don't get into Oxbridge nowadays.