Will Catherine be Queen?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

And Ireland issues passports to anyone with a tenuous connection. Tony Blair and his children all have Irish passports seemingly. I wonder why?

Mrs. Blair's father is an Irish citizen and, under Irish law, his daughter has the same rights of citizenship as her father, as do her children in right of their grandfather. This is, for all intents and purposes the same as in the UK. Mr. Blair, by virtue of his marriage to an Irish citizen, would be eligible for an Irish passport should he wish to obtain one. I am, however, unaware of his having done so.

[macwilkin]

Just think – if there hadn’t been that little bit of difficulty back in 1775 all of this speculation could have been of some significance to our American compatriots. As it is I wonder why there should be such fascination about these individuals? Perhaps it is time for a groundswell of opinion in your country for a restoration of the monarchy and a return to the fold. After all what rational being would really want any old Tom, Dick or Harry being elected as the Head of State?
Just think of the advantages. No more Presidential elections every four years with all the hassle and expense that entails. And worthy figures like Donald Trump could become courtiers and nobles with titles, ermine robes and all the flummery that goes with that. No more worries about having to aspire to be the President any more. All that would be solved and everyone could be happy becoming subjects of a hereditary sovereign instead of that pesky citizen nonsense. And, of course, there would no longer be any need for a Constitution. Not with a monarch who rules with absolute authority. I mean how could anyone want anything else?
But I forget, of course. Some people in 1775 actually wanted something different – and they did something about it.

Calling George III a "monarch with absolute authority" might be a bit of exaggeration. By 1776, the monarch's authority had been reduced dramatically as a result of the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, which removed the "Divine Right" Stuarts from the throne and placed Parliament in the driver's seat. In fact, if you look at the "wrongs" committed against the North American colonies, a majority of them were committed not by a tyrant absolute monarch, but rather Members of Parliament. You can't have 1776 with 1688.

And of course, not every colonial American wanted something different -- many Loyalists here in the colonies, as well as residents of the Canadian colonies and the Caribbean strongly disagreed with their fellow colonials that the system was broken. Among that population were (to keep this post on-topic) former Jacobites from the Highlands who preferred a "German" king to mob rule.

And as terrible as the relationship was, American colonials enjoyed far more freedom than residents of Spanish or French colonies of the same period -- not to mention that residents of the British Isles paid twice the amount of taxes than the average American colonist.

<historian's rant over>

T.

[auld argonian]

And as terrible as the relationship was, American colonials enjoyed far more freedom than residents of Spanish or French colonies of the same period -- not to mention that residents of the British Isles paid twice the amount of taxes than the average American colonist.


T.

See that? Ya' give 'em an inch and they take a yard! That's gratitude for ya'!

Best

AA

[Phil]

Mrs. Blair's father is an Irish citizen

Mrs Blair's father, Anthony Booth, was born in Liverpool. Blair's children all have Irish passports by virtue of his late mother being Irish, a Protestant from County Donegal. Quite why a former British Prime Minister, born and educated in Scotland, would wish his children to hold Irish passports, though, is somewhat of a puzzle.

[Phil]

Calling George III a "monarch with absolute authority" might be a bit of exaggeration.

It might sound a bit of an exaggeration, and in practice is most unlikely to happen, but the fact remains that the monarch has sweeping powers, known as the Royal Prerogatives. These include the power to approve or deny any Parliamentary legislation, choose a Government regardless of election results, dismiss Ministers and appoint peers to the House of Lords. The monarch heads the armed forces who swear an oath of allegiance and can declare war or order the armed forces to take any action. The monarch is also the head of the Church of England. No doubt there are many other sweeping powers reserved to the monarch and, in practice nowadays, most of these are delegated to Parliament which acts in the name of the sovereign but they have never been taken away and are there to be used if a monarch chose to do so.
As to the royalist sympathies of American colonists I leave to you who will be far better informed than I. There are always 2 sides in any such dispute but the fact remains that the loyalists lost and the subsequent course of history took the path of independence.

[John_Carrick]

Mrs Blair's father, Anthony Booth, was born in Liverpool. Blair's children all have Irish passports by virtue of his late mother being Irish, a Protestant from County Donegal. Quite why a former British Prime Minister, born and educated in Scotland, would wish his children to hold Irish passports, though, is somewhat of a puzzle.

Anyone with an Irish parent or grandparent is deemed an Irish citizen and can hold an Irish passport, or anyone born in either the Republic or Northern Ireland. Ireland rather uniquely has a diaspora that is vast in proportion to its resident population.

People in Northern Ireland are entitled to dual citizenship and many have Irish passports, even those of a unionist persuasion.

The Irish government makes much needed revenue from this.

John

This thread is covering vast swathes of history, albeit out of chronological or thematic order.

[macwilkin]

It might sound a bit of an exaggeration, and in practice is most unlikely to happen, but the fact remains that the monarch has sweeping powers, known as the Royal Prerogatives. These include the power to approve or deny any Parliamentary legislation, choose a Government regardless of election results, dismiss Ministers and appoint peers to the House of Lords. The monarch heads the armed forces who swear an oath of allegiance and can declare war or order the armed forces to take any action. The monarch is also the head of the Church of England. No doubt there are many other sweeping powers reserved to the monarch and, in practice nowadays, most of these are delegated to Parliament which acts in the name of the sovereign but they have never been taken away and are there to be used if a monarch chose to do so.
As to the royalist sympathies of American colonists I leave to you who will be far better informed than I. There are always 2 sides in any such dispute but the fact remains that the loyalists lost and the subsequent course of history took the path of independence.

Again, Phil, the issues that caused the separation of the North American colonies from Great Britain were due to acts of Parliament, not necessarily those of George III; The Stamp Act, Townshend Acts, Tea Act, Coercive Acts, etc. In fact, during the protest of these "intolerable" laws, some of the colonists frequently appealed for the intervention of the King. Yes, eventually the King did declare the colonies in rebellion and dispatched the armed forces to fight it, but Parliament itself lit the match.

And you can't simply dismiss the Loyalists because they "lost" (although ironically that was how many in Britain treated them, simply because of their American origins). Some historians have argued that had London supported the Loyalist populations in the Southern colonies more than they did, the war might have ended differently. And the "losing" Loyalists did make their mark somewhere else, most notably Canada, where a large number of modern-day Anglophone Canadians in Ontario and Nova Scotia trace their lineage to Loyalist exiles. Even Alexander Hamilton (who some have accused of being a closet monarchist) believed that the Loyalists were at least entitled to due process in regards to lands and property confiscated or destroyed by the rebels -- Hamilton actually argued that it was the right thing to do, and Hamilton had personally intervened to save the loyalist President of King's College (now Columbia University) in New York from a rebel mob.

T.

[Phil]

And you can't simply dismiss the Loyalists because they "lost" (although ironically that was how many in Britain treated them, simply because of their American origins). Some historians have argued that had London supported the Loyalist populations in the Southern colonies more than they did, the war might have ended differently. And the "losing" Loyalists did make their mark somewhere else, most notably Canada, where a large number of modern-day Anglophone Canadians in Ontario and Nova Scotia trace their lineage to Loyalist exiles. Even Alexander Hamilton (who some have accused of being a closet monarchist) believed that the Loyalists were at least entitled to due process in regards to lands and property confiscated or destroyed by the rebels -- Hamilton actually argued that it was the right thing to do, and Hamilton had personally intervened to save the loyalist President of King's College (now Columbia University) in New York from a rebel mob. T.

It would be interesting to examine the ethnicity and background of those individuals who remained loyal to the Crown. History abounds with individuals who put their own self-interests above any other considerations and I wonder if this was the case here. The promise of lands, rewards etc. can be powerful incentives - just look at the Scottish situation in 1707 when the nation was "bought and sold for English gold". That "parcel of rogues in a nation" who sold out their compatriots then may well have provided the example for similar double-dealings later. England was not called "Perfidious Albion" for no reason. There was a long history of English suppression of minorities, particularly non-conformist religious groups and, of course the Irish, both Catholic and Presbyterian who would have emigrated to escape persecution. I can't imagine any of these groups being sympathetic to an extension of English rule into the American colonies with all the downsides that entailed. Conversely, rich southern plantation owners living a lifestyle like lords did back in England would not welcome any inroads into their privileged lifestyles and rich earnings off the back of slavery. Understandable then that they would fight tooth and nail to protect it.

I doubt, however, if those who exhibit this interest in foreign royalty and all things royal nowadays do so for any reason other than a superficial fascination for celebrities in the way that many idolise film stars or pop musicians.

[sailortats]

Correct me if I am wrong, put hasn't this thread strayed off topic more than a little?

[macwilkin]

Post deleted. Off-topic. Apologies to OP.

T.