The So-called “Royal” Wedding (and Birtherism)

I have recently seen a clip of the 1981 attempted marriage of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer. The lady is asked by the officiating poobah, “Do you take Charles Philip Arthur George . . . “ And she answers, “I take Charles Arthur Philip George . . . “ with the names mixed up. Did no one notice this quite explosive fact?

I say it means she never properly vowed to marry the man. The wedding was invalid; Diana was never Charles’s wife. That makes the so-called “Prince” William a bastard with no legitimate claim on the English throne; the real next-in-line, after Charles, would be his brother Andrew. William can marry Kate, but it’s no “royal” wedding!

I humbly submit that this offers much more promising fodder for controversy than the “birther” stuff. Remember, the English have fought civil wars over this sort of thing.

Anyhow, birtherism never made any sense for this reason: Obama’s mother was indisputably a U.S. citizen. If a U.S. citizen happens to be overseas and gives birth, does that mean the child is not a “natural born” U.S. citizen? Of course not. The child is automatically a U.S. citizen and does not have to be naturalized. While it does not appear that the courts have ever ruled on this point, a Congressional Research Office memo does take the same logical view. Obama, even IF born outside the U.S., would still be a “natural born citizen” eligible for the presidency.

Advertisements

5 Responses to “The So-called “Royal” Wedding (and Birtherism)”

  1. Lee Says:

    John McCain was born in Panama and he admits it. Interestingly, the birthers never tried to get him disqualified from running for President.

  2. Webhosting Says:

    Webhosting Zuerich…

    […]The So-called “Royal” Wedding (and Birtherism) « The Rational Optimist[…]…

  3. orthodontics insurance Says:

    Hello, after reading this amazing article i am too glad to share my knowledge here
    with mates.

  4. Tintti Says:

    The marriage was valid because C and D answered the questions correctly. The vows are just additional cluttery.

  5. rationaloptimist Says:

    Dear Tintti, thanks for your comment, and for coming to the defense of the princess. I was joking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s