To be comparable with birtherism it would have to be at the same hysterical pitch of irrational hatred and wilful blind ignorance of proof and held by a significant % of the population.
There’s been nothing even remotely like it in the UK.
I think Ivory Coast should qualify if those are the criteria, the whole affair was surrounded by xenophobia and as I understand it the only way Ouattara’s parents didn’t qualify was if you looked at the borders of Ivory Coast at a certain time in history. So the law itself was xenophobic & irrational (because who cares where your parents come from) and then proof of the heritage of his parents was interpreted in a very specific way.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
James Francis Edward Stuart … was recognised as King James III of England and King James VIII of Scotland by the courts of France, Spain, and Modena, and by the Pope.
[/QUOTE]
… and at one point France even declared war against the U.K. in support of this “King over the Water.”
Banharn Silapa-archa’s eligibility to serve as Prime Minister of Thailand (which he did 1995-1996) was challenged as shown in this newspaper article:
And yet, they failed to have him crowned in Westminster.
Other countries can recognize whoever they want - I could declare my cat the Tsar of Bulgaria, and there’s nothing you could do to stop me. It doesn’t charge the fact that Parliament declared William and Mary king and queen, respectively, and they get the final vote.
(I don’t have a dog in this fight, either. I just never had the chance to argue with an honest-to-God Jacobite before).
Similarly, all the Kings of England/Britain/UK from Edward III to George III claimed to be King of France, but that didn’t make them so.
Sonia Gandhi.
Italian born Sonia was on the brink of becoming the prime minister of a billion plus people when the congress party was elected to Parliament in the last decade. She asked for time to consider her options (viz: that her husband and mother in law were assassinated when they were PMs and therefore did not appear to be a great career move).
The opposition parties made a big play of her nationality and birthplace (she was of Italian parentage) although she had lived in India for decades after meeting her husband in UK.
She turned down the chance.
test sorry
Considering the Stuarts’ ancestor, Henry VII, took over by right of conquest, not right of blood, that means your heir should be Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, who legitimately descends from Edward III.
Richard III made claims that Edward V was no legitimate. He also alleged his brother, Edward IV, was the product of an adulterous affair on the part of his mother. Since Richard and Edward’s mother was still alive at the time, this made for awkward family gatherings.
To go a bit further on “El Chino’s” case. His parents were Japanese and immigrated to Peru just before his birth. All documents say he was born in Peru (although with some contradicitons of date), but he was also registered in the Japanese koseki (family registry), so he could opt for Japanese citizenship (which he eventuallyt did). In the end, the “worst-case” scenario was that he was born on the ship bringin his parents to Peru, and was registered here.
Two other Peruvian cases.
In 1979 we were writing (yet again) a new constitution. The article said that the president had to be Peruvian born, but there was a proposal that the spouse also had to be Peruvian-born; this was seen as trying to block a possible candidate for the upcoming 1980 elections. There was even an even more extreme version requiring the candidates parents to be Peruvian born. In the end, we got the basic Prez-only version.
Interestingly enough two Peruvian presidents (Alan García 1985-1990 and 2006-2011, and Alejandro Toledo (2001-2006) had foreign born wives (Argentinian and Belgian) and the runner-up for the last election was married to an American guy.
Also for the las election, one of the front-runners (eventually third) Pedro Pablo Kuczynki got some flack for holding US nationality. He promised to renounce to it if he got to the runoff election, but as he failed to do so he remains a US citizen.
Just… no. Henry was indeed a usurper, but magically impelled by the pure power of love he coincidentally fell in love with the rightful heir, Elizabeth daughter of Edward IV, who passed on the full claim to the unspeakable Henry VIII.
Richard made a lot of claims: mostly the product of his diseased imagination.
Could you point me to a genealogy? Thanks.
Why would he give a fig about descendants of Edward III? Stuart loyalists are looking to the Stuart side, not the Tudor side, of James I/VI’s ancestry.
Not if you’re an English Jacobite; you’re not interested in the Stuart ancestry, except to the extent the Stuarts have a claim to the English throne from the Tudors, namely, Henry VII’s daughter Margaret, who married James IV of Scotland.
I had no idea English Jacobites existed. I learn something on this board every day.
Michaëlle Jean ended up renouncing the French citizenship she accuired through marriage before taking office as Governor General of Canada.
Australian MPs & Senators cannot hold dual citizenship; even if that other citizenship is the UK. That doesn’t apply to Ms Gillard since she’s no longer an Australian citizen, but back in 1999 Heather Hill was disqualified from the Senate because she also held British citizenship. Ironically that particular law was written before Australian citizenship even existed and and entire British Empire had the same nationality laws.
IIRC New Zealand allows permanent residents to vote, but only citizens can hold public office. There was an MP who got elected despite not being a citizen and wasn’t able to enter parliament.
See the wiki on Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke, one of the leading English Jacobites.
Actually the Stuart bit is only important for the Scottish Crown, descending from Robert Bruce’s New Monarchy ( and charming as much of it is, few people understand how poor and unimportant Scotland was before the Union ), James I & VI was keen to point out he was not only heir to the Stuarts, but to all the previous English dynasties, including through the Saxon St. Margaret to the House of Cerdic.
Right of Conquest is inarguable: change of institutions through treason is not. Otherwise in Scotland at the least there were always several dozen related nobles willing to usurp the throne in quick succession at any time.
There’s a tree on wiki of the present people, which gives some help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of_Elizabeth_II_from_William_I
Stuart succession since James I:
&
How about through Act of Parliament?
And see also the Wiki Category, English Jacobites.