But the question was about legal requirements. The birthers aren’t happy about Obama winning, although he does fulfill the legal requirement of native born.
If a millionaire turns up and tries to become leader the Berlusconi way, most people would be pissed off about this regardless of the legal angle.
I don’t know that there’s an “of course” about the latter of those! I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some of the other Commonwealth realms have such a requirement regarding their own GG’s citizenship.
As for the Sovereign herself, there’s no nationality requirement in British law. In fact, our nationality legislation is drafted in such a way that it seems possible for a subsequent Sovereign to not even be a citizen of any country at all!
Suppose that Prince William becomes king as William V. His wife is heavily pregnant. He dies. She then gives birth to a son. Because the legislation setting out how someone is or becomes a British citizen doesn’t explicitly bind the Crown (in other words, doesn’t apply to the monarch himself), then it’s arguable that the child isn’t a British citizen; and since the child is and always has been the Sovereign, he can’t be a British subject under the old common law. I can’t off-hand think of any practical inconvenience caused by this, so it’s unlikely ever to be tested in court or to require remedial legislation. If the “birther” disease is contagious, though, it might cause a few people over here the conniptions!
This didn’t use to be the case, incidentally; before the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 was superseded by subsequent legislation, the protestant heirs of the body of Electress Sophia of Hanover, including the British monarchs and everyone eligible to become so, were nationalized as English (and subsequently British, I suppose) subjects.
In Spain you need to be a citizen to be an MP or a member of Government; they’re usually MPs but it’s an artifact of our legal system, not a requirement. Regional Parliaments and governments have their own rules, but in general if you can vote in them you can be elected in them. You can be a town councilor or a major without being a citizen, but you need to be able to vote (which in this case means being a citizen of another EU country who is registered in the town’s padrón or census as a resident).
No birth requirements. Age requirement for all those positions is “18 at the moment you are sworn in” - our youngest senator turned 18 between election day and beign sworn in, he wasn’t able to vote for himself. That record will be hard to break unless the majority age gets lowered.
It’s possible, but I doubt it. Firstly because in the past it was usual to appoint a British person (often a nobleman) as Governor-General. Secondly because it would restrict Her Majesty’s choice without any really good reason. These days in practice there is likely to be a strong convention (as there is in Canada and Australia) that the PM will nominate and HM will appoint a citizen of the country, but it’s likely only to be a convention.
A nitpick: The last King of England died in 1702; the last Queen of England died in 1714, having ceased to be Queen of England in 1707. And Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is not the monarch of Australia; Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, is – even though they are the same individual. This is not merely a nitpick: the Queen of the U.K. is required to act on advice she receives from the inhabitant of No. 10 Downing Street, while the Queen of Australia takes her advice from a man in Canberra, the Queen of Canada from Mr. Harper, etc. In theory, though not in practice, she could declare war on herself in two of her various capacities.
Which brings me to an interesting question: Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, was for a time in the 1940s Governor General of Australia. While in the present political climates in Canada, Australia, etc., it’s highly improbable, is there anything barring Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, Prince William, or Prince Harry from serving as Governor General of a Commonwealth realm which actually wished him to do so?
I think, from my very basic knowledge, you can be a volunteer fireman in Japan without needing citizenship. You just can’t be in a position where you have administrative authority over other firemen who are Japanese nationals. (Of course you don’t have to have administrative authority over Japanese nationals when you tell them to “get out! get out now!” - they can do as they like.)
There are a few.
How did he manage to get elected? Was he already famous for something?
Askance didn’t say the King or Queen of England, he said the English Monarch. Elizabeth II is the monarch, and she is English, so I believe she can be rightly called the English Monarch. I expect that the Australian constitution provides that the head of state of Australia (the King or Queen of Australia) is the same person who’s also the head of state of the UK, and in practice, despite the presence of citizens of other countries in the line of succession, this person will always be English.
So I don’t think that Askance said anything wrong. For most purposes “the English Monarch” is correct and precise enough.
There was some serious suggestion (IIRC) about finding a job for Charles as GG of Australia quite a while ago, but the furor over a previous GG turfing the prime minister unilaterally pretty much guaranteed that the Australians did not want outside help in that department any more?
:: Ahem ::
The Constitution of Australia does not mention a “head of state”, and there is considerable controversy over who is the head of state of Australia. (It tends to be monarchists who say that the Governor-General is the head of state, and republicans who say that the Queen is the head of state.)
The Constitution does mention “the Queen”. Section 2 of the Preamble to the Constitution (which, strictly speaking, probably is not actually part of the Constitution, but just part of an ordinary act of the United Kingdom Parliament) says:
Note that the Act was enacted in 1900, so when it says “Queen” it means Queen Victoria. Queen Elizabeth is currently Queen of Australia because she is Victoria’s “heir and successor in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom”.
He meant her husband. 
No, anyone who takes the Prime Minister’s fancy can be - indeed will be - our GG.
Apparently so.(link in Japanese) Ignorance fought. I had looked into joining as a volunteer in my 30s, and had been told that this was a requirement.
Thanks for finding a reference TP - I tried but couldn’t find one myself. :smack:
Wasn’t this idea mooted at one point for Andrew or Edward?
I don’t remember a suggestion for Ajdrew or Edward, but I’m pretty sure there was a suggestion for Prince Charles back in the late 80s, pre-marriage breakup. But whether it was ever more than media speculation, I don’t know. GovGen Sauve’s term in office was coming up. Eventually, Hnatyshyn was appointed.