To become POTUS, one must be a born citizen of the United States. This requirement is what keeps someone like Henry Kissinger or Arnold Schwarzenegger from being a candidate for the office.
But, as far as I know, there is no similar constitutional barrier in place in other countries, for example Canada, Britain or Ireland… Is there? Ireland in particular had Eamon de Valera as one of its first PMs, who was born in the US (NYC), though of course this was before the existence of the Irish State itself.
Is it at least theoretically possible that, say, Bill Clinton could become a naturalized citizen of another “first world” country and after some period of time, assume the chief executive post of that country’s government?
Has this ever been done in history? Assuming not, what’s the highest offices ever held in the governments of multiple countries by the same person (presumably not at the same time, of course)?
Václav Havel was president of Czechoslovakia and of the Czech Republic.
Eduard Shevardnadze was in the government of the Soviet Union and then of Georgia.
But in both these cases the two country that someone was a government leader in last was a part of the country they were govt. members in first. So that might not be what you are looking for.
It hasn’t always been through conquest; often it was through marriage or inheritance. Sometimes, certain domains would be inherited from the father, some from the mother; they might conserve their separate laws, institutions and, let’s say “national character” instead of being merged.
One of the most radical cases was Sancho III “the greatest” of Navarra, who through inheritance, marriage or because they became his vassals voluntarily (treaties, not wars), became Lord (the terms were different for some of the places) of all the Christian domains in Spain. That’s three kingdoms and several more-or-less independent counties who switched allegiance between different kingdoms and independence frequently.
Because of the way Navarrese inheritance law works (keeping the land intact is more important than primogeniture), he didn’t pass everything to his eldest son, like the law of some of those other domains would have allowed. Each kingdom went to one of his sons. The eldest son inherited Navarra (the kingdom Sancho had inherited from his father); the other sons got Aragon and Leon based on which of them was the son of the wife who’d brought that land into the marriage. By Aragonese Law, Sancho had been King Consort of Aragon while that wife lived, but become King after her death; by much-more-machista Leonese Law, Sancho had been King of Leon when the wife who’d been princess of Leon inherited.
So:
from his Dad, Navarra.
Inherited from a wife, Aragon.
Because the laws of Leon didn’t let her be Queen Regnant, Leon when another wife inherited it.
Castilla was a County dependent on Leon, at the time.
The counties of Catalonia became his vassals through treaties.
There’s periods of what we might call the “national construction” of France which followed similar patterns: someone who was Duke of Burgundy became King of France inheriting through a different bloodline, when the Duchy was not a vassal but a separate State… things like that.
Pedro I was Brazil’s first emperor after Brazilian independence, but also, as Pedro IV, King of Portugal, a throne from which he abdicated soon after. It’s true that Brazil was part of the Portuguese empire as a result of conquest, but Pedro became Emperor of Brazil before he became King of Portugal, and all this at a time when Brazil was already independet, so you might count it.
From 1717 until 1837, the Kings of Great Britain were, in personal union as a result of dynastic marriage strategies, Kings (until 1815: Electors) of Hanover, although Britain never conquered Hanover (nor vice versa, of course).
The President of France is, by virtue of his office, co-regent (together with the Bishop of Urgel in Spain) of the independent country of Andorra, so that would be a republican example.
You might say that all this doesn’t count because it’s the result of a person holding two thrones which, for some reason, are closely linked to each other; the OP seems to ask for persons who, by virtue of their own character, managed to become ruler of one nation and then, afterwards, ruler of another. But it meets the requirements of someone holding highest offices in multiple countries, but not as an extension of one of these roles through conquest.
Well, King James VI was King of Scotland, then also became King James I of England after his cousin Elizabeth I kicked the bucket with no heirs. He also inherited the crown of Ireland from Lizzy, thanks to her dad Henry VIII who convinced the Irish parliament to make him king.
Interesting case, though this was an aggregation of power and not really what I’m looking for. In my OP I had elected office in mind; and in broadening the scope of the question to include monarchies with real executive power, at least a sequential rather than concurrent role. For example, cases of kings/emperors of one state being deposed, fleeing somewhere else and rising to become the leader of that area (and not just having a cadre of followers pressing his claim in exile).
That’s why I said “it doesn’t count,” because you were looking for elected even though you didn’t specify it.
It happens to be the same domain, but the Parliament of Navarra deposed two of our Kings for “inability to fulfill his duties” and one of them managed to regain it. Sancho el Craso (Sancho the fat, yes Sancho was a popular name with our royals) was too fat to even stand and all he thought about was food; after losing the throne, his mother carted him down to Cordoba, where he lost the extra weight and learned to think about something else than his next meal. Going back to Pamplona, they showed to Parliament that he could now both stand and control himself, and he got the throne back with the blessings of the cousin who’d been King meanwhile.
Gotta love history, beats the hell out of TV soaps
Not quite what you’re looking for, but over the course of his life Sam Houston was elected Governor of Tennessee, President of the Republic of Texas, and Governor of the State of Texas.
Sam Houston was Governor of Tennessee, twice the President of the Republic of Texas, and then Governor of the State of Texas. He was also a Representative of Tennessee, and at one point there was talk of running him for president of the US. He could, if that had gone through, been leader of two different countries at two different times.
It is theoretically possible that Bill Clinton could migrate to Australia, become an Australian citizen, become a member of parliament, and become prime minister.
However, before he became a member of parliament, he would have to give up his US citizenship. Australia allows dual citizens, but its constitution requires members of parliament not to be foreign citizens or subjects.
In addition, to be prime minister, you must be a member of parliament, or become one within 3 months. (Two prime ministers were appointed without being members of parliament – Edmund Barton and John Gorton – but they became MPs at the first available opportunity.)
Incidentally, one Australian prime minister – George Reid – went on to become a member of the British House of Commons, but he was only an MP there for 2 years before he died.
Edmund Barton was the first Australian PM, appointed before the first federal parliamentary election. The first PM could not have been an MP.
John Gorton was a special case. When Harold Holt went missing (presumed drowned), he was a Senator, and so technically eligible to be PM. However, after he became party leader, it was decided that convention required him to be an MP, so he resigned from the Senate and stood in the by-election for Harold Holt’s vacant seat.
Eleanor of Aquitaine was the Queen of France when married to King Louis VII. In 1152 their marriage was annulled, and a mere two months later she married the much younger Henry of Anjou. When her new husband ascended to the throne of England as King Henry II, Eleanor was once again queen, but of an entirely different realm.
Similarly, Mary, Queen of Scots, became queen consort of France in 1559, having married the Dauphin about a year earlier. She also had a claim to be Queen of England: arguably, Queen Elizabeth I of England was illegitimate, and if she was, Mary of Scotland was the next in line to the English throne. So that made here queen of two kingdoms, with a supportable claim to a third.
The Netherlands doesn’t. In fact, there are two junior ministers in the government who have another passport in addition to their Dutch one. So as long as Bill Clinton obtains Dutch citizenship (which is something of an if) there’s nothing, legally speaking, that would bar him from becoming a prime minister.
Napoleon, Emperor of the French, after his abdication in 1814 was allowed to go into exile on the island of Elba off the west coast of Italy, which he ruled and of which he was styled Emperor. (After the Hundred Days War and his final defeat at Waterloo, he was exiled permanently to the British-held island of St. Helena in the South Pacific, where his status was merely that of a high-ranking prisoner.)
