He was born in Hawaii, which was not at the time (or indeed at any time) a British possession. So, no question of British Subject status by virtue of his place of birth.
At the time of his birth Kenya was still a British colony and therefore Obama’s father had Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (“CUKC”) status under UK nationality law. Obama would have been a CUKC from his birth.
However in 1963 Kenya became independent, and Obama Sr. lost CUKC status and instead became a Citizen of Kenya. So did his son. Because the Obamas obtained Kenyan citizenship, they had a Commonwealth citizenship and so did not retain British Subject status, which is only available to people who have no Citizenship in any Commonwealth country.
(FWIW, I understand that Obama Jr lost his Kenyan citizenship when he turned 18 or 21, since Kenya does not permit adults to possess dual nationality.)
If, in 1963, the Kenyan citizenship law had been such that it did not confer Kenyan citizenship on two-year-old Barry, then I think the position is that he would have retained CUKC status. In that event, he still would not have been a British subject. In 1981, when the UK did a major overhaul on its citizenship legislation, he would have lost CUKC status and instead become, I think, a British Overseas Citizen.
Nitpick: Edward was Edward. David was one of his middle names (“Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David”) and was the name usually used in the family, but it wasn’t his first name. George VI, however, was Albert Frederick Arthur George; he was born on the anniversary of the Prince Consort’s death, so Victoria didn’t leave much wiggle-room on his name, but he didn’t want to be King Albert.
No. At the time of his birth in 1961, his father was a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC), so Obama inherited that status. Father and son both lost CUKC status when Kenya became independent in 1963, with the Kenya Independence Act and the new Kenyan Constitution both providing that persons born in Kenya lost CUKC and acquired Kenyan citizenship (father), and the children of fathers born in Kenya who acquired Kenyan citizenship likewise lost CUKC and became Kenyan (son). (cite, with original texts of laws)
President Obama subsequently lost his Kenyan citizenship when he failed to renounce his U.S. citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya before his 23rd birthday. He did retain the status of “Commonwealth citizen” (roughly but not precisely equivalent to British subject) during that time, but lost both Kenyan and Commonwealth citizenship on his 23rd birthday, 4 August 1984.
Tony Robinson’s documentary was an interesting squib on the principle of heredity, but the point he missed was that even in the late 15th century, it was capable of entirely flexible application in the light of the fruits of brute power in war - the entire line derived from an object lesson on the point in 1066, after all.
The additional legitimacy given to Henry VII by marrying Elizabeth of York wasn’t that it made him more legally “rightful” by acquiring a line of descent from Edward IV, it was a practical demonstration that there was no other potential claimant from the Yorkist camp and the Wars of the Roses were over.
But all that has been rendered obsolete by Parliamentary supremacy in the “Crown in Parliament”.
Now there’s a hypothetical…! I don’t think there’s time, since the official proclamation ceremony takes place very quickly after the death of the previous monarch. I’m assuming that the formal process would involve senior members of the Privy Council, led by the Prime Minister, at which point the new king would decide on such matters. I’d assume that, after the sharp intake of breath, there might be an attempt to persuade him to change his mind. Possibly they might point out that there might, in this particular case, be issues of copyright, licensing and royalties (in the other meaning), and there would be no question of expecting Parliament to pay for that out of government funds…
I don’t think it necessarily even involves them. The current queen sent her choice of name to London, and the proclamation was issued while she was still traveling back. The council met again a day or two later for her to make the necessary declarations, but she chose her name from Kenya where I think the only privy counsellor at hand was her husband.
I suspect that choosing a name is a royal prerogative and that Charles could be King Darth Vader.
I also suspect that if there were any chance of that, it would be either the end of the monarchy or the end of that tradition. Fortunately, no matter how dotty Charles is on some subjects, he will choose a name - Charles, George, William, Albert (probably not Edward) that is appropriate and not rule as King Ringo.
Britain is a strange place where a lot of what is done with regards to the monarchy is based on tradition, not a formal written law.
Gerald Ford was born Leslie Lynch King, Jr. He changed it legally in 1935, but had already been called for many years “Gerald Ford, Jr.”, after his stepfather.
You’re confusing “birth name” with “name commonly used by an individual”.
George was one of George VI’s birth / baptismal names (“Albert Frederick Arthur George”), although he went by Bertie to the family before his accession.
Edward was one of Edward VIII’s birth / baptismal names (“Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David”), although he went by David.
Elizabeth is one of the Queen’s birth / baptismal names (“Elizabeth Alexandra Mary”), which she did use prior to her accession.
All three reigned under one of their birth / baptismal names.
As far as I know, all of the English / UK monarchs have reigned under one of their baptismal names since 1066.
One Scottish monarch, Robert III, did change from his baptismal name, John, to the name Robert, to assert his descent from Robert the Bruce. I think there may have been one other Scottish king who did that, but I’m blanking on the name.
Basic point is the British monarchs don’t take new names on accession, unlike popes when they are elected.
Yes, they just choose which of their baptismal names they will use as a regnal name.
Of course, the other basic point is that British monarchs could take a new name on accession, for two reasons. First, in general anyone can change their name/take a new name at any time. Why should we hypothesis an exception which says that anyone, except the monarch, can change their name at any time, except on accession? Secondly, it’s the crown that grants titles, so the newly-acceding monarch can grant himself or herself a regnal name that doesn’t happen to be a baptismal name, and who is to invalidate that?
George VI is the only one who really chose a name seemingly out of the blue. George was one of his names but nobody called him that before 1936. Edward VII was often double-barrelled as Albert Edward to differentiate him from other members of the family named Albert, so it wasn’t as big a change as George VI’s choice. Edward VIII was only David within the family*; if he had chosen David as his regnal name it would have been perplexing to everyone else, who knew him as Edward. And Victoria was known generally as Victoria before her accession.
*Did his wife even call him David? Their pet name for them as a couple was WE, not WD. Although WD wouldn’t make sense the way they used it, I guess.
I believe he was “David” to everybody with whom he was on first-name terms. Outside the family, though, that wasn’t very many people. To all others he was “Wales” or “the Prince of Wales” or “HRH the Prince of Wales”, depdending on how close they were. I don’t believe there was anybody who called him “Edward”
They wouldn’t have called him Edward, but very few people would have known that the Prince of Wales’ preferred name was David. They would have mostly known his name to be Edward.
Yep, he’d been publicly known as “Prince Edward” for the first sixteen years of his life, and even after he was created Prince of Wales, he was still commonly called Prince Edward in the newspapers, etc. I’m sure there aren’t that many people who call the current heir by his first name either, and his formal title is HRH The Prince of Wales, but if you mention “Prince Charles,” most folks will know exactly who you mean.
That also means that if the current heir chooses to be proclaimed anything other than King Charles III, a lot of people are going to be confused.
The notion that he might choose George VII as a tribute to his grandfather has been floated widely enough and for long enough for it to be no surprise.
