MikeS, if “having a foreign foreparent” was an obstacle to monarchy, all of Europe would have had to go Republican or Andorra-system* centuries ago. Removing the concept of morganatic marriage has made it easier for our royals to marry someone from their own country; they used to be almost required to fish abroad.
From the Act of Settlement in 1701, Edward VIII was the first monarch both of whose parents were born in Britain. Prior to that, every monarch had one, if not two, parents born out of Britain.
Royalty marries foreigners. That’s always been the case. It doesn’t affect their children’s inheritance rights.
And where would the Queen get the legal authority to “just make her a citizen”? British citizenship is entirely a statutory matter, as UDS and AK84 have pointed out. Unless there is a statutory provision giving the Queen the power to grant citizenship on her own, she can’t do it.
It’s not like honours, which are part of the royal prerogative.
Missed edit window: when saying “Prior to that, every monarch had one, if not two, parents born out of Britain” I was referring to the period between the Act of Settlement in 1701 and Edward VIII’s accession in 1936. Before the Act of Settlement, there were monarch who had both parents born in Britain, but it was by no means universal.
I was clumsily trying to make the point that for over two centuries, the monarch had at least one parent born outside of Britain, and it didn’t affect their position in the Succession. The only question was if the person was the senior surviving lawful issue of the Electress Sophia. If they were, they became monarch.
They better not all pose for a family photo after the ceremony. (King Ralph)
We should hook her up with Eva Luna. Imagine standing next to her for 6 hours at Lunar House.
The Queen can send whoever the UK government and the inviting government/agency/organisation would accept as her representative. For a start, Governors-General of those Commonwealth countries that still retain the monarchy aren’t usually British citizens these days. And of course, she wouldn’t be representing the royal family or the UK on her own, or not to begin with - she’d be accompanying him.
And when the Queen or members of the Royal Family are here in Canada exercising functions on behalf of the Queen of Canada, they’re here on British passports, not Canadian ones.
Speaking very generally here, my understanding is that US law distinguishes among personal passports (issued to any citizen who properly completes the application process), official government passports (issued to government officials in connection with official overseas travel), and diplomatic passports (issued to government officials having recognized diplomatic status). Does the UK do something similar? And do the members of the royal family use any form of official (or otherwise specialized) passport when they travel? I assume that they do not typically have diplomatic status.
Good grief Northern Piper, the Queen doesn’t have something so mundane as a passport!
HM to the Immigration clerk: “A passport? My face is on all your money, you silly boy.”
Ah, Croydon. It’s a magical place.
Fair enough. I will try to limit my late night posting. :smack:
[nitpick]
Not quite. Both of Queen Anne’s parents had been born in Britain.
What you presumably meant to say was that Edward VIII was the first among those who had succeeded on the basis of the Act of Settlement. Queen Anne, of course, succeeded after the Act of Settlement had been passed but it hadn’t affected her claim to the throne.
[/nitpick]
Yes, that’s it. Dangers of posting too early in the morning! Thought I would post a clarification to my erratum, then thought “No-one except APB will notice anyway.” 
PS - I have an off-board issue I would really appreciate your thoughts on. If you’d care to make contact by pm or northern.piper@gmail.com, I’d really appreciate it.
I’ve just double checked a few. Henry VIII, Henry VII and Richard III all had both parents born in the UK and I suspect most of the rest of them did too.
Yes, as mentioned in post 24 I was thinking of post-Act of Settlement. There were monarchs prior to that who had both parents born in England/Britain, but I’m not sure it was “most”.
You got me curious, so I started skimming through wiki bios.
Looks like the first English king (post-Conquest) who had both parents born in England was Richard II, son of Edward the Black Prince (born at Woodstock) and Joan of Kent (also born at Woodstock).
After that, Henry IV and Henry V both had their parents born in Britain, but not Henry VI.
Edward IV, Edward V, Richard III, Henry VII, Henry VIII, and Edward VI also did, but not Mary I. Elizabeth I and James I did, but not Charles I, Charles II, James II and William III. Mary II and Anne did.
So the first post-Conquest king of England with both parents born in Britain was Richard II, who ascended the throne in 1377, over 300 years after the Conquest.
Quite so. My mistake.
That’s probably more with both parents born in the UK than most people would expect (I’m counting UK, not just England). But yeah, having one parent who’s not British has never been remotely an issue.