Replies

So theoretically, our Founding Fathers were not concerned that a British noble might groom a son who is born in the US to be President, right? So a duke might do his royal duty, raise a son in the US [such as his second son], and then prepare him to lead our nation. And our Founding Fathers had no fear whatsoever of that happening?

283 posted on 02/02/2012 5:16:24 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (George Washington: [Government] is a dangerous servant and a terrible master.)

To: Arthur Wildfire! March

Uups, not “do his royal duty”, but in his Majesty’s service ...

284 posted on 02/02/2012 5:17:19 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (George Washington: [Government] is a dangerous servant and a terrible master.)

To: TigersEye; savagesusie; RobinMasters; Elendur; MHGinTN; grundle; Fawn; WKUHilltopper; TigerClaws; ..

For about half a year no one answered this question. [Probably because I tended to ask legitimacy defenders] ...

So theoretically, our Founding Fathers were not concerned that a British noble might groom a son who is born in the US to be President, right? So a duke might serve his Majesty by raising a son in the US [such as his second son], and then prepare him to lead our nation. And our Founding Fathers had no fear whatsoever of that happening?

[BTW — the Romans suffered under Etruscan kings which is what led to their ancient revolution — our Founding Fathers were well aware of that. Then there’s the matter of the Prince of Wales. I don’t think our Founding Fathers were such fools that they never pondered that trick.]

684 posted on 02/13/2012 7:21:32 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (George Washington: [Government] is a dangerous servant and a terrible master.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794