Meese was expressing the assumption that English common law, governing how to determine status for royal subjects, ie natural born subjects, was the origin of and therefore the root from which to derive meaning of, the term natural born citizen under a constitutional republic.
So, the English had natural born subjects in the relevant period. Not natural born citizens.
Do you really think Edwin Meese could have successfully defined terms within the Constitution all on his own, in any capacity? Assuming he could, would there be any controversy today, if he had?
No. Former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese was the editor who oversaw the conclusion of the many Constitutional scholars who created The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, which apparently runs contrary to your so far baseless assumption.
So, the English had natural born subjects in the relevant period.
As were the American colonists who inherited and adapted the British Common Law. So your accusation against me was both false AND irrational.