Do you know why William the Conqueror required an OATH following his 1066 A.D. battle? Yes, I did know that some may have considered William a usurper. But, per Blackstone:
" ... though there be an usurper of the crown, yet it is treason for any subject, while the usurper is in full possession of the sovereignty, to practice any thing against his crown and dignity: wherefore, although the true prince regain the sovereignty, yet such attempts against the usurper (unless in defence or aid of the rightful king) have been afterwards punished with death; because of the breach of that temporary allegiance, which was due to him as king de facto. And upon this footing, after Edward IV recovered the crown, which had been long detained from his house by the line of Lancaster, treasons committed against Henry VI were capitally punished, though Henry had been declared an usurper by parliament."
William claimed England under the feudal law "Right of Conquest". According to Blackstone [whom I believe to be in error], once all the living freemen gave their oath to William - he was legitimized and all subsequent children born in England [according to Blackstone] would be natural-born subjects. No need for the children to swear the oath - but they WERE required to AND [even if William was a usurper], it would have been treasonous for anyone to oppose him.
And, between 1066-1205, there were those natural-born subjects who held "double allegiances". However, after 1205 [the loss of Normandy], these people were forced to choose one or the other - and give up the one that they did not retain.
From Bracton:
" ... There are however, some who are in the allegiance of both and always were, before the loss of Normandy and after, and who plead here and there because they are in the allegiance of both, as William the earl Marshal dwelling in England and Michael de Fiennes dwelling in France and many others ...
So, the concept was NOT entirely unknown to the British. It was forbidden after 1205, but they knew that the condition WAS possible.
There is NO English Common Law that states that all children born in England [regardless of the parents' heritage] are natural-born subjects. This was pointed out in Parliament debate in 1571.
The first reference to all children born in England being English was by John Rastell in his "Exposition of the Terms of the Laws of England" [which was the first English Law Dictionary]:
“If an alien come and dwell in England, which is not of the king’s enemies, and there hath issue, this issue is not alien, but English.”
NOTE: RASTELL HAD NO AUTHORITATIVE CITE OF COMMON LAW OR STATUTE FOR THIS. HE ALSO STATED "ENGLISH" INSTEAD OF "NATURAL-BORN". HE COULD VERY WELL HAVE MEANT "DENIZEN".
Later English Law Dictionaries [after Calvin's Case] replace the word "English" with the word "Denizen". From Ephraim Chambers "Cyclopaedia" [1730], a well-respected work:
" ... if one born out of the King's Allegiance come and dwell in England ; his Children begotten here are not Aliens, but Denizens ..."
Finally, Common Law is said to have originated with William, as England became a nation-state under him. He combined Anglo-Saxon Law with Norman Law to begin what is now called English Common Law. As such his law requiring the fealty oath was part of the Common Law. I have found NO subsequent law repealing it nor have I found ANY law stating that birth on English soil alone was enough to confer natural-born status on any subject.
Lmo56 raises some interesting points, and I’ll try to reply later.
However, the idea that Barry owes any allegiance at all to the UK, or is in any way a subject of QE2 with divided loyalties is just laughable!
Try a poll sometime, BP2, asking, “Is Barack Obama Jr a loyal subject of Queen Elizabeth 2 due to the sperm donation by Barack Obama Sr?”
Or even, “Does Barack Obama Jr feel any loyalty or need to obey the government of England?”
That isn’t an argument. And I’m certain both Vattel and George Washington would have agreed with me.
If you argue NBC from where natural allegiance lies, Barry is a NBC, as are Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. He was born to an American mother and raised in America as an American. Barry’s hatred for America and capitalism is home-grown, and Americans voted for him knowing full well about it.
I don’t like it, but the idea that the Supreme Court will try to force Congress to remove him because his loyalty is divided between America and England is beyond silly.
That quote from Blackstone indicates that there was still an oath of allegiance required of all British natural born subjects. Such oath was not required of American natural born citizens.
It appears that British subjects, natural born or not, were all "naturalized", so to speak, by the taking of that oath to the Crown -- thus a significant difference between a natural born subject of Britain and a natural born citizen of the United States.
Blackstone may have referred to it as a mere formality, but this mere formality brought with it the penalty for perjury and treason.
