Founding Fathers were not JV British Subjects!! Lol
They knew all about the citzenship-subjectship false analogy.
Waste of time people.
If you read the article I cited, some states (such as Connecticut) chose to continue to use the term natural born subject, apparently in contravention to your assertion, well into the 1790s.
I looked into the issue expecting to confirm your contention, but I could not find a convincing strict constructionist (that is, the common understanding of the term in effect in 1787) argument in favor of it.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President: neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen yeasrs a Resident..
In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), our U.S. Supreme Court, providing the same definition of a “natural born citizen” as did Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758),
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.