Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr Ramsbotham

Not “anal”. Just asking questions like everyone else here. It simply makes no sense to me that two people would travel to a 3rd country, not either of their home countries, to have their child. If you think that’s perfectly understandable, fine. I don’t.


173 posted on 08/02/2009 6:13:24 PM PDT by saquin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies ]


To: saquin
It simply makes no sense to me that two people would travel to a 3rd country, not either of their home countries, to have their child.

You've obviously never heard about babies poping out early. What if they traveled to the beach and got surprised a few weeks ahead of time?

178 posted on 08/02/2009 6:15:48 PM PDT by MrDem (From Morning in America to Mourning in America...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

To: saquin
Not “anal”. Just asking questions like everyone else here. It simply makes no sense to me that two people would travel to a 3rd country, not either of their home countries, to have their child. If you think that’s perfectly understandable, fine. I don’t.

And what I'm saying is that there are a million and one reasons why someone might do something that might seem on the face of it to be illogical or unreasonable.

199 posted on 08/02/2009 6:23:22 PM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham ("Baldrick, to you the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

To: saquin

Zanzibar was not a “third country.” The whole region was British-controlled but with differing structures. Mombasa was “nominally” under the control of Zanzibar, which, I believe, had at least the notion of some “autonomy” rather than a direct British colony. But Zanzibar was under heavy British influence. Eventually most of Zanzibar went with Tangyanika to form Tanzania but Mombasa went to Kenya. But it had long-standing ties to Kenya. In 1961, going to Mombasa from Kenya was not exactly “going to a third country.”


200 posted on 08/02/2009 6:23:27 PM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

To: saquin

The following is pure, unadulterated speculation.

The fact that the strip only became part of Kenya officially when Kenya gained independence may have meant very little in reality. Very possibly this coastal strip was “considered” historically part of Kenya. Perhaps a disputed strip, with perhaps ethnic/tribal ties to people in Kenya. Often pieces of land change names but traditionally or historically are considered part of another country.

The above is pure speculation because I know nothing about Kenya or surrounding countries.


258 posted on 08/02/2009 6:46:42 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Aham Brahmasmi - I am eternal soul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

To: saquin
Mombasa was part of the Kenya Protectorate, in 1961.



On 1 July 1895, it became part of Britain's Kenya protectorate (the coastal strip nominally under Zanzibari sovereignty).

http://sthweb.bu.edu/archives/index.php?option=com_awiki&view=mediawiki&article=Mombasa&Itemid=99



 1 Jul 1895                Kenya protectorate (i.e., the coastal strip nominally under
                             Zanzibari sovereignty).
12 Dec 1963                Incorporated into independent Kenya.

http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Kenya_native.html


Between 1885 and World War I, Tanganyika was the major part of German East Africa,

the remainder being Ruanda–Urundi and the Kionga triangle. Following World War I

Tanganyika was placed under United Kingdom administration first as a League of

Nations mandate and then in 1946 as a United Nations trust territory. Tanganyika

acquired independence as a republic on December 21, 1961. The United Republic of

Tanganyika and Zanzibar was constituted by a merger of the two principals on April 27,

1964, and the name of the state was changed to the United Republic of Tanzania on

October 29, 1964.


3 The Kenya protectorate comprised the mainland holdings of the Sultan of Zanzibar, in respect of which

an annuity of 16,000 pounds per annum was paid to His Highness for their lease by the British. With an

area of slightly less than 2,000 square miles, it consisted of a strip of land extending 10 sea miles inland

along the coast of the Indian Ocean between Tanganyika and the northern branch of the Tana river,

including the islands of the Lamu archipelago (Lamu, Manda, and Patta). The original concession was

made in 1887 to a company, later called the Imperial British East Africa Company; however, the

administration of the strip was transferred to Her Majesty's Government in 1895. The territory was

ceded by the Sultan to Kenya at the time the state became independent in 1963.


http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS071.pdf


As for WHY they would travel to Kenya, maybe thought that Barry II would become legitimate, if they went to Kenya, and had Muslim marriage. Multiple marriages are legal, in kenya, if both "Profess Islam. Then, a birth IN Kenya would PROBABLY be legitimate. It PROBABLY would NOT be considered legitimate in the US.


DG

859 posted on 08/03/2009 9:42:43 AM PDT by DoorGunner ("...and so, all Israel will be saved")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson