Clearly not: " Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." The king was never a resident of the United States.
What you have cited is specifically a "naturalization" act of Congress and thus has no authority to lessen a Constitutional restriction.
Congress has the Constitutional power to pass uniform rules of naturalization. As part of that, wouldn't you agree would be the responsibility to identify those who don't need to be naturalized? In other words, define natural born citizens?
No. You cannot accurately interpret the Constitution by reading it by what is not there. They have the ability to decide a rule of Naturalization for the States to follow, no more.
Between alien friends, who are temporary subjects, and subjects naturalized or natural born, a species of subjects intermediate is known to the law of England. They are distinguished by the appellation of denizens. The power of denization is a high and incommunicable portion of the prerogative royal. A denizen is received into the nation, like a person who is dropt from the clouds. He may acquire rights, but he cannot inherit them, not even from his own parent: he may transmit rights to his children, who are born after his letters patent of denization; but not to those who were born before.
James Wilson , Collected Works, vol. 2, Lectures on Law
Denizens become Citizens by applying to the States, who then follow the rule that Congress proscribed. There is no Constitutional justification for direct authority over 'immigrants' as the federal government (as well as the majority of the populace) believes there is.
That's prohibited by the 10th Amendment.
United States Congress
For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:
SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien............
First. He shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district, or circuit court of some one of the states
Part of the Application includes a renunciation of previous Allegiance before taking the Oath, and that Application was to be made to the residents' State as per both State and federal clauses of the Constitution.
Before taking an Oath, one was required to renounce previous political ties of Allegiance to other countries.
Now everyone acts like changing citizenship is like switching hats!
To identify, perhaps, but not to define. Whatever the Founders meant, the meaning was to be locked in.
Now change the hypothetical and make it a man who travels to Great Britain and marries the Queen, creating the heir to the throne. Will that heir be a "natural born citizen"?
I claim the possibility is nonsense on its face and would have represented the most divided loyalties of all; that is, the heir to the throne could be expected to act at all times in the interests of Great Britain and not in the interests of the U.S.
A person can like and respect Cruz as much as they want, but it will never eliminate the possibility that his mixed nationality birth could give rise to divided loyalties.
Why did the Constitution limit the power it granted Congress over matters of citizenship to naturalization? Because Citizenship acquired solely by any law passed by Congress cannot logically be anything other than naturalized citizenship—by definition of naturalization. It's logically impossible for any act of Congress to make anyone a citizen by natural law. At most, such a law would be declaratory of natural law—because a citizen by natural law is a citizen no matter what laws Congress may or may not enact.
In fact, given the Founders' understanding of natural law versus man-made law, it would have been a logical contradiction to grant Congress the power to change or define natural law on any subject, not just regarding citizenship—because natural law, by late 18th-century definition, cannot be made by a legislature or head of state. That's why Congress was granted no such powers in any domain at all. Such a power could be used, among other things. to change the meaning of words, including those in the Constitution itself. The dangers of that should be obvious.
If Congress had the power to make anyone a natural citizen, it would also necessarily have the power to strip citizenship from anyone it chose. The fact it cannot logically have any such power—and is granted no such power by the Constitution—is one of the fundamental protections against tyranny. The power to revoke even natural law citizenship by law is the power to commit any act against anyone that the sovereign power of war permits.
So why didn't the Constitution define the term natural born citizen? For the same reason it could only grant Congress the power to define naturalized citizens. For the Constitution to actually define the term "natural born citizen" would necessarily mean that that status would be granted by man-made law, and not by natural law. That's why the Constitution provides no definition, and why it must be a court that decides who is and who is not a natural born citizen by applying natural law principles—which is exactly how English common law handled questions of natural citizenship.
But the ratification of the 14th Amendment introduced into the Constitution a rule of citizenship that declared anyone who (a) was born in the United States, and (b) was subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his or her birth, to be a citizen. Since the 14th Amendment is a man-made law, and is not natural law, the 14th Amendment logically cannot make anyone be a natural citizen. Nor does it create the logical contradiction of attempting to do so, since it makes no mention of natural citizenship of any kind, and does not use the term "natural born citizen."