Rumors have been swirling about a possible legal route for the U.S. government to revoke Meghan Markle‘s title as the Duchess of Sussex.
In a recent discussion, journalist Steph, known as the Alternerd, teamed up with D.C. lawyer John Witherspoon to unpack this intriguing topic.
As they delved into the details, it became clear that the situation is more complex than it appears at first glance.
The conversation kicked off with Steph acknowledging a tweet from user gg8087, which claimed that holding a foreign title could jeopardize American citizenship.
According to this tweet, the U.S. Constitution supposedly prohibits American citizens from retaining titles bestowed by foreign entities.
The implication was that if former President Trump wanted to, he could demand Meghan renounce her title or face losing her citizenship.
John, however, was quick to clarify the legal landscape surrounding this issue.
He admitted that he isn’t a constitutional law expert but assured viewers that he had done some research.
He pointed out that while the idea might seem plausible, the information circulating is not accurate.
He explained that the confusion stems from historical concerns dating back to around 1810, when there were fears that foreign nobility could exert undue influence on the fledgling United States.
At that time, an amendment was proposed to the Constitution to prevent American citizens from accepting titles from foreign countries, particularly the U.K.
This proposal made sense given the tumultuous relationship between the two nations during that era.
However, despite being passed in both the House and Senate, the amendment never secured the necessary ratification from three-quarters of the states, leaving it in limbo for over two centuries.
Interestingly, John noted that because this amendment was never ratified, it doesn’t hold any legal weight today.
While it remains a topic of conversation regarding constitutional amendments, it has not become part of the official law.
Therefore, the notion that Meghan could be stripped of her title due to this unratified amendment is unfounded.
He further explained that while there are regulations preventing individuals with foreign titles from becoming U.S. citizens—like Prince Harry needing to renounce his title—Meghan’s situation is different.
As a natural-born U.S. citizen, she can retain her title as Duchess of Sussex without any legal repercussions.
There’s no requirement for her to renounce it to maintain her citizenship.
John emphasized that the U.S. government has far more pressing concerns than Meghan Markle’s title.
With so many significant issues on the table, he doubted that anyone would invest time or energy pursuing this matter.
He humorously referred to Meghan as a “small fish” in the vast ocean of national concerns.
Moreover, he mentioned that a U.S. citizen can inherit a title from abroad as long as it doesn’t lead to pledging allegiance to a foreign power.
Thus, as long as Meghan remains loyal to the United States, she can enjoy her title without fear of legal consequences.
As the conversation wrapped up, John offered to provide additional resources for those interested in understanding the nuances of this situation better.
He pointed out that the National Archives offers detailed explanations of constitutional amendments, which could shed light on the ongoing discussions surrounding this topic.
In a light-hearted conclusion, John reflected on the historical context of this amendment, noting how events like the War of 1812 shifted priorities and derailed discussions around foreign titles.
He suggested that British soldiers inadvertently helped keep this issue from gaining traction in American politics.
Ultimately, the speculation surrounding Meghan Markle’s title seems to be just that—speculation.
With no legal basis for revoking her Duchess title, it appears that Meghan can continue her life in the U.S. without concern for her royal designation.
Related Stories
