Talk:William Jennings Capell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
Seeing as the Earldom is likely to pass to Mr. Capell due to the current Lord Essex's state of bachelorhood and lack of offspring (legitimate or otherwise), is Mr. Capell himself married/have legitimate issue? It would be a shame for this historically significant title to go extinct through lack of any further heirs. (And it also astounds me what distant relations can suddenly and unexpectedly end up with.) -- 65.95.233.121 00:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
69.92.85.141: Do you have a source to cite for your change? My understanding of this topic is limited, but it seems to me that only Congress could give Mr. Capell the right to take the title, which they have not yet done and are not likely to do until the question comes up.
- Article I, Section 9, Clause 8. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
If you can cite a source, please add it to a External links section. JRP 16:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- You need to reread that. It prohibits the government from granting titles of nobility, and it prevents government office holders from accepting them. It does not place any restrictions whatsoever on the use of titles of nobility by ordinary citizens. I've fixed the misstatement in the article. - Nunh-huh 03:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
To Proteus:
I'm not sure what you think is wrong. Maybe you could be more specific. My revision is based on the following:
Title 8 USC § 1448:
“(b) Hereditary titles or orders of nobility. In case the person applying for naturalization has borne any hereditary title, or has been of any of the orders of nobility in any foreign state, the applicant shall in addition to complying with the requirements of subsection (a) of this section, make under oath in the same public ceremony in which the oath of allegiance is administered, an express renunciation of such title or order of nobility, and such renunciation shall be recorded as a part of such proceedings.”
US Constitution, Art. I, § 9:
“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” (-unsigned)
Capell's not applying for naturalization, he's a natural-born citizen, so naturalization law is irrelevant to this article. It's far more informative to correct the misapprehension that the Constitution in some way forbids citizens from inheriting or using a title. - Nunh-huh 22:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
__
He's also not a government officeholder, so the constitutional provision is equally irrelevant by that standard.
What is relevant is that Mr. Capell himself was under the misapprehension (along with multiple newspaper articles) that he might have to choose between the title and his U.S. citizenship. Note that Capell is not a peer (yet). The only justification for his being a subject of an article at all is the curiosity of an obscure American being next-in-line to become a British aristocrat and, as there is both interest and confusion (as demonstrated by, e.g., the news media), the corollary issue of whether that's legally possible under U.S. law.
Since it is simple enough to cite the two instances of actual prohibition in explaining why it is in fact legally possible in Mr. Capell's case, I don't see any rationale for including one and not the other. In my opinion, it is misleading to cite the constitutional provision only, as it implies the lack of any other legal impediment.
That said, I'm going to leave the article as-is for the time being to give Proteus a chance to correct me if, as he says, I am somehow "just wrong." (69.230.120.239)
- There is no other legal impediment: he's already a citizen. The Constitution is relevant only because it is commonly misunderstood. Of course Capell isn't a peer, who said he was? And should he ever succeed to his title, he will probably never sit in the House of Lords. The at-present-very-theoretical issue of whether an American citizen can sit in the House of Lords is unlikely to ever actually come up, and therefore is unlikely to ever actually be settled. But this particular very theoretical case has nothing to do with becoming an American citizen through naturalization. - Nunh-huh 23:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
__
Yes, section 1448 is another legal impediment to one being a U.S. citizen and a noble at the same time. It is, in fact, the only instance in U.S. law in which one is required to affirmatively "renounce" a title of nobility, as opposed to the Constitution's admonition to refrain from "accepting" one. That it does not apply to Mr. Capell is precisely the point. That point being: While U.S. law does restrict its citizens from holding titles of nobility, those retrictions do not apply to Mr. Capell because he is not in either of the two categories of restriction.
I am very doubtful of your assertion, moreover, that the confusion over titles of nobility stems from an esoteric constitutional provision to the exclusion of the naturalization process that thousands and thousands of American citizens go through every year. What are you basing this on?
(And I have no idea how eligibility for the House of Lords enters into any of this.) __ (unsigned)
The idea that American citizens are banned from holding titles by the Constitution is a very popular misconception. I am surprised you have not heard of it. There is no corresponding misconception regarding naturalization. As for eligibility to sit in the House of Lords: that would require certain oaths. Such oaths could arguably be deemed a renunciation of U.S. Citizenship (but would probably not be so deemed.) (Another interesting question is what would be deemed an "acceptance" of a hereditary title that passes automatically upon the death of the previous owner, and cannot be disclaimed until held—again, a question that is not likely to be litigated in the near future.) - Nunh-huh 01:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
__
Interesting. Your own very first cite is about confusion over the naturalization oath of Title 8 USC 1448. Case closed.
But then ... the next cite addresses the crackpot theory that American lawyers have titles of nobility if they use the term “Esquire.” The third is a debate about something called the “Sovereign Citizen movement.” The next is about the Irish constitution. The next is about the Greek constitution. The next is about whether academic degrees are “titles of nobility.” Next up is the so-called “Missing Thirteenth Amendment.” Then on to the Scottish constitution.
Talk about irrelevant.
__
