British Citizenship by double descent, new ruling

Those born between 1949 and 1983, in a country that was not at the time in the British Commonwealth, and who has a maternal grandfather who was born in the UK, should now be able to register as a British citizen due to the recent Advocate General for Scotland v Romein ruling.

Unlike Commonwealth citizens there is no ancestry visa option for this group.  But they are able to register for citizenship directly through this pathway.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0165-press-summary.pdf

Those born between 1949 and 1983, in a country that was not at the time in the British Commonwealth, and who has a maternal grandfather who was born in the UK, should now be able to register as a British citizen due to the recent Advocate General for Scotland v Romein ruling.

Unlike Commonwealth citizens there is no ancestry visa option for this group.  But they are able to register for citizenship directly through this pathway.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0165-press-summary.pdf

Maybe I'm being thick - it says the appeal was dismissed, as in refused, as in did not get awarded or approved (proven?).

Maybe I'm being thick - it says the appeal was dismissed, as in refused, as in did not get awarded or approved (proven?).

The lower court rejected the claim so they dismissed the rejection, in other words approved.  Now my head hurts.

The lower court rejected the claim so they dismissed the rejection, in other words approved.  Now my head hurts.

The lower court rejected the claim, so the claimant appealed. The appeal was rejected and the lower court's decision upheld, but for different reasons than the lower court rejected the claim. At least, that's how I read it??? I'm confused...

Unlike Commonwealth citizens there is no ancestry visa option for this group.  But they are able to register for citizenship directly through this pathway.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0165-press-summary.pdf

Nothing to do with that as British citizenship does not go back as far as grandparents. It tends to be the poor EEA countries  who  still allow citizenship to go back further down the line e.g. Poland, Italy, Ireland  Greece etc. The UK's Ancestry visa is a 5 year work visa that can lead to settlement, but is only for Commonwealth citizens with a British born grandparent, but Parliament has talked about ending this visa.

It seems to be  about  a US  born citizen with a Commonwealth country, British by descent mother, saying that if she had been born in a British territory instead of the  US, then she would have been a British citizen?  And that at that time, even if she had been born in a British territory,  she wouldn't have been British as the line came through her mother?  And that if she could have, then her mother would have given birth in a British territory so that she was born British?

I can't really work out what she is claiming .

Link to a video of a judge explaining the ruling.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/uksc-2016-0165/judgment.html

Link to a video of a judge explaining the ruling.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/uksc-2016-0165/judgment.html

It still makes absolutely no sense to me. It has never been the case that children of citizenship by descent parents (male or female) could pass on the citizenship except in cases where the parent's residency in the UK led to that being an option. One of my (Scottish) friends had a very difficult time proving her British nationality because she was born into a second generation army family - both she and her father had been born abroad while her grandfather and then later her father were in the British Army. It did get sorted out, I know, but only after much wrangling and to-ing and fro-ing of paperwork.

In the video, they refer to the mother in this case as only being British, not 'by decent'. It is clear that in all other respects, the judgement does not change anything other than to maybe give a bit more leeway where the mother was British.... In all other cases, the distinction of 'by decent' or 'otherwise than decent' has been paramount, but seems to have been ignored here?

Normally a "by descent" person can't pass on UK citizenship unless the birth was in a British controlled territory.  However under 5(1)(b) of BNA 1948 an exception is made if the birth was registered with a British consulate within one year.  However since Ms Romein's parent is female (mother) the consulate refused the registration since at that time only males (fathers) could pass down by descent citizenship.  To correct this discrimination the court has allowed the registration.

Ms Romein’s grandfather was a BC other than by descent
Ms Romein’s mother was a BC by descent
Ms Romein’s father was a US citizen

It tends to be the poor EEA countries  who  still allow citizenship to go back further down the line e.g. Poland, Italy, Ireland  Greece etc.

Poor?  With the exception of Greece I think thes others are top 25 economies.

From what I understand, there was a brief period where British citizenship was able to be passed down through double descent.  It was only permitted during that time if the British FATHER (by descent) registered the birth of his child within 1 year of the child's birth.  A British MOTHER (by descent) was NOT permitted to do the same.  The court ruling corrects this, but only for people born between 1949 and 1983 to a British MOTHER (by descent).

So, for example:

Mary was born in the USA to John in 1955.  John, who is a British citizen by descent, was able to register Mary's birth within the year so that Mary could be a British citizen by double descent.

Lisa was born in the USA to Susan in 1955.  Susan, who is a British citizen by descent, was NOT able to register Lisa's birth within the year (because Susan was a woman, not a man), so Lisa was NOT able to be a British citizen by double descent.

The court ruling now permits Lisa to claim British citizenship because Susan was unable to register Lisa as British due to what was judged as gender discrimination at the time (British mother versus British father).

And it should be noted that this ruling only affects those who were born abroad in the qualifying years (1949 to 1983) to a British-by-descent mother.  I suspect that if you were born between 1949 to 1983 to a British-by-descent father who did not register your birth within the year, you are out of luck as your father was fully entitled to do so at the time and did not.  (whereas the mother was actively prevented from doing so)

Poor?  With the exception of Greece I think thes others are top 25 economies.

I knew I shouldn't have clicked on your post. Try reading some of the quality papers to see what those countries (and others) financial problems are. Look up corporation tax and Ireland and add in the words Germany and France. Surely you have read how anti EU parties are getting in to governments? And how Brussels even then, tried to influence the formation of the Italian anti EU government, to be in their favour? How the Euro has failed the Mediterranean countries? The fear that Italian debt could bring down the Euro and spark another financial crisis? The recent EU budget talks and the cuts to the Cohesion spending, aimed at Poland (who need to be given that 10 billion every year). The cuts coming to the CAP spending that will hit the poor Mediterranean countries and poor East EEA countires? etc.

You are right about Greece though, extreme poverty and the second worst GDP of any western country (Scotland is the worst), but have a read on how the cuts that drove them into poverty, were forced on them by the EU to improve their GDP, and how much money Germany makes from the poverty in Greece. How Greece were tricked into joining the Euro as they couldn't meet the requirements to join the Euro, and the names behind that to fudge their books.  How Greece (and France) are the only EU countries to fail to meet their targets every year.

Then look how Germany was allowed to lose 50% of their debts in what is called The London Agreement. And who is behind not wanting Greece to be allowed a cut to their massive debts. How Italy, France and Spain also want to lose some of their massive debts. How the IMF are telling Brussels to sort their own financial problems out as they will not continue to keep bailing out Euro countries. How Macron has asked Merkel if France can borrow their way out of trouble by exceeding the level of borrowing for a Euro country...

due to what was judged as gender discrimination at the time (British mother versus British father).

And it should be noted that this ruling only affects those who were born abroad in the qualifying years (1949 to 1983) to a British-by-descent mother.  I suspect that if you were born between 1949 to 1983 to a British-by-descent father who did not register your birth within the year, you are out of luck as your father was fully entitled to do so at the time and did not.  (whereas the mother was actively prevented from doing so)

Thank you for this!! I now understand - don't really 'agree' with the ruling here, but that is entirely irrelevant!!! Rules is rules.

Theresa, Boris or Jacob? The real question.

Thanks for explaning that.

And it should be noted that this ruling only affects those who were born abroad in the qualifying years (1949 to 1983) to a British-by-descent mother.  I suspect that if you were born between 1949 to 1983 to a British-by-descent father who did not register your birth within the year, you are out of luck as your father was fully entitled to do so at the time and did not.  (whereas the mother was actively prevented from doing so)

I know one of the Immigration Acts (2014 or 2016) addressed some on this for the past years, for those decending from the female line, but those coming down the male lines then thought they were now disadvantaged, whereas before they had the advantage. Something to do with needing to meet the Good Character requirement for citizenship?

Thanks for explaning that.

I know one of the Immigration Acts (2014 or 2016) addressed some on this for the past years, for those decending from the female line, but those coming down the male lines then thought they were now disadvantaged, whereas before they had the advantage. Something to do with needing to meet the Good Character requirement for citizenship?

Those decending from the male line never had a Good Character requirement and never needed to register, they automatically became BC by operation of law. 

The Good Character requirement  was also ruled discriminatory recently by the courts and will not be needed for UKM registrations going forward.