Trump calls Meghan Markle ‘nasty’ ahead of London visit

[Smokin Joe]

Is that a Brit thing?

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.

It's a Constitution thing.(Article I, Section 9, Clause 8)

[Cyber Liberty]

It's a Constitution thing.(Article I, Section 9, Clause 8)

Doesn't that apply only to office holders? 

[Smokin Joe]

Doesn't that apply only to office holders?

You may be correct. After further digging:

 

In 1810, Democratic–Republican Senator Philip Reed of Maryland[14] introduced a Constitutional amendment modifying the Title of Nobility Clause. Under the terms of this amendment any United States citizen who accepted, claimed, received or retained any title of nobility from a foreign government would be stripped of their U. S. citizenship. After being approved by the Senate on April 27, 1810, by a vote of 19–5[15] and the House of Representatives on May 1, 1810, by a vote of 87–3,[16] the amendment, titled "Article Thirteen", was sent to the state legislatures for ratification. On two occasions between 1812 and 1816 it was within two states of the number needed to become a valid part of the Constitution.[17] As Congress did not set a time limit for its ratification, the amendment is still technically pending before the states. Currently, ratification by an additional 26 states would be necessary for this amendment to be adopted.

SInce military personnel are considered to be under the Federal Prohibition, the following apply:

Under interpretations of the Emoluments Clause elaborated by the Comptroller General of the United States and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel which have never been tested in court, retired military personnel are forbidden from receiving employment, consulting fees, gifts, travel expenses, honoraria, or salary from foreign governments without prior consent from Congress, which as per section 908 of title 37 of the United States Code 908 requires advance approval from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the relevant branch of the Armed Services.[34] Retired military officers have voiced concerns through the Retired Officers Association that applying the clause to them but not to retired civil service members is not an equal application of the clause, and therefore illegal.[citation needed]

In 1942, Congress authorized members of the armed forces to accept any "decorations, orders, medals and emblems" offered by allied nations during the course of World War II or up to one year following its conclusion.[35] Notably, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower accepted a number of titles and awards pursuant to this authorization after the fall of Nazi Germany, including a knighthood in Denmark's highest order of chivalry, the Order of the Elephant.[36]

Congress has also consented in advance to the receipt from foreign governments by officials of the United States government (including military personnel) of a variety of gifts, subject to a variety of conditions, in the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act[37] and section 108A of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act, otherwise known as the Fulbright–Hays Act of 1961.[38]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause

Otherwise, I believe Congressional approval is required for acceptance of any title including knighthood, for those in Federal employ, but the receipt of title by a citizen not thus employed is not as clear. Military personnel have received decorations from foreign governments in the past, so I'm not sure if those rules are made on a conflict by conflict basis, or are a standing approval of acceptance from our allies. Perhaps @sneakypete or @txradioguy knows the details on that.

[Rivergirl]

Class and dignity on parade in advance of a visit to Great Britain.

[jpsb]

Great timing Trump...I'm sure the Brits will welcome you with open arms now....

Well ........ that's our president, he does have a way with words doesn't he, but you're right "Great timing" /s

[Sanguine]

Class and dignity on parade in advance of a visit to Great Britain.

You're right; the Brits aren't looking very good with this.

[Cyber Liberty]

You're right; the Brits aren't looking very good with this.

They are not.  Just saw the story they won't let him address Parliament as they did Obastard in '11.  They think he'll "be rude."   

[catfish1957]

You're right; the Brits aren't looking very good with this.

For the past (at least) 150 years, our leaders have walked on egg shelves, trying not to offend the Royal Family with stupid ass protocol bs. 

Hell with them.

[Right_in_Virginia]

They are not.  Just saw the story they won't let him address Parliament as they did Obastard in '11.  They think he'll "be rude."   

They know POTUS will make an excellent, bulletproof case and strategy for Brexit.   

[Cyber Liberty]

They know POTUS will make an excellent, bulletproof case and strategy for Brexit.   

He might, but I doubt it.  In a prepared speech to Parliament I would expect nothing controversial like that, they just don't want to give him a chance to appear "civil."

[austingirl]

I know it won't  be a popular opinion here, but the whole British monarachy is worthless waste of UK taxpayer money.

I wholeheartedly agree. The notion of royalty is repulsive. Markle is a liberal Hillary fan and of no interest to me.

[sneakypete]

They are not.  Just saw the story they won't let him address Parliament as they did Obastard in '11.  They think he'll "be rude."   

@Cyber Liberty

A little "rude" might just be the "pill" they need to wake up and take back their country.

One thing is for certain,in all of recorded history being polite and open to Islam has never led to anything but war and slavery.

[austingirl]

They know POTUS will make an excellent, bulletproof case and strategy for Brexit.   

Good one!

[Right_in_Virginia]

He might, but I doubt it.  In a prepared speech to Parliament I would expect nothing controversial like that, they just don't want to give him a chance to appear "civil."

I am weary of armchair psychiatrists trying to explain and control the President.

Idiots, all.

[ABX]

Who cares? As an American citizen, she's not supposed to have a title of nobility anyway, and as a divorced socialite, she wasn't supposed to be allowed to marry royalty.

The clause says no one holding office can have one except with the approvlal of Congress.  As she is not a government office holder, the nobility clause doesn't apply to her.

[Victoria33]

I have a hard time reading Examiner stories in the first place.  I open the story, and BAM!  At least two pop-up videos blaring at the same time.  Without fail.

@Cyber Liberty

According to son who has lived in London over twenty years, the Brits think Trump is a joke; they would never use the words he does.  Son's fiance, Amy, totally a Brit, can't stand him, either.  She works at an international agency that tracks and finds people who exploit others, human  traffickers, so she is with many employees and says they think as she does - Trump is a nothing to them. 

I expect anti-Trump signs to go up when he is there.

A story for you about so many ads on websites:  During Christmas days two years ago, we were at dinner at a family friends and people we did not know were there.  During the dinner, each one talked about what he/she does for work.  A man said he works in Austin, Texas, at a company where he makes ads for the internet.  I quickly said, "I hate your guts!"  Everyone laughed.  He said if they didn't make ads, people would have to pay for the internet.

[ABX]

Doesn't that apply only to office holders?

You are correct.

[sneakypete]

  Military personnel have received decorations from foreign governments in the past, so I'm not sure if those rules are made on a conflict by conflict basis, or are a standing approval of acceptance from our allies. Perhaps @sneakypete or @txradioguy knows the details on that.

@Smokin Joe

Depends on the political environment,and their mission. I personally knew people that had been wounded in Laos or Cambodia in the "early days" who didn't even get the Purple Heart they earned because "we weren't in Laos or Cambodia". They also didn't get the Bronze Stars or Silver Stars they would have otherwise been awarded. What usually happened is that if there was a US unit operating nearby in VN at the time,the PH or valor award would be written up as if they were attached to the US unit in VN. There were at least 3 people in recon company who were awarded a MoH for actions in Laos or Cambodia,and one that comes to mind is the MoH awarded to Franklin D.Miller,that claims the action took place in VN right on the MoH award. It's didn't. He was in Laos.

https://specialoperations.com/32280/franklin-d-miller-mac-v-sog-awarded-medal-honor-january-5-1970/

There are lots of foreign awards given to US troops that they can't wear because of political problems and the questions that might be asked. The awards go into their personnel records,but they can't wear them or start talking in public about having been awarded them. Off the top of my head,I am thinking (what you are forced to do when you no longer have a memory) this mostly applies to officers and senior NCO's attached to an embassy that go out in the field with the locals as observers. They are not SUPPOSED to be armed or taking part in combat,but we all know how that really goes when things get tight. They get the awards put in their records and there can be no doubt it helps them with promotions,but they still can't wear them.  Kinda sucks,but when you take the Man's money,you play by the Man's rules.

Then again,there are awards that are considered to be routine,and if the troops involved are there operating in the open and not covertly there is no problem. I am talking about awards for valor or wounds up to the Silver Star level. Most people don't really know what they are for when they see them,and don't really care,so no big deal.

[sneakypete]

He might, but I doubt it.  In a prepared speech to Parliament I would expect nothing controversial like that, they just don't want to give him a chance to appear "civil."

@Cyber Liberty

BINGO!

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

Depends on the political environment,and their mission. I personally knew people that had been wounded in Laos or Cambodia in the "early days" who didn't even get the Purple Heart they earned because "we weren't in Laos or Cambodia". They also didn't get the Bronze Stars or Silver Stars they would have otherwise been awarded. What usually happened is that if there was a US unit operating nearby in VN at the time,the PH or valor award would be written up as if they were attached to the US unit in VN. There were at least 3 people in recon company who were awarded a MoH for actions in Laos or Cambodia,and one that comes to mind is the MoH awarded to Franklin D.Miller,that claims the action took place in VN right on the MoH award. It's didn't. He was in Laos.

There are lots of foreign awards given to US troops that they can't wear because of political problems and the questions that might be asked. The awards go into their personnel records,but they can't wear them or start talking in public about having been awarded them. Off the top of my head,I am thinking (what you are forced to do when you no longer have a memory) this mostly applies to officers and senior NCO's attached to an embassy that go out in the field with the locals as observers. They are not SUPPOSED to be armed or taking part in combat,but we all know how that really goes when things get tight. They get the awards put in their records and there can be no doubt it helps them with promotions,but they still can't wear them.  Kinda sucks,but when you take the Man's money,you play by the Man's rules.

Then again,there are awards that are considered to be routine,and if the troops involved are there operating in the open and not covertly there is no problem. I am talking about awards for valor or wounds up to the Silver Star level. Most people don't really know what they are for when they see them,and don't really care,so no big deal.

Thanks, Pete!

As for Trump being 'civil' in Parliament, have you ever watched that row on c-span? They're pretty lively themselves, at least the House of Commons.

[truth_seeker]

What did Sir Donald do this time, to make the women and children wet their panties?

.....counter punch.....

[LegalAmerican]

Trump calls Meghan Markle ‘nasty’ ahead of London visit
by Caitlin Yilek
 | May 31, 2019 09:05 PM



President Trump said Meghan, the duchess of Sussex, was “nasty” ahead of his state visit to the United Kingdom.

“I didn’t know that she was nasty,” Trump told The Sun.

The American actress called Trump “misogynistic” and said she would consider remaining in Canada where she was filming if he won the 2016 presidential election. She married Prince Harry in May 2018 and gave birth to their first child earlier this month.

Trump, however, said “it’s nice” to have an American as part of the British royal family.

“I am sure she will do excellently,” he said. “She’ll be very good. She will be very good. I hope she does [succeed].”

Prince Charles and his wife Camilla, the duchess of Cornwall, will host Trump and first lady Melania Trump for tea at Clarence House, their official residence in London. The couples are slated to attend Queen Elizabeth II’s state banquet. Prince William and his wife, Kate, the duke and duchess of Cambridge, are also expected to attend the banquet

Meghan, who is still on maternity leave, is not expected to meet with Trump during his visit.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-calls-meghan-markle-nasty-ahead-of-london-visit

Wow. Fake news. Out of context & from BEFORE 2016..when she called HIM a 'woman hater".  Then his reply as," he didn't know she was nasty."   COME ON.  All convoluted , out of context and when she was still an actress & single.   

Still writing, fake news.   Most people won't read this correctly.  THIS ARTICLE IS NASTY & A LIE.

[LegalAmerican]

Well ........ that's our president, he does have a way with words doesn't he, but you're right "Great timing" /s

That was said,  BEFORE 2016...when Meghan called TRUMP a woman hater, & then his reply to that comment. Did not know she was nasty.  . Making it into something it WASN'T.  THIS ARTICLE IS NASTY, MISLEADING, & FAKE NEWS.

[LegalAmerican]

I wholeheartedly agree. The notion of royalty is repulsive. Markle is a liberal Hillary fan and of no interest to me.

This story is all convoluted ,as always.  OLD, OUT OF CONTEXT & A LIE.  SEE MY COMMENT BELOW. 

[mystery-ak]

Trump account mocked over pushback to Meghan Markle 'nasty' reports
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/446481-trump-campaign-mocked-for-trying-to-disprove-reports-that-trump