ok as you guys have guessed this little incident has really ****** me of somewhat so I have been doing a little bit more digging.
Article I, Section 9, U.S. Constitution: 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.
Insofar as this clause is to ensure allegiance to the United States and the supremacy of its legislature, it must surely include any honourary titles bestowed by a ‘King, Prince or foreign state’. Under this provision, those US citizens who served as high-ranking military officials in the Iraq War and who received British honours are also constitutionally barred from serving in the federal government - unless Congress specifically exempts them from this limitation and retrospectively grants consent.
A proposed amendment to this clause in 1810 went further, declaring that ‘If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.’
It was clear that by virtue of these titles and honours, it was assumed that recipients enjoyed political and economic advantages over the majority of citizens, and this was antithetical to the egalitarian spirit of the Constitution. The prohibition of titles of nobility have been a corner stone of republican government, for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people.
Sir Edward Kennedy is no longer of the people, for he has been elevated by a foreign Queen to a status which is above the people. And let us not be deceived by this 'honorary' deflection. A knighthood is a knighthood: what on earth is an honour if it is not honorary? This knighthood both dishonours the British honours system and contravenes a founding principle of the US Constitution. It is not only immoral; it is illegal.
possibly one of my American friends can confirm if this actually the case. I am pretty sure my research is thorough in this case. Just wondering how it would be perceived across the water.
