Horribly complicated ARD question

My paternal Great-Grandfather (my father's father's father) was born in London in 1900. My paternal Grandfather was born in the US in 1927. I do not know if my grandfather was ever a British citizen, or, if he was automatically British, if the British government ever knew about him.

My paternal Grandmother was born in London in 1925. She was definitely a British citizen, and had a passport.

My father was born in 1957, and his birth was registered with the British consulate. He has a copy of his British consular birth certificate.

I was born in the US in 1982. (My parents are married, and my mother is not British.)

I cannot find any mention of the concept of "British Citizen by Descent" prior to 1983. I assume that my father would be a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, but I am not sure.

Is it possible that I have a path to British citizenship?

Whilst you wait for others to reply, have you tried this?
https://www.gov.uk/check-british-citizen

I saw that, but unfortunately I have to know if I was a citizen before 1983 to know if I am a citizen now.

Probably no, unless your father was in the crown service, recruited in the UK, when you were born.

LDL707 wrote:Is it possible that I have a path to British citizenship?

Well, you do have access to a settlement route (and thus to citizenship) via an 'ancestry visa'.

Richard W wrote:

LDL707 wrote:Is it possible that I have a path to British citizenship?

Well, you do have access to a settlement route (and thus to citizenship) via an 'ancestry visa'.

Those are for Commonwealth citizens. The OP is from the US, so doesn't qualify, unless s/he is a citizen of a Commonwealth country and just didn't mention it in the original post.

My maternal great-grandfather was born in Scotland in 1898. He moved to the United States as a child but did not naturalize until the 1940s.

My grandfather was born in the United States in 1922. It is my understanding that he was automatically a British subject at birth because his father was born in the UK.

My grandmother was born in 1923 in the United States with no ties to the UK whatever.

My grandparents were married in 1947 in the United States. It is my understanding that my grandmother automatically became a British subject upon their marriage.

When the British Nationality Act took effect in 1948, it is my understanding that both of my grandparents became citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

My mother was born in 1957. Her father did not register her birth with the consulate, therefore she did not become a CUKC.

My father (whose father was a CUKC by descent and whose mother was a CUKC by birth in the UK) was born in 1957 in the United States, and his birth was registered with the consulate.

My parents were married in 1981 in the United States.

I was born in 1982 in the United States. My birth was not registered with the consulate.

I believe that my mother can now register as a British citizen using form UKM (the theory being that my grandmother, as a CUKC due to her pre-1948 marriage to a British subject, would have automatically been able to pass on her citizenship if women were treated the same as men, or, if it were not automatic, that she would have had the independent ability to register my mother's birth).

I also believe that I am able to register as a British citizen using either form UKM or form ARD, under the theory that my mother, had she not been unfairly denied British citizenship at birth, would have had an independent ability to register my birth with the consulate.

My brother was born in 1987. Under the 1981 law (which took effect in 1983), there was a five year window in which children born abroad to UK citizens could continue to be registered. My brother was born during this window. I believe that he should also have the ability to register, but the guidance on form UKM only says that the registration requirement is to be disregarded for births before 1983, so I'm not sure.

I've read a number of analyses that seem to support my position. But there was a poster on another forum who was quite adamant that I don't qualify. And xxxxxxxx rated my case "unlikely".

Is my understanding of the situation right? Is anybody aware of similar cases?

UKM only works one generation. Citizenship by descent cannot pass on citizenship. Unfortunately I do not think the ARD will work either. It literally gives this as an example of NOT working:

Example 10
Rachel’s grandmother was born in the UK in 1945. Her mother was born in the USA in 1965 and registered as a British citizen under section 4C in 2015, on the basis that she had a UK born mother. Rachel was born in Canada in 1996. Rachel claims that, had the law been different, her mother would have become a British citizen automatically and could have come to the UK when Rachel was a child, allowing Rachel to register as a British citizen under section 3(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981.

Although historical legislative unfairness meant that Rachel’s mother did not become a British citizen automatically, it did not directly prevent Rachel from becoming one. Citizenship could not normally be passed on for more than one generation born abroad, and Rachel would not have been able to become a citizen had women previously been able to pass on citizenship. Whilst she maintains that her mother might have come to the UK had she been a citizen, that relies on hypothetical assumptions. She may be able to apply for a UK Ancestry visa to come to the UK.

The difference between that example and my case is pretty substantial, though. In that example, it depends on the hypothetical of Rachel's mother moving to the UK. In my case, my mother would have only had to register my birth with the consulate. (Before 1983, British citizens by descent could pass citizenship to their children by registering the birth with the UK consulate.)

And, the Home Office guidance (at least for form UKM), says that the registration requirement has to be ignored

Merged the older thread and this thread for a more complete picture of advice already given.

No harm in applying on Form UKM, for which the fees are only £80, which would be refunded fully if the application fails.

However keep in mind that that you are looking at only half the equation. In order for you to become a British citizen in 1983, you'd need both CUKC status and RoA status on 1st January 1983. While there are now both judicial and legislative provisions for disregarding the registration requirements for the inheritance of CUKC on gender discrimination grounds, there is no such provision for RoA, which is limited to two generations outside the UK and which was gender-neutral to start with (i.e. you could claim RoA from any grand-parent born in the UK, if you were a Commonwealth citizen).

Therefore there is a reasonably good chance that your application on Form UKM will fail not because of your CUKC status, which could be remedied under the Romein judgement and more recent legislative enactments, but under the RoA requirement that requires one of your grandparents to have been born, naturalised or registered as a CUKC in the UK (and I do not think that registration of the birth in a British diplomatic outpost counts for this purpose).

To put it another way, hypothetically, if all the relevant parents had registered their children as CUKCs, in 1983, you would have become a British Overseas Citizen (BOC), not a British citizen, as one of your grandparents was not born, naturalised or registered in the UK.

BOC status cannot be acquired after 1983. It can't be inherited except in very rare cases, such as if denying it would lead to statelessness, which does not apply in your case as you are already a US citizen. And Form UKM specifically does not lead to BOC status. It only applies to those to whom both CUKC and RoA would have applied before 1983.

PS: Not sure what ARD is in this context. To me, it is a German TV channel, whose London correspondent became famous for this clip from the dying days of the Truss government (no knowledge of German required. Watch it and you'll see why).

My father's mother was born in London. Would this theoretically be enough, even though the line I'd be using for RoA is different than the line I'd be using for citizenship?

My understanding is that Form ARD is the form for the new historical legislative unfairness route that opened up with the change in the law this year. I think it might be more appropriate for me then UKM, because even if my mother is registered as a British citizen, she wouldn't have been a British citizen at the time of my birth. I think it's a fairly logical argument to say that if my mother was registered as a British citizen late due to gender discrimination, I was impacted by historical legislative unfairness.

Also, has anybody has success with a claim similar to the one that I'm pursuing for my mother? (That is, that her mother became a British subject due to her pre-1948 marriage to a British subject and thus she was able to register as a child of a British mother?) It seems like a somewhat far-fetched theory, but it seems like the law allows it.

My great-grandfather was born in Scotland in 1898 as a British subject. He moved to the United States as a child (but he didn't naturalize until 1943). My grandfather was born in 1922 in the US, as a dual US citizen and British subject (having been born to a British subject father). He married my non-British grandmother in 1947, at which point she automatically became a British subject (due to marriage before the 1948 BNA). When the BNA took effect, my grandfather became a CUKC by descent, but my grandmother became a CUKC.

My mother was born in 1957. If the laws had treated women the same as men, she would have automatically been a citizen, since her mother was a CUKC at the time of her birth.

I believe that she can now apply using form UKM and become a British citizen.

Here's where it gets complicated.

I was born in 1982. If this was where the story ended, I think I would be eligible to apply using Form ARD, since my mother would have had the ability to register my birth with the consulate if she had been a citizen at the time.

However, my father is a CUKC by descent (my paternal grandfather was a CUKC by descent and registered my father's birth, and my grandmother was born in the UK), and he failed to register my birth with the consulate when he could have. (I'm not even completly certain that my dad was aware of his British citizenship when I was born.)

My argument will be that my mother would have had her own distinct opportunity to register my birth, and an incentive to, because she would have been passing along her own citizenship rather than merely my father's. But I'm afraid that the government will say I'm just trying to take a second bite at the apple.

I fall firmly between example 13 and example 21 in the ARD guidance.

Do I have a viable argument? Have there been any similar cases one way or the other?

Thanks for merging. I forgot I had the earlier post

The answer to your quite long question is that the chances of your registration as a British citizen are close to zero.

Simply put, UK's immigration and citizenship laws focus a lot of residency or some other form of connection (by birth, registration or naturalisation) with the UK itself. And that is limited to only a few generations outside the UK.

Let's assume, for the reason of argument, that hypothetically you were a CUKC at birth in 1982. Even if you were so (either by registration with a diplomatic post or automatically), you would still not have become a British citizen on 1st January 1983.

Because British citizenship for people born before 1983 requires them to have two separate statuses, CUKC and RoA.

Only people who had both CUKC status and RoA on 1st January 1983 became British citizens.

Right of Abode (RoA) was, at the time, limited to a maximum of two generations and required either the person themselves, either or their parents or any one of their grandparents to have been born, registered as a British citizen or naturalised in the UK.

RoA was, from the start, gender neutral and required either parent or any grandparent regardless of gender to meet the conditions above.

You fail to meet the requirements for RoA because your familial connection to the UK is simply too distant.

Therefore, even if you take the gendered history of nationality law out of the equation, you would have failed to become a British citizen in 1983. Therefore, your ARD application would fail.

Note that in the two examples you quoted above (Examples 13 and 21 of the ARD guidance), the relevant grandparents were not just British subjects/CUKCS, but crucially born in the UK. That is the big difference.

To continue the hypothetical example above, if you were a CUKC on 1st January 1983, because you lacked RoA, you would have become a British Overseas Citizen (BOC) on that date. That would have entitled you to a British passport and British consular assistance, but no right to live or work in the UK.

In actual fact, you are not a BOC because you weren't a CUKC on 1st January 1983 and there is no way to acquire it now (it is a residual class of British nationality which is supposed to die out eventually as it can't be passed on to one's children either).

EDIT: I didn't realise that I had already answered the question in an earlier post above.

Wouldn't the RoA have come from my paternal grandmother though?

LDL707 wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 21, 2024 2:45 pm

Wouldn't the RoA have come from my paternal grandmother though?

Was she herself born, naturalised or registered as a British citizen in the UK itself?

Also, just to quickly clarify, RoA as a status was not inheritable. You would need to meet the requirements for it yourself.

Your paternal grandmother most likely had RoA based on her marriage to your CUKC by descent grandfather. Your mother would likely have had RoA because her grandfather was born in the UK. You would not meet any of the conditions for getting RoA and therefore not have RoA.

No, that's not quite right. The line that I'm considering for my ARD application is my maternal line (GGF-GF~GM--M-Me).

But my *dad's* mother was born in London. (My dad is a British citizen by descent through his father and grandfather, but his mother was also a British citizen by birth.) Had my father registered my birth with the consulate when I was born, I would have definitely been a British citizen, with right of abode, today.

He didn't know that his father had registered his birth until it was much too late for me, so now I'm exploring this edge case path under the new anti discrimination laws.