A British princess with known political ambitions might have eyes on a California Senate seat.
The U.K.’s Daily Mail reported last month that Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, had been discussed in Hollywood as a longshot candidate to replace California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who died Sept. 29.
The outlet quoted an unnamed senior Labour Party source as saying Meghan eventually hopes to win the U.S. presidency. Of course she does. Only a peasant would aim lower.
In any case, some commentators have noted a serious problem with her would-be U.S. political career.
In an Oct.1 post on social media, Josie Glabach, whose “Redheaded Libertarian” account on X has more than 500,000 followers — pointed out that the U.S. Constitution bars artificial distinctions such as aristocratic titles.
“Was she stripped of her title? The founders wrote a prohibition on titles of nobility into the Constitution to reflect the American aversion to aristocracy. Further, the reconstruction amendments prohibit invidious governmental distinctions between classes of American citizens,” Glabach said in her post.
Was she stripped of her title? The founders wrote a prohibition on titles of nobility into the Constitution to reflect the American aversion to aristocracy. Further, the reconstruction amendments prohibit invidious governmental distinctions between classes of American citizens. https://t.co/mkZikvESVB
— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 1, 2023
The specific prohibition against titles appears in the U.S. Constitution’s Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, which reads as follows:
Should Meghan be barred from running for office in the United States?
Yes: 80% (8 Votes)
No: 20% (2 Votes)
“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.”
The United States did not grant Meghan her title, nor did she hold office when she married Britain’s Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, in 2018.
Those, however, qualify as distinctions without differences.
The purpose of that clause was to shield America’s republican government from aristocrats and the aristocratic principle.
Aversion to both ran deep in the era of the American Revolution.
For instance, when Continental Army veterans established the Society of Cincinnati in 1783, George Washington debated whether he should join the hereditary organization. In fact, he agonized over it and sought advice from friends.
The Society of the Cincinnati had no connection to government and no formal authority. Yet Washington worried that it might appear too aristocratic.
What might Washington have said of a young American actress who left the country, married into a European royal family, returned to the U.S. and then dared to seek public office?
In short, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 exists to protect Americans from the Meghans of the world.
It takes no great reasoning to understand why.
Apart from their purely ceremonial functions, titles of nobility offend our deepest sensibilities. They create artificial distinctions between human beings whom nature and nature’s God made equal.
When they operate as figureheads only, royal families remain harmless. Thus, those who marry into such families may do so for money, luxury or recognition without posing a broader threat.
But they must not seek real power.
History shows what meaningful titles of nobility can do to people. Everyone struggles to suppress pride, but titles have stimulated sinful self-conceit to near-demonic levels.
As a result, ordinary people have shed rivers of blood to protect themselves from kings and queens, dukes and duchesses.
Thus, Meghan can be Duchess of Sussex, or she could be the junior senator from California — but she cannot be both.
Something about that particular ambition rightly repels us, just as it repelled those who ratified the Constitution.
