Interesting.
Didn't know about that one.

Don't know how many years are required. It's been discussed many times in the MBTTUK forums...JAJ was the poster giving out info if I remember correctly.

From my investigations British citizenship can only be 'passed down' for one generation.

So if you are a Brit (by living there as a kid or being born there) then you can pass it one generation to your kids. But they can't 'pass it on' to theirs without meeting some specific criteria (for example living there for a time before they turn 18).

But if you 'inherited' British citizenship from your parents (so you are British by descent) then it's already been passed on one generation and you can't pass it down to your kids unless you meet the same criteria as I mentioned above (and are therefore Brit other than by descent).

That was meant to help clarify. I'm sure the technical details aren't all there but hopefully the idea is.

thanks for this - you dont know the number of years the child has to live in back in england do you?
seems that might be the way for us to go anyway if my wife wants to get dual citizenship also, we will have to move back to the uk for a minimum of 3 years anyway it seems. - if it can all be tied in together that would be something to certainly think about.

I have a feeling that it is 3 years before they turn 18; but I haven't done the detailed research on that since it couldn't help my husband's family so I stopped researching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...United_Kingdom

"Where the parent is a British citizen by descent additional requirements apply. In the most common scenario, the parent is normally expected to have lived in the UK for three consecutive years and apply to register the child as a British citizen while the child is a minor."

Just as a note, we didn't do consular birth registration for either of ours and its been fine. Never had any trouble getting their passports etc.

Your child can have British children if their spouse is British otherwise by descent btw...

Sure, if your child has "by descent" nationality and they have a child either born in England or by an English Mother who has "other than by descent", then their child will be English also.

In any event, a child born with "by descent" status has full rights to reside there and call themselves English as much as their parent who was born in England.

I think.

Yes.

Same here. Consular birth registration is optional - and, in fact, it is not even available for UKC's born in certain countries (e.g. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland).

However, some people recommend consular birth registration for UKC's born in the US. The main issue is that US birth records can be amended after adoptions. So a US birth cert may not name the biological parents. UK authorities are therefore suspicious of US birth certs issued more than 3 months after birth. It doesn't mean that they won't be accepted - it just means that you might be asked some additional questions or asked for further proof that you are the biological parent (e.g. a hospital record of birth). The issue is further complicated by the fact that birth cert standards differ widely - there is no consistent format.

If you feel confident that you can obtain and safely store the required documentation (and that your child can also do the same after you are gone), consular birth registration is not necessary. However, some people like the peace of mind of knowing that their child's birth has been registered with the UK authorities and that a UK birth cert (which can be used for UK passport applications) can be obtained later from the GRO in the UK.

One of my kids was born in the US. I have obtained multiple copies of her US birth cert (the full/long version that gives details of both parents), multiple copies of her parents' UK birth certs and marriage cert. I have not gone through consular birth registration for her. However, I might yet decide to do so just to make things easier for her after I am gone.

It's an extreme case (and its from the Daily Fail so apologies in advance) but it just goes to show how we should try and cover as many angles as possible. Who knows what could happen when the stars align and form a "perfect storm"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-British.html

Scary stuff! Interestingly, consular birth registration wouldn't have helped in this case as it is not available for UKC's born in South Africa. I think it was at one point but maybe before this person was born.

This also brings up an interesting point. What's to stop a mother from falsely naming someone as the father of her child (and adding him to the birth record) simply to allow this man to pass on citizenship by descent? With DNA tests becoming easier to obtain, how long before they replace birth records for citizenship purposes (at least for citizenship by descent)?

Ah!

It was a method to acquire U.K. citizenship in non-Commonwealth countries up to the end of 1982. South Africa was non-Commonwealth between 1962-94. Consular birth registration must have ceased in South Africa in 1994 or later on.


Since July 2006, if the mother is married, then the "father" of the child for British nationality purposes is always her spouse. Whether or not the man is the biological parent is irrelevant. Who is named on the birth certificate only becomes relevant if the mother is not married.

If it can be shown there is a natural link to a British father, and the child is not British under the law, then registration may be considered by the Secretary of State if the child is aged under 18.

That's a good day to be born.. since it's my birthday too!