Article One of the Hague Convention of 1930 on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws recognises that it is for each state to determine under its own law who is entitled to its nationality. But this must not be carried too far. Thus e.g. the leading British text-book on International Law observes that “it is clear that a State is not entitled to impose its nationality upon aliens residing for a brief period in its territory or upon persons resident abroad”. An extreme example of the former, and what may be thought to be a disregard of the latter, rule is to be found in the British statute called The Princess Sophia Naturalisation Act, 1705, as recently interpreted by the Court of Appeal in Prince Ernest of Hanover v. Attorney-General. It must be rare that the decision of a municipal court on such an archaic enactment has consequences of such magnitude abroad. Virtually all the protestant royal families of Europe—including that of the Netherlands—are British subjects if the decision of the Court of Appeal is correct, for no possible logical distinction can be discovered between the case of the successful claimant and that of other protestant descendants of an early eighteenth-century German princess. It is to be noted that this is not, at least in form, a mere right to claim United Kingdom nationality if desired, but a ruling that so far as English law is concerned these persons do in fact possess British Nationality. They are thus free from aliens' control when visiting England, could exercise civil rights—such as the franchise—there, could claim protection from the British Crown through its diplomatic and consular representatives, and finally—in the wildest theory —be prosecuted for the capital crime of treason in a British court.