Well, we now know the fate of the seven politicians caught up in the citizen saga.

Barnaby Joyce (Nationals), Malcolm Roberts (One Nation), Larissa Waters (Greens), Fiona Nash (Nationals), and Scott Ludlam (Greens) have been disqualified.

Nick Xenophon (NXT) and Matthew Canavan (Nationals) are safe.

But it could all have been so different.

Thanks to what has until recently been seen as an obscure phrase in the constitution, we've now lost four senators and a Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr Joyce will now face a by-election in early December, and the Government has lost its one-seat majority until then,

But it didn't need to be this way.

Had history played out differently, the constitution would have looked very different and the current saga might not have happened.

An earlier wording of Section 44 probably would have left Joyce in the clear — and Waters, and Ludlam, and Roberts

The current wording of Section 44 disqualifies anyone who:

… is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power.

But this was the wording debated in 1897, a few years prior to federation:

… has done any act whereby he has become a subject or citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a Foreign Power.

In other words, it could have been argued that the alternative wording only seemed to disqualify people who had made a positive step to acquire the citizenship of another country.

But the wording we ended up with is much wider, and appears to only look at whether someone is technically a dual citizen, irrespective of their personal actions.

The change probably came at a debate in Melbourne in 1898, but we don't know why it was made.

The result, the expert paper notes, "seems to confirm that [the updated wording] is intended to disqualify persons with dual citizenship regardless of whether they acquire their other citizenship voluntarily or involuntarily".

One of the people who helped put the constitution together wanted to throw a bone to dual nationals, but was shouted down

Did Sir John see this coming? ( State Library of South Australia )

Sir John Hannah Gordon was a South Australian delegate to the Australasian Federal Convention that drafted the constitution.

He wanted to add the words "or who has not since been naturalised" to Section 44.

That would have allowed people to be elected if they had become British subjects.

But he was shut down by others who were there:

Patrick McMahon Glynn: "You cannot have two allegiances." Sir Edmund Barton: "No; a man might have to go out of our parliament to serve against us." Sir George Turner: "He may be minister of defence."

It was also suggested that parliament be given the power to change the disqualification tests

If this had been successful, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull could have just changed the rules surrounding dual citizenship, so long as he could get the votes he needed in the Senate.

But instead, the proposal was defeated 26 votes to 8 and didn't make it into the constitution, meaning any changes to Section 44 can only be made after a referendum.

That's a much bigger task. Any reform would need the support of the majority of voters as well as the majority of states — and of the 44 referendums held since 1901, only eight have been successful.

At the time the constitution was written, there were no Australian citizens

In fact, Australian citizenship wasn't created until 1949.

Previously, Australians were "British subjects", as were Britons, Canadians and New Zealanders, so Mr Joyce (New Zealand), Mr Roberts (UK) and former Greens senators Scott Ludlam (New Zealand) and Larissa Waters (Canada) would have been unaffected by Section 44. (Though Mr Canavan's Italian citizenship would have still been a problem.)

It's unclear exactly when British subjects became subjects of a "foreign power" when it comes to Section 44.

But the High Court has made clear that this is the case.

It might seem like this issue has come out of nowhere …

And to an extent, it has.

The High Court knew that this could be an issue, with a judgement in 1988 saying:

The interpretation of S.44(i) and its applicability to an Australian citizen, who is also a citizen or who may, conceivably against his own wishes, be 'entitled to the rights or privileges of … a citizen' of the United Kingdom or of countries other than Australia, are questions of great contemporary importance. As those questions were not fully argued, their resolution must be left for another day.

Nevertheless, prior to a landmark High Court case in 1992, Section 44 of the constitution had received "virtually no judicial attention and very little academic attention", according to a parliamentary research paper.

One writer even commented:

The disqualifications under ss.44 and 45 [of the Constitution] are of little practical importance, are riddled with difficulty and do not warrant extended discussion.

That's sure changed.

In 1992, the High Court ruled that two candidates in a by-election were ineligible on the basis of dual citizenship.

In 1999, Heather Hill was elected as the Queensland senator for One Nation, but was disqualified because she was also British.

But it's in the past month that this became a much bigger issue (/mess) for Australia.