Royal heir to what? 3

How likely is it that the son of Prince William, born yesterday, will one day be King?

And of what?

Of  a “United Kingdom” or “Great Britain”?

An actual union of England and Scotland under one monarch happened when James VI of Scotland succeeded Queen Elizabeth I and was crowned in England as James I, king of both kingdoms.  But it was only with the Act of Union 1707 that the terms “United Kingdom” and “Great Britain” became official names: “One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain”.

Now the United Kingdom of Great Britain (and Northern Ireland) is breaking up by the will of Scottish nationalists.

And poor old Britain can no longer realistically be called great.

We like the constitutional monarchy of Britain, regardless of the personalities of the monarchs. It has meant that the nation functions like a republic, but under a non-controversial – because essentially powerless – figurehead.

So we think it a sad fact that by the time Queen Elizabeth II has been succeeded by Charles and Charles by William and William is due to be succeeded by his son, Britain will in all probability be a Muslim-majority country.

As Parliament is sovereign, an elected Muslim majority could vote to abolish the monarchy.

How likely is it that Muslims would do that? Very likely. Unless, of course, the monarchy becomes Muslim – a development which, we gather, Prince Charles would not be averse to. He has said that rather than take the traditional coronation oath that he would be “Defender of the Faith” (Protestant Christianity), he would rather promise to be “Defender of Faith”.

Any old faith? Well, maybe but not quite, because … he has shown a partiality for Islam. See here and here.

Prince Charles in Muslim garb

This is from the Commentator by Vincent Cooper:

Between 2004 and 2008, the Muslim population of the UK grew at an annual rate of 6.7 percent, making Muslims 4 percent of the population in 2008. Extrapolating from those figures would mean that the Muslim population in 2020 would be 8 percent, 15 percent in 2030, 28 percent in 2040 and finally, in 2050, the Muslim population of the UK would exceed 50 percent of the total population.

Contrast those Muslim birth rates with the non-replacement birth rates of native Europeans, the so called deathbed demography of Europe. For a society to remain the same size, the average female has to have 2.1 children (total fertility rate). For some time now, all European countries, including Britain, have been well below that rate.

Of course, unforeseen events might change what now looks like an unstoppable slide into the horrible darkness of Islam. Civil war, for instance. Or a sudden awakening of the British people to their peril, a steeling of their present political leaders’ backbones, and action taken now while there may just be time to save the nation.

How likely is that? In our skeptical eyes, not very.

  • WmarkW

    UK experiences 20,000 Female Genital Mutilations a year
    Has never criminally prosecuted one.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18900803

    Why Western women believe in multiculturalism is beyond me.

  • liz

    To witness Britain’s slide into socialism and Muslim domination is sad, especially knowing that we are following in their footsteps.
    We should have already learned from their mistakes – but not only did we not do that; we can’t even learn from our own.

  • rogerinflorida

    It is highly unlikely that the “Scot-Nats” will actually break up the UK, they are much more likely to become a sort of Celtic “parti-quebecois”, constantly whining but terrified of taking the irrevocable step.
    The theory of a constitutional monarchy is not that the monarch should be a powerless figurehead, far from it, the idea is that the monarch should act as a control over the politicians to keep them within the bounds of constitutional limits. The monarch is stinking rich, so cannot be bribed, also you can’t lobby for the job, or be elected to it so the monarch doesn’t owe anybody any favors and if you happen to be the one it is very difficult to turn the job down. That is the theory but of course it doesn’t work out like that; all monarchs are obsessed with the succession, that is to keep this rather desirable job in the family. Sean Gabb has referred to Elizabeth II as “Elizabeth the useless”, in my opinion an accurate assessment. The only time I recall her actually doing her duty was when she sacked Edward Heath as he tried to form a coalition govt. with the execrable Jeremy Thorpe and she asked Harold Wilson to form a govt.
    Considering the destruction wrought on Britain, England particularly, since her coronation in 1953 I think a reasonable assessment of her reign is that she has failed miserably.
    England is building up a head of political steam now, the treachery of the British political elite is now widely known and understood: The atrocious band of thugs known as the UAF (David Cameron; member) chants at EDL rallies “If it wasn’t for the coppers you’d be dead”. The working class lads of the EDL are ready to fight, as they suffer more suppression and oppression street battles similar to those that brought Hitler to power in Germany are certain. Muslim majority by 2050? but the path and the result are not going to be pretty.