By Colin Liddell:
How quaint! Today Prince George, the third-in-line to the throne – behind his father William and grandfather Charles – was christened in the Chapel Royal at St James’s Palace.
Interesting the names involved. Of course, the name George is very much part of the Windsors’ family tradition. But it ultimately derives from St. George, whose cross is the flag of England as well as the symbol of the medieval Christian crusaders.
St. James’s Palace is also interestingly named. Is this the same St. James, whose name was invoked, in its Spanish form of ‘Santiago’, by the Spanish Christians who violently drove the Muslim from their lands?
Assuming that Baby George grows up to be a healthy lad, we can expect him to succeed to the throne, perhaps sometime in late middle age, perhaps in about fifty-five or sixty years.
So, what kind of Britain can he then expect to be king of? Given his name, it is ironic that the Britain that will see his coronation will be a lot more Islamic than the one that greets his christening. Even the word christening sounds problematic when you project forward into the life of this young man!
Right now Muslims are around 5% to 7% of the UK population, with immigration remaining high and Muslim birth rates far in excess of the native population. Also, with growing chaos in an overpopulated Middle East, there is likely to be several waves of refugees from Islamic countries into Europe. Add to this the likelihood of native Britons fleeing the country in increasing numbers, and you can see that powerful demographic factors will be at work over the lifetime of Prince George.
Some say that Britain will become majority Muslim by 2050, while those who fear a nationalist backlash try to downplay Islamic demographic ascendency, pointing out for instance that Muslim fertility rates drop over time as they live in European countries.
A report by the US Pew Forum think-tank put the 2005-10 fertility rate among UK Muslims at 3.0 three children compared to 1.8 for non-Muslim women, and predicted that by 2030 the rate will fall to 2.5 for Muslims and remain at 1.8 for non-Muslims.
Whoever is right, it seems that the main question is not ‘if?’ but ‘when?’ Also, it’s clear that when Prince George does ascend the throne, the mere fact that he is called George, combined with his Christian heritage and future role as head of the Church of England, is going to be an embarrassment for a Britain hoping to use him as a symbol to unite around.
Under these circumstances it might be expedient for George to curry favour with the rising demographic by perhaps taking a Muslim bride. At the same time, the Church of England could be disestablished and could then sell off most of its cavernous and disused premises to become ‘super pubs’ or mosques.
Of course the flag will have to go as well. A multicultural committee could be convened to come up with an alternative, perhaps green to represent England’s ‘green and pleasant land’ combined with a suitable symbol for the waning of the English race, something like a crescent moon perhaps.
As for George, that name will continue to be awkward due to its association with outdated notions of Christian holy war and English nationalism. Careless of his parents to have named him so! But, luckily, many of the names currently in use in England also have Arabic equivalents.
The Arabic form of Peter, for example, is Boutros, while Mary is Miriam. In the case of George there are several equivalents, such as Jorj, Jurjus, and Jurayj. Either one will do for Prince George’s coronation in what will probably by then be the Grand Mosque of Westminster.
By Colin Liddell © 2013
# # # #
GentlemanPugilist
- Edit
I was thinking about the demographic crisis we face just yesterday, when I read that the Muslim grandfather who was murdered by the Ukrainian student had 22 grandchildren! Consider that if he had four children and they each had four children, then he’d have 16 children. It was a sobering thought to imagine this high fecundity rate may not be unusual.
frederickdixon
- Edit
I can see no long term solution to the alien presence of Moslems other than deportation.
Thomas a'Becket
- Edit
George the Last great grandson of Elizabeth the Useless!
SerpentSlayer
- Edit
All our other Kings named George have been willing helpers of international financiers, not to mention, descendents of the usurpers.
Not since 1688 have we had anything close to a true King of England, not since 1066 have we had a King of the English, an all together different thing.
I hope to heaven sent glory that this prince never sees a day when the throne is his and that the English people have long since reclaimed the throne of England or any constituent kingdoms for themselves.
Lets hope that a blood soaked Prince of his own making, carves his peoples freedoms in the corpses of England’s enemies long before our capitulated kingdom coronates another spoiled fop to the applause of the increasingly few dumb enough to believe that the Saxe-Coburgs are of any use to us.
frederickdixon
- Edit
Yes Serpentslayer, but how about a Commonwealth of the British under an elected Lord Protector?
SerpentSlayer
- Edit
Elected by whom? If we are to be ruled I see no problem in the system used by the Anglo-Saxons, a King elected by noblemen. I suspect that our fight for freedom will give us a new, natural nobility of the bravest and most loyal, could they not elect a king from their ranks?
A great war leader as bitterly against enemy corruption as he is loving of the people. In a stable homogenous state we do not need edict after edict as we have now and only a wise council and a King would be needed to ensure things tick over, we can have lesser nobility manage local affairs (though in reality locals needs governing everything)
I can’t say I’m keen on the last Lord Protector the man valued foreign gods and the interests of foreign bankers over the needs of his people, not to mention being a regicide.