News

Royal Baby: Will He Ever Even Be King of a Racially-Destroyed Britain?

135 Views 18

The current hype in Britain and elsewhere about the birth of a baby boy to William and Kate has obscured a harsh reality: that it is very strong possibility that Britain will be overrun by nonwhite immigration before he is likely to take the throne—and that the new population could by then very well have abolished the “white institution.”

The racial facts of changing Britain are clear: White births will be an outright minority of all live births in Britain well within the next decade, and white British people are set to become an overall minority by 2050 at the latest—long before the new royal baby will even be in line to become king (given that his grandfather and father are in line before him).

White British people are already a minority in their capital city of London, it was reported in December last year by the official UK Census.

According to the official data, only 44.9 percent of Londoners are (self) classified as white British, and it is only thanks to an influx of Eastern Europeans that whites are overall a majority of London’s population—but they are unlikely to stay as the nonwhite numbers continue to grow.

In the last census, some 48.2 million people described themselves as being white British, making up 86.0 percent of the population of England and Wales, down from 91.3 percent only a decade earlier.

Another report in August 2008 from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) showed that nearly 25 percent of all babies born in Britain were from ‘foreign’ mothers.

The ONS said that 758,000 babies were born in Britain in 2007, and that births to foreign-born mothers rose to 160,340, or 23 percent of all live births.

More than half of all births in some towns and cities, including London (54%), Slough (56%) and Luton (51%), were to non-UK born mothers. This figure peaks at 75 percent in the London borough of Newham.

These figures do not include births from already established second or third generation nonwhite immigrants, who retain higher birthrates than white Britons.

As the key areas reporting the biggest baby boom were London, West Midlands, Greater Manchester, and West Yorkshire—all areas of long-settled Afro-Caribbean and Asian immigrants, it is highly likely that once these figures are added to the 25 percent ‘foreign’ birth rate, then it is possible that over 40 percent of all babies born in Britain in 2008 were of Third World origin.

The ONS population report states that, on average, ‘foreign’ women have 2.5 children each, rising to 3.9 for those from Bangladesh and almost five for Pakistani women.

The number of babies born to British mothers is also rising, but lags far behind immigrants at an average of 1.7 children each. From this it is possible to deduce that white British mothers are only producing 1.5 children at a maximum, against a required replacement level of 2.1.

Figures released by the ONS in January 2009 revealed that the Muslim population in Britain had grown by more than 500,000 to 2.4 million in just four years.

Their population multiplied ten times faster than the rest of society (“Muslim population ‘rising 10 times faster than rest of society,’” the Times, January 30, 2009).

This section of the nonwhite population is the most violently opposed to the institution of the royal family.

Figures from the Department for Children, Schools and Families showed that in 2006, school pupils from the ‘ethnic minorities’ accounted for almost 22 percent of pupils at primary school and 17.7 percent at secondary level.

This means that Third World-origin school children accounted for just under 20 percent of England’s 6.5 million primary and secondary pupils in 2006—a doubling of the figure within one decade.

In Birmingham, which has around 300 schools, 57 percent of primary and 52 percent of secondary pupils are from nonwhite British families. In Leicester, Luton and Slough, white British pupils were also in a minority at both primary and secondary level.

Bearing in mind that these figures have doubled within 10 years, and that there is therefore an exponential growth rate involved, these figures mean that, well within the next two generations, immigrants and the children of immigrants, will form a majority of school children in Britain.

This means ‘ethnic minorities’ will simultaneously make up the majority of the country’s population, and Britain will have changed from a First World Nation into a Third World nation.

The new royal baby is third in line to the throne, after his grandfather and father. This means he will have at least 50 years to go before even coming close to ascending to the position of king.

The racial demographic change is set to occur within the next three decades—unless something is done to halt and reverse the nonwhite invasion. It therefore seems likely that this “new” white royal baby will take the throne of a completely changed nation—if indeed the “old white” institution even survives the racial change set to drag Britain down to Third World status.

18 thoughts on “Royal Baby: Will He Ever Even Be King of a Racially-Destroyed Britain?”

  1. frederickdixon

    - Edit

    Professor Coleman, the demographer who advises Migrationwatch, has estimated that if immigration continues at recent levels Britain will cease to be a majority white British country by 2066 (i.e. about the time that the new Prince could expect to ascend the throne as his father, William, will then be about 85). Needless to say, births will have become majority non-white British long before then – the American precedent suggests that we might cross that threshold somewhere in the mid 2030s.

    Coleman has suggested that the present Government’s “cap” on immigration could postpone that day of doom, which seems to me to be excessively optimistic. Even if he’s right and white Brits manage to retain a slender overall majority for a little longer, our country will still have been utterly transformed in a very short space of time and entirely (as the great Enoch said) “against the will and without the consent of the British people”.

    We still have time to avert the tragedy, and if we do not avert it we must make sure that we have the institutions in place to enable our nation to survive and, one day, win it all back.

    By the way, a great deal has been made of the Duchess’ middle class origins; “bringing the monarchy back into tune with today’s Britain”. When our new Prince is looking for a bride twenty five years from now I wonder what sort of woman will be needed to make the royal family “look like today’s Britain”?

  2. Michael Woodbridge

    - Edit

    Only by creating enclaves of racially loyal and ideologically aware Aryan folk can we be certain of survival. To do this, such enclaves will have to be self-sufficient, at least to the point where they don’t take in outside labour.

    Traditionally the Royal Family have been a living denial of egalitarianism and all the false universalism that goes with it (equal rights for all regardless of common sense). Unfortunately Christianity has been their Achilles heel. It has beguiled them and the rest of the British population into tolerating such absurdities as homosexual “marriage”. It’s doubtful whether The royal line will be fit for purpose once the new baby is old enough to become king. True royalty, if it’s going to be worthy of the name, will have to become proactive in championing the indigenous folk of these islands.

  3. Mr Magoo

    - Edit

    A fitting end to a monarchy which didn’t raise a royal finger to protect the indigenous population from Third World colonization.

      1. Mr Magoo

        - Edit

        An article about the Royal Baby isn’t about the monarchy? Sorry, but I think you’re splitting heirs.

  4. Steed

    - Edit

    I can see the pragmatic purpose of this article, but it does imply that the ‘Royal Baby’ (or his forefathers) will care that the racial makeup of the UK has changed. Every action (and inaction) by the Monarchy would suggest otherwise.

    2. Max Musson

      - Edit

      I think the article merely implies that in keeping with all British people, the Royal family ‘should’ be concerned about the changing racial make-up of the UK, although they are clearly either completely indifferent to it, if not positively in favour of it.

  6. Nationalist4UK

    - Edit

    “Royal Baby: Will He Ever Even Be King of a Racially-Destroyed Britain?”

    I personally think its a no, we might end up being in a republic by the time he reaches his 30’s or 40’s.

  7. Gazz

    - Edit

    Hello ~
    Do you consider it a rumour that the Child is Jewish along with William and Kate. And how would you view William as King of England should he take up the Jewish Faith ?

    1. Max Musson

      - Edit

      I don’t think it would be possible to answer that question with any certainty without being closely and personally acquainted with the royal family. Just because someone might through circumstance qualify as a Jew Halachically speaking, it doesn’t mean that they are Jewish or that they identify as Jewish.
      .
      In more general terms my view of our current Royal Family is that they make no apparent attempt to behave in a manner befitting a proper monarchy, i.e. to fulfil the obligations of monarchy. This calls into question their whole raison d’etre and raises the question of whether the monarchy should be abolished?

  8. Gazz

    - Edit

    Thanks for that. My point of interest with this revolves around English traditional Christianity. Again I ask ~ How would you view William as King of England as a Jew – and would you consider this compatible with ‘Englishness’ ?

    1. Max Musson

      - Edit

      No. If William were to identify as a Jew it would require him to regard the Jewish people as ‘God’s chosen people’ and the indigenous British as of subservient importance. Such a stance would be incompatible with the duties and responsibilities of a British monarch.

  9. Gazz

    - Edit

    Thanks again ~ Agreed on both points.

    With the push for the removal of all things Islamic from these Isles by some groups, might I ask – how do you view White English Folk who have followed their own trail of ‘free thinking’ and arrived at the doors of ‘the mosque’ ?

    How English would you consider such a ‘person’ having taken the Islamic path ?

    1. Max Musson

      - Edit

      Clearly Islam is more than just a religion dealing with spiritual matters as it is in effect an all encompassing way of life with political ramifications and its own system of laws.
      .
      With regard to politics and the law, Islam requires its followers to place Islam as a political/legal authority above the nation state and as such it is therefore a denial of the political/legal authority of the state and is therefore incompatible with a White English or White British Folk state.

Comments are closed.