RSS
In his op-ed in The Washington Post, Chris Grayling, leader of the House of Commons, made the case for British withdrawal from the European Union — in terms Americans can understand.
Would you accept, Grayling asks, an American Union of North and South America, its parliament sitting in Panama, with power to impose laws on the United States, and a high court whose decisions overruled those of the U.S. Supreme Court?
Would you accept an American Union that granted all the peoples of Central and South America and Mexico the right to move to, work in, and live in any U.S. state or city, and receive all the taxpayer-provided benefits that U.S. citizens receive?
This is what we are subjected to under the EU, said Grayling.
And as you Americans would never cede your sovereignty or independence to such an overlord regime, why should we?
Downing Street’s reply: Prime Minister David Cameron says leaving the EU could cost Britain a lot of money and a loss of influence in Brussels.
The heart versus the wallet. Freedom versus security.
While Barack Obama, Cameron and Angela Merkel are pulling for Britain to vote to remain in the EU, across Europe, transnationalism is in retreat, and tribalism is rising.
As Britain’s Independence Party and half the Tory Party seek to secede from the EU, the Scottish National Party is preparing a new referendum to bring about Scotland’s secession.
The strongest party in France is the National Front of Marine Le Pen. In Austria’s presidential election, Norbert Hofer of Jorg Haider’s Freedom Party came within an eyelash of becoming the first European nationalist head of state since World War II.
The Euroskeptic Law and Justice Party is in power in Warsaw, as is the Fidesz Party of Viktor Orban in Budapest, and the Swiss People’s Party in Bern. The right-wing Sweden Democrats and Danish People’s Party are growing stronger.
In 2015, Merkel, Time’s Person of the Year, admitted a million Middle East refugees. This year, Merkel flipped and paid a huge bribe to Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan to keep Syrian refugees from crossing the Aegean to the Greek islands and thence into Europe.
In Germany, too, nationalism is resurgent as opposition grows to any new bailouts of the La Dolce Vita nations of Club Med. The populist AfD party has made major strides in German state elections.
While the rightist parties in power and reaching for power are anti-EU, anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant, the secessionist movements roiling Scotland, Spain, Belgium and Italy seek rather the breakup of the old nations of Europe along ethnonational lines.
By enlisting in these parties of the right, what are the peoples of Europe recoiling from and rebelling against? Answer: The beau ideal of progressives — societies and nations that are multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural and multilingual.
Across Europe, the tribalists are rejecting, in a word, diversity.
And what are they seeking?
God-and-country, blood-and-soil people, they want to live with their own kinfolk, their own kind. They do not believe in economics uber alles. And if democracy will not deliver the kind of country and society they wish to live in, then democracy must be trumped by direct action, by secession.
This is the spirit behind Brexit.
The is the spirit that drove the Irish patriots of 1919, who rose against British rule, though they were departing the greatest empire on earth in its moment of supreme glory after the Great War, to begin life among the smallest and poorest countries in all of Europe.
What is happening in Europe today was predictable and predicted.
At the turn of the century, in “The Death of the West,” I wrote,
“Europe has begun to die. The prognosis is grim. Between 2000 and 2050, world population will grow by more than three billion to over nine billion people, but this 50 percent increase in population will come entirely in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as one hundred million people of European stock vanish from the earth.”
Europeans are vanishing, as the peoples of the Maghreb and Middle East, South Asia and the sub-Sahara come to fill the empty spaces left by aging and dying Europeans whose nations once ruled them.
Absent the restoration of border controls across Europe, and warships on permanent station in the Med, can the inexorable invasion be stopped? Or is “The Camp of the Saints” the future of Europe?
An open question. But if the West is to survive as the unique civilization it has been, its nations must reassume control of their destinies and control of their borders.
Britain ought not to go gentle into that good night the EU has prepared for her. And a great leap to freedom can be taken June 23.
Trooping to the polls, the cousins might recall the words of Vera Lynn, 76 years ago, as the Battle of Britain was engaged:
“There’ll always be an England,
“And England shall be free,
“If England means as much to you
“As England means to me.”
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”
Copyright 2016 Creators.com.
The best hope for the rest of England is to join Scotland in secession from London (and the monarchy and the EU and NATO).
Unlike the EU and NATO, which are alliances to which the UK voluntarily acceded in its interest but which undeniably place demands on the UK now that may be contrary to its interests, the monarchy is an institution of native origin. The current monarch is a descendant of ancient English and Scottish monarchs and comes by the throne through Scottish inheritance via the Stuarts, by laws of succession that are the product of the indigenous laws and elected parliament. It also imposes neither economic regulations, nor unwanted migration, nor military demands on the people.
If anything, staying in the EU longer term would more likely lead to a republic.
London is the most multicultural, least Anglo, least nationalist part of the UK. I cannot be made to believe that it would not also be the least monarchist.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1436071
I find it really, really, really hard to comprehend why it’s not possible to have your cake and eat it too here. Why not:
-default closed borders
-no right to live and work wherever you want to.
-immigration policy decided at the country level
-free trade within the EU
-a common currency, the Euro
-laws on such things as provenance, safety (e.g. electrical goods, food and the like)
-joint defensive arrangements, including border security
-prioritize lives of Europeans over non-Europeans
So, not a United States of Europe, but a European Union or economic partnership or some such. But like Steve Sailer, my ideas are those of a wacky extremist nutjob.
http://i.quoteaddicts.com/media/q1/946421.png
That's what they're doing now - the growth of anti-EU parties meant they had to go all out for the kill - flood Europe with so many millions the indigenous nations are swamped permanently.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1436156
Time to call it Exgland or Endland
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1436158
Monarchy vs republic as principles aside for the moment, I don’t get the logic of including the monarchy in that particular list.
Unlike the EU and NATO, which are alliances to which the UK voluntarily acceded in its interest but which undeniably place demands on the UK now that may be contrary to its interests, the monarchy is an institution of native origin. The current monarch is a descendant of ancient English and Scottish monarchs and comes by the throne through Scottish inheritance via the Stuarts, by laws of succession that are the product of the indigenous laws and elected parliament. It also imposes neither economic regulations, nor unwanted migration, nor military demands on the people.
If anything, staying in the EU longer term would more likely lead to a republic.
London is the most multicultural, least Anglo, least nationalist part of the UK. I cannot be made to believe that it would not also be the least monarchist.
More German inclding Prince Philip
The House of Windsor is the royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. It was founded by King George V by royal proclamation on 17 July 1917, when he changed the name of the British Royal Family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (a branch of the House of Wettin) to the English Windsor, due primarily to the anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I.[1] The most prominent member of the House of Windsor at any given time is its head, currently Queen Elizabeth II.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor
married Philip Mountbatten. He was a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, a branch of the House of Oldenburg, and had been a prince of Greece and Denmark. However, Philip, a few months before his marriage, abandoned his princely titles and adopted the surname Mountbatten, which was that of his uncle and mentor, Earl Mountbatten of Burma, and had itself been adopted by Lord Mountbatten's father (Philip's maternal grandfather), Prince Louis of Battenberg, in 1917. It is the literal translation of the German Battenberg, which refers to Battenberg, a small town in Hesse.
In post-war Britain, it was not acceptable for the Duke of Edinburgh's German relations, including his three surviving sisters, to be invited to the wedding
The "Ancient" English monarchy has had several substantial breaks over the last millenia, so don't kid yourself about a long and noble Royal lineage.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1436378
Unlike the EU and NATO, which are alliances to which the UK voluntarily acceded in its interest but which undeniably place demands on the UK now that may be contrary to its interests, the monarchy is an institution of native origin. The current monarch is a descendant of ancient English and Scottish monarchs and comes by the throne through Scottish inheritance via the Stuarts, by laws of succession that are the product of the indigenous laws and elected parliament. It also imposes neither economic regulations, nor unwanted migration, nor military demands on the people.
If anything, staying in the EU longer term would more likely lead to a republic.
London is the most multicultural, least Anglo, least nationalist part of the UK. I cannot be made to believe that it would not also be the least monarchist.
You have a point about tradition; on the other hand, the current monarchy has embraced multiculturalism: Sir Elton John proves it!
An interesting question now would be, and in leftist quarters I sure it has been raised, would an heir or even spare be permitted to marry and reproduce with a non-European? Somehow the royals have managed to evade this question to date. I'll be interested to see how many generations they can keep it at bay by just telling the press that the Diana experience taught them to value their heirs' personal feelings and just training up said heirs to never "fall in love with" any diverse people. That's the kind of thing that can leak to the press fast.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1436436
I bet Buchanan knows very well why Barack Obama, Cameron and Angela Merkel are pulling for Britain to vote to remain in the EU – because, EU like their countries, is a Zionist-controlled entity.
Jewish professor Marc H. Ellis (Baylor University), who defined the relationship between the Jews and the European Christians with no apologies. Ellis was dismissed for exposing ‘Jewish identity’ and supporting Palestinian resistance against the Jewish occupation of Palestine.
“You will apologize for Jewish suffering again and again and again. And when you have done apologizing, then you will apologize some more. When you have apologized sufficiently, we will forgive you – provided that you will let us do what we want in Palestine.”
Marc H. Ellis was proven right when a Palestinian Muslim girl Leanne Mohamad, 15, of Wanstead High School won the Redbridge regional final earlier this month, was told by she was banned to participate in the next round of the “Freedom of Speech” contest for telling the “politically wrong” Gaza Story.
https://rehmat1.com/2016/05/31/uk-jews-tell-palestinian-schoolgirl-to-shut-up/
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1436469
Unlike the EU and NATO, which are alliances to which the UK voluntarily acceded in its interest but which undeniably place demands on the UK now that may be contrary to its interests, the monarchy is an institution of native origin. The current monarch is a descendant of ancient English and Scottish monarchs and comes by the throne through Scottish inheritance via the Stuarts, by laws of succession that are the product of the indigenous laws and elected parliament. It also imposes neither economic regulations, nor unwanted migration, nor military demands on the people.
If anything, staying in the EU longer term would more likely lead to a republic.
London is the most multicultural, least Anglo, least nationalist part of the UK. I cannot be made to believe that it would not also be the least monarchist.
The current monarch is a descendant of ancient English and Scottish monarchs and comes by the throne through Scottish inheritance via the Stuarts,
More German inclding Prince Philip
The House of Windsor is the royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. It was founded by King George V by royal proclamation on 17 July 1917, when he changed the name of the British Royal Family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (a branch of the House of Wettin) to the English Windsor, due primarily to the anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I.[1] The most prominent member of the House of Windsor at any given time is its head, currently Queen Elizabeth II.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor
married Philip Mountbatten. He was a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, a branch of the House of Oldenburg, and had been a prince of Greece and Denmark. However, Philip, a few months before his marriage, abandoned his princely titles and adopted the surname Mountbatten, which was that of his uncle and mentor, Earl Mountbatten of Burma, and had itself been adopted by Lord Mountbatten’s father (Philip’s maternal grandfather), Prince Louis of Battenberg, in 1917. It is the literal translation of the German Battenberg, which refers to Battenberg, a small town in Hesse.
In post-war Britain, it was not acceptable for the Duke of Edinburgh’s German relations, including his three surviving sisters, to be invited to the wedding
[Sidebar only relevant on this site- Germans are white. For now.]
My original post was differentiating the monarchy, a native institution of ancient origins, from the EU and NATO, foreign alliances to which Britain signed on in recent times and which may have outlived their value. That would still be true if the next inheritor of the British throne were also the next Japanese emperor. Also, whether or not the EU and NATO have ceased to serve British interests as determined by the elected British government, the same cannot be said of the monarchy because it does nothing that does not have the approval of the elected government. There is no case to be made that the monarchy or its occupants represent a foreign imposition on Britain or a channel for the interests of foreign powers into British policy.
That was the whole of my earlier point.
On the larger point, as deep as the German connection is, I can't think of any group of people whose apparent mindset and visible behaviours are more culturally English. The last time the monarch could have been considered more German than English in mindset was Victoria, and probably only early in her reign due to Albert's influence. After Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II have been walking archetypes of various virtues, and vices, of upper class English/Britons. Quiet apart from them all being of native birth, which they were, that's pretty hard core representation of the English way of life, with some Scottish habits thrown in. [Worth noting also that Victoria [also native born English] and Albert's early Germanisms [a certain stoicism of manner and expectation, use of German language, travel to Germany, Christmas trees...] were actually a reversion. native born George III and his sons were just as stereotypically English as their recent heirs, George III in his form of rectitude, his sons for their vices.]
On the genealogical side, it's true enough. All the royals of Europe are pan-European, the only really successful pan-European institution ever [and, notably for consumption this site, so far as I can tell hardly ever or never any non-Europeans]. And that meant German for the centuries when royals could only marry royals, since Germany had so many sovereign families. Even the French couldn't avoid some German blood [Habsburg, more than once]. The Russian Romanovs were barely Russian after Peter the Great. The only way the descendants of Catherine II on the throne could be Russian would be if they had been illegitimate. Which they may have been.
On that same note, consider the royal Stuarts. They were a Norman French family that came to England in Norman times, washed up in Scotland as part of the imported Scoto-Norman minor gentry. Unlike the greater Scoto-Norman houses like the Balliols and Bruces, the FitzAlan's were not competitors for the Crown in the 1290s. They were relative nobodies though holding court positions. The Bruces were a line of Normans who married various Celtic/Saxon/Norman Scottish women over time. Robert II Stuart became king because his mother was Robert I [THE Bruce] daughter. So the royal Stuarts were only partially Scottish, and during their time on the Scottish throne they typically married French. During their tenure on the English throne, still typically married French. After exile, still mainly French. When the main line died out altogether with Cardinal Henry, later lines of succession passed through Italy and wound up in Germany. For over 150 years, the Stuart claimants have been the ducal/royal Wittelsbachs of Bavaria. Franz II, I think, is the current one, though none of them have ever claimed the status of pretender.
This of course does not even consider the Franco-Norman nature of the English royals before the Stuarts.
So it goes. If the multiculturalism threat of today to Britain consisted entirely of French, Danes, and Germans coming in and instantly adopting British ways of life to the nth degree as the royals do, and considering how much we now know about the genetic linkages of European peoples into ancient times, I would not consider it to be a "threat" at all. Bring it on.
And of course none of that changes the fact that Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of the first Stuart King of England, James I, and through him of the first Tudor King of England Henry VII, and through him and multiple other lines of the Lancastrian and Yorkist Plantagenets, going back to Henry II, who was a grandson of Henry I and great-grandson of William the Conqueror. You can probably easily find her descent from the Saxon royalty online. As a descendant of James I she can trace ancestry through the Stuarts to the Bruces and the old Celtic royal line of Scotland. Those are the appropriate considerations.
And of course the German element has been reduced quite a bit- Elizabeth marrying Philip brought back some Dano-German, but Elizabeth's own mother had been a non-German non-royal Scottish aristocrat and her son Charles married a non-German non-royal English aristocrat, and his son William married a non-German non-aristocrat English commoner [though in the manner of so many down-at heel middle class families, they are probably distantly descended from aristocrats. So much of England is the lineage of younger sons.]
That seems about as British as need be. If anything, I'd like them to dial back the English, add a couple of French, and ape some North American manners so I can sell them in Canada.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1436523
Unlike the EU and NATO, which are alliances to which the UK voluntarily acceded in its interest but which undeniably place demands on the UK now that may be contrary to its interests, the monarchy is an institution of native origin. The current monarch is a descendant of ancient English and Scottish monarchs and comes by the throne through Scottish inheritance via the Stuarts, by laws of succession that are the product of the indigenous laws and elected parliament. It also imposes neither economic regulations, nor unwanted migration, nor military demands on the people.
If anything, staying in the EU longer term would more likely lead to a republic.
London is the most multicultural, least Anglo, least nationalist part of the UK. I cannot be made to believe that it would not also be the least monarchist.
Pure fantasy … the Stuarts were chased off the throne in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and replaced by a dubious Convention Parliament with William of Orange and his wife Mary, who was herself a Stuart. The Stuart line essentially died with Queen Anne in 1714, whereupon George I was imported from Hannover. He was tenuously a Stuart, so I guess the fantasy story you spin has some truth.
The “Ancient” English monarchy has had several substantial breaks over the last millenia, so don’t kid yourself about a long and noble Royal lineage.
Mary II, Anne, and George I each had the strongest genealogical claim to the throne at the time of their accession, excluding Catholics. Several of the Catholic claimants were approached about converting to Anglicanism, but they refused.
To find a really dubious genealogical claim, you'd have to go back to Henry VII, the Princes in the Tower, and all that. Since then, however, it has been pretty well-established.
England:
All the monarchs from George I to Elizabeth II are descendants of James VI and I of Scotland and England, the first Stuart to inherit England, and through him to Henry VII of England, the first Tudor monarch of England whose daughter married into the Stuarts, and through Henry VII via the Beauforts to the Lancastrian line of Plantagenets, and through Henry's wife to the Yorkist line of Plantagenets, and thus back to Edward III, and through him to the earlier Plantagenets and Normans. [There were several aristocratic marryings back in at times that allow several other , much lesser, routes to be traced to the Plantagenets].
There has never been any succession, however disputed and however many rivals, even in some cases genealogically senior rivals, were defeated in which the new monarch was not a member of the royal line by blood. Female line succession was determined lawful in the 12th century. Proximity of blood contended with primogeniture as defining legal rules as late as the 15th century, but you still had to have the blood. Trial by battle and Lancastrian partisan support/desperation was the real basis of Henry VII's claim, but he had a bloodline back to John of Gaunt just the same. Henry VIII, his son via Elizabeth of York, united both that and the senior Yorkist descent. So, by definition, did Henry VIII's sister, the basis of the Stuart claim. [Henry VII battled with rival Yorkist claimants for much of his reign, and Henry VIII executed a bunch. Oddly, Henry VIII was genealogically senior to all of them as a Yorkist heir through his mother, as Henry VIII was a descendant of Edward IV and his rivals were all descendants of Edward IV's female siblings. Genealogically, Henry VIII was the true king by any measure. And in the absence of legitimate descent from him after Elizabeth I died, James VI and I Stuart as the descendant of Henry VIII's sister [same Yorkist mother] was also the senior heir in 1603.]
That all takes you via a nice easy route back to the Conqueror, the basis of the English crown and state. His claim was based on, all considerations valid in the law at the time: right of conquest, election by the witan, the will of Edward the Confessor, and being one of a variety of descendants of the Saxon royal line, if not nearly the senior one at the time [hard to trace now, but by some measures the senior blood of Wessex came back in with the Stuarts, as one female Wessex princess had married into Scottish royalty]. If you want to trace the lines back you can get all the way from Elizabeth II to Cerdic of Wessex. Dark Age genealogy may not be all its cracked up to be, although there's no reason an iron age society can't keep records on that when it's as important as the royal line. But you can get to the House of Wessex of the 9th century no problem. 1066 even less than no problem.
Scotland:
On the Scottish side, James VI and I's Stuart line got the throne through the female line, as the Stewart/Stuart family head Walter the High Steward married Marjorie Bruce, daughter and sole heir of Robert I ["the Bruce" of Bannockburn fame] in the 14th century. Their son became king as Robert II, the first Stewart king. The Bruces were among the competitor houses of Norman descent who claimed the Scottish Crown in the 1290s, mainly through female lines of succession. All did in fact have genealogical succession from the old royal line, whose main branch had died with Alexander III and his daughter Margaret. The Balliols and the Bruces were the closest. The Balliols were genealogically senior, the Bruce competitor at the time was one generation older so argued proximity of blood. Alas, I think Edward of England chose properly when his arbitration validated the Balliol claim based on primogeniture. But as the resulting civil wars and war with England put paid to it, the Bruce claim and thus the Stuart was all that remained. IIRC the competitors of the 1290s all or mainly descended from William I of Scotland. You can trace that lineage back to the 10th century at least without getting even theoretically into dark agey concerns.
So- James VI and I was the senior heir to England when he took the throne, and the indisputable king of Scots already. All subsequent monarchs without exception have been his descendants. So whether the lineage is "noble" in some moral sense aside, it is long enough.
So that part of my original post as you quoted is correct. The monarchs since George I are descendants of the English and Scottish monarchs of old, and their claim is rooted in descent from James VI and I [Stuart].
If you don't like the moves in the succession made in the late 17th century, fair enough. They were different from what went before on several points. But in my original comment, replying to the idea that the monarchy belonged in a list including the EU and NATO, I merely noted that those changes were made by the English parliament according to English laws rather than being foreign impositions. Even if irregular, they were indigenous, not foreign, which was the original issue at stake here.
As to those irregularities, a few comments:
It's worth noting at this point that the use of parliament to determine validity of claims was not wholly unprecedented. It goes back at least to 1399 and was used multiple times thereafter. The fact that Henry VIII had his will passed as an act of parliament and his son Edward VI had his validated only by his privy council ultimately provided the legal cover for the succession of Edward's sister Mary rather than Jane Grey.
So while it was irregular for parliament to essentially make the selection in 1688, it was not at all irregular for an act of parliament to be the legally final instrument determining a successor's validity. Although a modern parliament probably could do these things or at least get away with them, it is also worth noting what parliament did NOT do. It did not abolish the monarchy [the act of doing so in 1649 was wildly unlawful and all subsequent parliaments from 1660 recognized this, and the parliament in 1688 was no exception]. It did not select a new monarch without any claim of blood descent from a prior, recent English monarch. It did arrogate to itself the right to legislate on the validity of competing claims from among valid descendants, and it added criteria on which it could make that choice- mainly religious and willingness to abide by parliamentary supremacy.
So could it do that? Arguable. In prior cases, parliamentary legislation had validated essentially already completed successions, or had been driven by the initiative of a sitting king, but at least in the case of Mary and Jane it had been the deciding argument in an actually disputed succession, giving legal cover to the victory of one party over another based on an act that had been passed years before. From the point of view of her supporters, Jane was Queen by a valid if weaker blood claim and by Edward VI's will. And to some extent in the first days was actually in place. From the point of view of Mary's faction, Mary was Queen by being Henry VIII's daughter, Edward's sister, and by Henry VIII's will enacted by Parliament. The Marian faction's power play was validated by the act of parliament and popular will, the two critical factors in 1688 as well.
The parliamentary decision to claim James II had abdicated in 1688 by fleeing the capital and ditching the Great Seal was a cynical move and a modern 'political' tactic to be sure. But by the mores of premodern royalist values it was a clever one. Kings who ditched their seal and fled their capital even for good practical reason would always have had some explaining to do. Even pure bloodline monarchy has legal formalities and niceties. His pretty clear unwillingness to live up to the requirements of being head of the church of England and his apparent desire to raise the next potential king a Catholic seem pretty clear problems with his coronation oath. These are not mere parliamentarist ideas.
SO if you think parliament's move was invalid, fine. but it was not without some legal backing in English royal practice, and it was far less a usurpation than what happened in 1649.
Once James II and his infant son the future James III* were to be excluded, the next heirs in order of primogeniture [cognatic male preference] were: Mary [daughter of James II], Anne [daughter of James II] and William of Orange [son of James II's sister- many forget how close in line William himself was- he was third in his own right]. I agree it would have been better for all concerned if:
1. William and Mary had living heirs, since Mary was senior, or,
2. Anne had living heirs, since she was second [her heirs would have been half Dano-Germanic given her husband was a prince of Denmark], or,
3. William had remarried after Mary died in 1694 and produced a viable line before his own death in 1702, since he was third [there would have been a foofaraw if Anne also had kids and William's kids were not also Mary's, of course; they probably would have picked the likeliest looking male child];
In the absence of all those, parliament might well have chosen to recall James III* under some kind of settlement in 1714 but his positions and the politics of Britain in the early Union period and the last days of the war with France ultimately made that unviable. James was a second generation stooge of Louis XIV at this point.
So they passed over the main line of the royal stuarts again [which ended in 1807 with the death of Henry Benedict Cardinal Stuart] and the succession from Charles I's youngest daughter [as Catholics presumably they couldn't have taken the oath either] and settled on the descendants of Charles I's sister Elizabeth Stuart.
The genealogically senior heirs of James I today are the descendants of Charles I's aforementioned daughter, a line which passed through female succession as well a couple of times through the Italian royal house of Savoy and settled by the early 19th century on the Bavarian ducal/royal house of Wittelsbach. The present heir is Franz II. None of the Savoy/Wittelsbach heirs after the death of Henry Stuart ever asserted their claim, but still.
The genealogically junior heirs of James I are the Hanoverians who descended from Charles I's sister Elizabeth Stuart, who thus branched off the Stuarts by female line exactly one generation earlier than the Savoy line did, and their heirs to Elizabeth II.
You may wish to call 1688 an invalid extension of parliamentary role in the succession, and endorse the seniority of the Wittelsbach succession on those grounds. that would be entirely consistent with an approach based on pure cognatic primogeniture. They have one generation genealogical seniority as heirs of James I.
[By now the usual argument about how German the royals are applies wildly more to them than to the current line. That German bit doesn't much matter to me, as I've made clear in an earlier comment above. If we could engineer a Jacobite/Wittelsbach succession by legal means, that's dope. But as long as I keep hearing how German the current royals are, its relevant to point how much more German their "rivals" are.]
I happen to endorse the parliamentary selection.
But either way, the proximity of the two lines in their respective Stuart descents is clear. I said that the present line came to the throne through descent from the Stuarts, which is correct.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1436666
The biggest fallacy of the Remain argumentation is a blind faith that Europe will continue as a viable going concern. The events of last summer should reinforce in the minds of every Brit that a vote to Remain is a vote to chain one’s self to the Titanic.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1436673
Oh. there’ll always be an England!
It just won’t be inhabited by the English!
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him – the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.”
“I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”
Sir George Bernard Shaw in ‘The Genuine Islam,’ Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1436699
-default closed borders
-no right to live and work wherever you want to.
-immigration policy decided at the country level
-free trade within the EU
-a common currency, the Euro
-laws on such things as provenance, safety (e.g. electrical goods, food and the like)
-joint defensive arrangements, including border security
-prioritize lives of Europeans over non-EuropeansSo, not a United States of Europe, but a European Union or economic partnership or some such. But like Steve Sailer, my ideas are those of a wacky extremist nutjob.
When it was just the common market it worked just fine. But when European elites decided to turn it from an economic association into a political grab for power everything went wrong.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1436702
Scotland will leave and that will become England. Scotland is where England’s balls are located. Or in the words of Archie Bunker , “England is a Fag Country”! Europe is fucked because they are gutless and stupid.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1436819
Britain will stay in the EU because of women voters. One of the great uncomfortable truths that can’t be avoided if one is being honest with oneself is that giving women the vote has had civilization wrecking consequences.
(caveat: i don't know how many East European immigrants have the vote so i wonder what they might do - it's in the interest of their home countries if the current EU gets toppled but they may feel a leave vote could be bad for them as individuals - dunno)
Despite both of those effects I still expect England to narrowly vote leave but the vote from Scotland / Wales may turn it (as being pro-EU is partly an anti-English thing).
If the Scottish independence referendum had been yes I'd be more optimistic of a "leave" result.
So yes to the male/female thing but if someone mentions it without mentioning the deliberate importation of a new electorate by the political class then it's just as likely to be divide and rule from someone in favor of the deliberate destruction of Europe.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1436875
England has fallen under the iron fist of Socialism for years. Most of Europe embraced that stupid concept. Socialism is not for any country. The only socialist scheme that was for its country was National Socialism in German and we know that socialist vein is gone. Socialism ends up killing nations. It works on everyone else’s money and when the money runs out they have no way of making more. Socialism is international in nature and only cares about power and spreading socialism over the globe. Socialism does not form true wealth nor does it have the apparatus to do so. Socialism uses stress, stressful policies, and multiculturalism to destroy the host countries in order to step in and be the white Knight to make all of the problems (they caused) go away. The English thought they could control Socialism. IT sounded good. It gave them free things,…..at first. England has not fallen far enough yet so their socialist politicians keep destroying her. For the last few years their modus operandi in destroying the UK has been the importation of millions of Muslims and others who will NEVER assimilate. Some may fake it but the will never be Englishmen. These immigrants will eventually destroy England and what it means to be English. They will kill the culture and what is left of Christianity there. What is ‘England’ is hanging on by a thread. This is happening in other EU countries also. The EU is not the “European Union” but the “New World UN union” The EU will kill all of Europe and is already starting its crap in the U.S. England needs a backbone and a conservative new King Author taking the helm again. England also needs to get out of the EU-SSR.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1436892
Unfortunately I have to agree with you on this.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1436956
It just won't be inhabited by the English!
“If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam.”
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him – the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.”
“I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”
Sir George Bernard Shaw in ‘The Genuine Islam,’ Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.
Bernard Shaw was a world class troll in his polemics. Also, he turned down a knighthood and preferred to be known as Bernard Shaw (no "George").
Why are you not moving to one of those Muslim paradises?
And why are Muslims escaping death and destruction at the hands of other Muslims doing anything and everything, including risking their lives in overcrowded boats, to reach Muslim Saudi Arabia. Or Muslim Pakistan. Or.....
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1436969
I don’t know if you are right about the Brexit but I can’t help but agree with you on the women’s suffrage issue. I wish it were not so.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1437023
What Grayling is describing is where the US has been headed since NAFTA was shoved down our throats in 1993. Indeed since the Immigration Act of 1965 was slipped under the door by an un-American in congress and his drunken partner in crime.
Our sovereignty has been ceded to an elite that does not respect or care about us. It has been sacrificed to their wallet.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1437167
The "Ancient" English monarchy has had several substantial breaks over the last millenia, so don't kid yourself about a long and noble Royal lineage.
There’s nothing tenuous about George I’s lineage. His mother was a Stuart. She was also the senior Protestant claimant to the throne.
Mary II, Anne, and George I each had the strongest genealogical claim to the throne at the time of their accession, excluding Catholics. Several of the Catholic claimants were approached about converting to Anglicanism, but they refused.
To find a really dubious genealogical claim, you’d have to go back to Henry VII, the Princes in the Tower, and all that. Since then, however, it has been pretty well-established.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1437207
When London eventually succeeds in its relentless, furious war of attrition against The Provinces, and reduces them to blasted heaths populated by wandering paupers, England will split into several parts, the first of which will likely be the old Danelaw with a capital in York or Sheffield, allied to some extent (out of necessity rather than mutual attraction) with Scotland, Wales and Greater Cornwall
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1437322
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him – the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.”
“I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”
Sir George Bernard Shaw in ‘The Genuine Islam,’ Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.
Bernard Shaw was a world class troll in his polemics. Also, he turned down a knighthood and preferred to be known as Bernard Shaw (no “George”).
British historian John Rose (a Jewish academic, author and politician) in his book The Myths of Zionism. Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, was an Austrian Jewish journalist. He was not particularly interested in Palestine as a ‘Jewish homeland’. He, originally, considered Argentina, but later realized that the Jewish biblical myths were a potent source of inspiration for developing an exclusivist and highly nationalistic identity. However, he was aware of the fact that without the backing of a European colonial power, Zionists’ plan would not materialize. Herzle is quoted in Our Roots: “England with her possessions in Asia should be most interested in Zionism, for the shortest route to India is by way of Palestine. England’s great politicians were first to recognize the need for colonial expansion. And so I believe in England the idea of Zionism, which is a colonial idea, should be easily understood.”
https://rehmat1.com/2009/01/04/israel-occupation-based-on-myths/
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1437484
“Our sovereignty has been ceded to an elite that does not respect or care about us. It has been sacrificed to their wallet.”
I watched an interview with Vietnamese CEOs and I was surprised to hear them say things like – the west is too focused on profit and so it is becomoing less innovative, and generally they talked about their wealth as benefiting Vietnamese people, through water programmes etc. It was a very different dialogue than we are used to hearing from western entrepreneurs. Can East Asia save humanity from unfettered greed?
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1437487
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him – the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.”
“I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”
Sir George Bernard Shaw in ‘The Genuine Islam,’ Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.
Is the reason Islam is allegedly so great you, a Muslim, are living in Christian Canada?
Why are you not moving to one of those Muslim paradises?
And why are Muslims escaping death and destruction at the hands of other Muslims doing anything and everything, including risking their lives in overcrowded boats, to reach Muslim Saudi Arabia. Or Muslim Pakistan. Or…..
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1437616
Bernard Shaw was a world class troll in his polemics. Also, he turned down a knighthood and preferred to be known as Bernard Shaw (no "George").
But, but…… little anti-Christ – how could Bernard Shaw could be ‘world class troll’? Don’t you think you’re insulting Theodor Herzle who was acknowledged the world’s greatest troll by the pope and Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid?
British historian John Rose (a Jewish academic, author and politician) in his book The Myths of Zionism. Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, was an Austrian Jewish journalist. He was not particularly interested in Palestine as a ‘Jewish homeland’. He, originally, considered Argentina, but later realized that the Jewish biblical myths were a potent source of inspiration for developing an exclusivist and highly nationalistic identity. However, he was aware of the fact that without the backing of a European colonial power, Zionists’ plan would not materialize. Herzle is quoted in Our Roots: “England with her possessions in Asia should be most interested in Zionism, for the shortest route to India is by way of Palestine. England’s great politicians were first to recognize the need for colonial expansion. And so I believe in England the idea of Zionism, which is a colonial idea, should be easily understood.”
https://rehmat1.com/2009/01/04/israel-occupation-based-on-myths/
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1437617
The "Ancient" English monarchy has had several substantial breaks over the last millenia, so don't kid yourself about a long and noble Royal lineage.
The Brit “royal” family, like the Russians and so many others, resorted to hiring Germans, marrying Germans, or inviting large numbers of German or Germanic people to settle their lands. A wise move.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1437666
“England” is going to be a Muslim-dominated/intimidated sewer with a heavily African, Pakistani, and Arab population — London writ large. Increasingly corrupt, unsafe, dirty, cruel towards women and girls, intolerant of Christianity and Judaism and any non-Muslim faith, and generally a backwards unpleasant place to live or visit.
If the Irish, Scottish, and Welsh people want to exist, be secure in their own homelands, and NOT submit to Islamic rule, they had better ALL secede from the UK and from the EU. Get control over their own borders and immigration policy and immediately prohibit entry to all known or suspected Muslims and to all non-Europeans.
The rest of the UK’s people must finally break free from England and be free, civilized, brave Western Christian people once again.
Lord Janner was first accused of being involved in sexual abuse of young boys in 1991 but was not prosecuted under pressure from Jewish Lobby which controls both Labour and Conservative parties.
Cardiff-born Janner took refuge in Canada during the WW II. He is former president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, an Israeli Lobby, from 1978 to 1984. He has been a key international figure in efforts to suck billions of dollars in compensation and restitution for the ever-increasing Holocaust survivors from Germany, Hungary, Switzerland and Poland. The main beneficiary of this Holocaust loot have been Israel, while the Holocaust survivor families have received between $3,500 to $17,500 annually. UK’s EXPRESS reported on June 5, 2014 that in the long run, it will cost German taxpayers’ more than £275 billion to payoff WW II debt to the Jews.....
https://rehmat1.com/2014/07/15/british-paedophile-holocaust-hoaxer/
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1437669
Not if you have much experience with East Asians!
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1437670
-default closed borders
-no right to live and work wherever you want to.
-immigration policy decided at the country level
-free trade within the EU
-a common currency, the Euro
-laws on such things as provenance, safety (e.g. electrical goods, food and the like)
-joint defensive arrangements, including border security
-prioritize lives of Europeans over non-EuropeansSo, not a United States of Europe, but a European Union or economic partnership or some such. But like Steve Sailer, my ideas are those of a wacky extremist nutjob.
It is but the people pushing this don’t want it; they want global govt so they’re trying to destroy nation states by eradicating the underlying nations.
http://i.quoteaddicts.com/media/q1/946421.png
That’s what they’re doing now – the growth of anti-EU parties meant they had to go all out for the kill – flood Europe with so many millions the indigenous nations are swamped permanently.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1437766
Europe, like America, is fucked because of a hostile mass media which herds the voters by filtering information – hence the – possibly too late – importance of the internet spreading otherwise censored information.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1437770
I doubt the differential in English male / female vote (which I agree is likely to be there) will outweigh the immigrant vote (which will 80/20 for remain at least).
(caveat: i don’t know how many East European immigrants have the vote so i wonder what they might do – it’s in the interest of their home countries if the current EU gets toppled but they may feel a leave vote could be bad for them as individuals – dunno)
Despite both of those effects I still expect England to narrowly vote leave but the vote from Scotland / Wales may turn it (as being pro-EU is partly an anti-English thing).
If the Scottish independence referendum had been yes I’d be more optimistic of a “leave” result.
So yes to the male/female thing but if someone mentions it without mentioning the deliberate importation of a new electorate by the political class then it’s just as likely to be divide and rule from someone in favor of the deliberate destruction of Europe.
I believe that Scottish women and foreigners in Scotland also blew it for Scottish independence just as I expect American women to betray their country and vote for Hillary.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1437781
Atheists like George Bernard Shaw are one cause of the West’s current downward slide as whatever their good qualities their hatred of Christianity made them irrational.
It’s not being atheist in itself; their hatred for their native religion makes throw the baby of their civilization out with the bathwater.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1437787
Britain should leave the Eu–it should never have entered it.
Just exactly how have any of the people of these European nations been benefited by their involvement in the EU, which was proposed, pushed and passed into being by the globalists who have benefited directly and indirectly from it. The North American Union pact signed by the treasonous George W. Bush is the same thing, and very likely accounts for the tacit loss Americans have over their borders, and the unwillingness of the politicians in office to do anything about it.
….and as a note: I am getting sick and tired of the semantical shit that is calling people that want their country’s culture to remain extant and Western “right wing extremists.” It’s about time these libtards got a dose of reality and a lesson in manners.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1437849
(caveat: i don't know how many East European immigrants have the vote so i wonder what they might do - it's in the interest of their home countries if the current EU gets toppled but they may feel a leave vote could be bad for them as individuals - dunno)
Despite both of those effects I still expect England to narrowly vote leave but the vote from Scotland / Wales may turn it (as being pro-EU is partly an anti-English thing).
If the Scottish independence referendum had been yes I'd be more optimistic of a "leave" result.
So yes to the male/female thing but if someone mentions it without mentioning the deliberate importation of a new electorate by the political class then it's just as likely to be divide and rule from someone in favor of the deliberate destruction of Europe.
Agreed. I expect all the foreigners in Britain, even those who’ve been in the U.K. for more than a couple of generations to vote to stay. I know that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland haven’t been cursed with diversity the way England has but surely they must be able to see the writing on the wall and know that the brown hordes are eventually headed their way too.
I believe that Scottish women and foreigners in Scotland also blew it for Scottish independence just as I expect American women to betray their country and vote for Hillary.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1437896
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him – the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.”
“I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”
Sir George Bernard Shaw in ‘The Genuine Islam,’ Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.
If Shaw asserts X, assume not-X.
https://rehmat1.com/2015/10/22/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-holocaust/
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1437899
O! ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose not only tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the Old World is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive and prepare in time an asylum for mankind. – Thomas Paine
England free yourself!
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1437903
Really – I didn’t know Lord Janner was a Muslim.
Lord Janner was first accused of being involved in sexual abuse of young boys in 1991 but was not prosecuted under pressure from Jewish Lobby which controls both Labour and Conservative parties.
Cardiff-born Janner took refuge in Canada during the WW II. He is former president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, an Israeli Lobby, from 1978 to 1984. He has been a key international figure in efforts to suck billions of dollars in compensation and restitution for the ever-increasing Holocaust survivors from Germany, Hungary, Switzerland and Poland. The main beneficiary of this Holocaust loot have been Israel, while the Holocaust survivor families have received between $3,500 to $17,500 annually. UK’s EXPRESS reported on June 5, 2014 that in the long run, it will cost German taxpayers’ more than £275 billion to payoff WW II debt to the Jews…..
https://rehmat1.com/2014/07/15/british-paedophile-holocaust-hoaxer/
How old was Aiesha when muhammad (shit be upon him) "married" her? How old when he "consummated" the marriage, i.e. RAPED her?
Nah, let's focus on Lord whoever instead, as he is the hero of one billion-plus misguided fools around the world just like muhammad. Oh he isn't?
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1438193
I bet Netanyahu must have told you that. If the idiot can absolve Hitler of killing a few thousand non-Zionist Jews – he can demonize Bernard Shaw very easily.
https://rehmat1.com/2015/10/22/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-holocaust/
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1438200
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him – the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.”
“I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”
Sir George Bernard Shaw in ‘The Genuine Islam,’ Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.
If Islam is so great, why did you leave your Allah-land and move to the Christian west? Why do Muslims everywhere seek to leave their countries and invite themselves to non-Muslim ones? Why is there no freedom or democracy among Muslim countries? Why are they all retarded basket cases?
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1438254
It is still much too early to expect the peoples of the World to wholly accept a unified one world system. Right now, individualism personally and nationally is still the desire of most people. Certainly, confrontation arises when nations are individual in character, but isn’t that what diplomacy is all about? Most nations don’t agree with, or support the American view, that right makes right. That is the way of extinction. Sure it would be terrible to see the US sink beneath the sands of time, but if it did, there would still be all the other nations surviving such a catastrophe. However if the US, as it is currently comprised, does not disappear then all the other nations on Earth will. What would you prefer? I know which choice I would make!
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1438326
Those who complain that Britain’s membership of the EU has resulted in a loss of sovereignty should remember that essentially the same arguments apply to other members.
Yet, no other EU country has a significant campaign either to leave or to renegotiate terms of membership. From Germany and Holland in the prosperous north, to Spain and Greece in the more troubled south, all have judged that it is in their best interests not only to remain in the EU but also to keep the euro as their currency.
Is it seriously suggested that all the people of the great nations of Europe are wrong and Ukip and a few disgruntled Right-wing Conservatives are right?
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1438693
Well if you want the royals to embrace a WN identity you’ll have a long wait- they’d need some evidence that a majority of their subjects were doing so, otherwise their throne would be forfeit in an hour. And a majority of white Britons is not going to go all-in on WN, certainly not this generation. As sad as that may be, it makes the royals a true reflection of their country, not an alien multiculturalist imposition.
An interesting question now would be, and in leftist quarters I sure it has been raised, would an heir or even spare be permitted to marry and reproduce with a non-European? Somehow the royals have managed to evade this question to date. I’ll be interested to see how many generations they can keep it at bay by just telling the press that the Diana experience taught them to value their heirs’ personal feelings and just training up said heirs to never “fall in love with” any diverse people. That’s the kind of thing that can leak to the press fast.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1438777
More German inclding Prince Philip
The House of Windsor is the royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. It was founded by King George V by royal proclamation on 17 July 1917, when he changed the name of the British Royal Family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (a branch of the House of Wettin) to the English Windsor, due primarily to the anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I.[1] The most prominent member of the House of Windsor at any given time is its head, currently Queen Elizabeth II.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor
married Philip Mountbatten. He was a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, a branch of the House of Oldenburg, and had been a prince of Greece and Denmark. However, Philip, a few months before his marriage, abandoned his princely titles and adopted the surname Mountbatten, which was that of his uncle and mentor, Earl Mountbatten of Burma, and had itself been adopted by Lord Mountbatten's father (Philip's maternal grandfather), Prince Louis of Battenberg, in 1917. It is the literal translation of the German Battenberg, which refers to Battenberg, a small town in Hesse.
In post-war Britain, it was not acceptable for the Duke of Edinburgh's German relations, including his three surviving sisters, to be invited to the wedding
I know every bit of that and have said it on this site more than once.
[Sidebar only relevant on this site- Germans are white. For now.]
My original post was differentiating the monarchy, a native institution of ancient origins, from the EU and NATO, foreign alliances to which Britain signed on in recent times and which may have outlived their value. That would still be true if the next inheritor of the British throne were also the next Japanese emperor. Also, whether or not the EU and NATO have ceased to serve British interests as determined by the elected British government, the same cannot be said of the monarchy because it does nothing that does not have the approval of the elected government. There is no case to be made that the monarchy or its occupants represent a foreign imposition on Britain or a channel for the interests of foreign powers into British policy.
That was the whole of my earlier point.
On the larger point, as deep as the German connection is, I can’t think of any group of people whose apparent mindset and visible behaviours are more culturally English. The last time the monarch could have been considered more German than English in mindset was Victoria, and probably only early in her reign due to Albert’s influence. After Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II have been walking archetypes of various virtues, and vices, of upper class English/Britons. Quiet apart from them all being of native birth, which they were, that’s pretty hard core representation of the English way of life, with some Scottish habits thrown in. [Worth noting also that Victoria [also native born English] and Albert’s early Germanisms [a certain stoicism of manner and expectation, use of German language, travel to Germany, Christmas trees...] were actually a reversion. native born George III and his sons were just as stereotypically English as their recent heirs, George III in his form of rectitude, his sons for their vices.]
On the genealogical side, it’s true enough. All the royals of Europe are pan-European, the only really successful pan-European institution ever [and, notably for consumption this site, so far as I can tell hardly ever or never any non-Europeans]. And that meant German for the centuries when royals could only marry royals, since Germany had so many sovereign families. Even the French couldn’t avoid some German blood [Habsburg, more than once]. The Russian Romanovs were barely Russian after Peter the Great. The only way the descendants of Catherine II on the throne could be Russian would be if they had been illegitimate. Which they may have been.
On that same note, consider the royal Stuarts. They were a Norman French family that came to England in Norman times, washed up in Scotland as part of the imported Scoto-Norman minor gentry. Unlike the greater Scoto-Norman houses like the Balliols and Bruces, the FitzAlan’s were not competitors for the Crown in the 1290s. They were relative nobodies though holding court positions. The Bruces were a line of Normans who married various Celtic/Saxon/Norman Scottish women over time. Robert II Stuart became king because his mother was Robert I [THE Bruce] daughter. So the royal Stuarts were only partially Scottish, and during their time on the Scottish throne they typically married French. During their tenure on the English throne, still typically married French. After exile, still mainly French. When the main line died out altogether with Cardinal Henry, later lines of succession passed through Italy and wound up in Germany. For over 150 years, the Stuart claimants have been the ducal/royal Wittelsbachs of Bavaria. Franz II, I think, is the current one, though none of them have ever claimed the status of pretender.
This of course does not even consider the Franco-Norman nature of the English royals before the Stuarts.
So it goes. If the multiculturalism threat of today to Britain consisted entirely of French, Danes, and Germans coming in and instantly adopting British ways of life to the nth degree as the royals do, and considering how much we now know about the genetic linkages of European peoples into ancient times, I would not consider it to be a “threat” at all. Bring it on.
And of course none of that changes the fact that Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of the first Stuart King of England, James I, and through him of the first Tudor King of England Henry VII, and through him and multiple other lines of the Lancastrian and Yorkist Plantagenets, going back to Henry II, who was a grandson of Henry I and great-grandson of William the Conqueror. You can probably easily find her descent from the Saxon royalty online. As a descendant of James I she can trace ancestry through the Stuarts to the Bruces and the old Celtic royal line of Scotland. Those are the appropriate considerations.
And of course the German element has been reduced quite a bit- Elizabeth marrying Philip brought back some Dano-German, but Elizabeth’s own mother had been a non-German non-royal Scottish aristocrat and her son Charles married a non-German non-royal English aristocrat, and his son William married a non-German non-aristocrat English commoner [though in the manner of so many down-at heel middle class families, they are probably distantly descended from aristocrats. So much of England is the lineage of younger sons.]
That seems about as British as need be. If anything, I’d like them to dial back the English, add a couple of French, and ape some North American manners so I can sell them in Canada.
Princess Kate's dad is tenuously descended from Edward III Plantagenet, via a ragbag of earls and the like, and her mum from Edward IV (House of York) in the same manner. I suspect you could pull up similar results for any random Devon barmaid or Lancashire housebreaker. I don't have a pot to piss in, and go back to some armigerous hangers-on of Roger fitzRoger (le Poitevin) through both sides of the family in the paternal lines. As do many of the people whose ancestors used to be coalminers in those parishes, and who aren't Irish (even some of them ..). All via legit marriages, let it be noted, and the yDNA matches the surnames, before anyone starts casting nasturtiums ..
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1438831
[Sidebar only relevant on this site- Germans are white. For now.]
My original post was differentiating the monarchy, a native institution of ancient origins, from the EU and NATO, foreign alliances to which Britain signed on in recent times and which may have outlived their value. That would still be true if the next inheritor of the British throne were also the next Japanese emperor. Also, whether or not the EU and NATO have ceased to serve British interests as determined by the elected British government, the same cannot be said of the monarchy because it does nothing that does not have the approval of the elected government. There is no case to be made that the monarchy or its occupants represent a foreign imposition on Britain or a channel for the interests of foreign powers into British policy.
That was the whole of my earlier point.
On the larger point, as deep as the German connection is, I can't think of any group of people whose apparent mindset and visible behaviours are more culturally English. The last time the monarch could have been considered more German than English in mindset was Victoria, and probably only early in her reign due to Albert's influence. After Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II have been walking archetypes of various virtues, and vices, of upper class English/Britons. Quiet apart from them all being of native birth, which they were, that's pretty hard core representation of the English way of life, with some Scottish habits thrown in. [Worth noting also that Victoria [also native born English] and Albert's early Germanisms [a certain stoicism of manner and expectation, use of German language, travel to Germany, Christmas trees...] were actually a reversion. native born George III and his sons were just as stereotypically English as their recent heirs, George III in his form of rectitude, his sons for their vices.]
On the genealogical side, it's true enough. All the royals of Europe are pan-European, the only really successful pan-European institution ever [and, notably for consumption this site, so far as I can tell hardly ever or never any non-Europeans]. And that meant German for the centuries when royals could only marry royals, since Germany had so many sovereign families. Even the French couldn't avoid some German blood [Habsburg, more than once]. The Russian Romanovs were barely Russian after Peter the Great. The only way the descendants of Catherine II on the throne could be Russian would be if they had been illegitimate. Which they may have been.
On that same note, consider the royal Stuarts. They were a Norman French family that came to England in Norman times, washed up in Scotland as part of the imported Scoto-Norman minor gentry. Unlike the greater Scoto-Norman houses like the Balliols and Bruces, the FitzAlan's were not competitors for the Crown in the 1290s. They were relative nobodies though holding court positions. The Bruces were a line of Normans who married various Celtic/Saxon/Norman Scottish women over time. Robert II Stuart became king because his mother was Robert I [THE Bruce] daughter. So the royal Stuarts were only partially Scottish, and during their time on the Scottish throne they typically married French. During their tenure on the English throne, still typically married French. After exile, still mainly French. When the main line died out altogether with Cardinal Henry, later lines of succession passed through Italy and wound up in Germany. For over 150 years, the Stuart claimants have been the ducal/royal Wittelsbachs of Bavaria. Franz II, I think, is the current one, though none of them have ever claimed the status of pretender.
This of course does not even consider the Franco-Norman nature of the English royals before the Stuarts.
So it goes. If the multiculturalism threat of today to Britain consisted entirely of French, Danes, and Germans coming in and instantly adopting British ways of life to the nth degree as the royals do, and considering how much we now know about the genetic linkages of European peoples into ancient times, I would not consider it to be a "threat" at all. Bring it on.
And of course none of that changes the fact that Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of the first Stuart King of England, James I, and through him of the first Tudor King of England Henry VII, and through him and multiple other lines of the Lancastrian and Yorkist Plantagenets, going back to Henry II, who was a grandson of Henry I and great-grandson of William the Conqueror. You can probably easily find her descent from the Saxon royalty online. As a descendant of James I she can trace ancestry through the Stuarts to the Bruces and the old Celtic royal line of Scotland. Those are the appropriate considerations.
And of course the German element has been reduced quite a bit- Elizabeth marrying Philip brought back some Dano-German, but Elizabeth's own mother had been a non-German non-royal Scottish aristocrat and her son Charles married a non-German non-royal English aristocrat, and his son William married a non-German non-aristocrat English commoner [though in the manner of so many down-at heel middle class families, they are probably distantly descended from aristocrats. So much of England is the lineage of younger sons.]
That seems about as British as need be. If anything, I'd like them to dial back the English, add a couple of French, and ape some North American manners so I can sell them in Canada.
As supporters of Milwall FC sing, “No one likes us, we don’t care”. The Anglo Norman gentry have been forced to marry each other (and any commoner in the realm with a bit of cash or land) since .. forever. If you didn’t benefit from primogeniture and a high casualty rate leading to promotion up the order, you were SOOL.
Princess Kate’s dad is tenuously descended from Edward III Plantagenet, via a ragbag of earls and the like, and her mum from Edward IV (House of York) in the same manner. I suspect you could pull up similar results for any random Devon barmaid or Lancashire housebreaker. I don’t have a pot to piss in, and go back to some armigerous hangers-on of Roger fitzRoger (le Poitevin) through both sides of the family in the paternal lines. As do many of the people whose ancestors used to be coalminers in those parishes, and who aren’t Irish (even some of them ..). All via legit marriages, let it be noted, and the yDNA matches the surnames, before anyone starts casting nasturtiums ..
As Tess of the d'Urbervilles and countless other works have noted, it's less the fact of descent that matters than the seniority of aristocratic lineage at every generation and the records to back it up.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1438932
The "Ancient" English monarchy has had several substantial breaks over the last millenia, so don't kid yourself about a long and noble Royal lineage.
The descent of monarchs since George I to today from the ancient English and Scottish lines is indisputable and nowhere disputed. look up details yourself. I’ll be selective to major points.
England:
All the monarchs from George I to Elizabeth II are descendants of James VI and I of Scotland and England, the first Stuart to inherit England, and through him to Henry VII of England, the first Tudor monarch of England whose daughter married into the Stuarts, and through Henry VII via the Beauforts to the Lancastrian line of Plantagenets, and through Henry’s wife to the Yorkist line of Plantagenets, and thus back to Edward III, and through him to the earlier Plantagenets and Normans. [There were several aristocratic marryings back in at times that allow several other , much lesser, routes to be traced to the Plantagenets].
There has never been any succession, however disputed and however many rivals, even in some cases genealogically senior rivals, were defeated in which the new monarch was not a member of the royal line by blood. Female line succession was determined lawful in the 12th century. Proximity of blood contended with primogeniture as defining legal rules as late as the 15th century, but you still had to have the blood. Trial by battle and Lancastrian partisan support/desperation was the real basis of Henry VII’s claim, but he had a bloodline back to John of Gaunt just the same. Henry VIII, his son via Elizabeth of York, united both that and the senior Yorkist descent. So, by definition, did Henry VIII’s sister, the basis of the Stuart claim. [Henry VII battled with rival Yorkist claimants for much of his reign, and Henry VIII executed a bunch. Oddly, Henry VIII was genealogically senior to all of them as a Yorkist heir through his mother, as Henry VIII was a descendant of Edward IV and his rivals were all descendants of Edward IV's female siblings. Genealogically, Henry VIII was the true king by any measure. And in the absence of legitimate descent from him after Elizabeth I died, James VI and I Stuart as the descendant of Henry VIII's sister [same Yorkist mother] was also the senior heir in 1603.]
That all takes you via a nice easy route back to the Conqueror, the basis of the English crown and state. His claim was based on, all considerations valid in the law at the time: right of conquest, election by the witan, the will of Edward the Confessor, and being one of a variety of descendants of the Saxon royal line, if not nearly the senior one at the time [hard to trace now, but by some measures the senior blood of Wessex came back in with the Stuarts, as one female Wessex princess had married into Scottish royalty]. If you want to trace the lines back you can get all the way from Elizabeth II to Cerdic of Wessex. Dark Age genealogy may not be all its cracked up to be, although there’s no reason an iron age society can’t keep records on that when it’s as important as the royal line. But you can get to the House of Wessex of the 9th century no problem. 1066 even less than no problem.
Scotland:
On the Scottish side, James VI and I’s Stuart line got the throne through the female line, as the Stewart/Stuart family head Walter the High Steward married Marjorie Bruce, daughter and sole heir of Robert I ["the Bruce" of Bannockburn fame] in the 14th century. Their son became king as Robert II, the first Stewart king. The Bruces were among the competitor houses of Norman descent who claimed the Scottish Crown in the 1290s, mainly through female lines of succession. All did in fact have genealogical succession from the old royal line, whose main branch had died with Alexander III and his daughter Margaret. The Balliols and the Bruces were the closest. The Balliols were genealogically senior, the Bruce competitor at the time was one generation older so argued proximity of blood. Alas, I think Edward of England chose properly when his arbitration validated the Balliol claim based on primogeniture. But as the resulting civil wars and war with England put paid to it, the Bruce claim and thus the Stuart was all that remained. IIRC the competitors of the 1290s all or mainly descended from William I of Scotland. You can trace that lineage back to the 10th century at least without getting even theoretically into dark agey concerns.
So- James VI and I was the senior heir to England when he took the throne, and the indisputable king of Scots already. All subsequent monarchs without exception have been his descendants. So whether the lineage is “noble” in some moral sense aside, it is long enough.
So that part of my original post as you quoted is correct. The monarchs since George I are descendants of the English and Scottish monarchs of old, and their claim is rooted in descent from James VI and I [Stuart].
If you don’t like the moves in the succession made in the late 17th century, fair enough. They were different from what went before on several points. But in my original comment, replying to the idea that the monarchy belonged in a list including the EU and NATO, I merely noted that those changes were made by the English parliament according to English laws rather than being foreign impositions. Even if irregular, they were indigenous, not foreign, which was the original issue at stake here.
As to those irregularities, a few comments:
It’s worth noting at this point that the use of parliament to determine validity of claims was not wholly unprecedented. It goes back at least to 1399 and was used multiple times thereafter. The fact that Henry VIII had his will passed as an act of parliament and his son Edward VI had his validated only by his privy council ultimately provided the legal cover for the succession of Edward’s sister Mary rather than Jane Grey.
So while it was irregular for parliament to essentially make the selection in 1688, it was not at all irregular for an act of parliament to be the legally final instrument determining a successor’s validity. Although a modern parliament probably could do these things or at least get away with them, it is also worth noting what parliament did NOT do. It did not abolish the monarchy [the act of doing so in 1649 was wildly unlawful and all subsequent parliaments from 1660 recognized this, and the parliament in 1688 was no exception]. It did not select a new monarch without any claim of blood descent from a prior, recent English monarch. It did arrogate to itself the right to legislate on the validity of competing claims from among valid descendants, and it added criteria on which it could make that choice- mainly religious and willingness to abide by parliamentary supremacy.
So could it do that? Arguable. In prior cases, parliamentary legislation had validated essentially already completed successions, or had been driven by the initiative of a sitting king, but at least in the case of Mary and Jane it had been the deciding argument in an actually disputed succession, giving legal cover to the victory of one party over another based on an act that had been passed years before. From the point of view of her supporters, Jane was Queen by a valid if weaker blood claim and by Edward VI’s will. And to some extent in the first days was actually in place. From the point of view of Mary’s faction, Mary was Queen by being Henry VIII’s daughter, Edward’s sister, and by Henry VIII’s will enacted by Parliament. The Marian faction’s power play was validated by the act of parliament and popular will, the two critical factors in 1688 as well.
The parliamentary decision to claim James II had abdicated in 1688 by fleeing the capital and ditching the Great Seal was a cynical move and a modern ‘political’ tactic to be sure. But by the mores of premodern royalist values it was a clever one. Kings who ditched their seal and fled their capital even for good practical reason would always have had some explaining to do. Even pure bloodline monarchy has legal formalities and niceties. His pretty clear unwillingness to live up to the requirements of being head of the church of England and his apparent desire to raise the next potential king a Catholic seem pretty clear problems with his coronation oath. These are not mere parliamentarist ideas.
SO if you think parliament’s move was invalid, fine. but it was not without some legal backing in English royal practice, and it was far less a usurpation than what happened in 1649.
Once James II and his infant son the future James III* were to be excluded, the next heirs in order of primogeniture [cognatic male preference] were: Mary [daughter of James II], Anne [daughter of James II] and William of Orange [son of James II's sister- many forget how close in line William himself was- he was third in his own right]. I agree it would have been better for all concerned if:
1. William and Mary had living heirs, since Mary was senior, or,
2. Anne had living heirs, since she was second [her heirs would have been half Dano-Germanic given her husband was a prince of Denmark], or,
3. William had remarried after Mary died in 1694 and produced a viable line before his own death in 1702, since he was third [there would have been a foofaraw if Anne also had kids and William's kids were not also Mary's, of course; they probably would have picked the likeliest looking male child];
In the absence of all those, parliament might well have chosen to recall James III* under some kind of settlement in 1714 but his positions and the politics of Britain in the early Union period and the last days of the war with France ultimately made that unviable. James was a second generation stooge of Louis XIV at this point.
So they passed over the main line of the royal stuarts again [which ended in 1807 with the death of Henry Benedict Cardinal Stuart] and the succession from Charles I’s youngest daughter [as Catholics presumably they couldn't have taken the oath either] and settled on the descendants of Charles I’s sister Elizabeth Stuart.
The genealogically senior heirs of James I today are the descendants of Charles I’s aforementioned daughter, a line which passed through female succession as well a couple of times through the Italian royal house of Savoy and settled by the early 19th century on the Bavarian ducal/royal house of Wittelsbach. The present heir is Franz II. None of the Savoy/Wittelsbach heirs after the death of Henry Stuart ever asserted their claim, but still.
The genealogically junior heirs of James I are the Hanoverians who descended from Charles I’s sister Elizabeth Stuart, who thus branched off the Stuarts by female line exactly one generation earlier than the Savoy line did, and their heirs to Elizabeth II.
You may wish to call 1688 an invalid extension of parliamentary role in the succession, and endorse the seniority of the Wittelsbach succession on those grounds. that would be entirely consistent with an approach based on pure cognatic primogeniture. They have one generation genealogical seniority as heirs of James I.
[By now the usual argument about how German the royals are applies wildly more to them than to the current line. That German bit doesn't much matter to me, as I've made clear in an earlier comment above. If we could engineer a Jacobite/Wittelsbach succession by legal means, that's dope. But as long as I keep hearing how German the current royals are, its relevant to point how much more German their "rivals" are.]
I happen to endorse the parliamentary selection.
But either way, the proximity of the two lines in their respective Stuart descents is clear. I said that the present line came to the throne through descent from the Stuarts, which is correct.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1439007
Princess Kate's dad is tenuously descended from Edward III Plantagenet, via a ragbag of earls and the like, and her mum from Edward IV (House of York) in the same manner. I suspect you could pull up similar results for any random Devon barmaid or Lancashire housebreaker. I don't have a pot to piss in, and go back to some armigerous hangers-on of Roger fitzRoger (le Poitevin) through both sides of the family in the paternal lines. As do many of the people whose ancestors used to be coalminers in those parishes, and who aren't Irish (even some of them ..). All via legit marriages, let it be noted, and the yDNA matches the surnames, before anyone starts casting nasturtiums ..
I think I once saw one of those pop genealogy articles suggesting all Englishmen by the 1950s were descended from Edward III one way or another. It wasn’t as impressive as the percentage and number of Asian men descended from Genghis Khan, but considering Edward ruled a smaller kingdom, still impressive.
As Tess of the d’Urbervilles and countless other works have noted, it’s less the fact of descent that matters than the seniority of aristocratic lineage at every generation and the records to back it up.
Rather that his kindred were esteemed as in-laws, and he had the temporal power to "make it so" when it came to dishing out cattle, land and rank to anyone with a claim to his name. His daughters have dissolved back into the mtDNA and aDNA of the island's commoners. The root is much, much further back, as far as Beaker/Food Vessel times maybe. Rathlin Island shows IndoEuropean R1b L21 "steppe" ancestry was already present in Ireland ca. 2000 BC , and he carried that lineage of relentlessly successful landowner/warlords, along with many others, and their own variants, of which his was the least prone to "daughtering-out", or simply being exterminated through clan warfare. "No surrender!" OK then ..
Then (Romanised) Christianity came along and spoiled it for them. The Romans always were a bit po-faced and serially monogamous about that sort of thing, even as polytheists.Temujin/Ghengis and his clan were top of the shop during his floruit, and *cough* injected a far older male signature into the populations under his control. He was no slouch on the couch, but his male kin were just as important. For as long as they held power.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1439009
Lord Janner was first accused of being involved in sexual abuse of young boys in 1991 but was not prosecuted under pressure from Jewish Lobby which controls both Labour and Conservative parties.
Cardiff-born Janner took refuge in Canada during the WW II. He is former president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, an Israeli Lobby, from 1978 to 1984. He has been a key international figure in efforts to suck billions of dollars in compensation and restitution for the ever-increasing Holocaust survivors from Germany, Hungary, Switzerland and Poland. The main beneficiary of this Holocaust loot have been Israel, while the Holocaust survivor families have received between $3,500 to $17,500 annually. UK’s EXPRESS reported on June 5, 2014 that in the long run, it will cost German taxpayers’ more than £275 billion to payoff WW II debt to the Jews.....
https://rehmat1.com/2014/07/15/british-paedophile-holocaust-hoaxer/
Your “prophet” was a pedophile, Rehmat, and that’s not changed by some non-Muslim being convicted or accused of the same.
https://rehmat1.com/2016/05/31/uk-paedophilia-among-israel-lovers/
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1439101
Lord Janner was first accused of being involved in sexual abuse of young boys in 1991 but was not prosecuted under pressure from Jewish Lobby which controls both Labour and Conservative parties.
Cardiff-born Janner took refuge in Canada during the WW II. He is former president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, an Israeli Lobby, from 1978 to 1984. He has been a key international figure in efforts to suck billions of dollars in compensation and restitution for the ever-increasing Holocaust survivors from Germany, Hungary, Switzerland and Poland. The main beneficiary of this Holocaust loot have been Israel, while the Holocaust survivor families have received between $3,500 to $17,500 annually. UK’s EXPRESS reported on June 5, 2014 that in the long run, it will cost German taxpayers’ more than £275 billion to payoff WW II debt to the Jews.....
https://rehmat1.com/2014/07/15/british-paedophile-holocaust-hoaxer/
P.S. If you’re trying to attack me by attacking Western countries’ slavish devotion to Jews, you obviously haven’t read many of my comments, my pedophile-prophet-worshipping buddy
How old was Aiesha when muhammad (shit be upon him) “married” her? How old when he “consummated” the marriage, i.e. RAPED her?
Nah, let’s focus on Lord whoever instead, as he is the hero of one billion-plus misguided fools around the world just like muhammad. Oh he isn’t?
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1439104
Yet, no other EU country has a significant campaign either to leave or to renegotiate terms of membership. From Germany and Holland in the prosperous north, to Spain and Greece in the more troubled south, all have judged that it is in their best interests not only to remain in the EU but also to keep the euro as their currency.
Is it seriously suggested that all the people of the great nations of Europe are wrong and Ukip and a few disgruntled Right-wing Conservatives are right?
It’s more than a few people in the UK who want to leave the EU.
Moreover, the whole point is that British people should decide for themselves what is best for them and their nation, not the people of Germany or Holland or the USA or any other nations.
As for Germany, I am proud to say that I have German heritage, speak some German, and have our children learning German at a young age. But the way they are allowing themselves to be invaded, raped, pillaged, and intimidated, I don’t think they have any credibility to advise others on how to proceed with regard to the EU, Muslim immigration, or anything else.
So yes, I “seriously suggest” that the British people who want their country to leave the EU are correct. Do you have any other non-arguments to make?
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1439109
As Tess of the d'Urbervilles and countless other works have noted, it's less the fact of descent that matters than the seniority of aristocratic lineage at every generation and the records to back it up.
Same deal with Niall Noígíallach King of Connacht (haplogroup M222). It wasn’t that Niall himself went around on a massive shagathon during his reign (although he certainly provided many “extra” sons (and daughters, but who’s counting?) to his subjects’ families. As good as money in the bank, under the old celtic systems of inheritance).
Rather that his kindred were esteemed as in-laws, and he had the temporal power to “make it so” when it came to dishing out cattle, land and rank to anyone with a claim to his name. His daughters have dissolved back into the mtDNA and aDNA of the island’s commoners. The root is much, much further back, as far as Beaker/Food Vessel times maybe. Rathlin Island shows IndoEuropean R1b L21 “steppe” ancestry was already present in Ireland ca. 2000 BC , and he carried that lineage of relentlessly successful landowner/warlords, along with many others, and their own variants, of which his was the least prone to “daughtering-out”, or simply being exterminated through clan warfare. “No surrender!” OK then ..
Then (Romanised) Christianity came along and spoiled it for them. The Romans always were a bit po-faced and serially monogamous about that sort of thing, even as polytheists.
Temujin/Ghengis and his clan were top of the shop during his floruit, and *cough* injected a far older male signature into the populations under his control. He was no slouch on the couch, but his male kin were just as important. For as long as they held power.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1439149
2 billion Muslims around the world don’t care what some Zionist Jewish filth think about their prophet who happened to have two of your Jewish sisters in his harem – but it’s well-known that Jews make world’s largest pedophile community.
https://rehmat1.com/2016/05/31/uk-paedophilia-among-israel-lovers/
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1439211
Those “2 billion” Muslims just copied all the others who came before them. There were probably only a few tens of thousands in the prophet-paedophile’s day.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/will-there-always-be-an-england/#comment-1439324