Amidst all the fawning coverage of the royal newborn (whose name, as of this writing, has yet to be announced), I feel compelled to inject a note of what some will call cynicism.
Most reporters and commentators are referring to the child as an heir to the kingdom.
How realistic is this? I mean, given the way the U.K.'s government seems to so eagerly pander to and accommodate Islamists and their agenda; given the fact that London is nowadays so often colloquially referred to as "Londonstan"; given the way British jurists have publicly endorsed Shariah – I'm wondering just what will be left of the kingdom for the new prince to inherit.
Advertisement - story continues below
It wasn't all that long ago that a British soldier was hacked to death on a London street in broad daylight, while civilians and Bobbies stood by helplessly, waiting for an armed contingent to respond, as the perpetrators mugged for the camera and shouted "Allahu Akbar!" Whatever hue and cry there was over that incident, and others, seems to have slipped 'neath the waves with nary a ripple.
Rather than "There'll Always Be an England," the 1939 song that was a big hit during World War II and has been an expression of English patriotism ever since, a more appropriate song nowadays might be The Kinks' "Living on a Thin Line" (a favorite of radio's Michael Savage), which contains the line "But There's No England Now."
That song, with its references to knights and days of old, castles burned and wars won and lost that "somehow don't seem to matter very much anymore," seems a more realistic (if cynical) portent of what the newborn prince has, if anything, to look forward to, in what Shakespeare (in "Richard II") called "This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle ... This other Eden, demi-paradise ... This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England."