Tragedy in Canada

This week, tragedy unfolded in the Canadian capital of Ottawa, where a gunman shot and murdered a soldier serving as an honour guard at a war memorial before storming Canada's parliament building. The gunman, identified as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, was himself shot by Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers before he could harm anyone inside the parliament building. My thoughts go out to Cpl Nathan Cirillo, the soldier who gave his life in these most unlikely of circumstances, and to his family; the shooting calls up memories of Drummer Lee Rigby's murder in 2013. In both cases, men who risked their lives in the service of their country were cut down in cold blood not on some foreign battlefield but at home in the nations they served, a tragic irony that must make many of their colleagues worry about their own safety. Then as now, the implication seems to be that these two men were singled out simply because they wore military uniform.

Zehaf-Bibeau was a 32 year old Canadian subject of Her Majesty the Queen; his mother was Canadian, his father originally from Libya. He was reportedly a convert to Islam with a criminal record and past convictions for drug use, violence and "other criminal activities." Like many young people, he seems to have had a fairly comfortable upbringing before loosing his way in later life and becoming radicalised; his story has chilling echoes of those of Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, Drummer Rigby's murderers, as well as that of Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the brothers responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings, also last year. It seems that Canada now joins the United Kingdom and the United States as victims of Islamic terrorism. The question Western societies must ask themselves is, why are so many young people being pulled into the trap of Islamic extremism? Or, indeed, any other kind of extremism?

The unfortunate truth is that people whose lives go wrong will always look for two things; hope, in the form of a cause, and someone to lay the blame on. Radical Islam provides a cause, and it gives these people something to blame in the form of "decadent," "sinful" Western society. I make no apologies for being a realist, and I do not believe that society will ever reach a stage where all people are well-adjusted, decent citizens, but even so, it seems that occurrences like these are becoming worryingly frequent. These aren't petty criminal acts, but terrorist activity, committed with the sole intention of causing panic and fear in order to forward the cause of the perpetrators. How can countries such as Canada minimise the risk of terrorist activity?

Well, the first thing that must be said is that draconian surveillance measures as proposed by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper following the attack on parliament are not the perfect solution. I can tell you that the United Kingdom is now one of the world's most watched countries thanks to the surveillance brought in under the previous Labour government, and the impact on crime has been negligible. The root of the problem is social; for one thing, the onus is at least in part on the Islamic community to counter the influence of radicals within their community. That the vast majority of Muslims are perfectly decent, hardworking and upright citizens I do not doubt, but the voice of this overwhelming majority is often quieted by the actions of extremists. Muslims in the Western world should be encouraged to speak out against extremism at every opportunity. Mosques and madrasas where radical clerics are allowed access to susceptible young people should be mercilessly pursued and shut down.

What's more, a reassertion of traditional religion in Canada would go a long way to filling the spiritual void in many modern Canadians' lives. As C.S. Lewis said, "spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison." A Canada that asserts its national identity, promotes patriotism and faith, and offers its citizens a positive "cause" will find it far easier to wage a culture war against radicalism than a Canada based on fluffy and shallow ideals such as "freedom," "multiculturalism" and "individualism." People turn to Islamism because they are looking for an identity. I say, offer them a better one- a Canadian identity. Of course, when I say promote faith, I principally mean the Christian faith that Canada was built on, but supporting orthodox Islam against the heretical, ISIS-aligned brand offered by hate clerics is also sound policy. Assimiliationism is better than multiculturalism. All citizens of Canada should be encouraged to embrace their Canadian identity, and above all else, to embrace the monarchy- the Maple Crown- as the keystone of the Canadian nation; a sentiment expressed by the admirable Canadian Islamic leader Sayyid Amiruddin, of the Naqshbandi Sufi Order, on his blog.

Canada is a country that I have great affection for. It is a country built on loyalty to the Crown, and

indeed Canada has grown from a loyal colony of Great Britain to a loyal friend and comrade in arms. I despair at the creeping Americanisation of Canada, especially the gradual erosion of traditional Canadian Toryism by an American brand of Conservatism that seems to have asserted itself recently. Symbolic gestures such as the Canadian Government's decision to restore the names of the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Airforce in 2011 give me hope that Canada's identity, grown from a cutting of Great Britain but shaped by its unique history and circumstances, will endure. With its vast territories and natural resources, Canada has the makings of a great power, if it so wished to become one; but whatever path Canada chooses in the future, it will be brave men like Nathan Cirillo and Kevin Vickers who get it there.

Victory For The Union!

"Better Together" supporters celebrate the unionist victory as the
final results come in.

The results of Scotland's referendum on secession this morning: 55.3% voted no (2,001,926), 44.7% voted yes (1,617,989). The turnout was an amazing 84.59%, showing that if nothing else this referendum heightened public interest in politics considerably. 

From the bottom of my heart, I'd like to thank every one of those 2,001,926 Scots who cast their vote in favour of retaining our United Kingdom. In the days ahead their will be plenty of talk about devolution and constitutional reform, the long term impacts of this referendum; but for today at least, the atmosphere is one of celebration for those who love Great Britain. Let's crack out the whiskey and raise a glass o' cheer to the Queen and the People of Scotland and the United Kingdom!

Hip, hip- hurray!

Hip, hip- hurray!

Hip, hip- hurray!

The final results in detail

The referendum in pictures

Scottish Referendum: A Last Word Before The Result

The referendum that will decide the fate of my country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was held today and by the time I have posted this message I suspect most Scots will already have cast their votes. It is probably too late, then, for me to urge any undecided voters who might happen to stumble across this blog right before going out to the polls to choose the Union over the uncertainties of independence. Considering that this blog was set up in large part to argue the case for the Union, I have given it fairly little coverage; the referendum has crept up more quickly than any of us could imagine, and I've been too busy in my personal life to devote considerable time to my blog. That said, whatever the result of this referendum is, I will not stop blogging. In the worst case scenario, if I wake up tomorrow morning to find that my country has been condemned to abolition in two years time after the last negotiations are complete, the next mission I will face will be doing what little I can to defend the Union of the Crowns and the Scottish monarchy which will surely be the SNP's next target. Alternatively, if the decision of the Scottish people is a decisive "No," as I truly hope it will be, then we unionists can all take a deep sigh of relief, but I will definitely continue posting my views on the Union and Scotland along with a range of other topics (hopefully). The truth is, no matter what the result the polls indicate that it will be a close race, and in the event of the "No" camp succeeding by a slim margin I have no doubt that the nationalists will be calling for another referendum in ten years' time. So long as there are things of great import in this world, there will inevitably be those seeking to destroy them.

There is little point now in me criticising the atrocious way that the "Yes" campaign has been carried out. From encouraging nationalist teenagers to emotionally blackmail their unionist grandparents into voting yes, to organising "mobs" to disrupt pro-Unionist events, the "Yes Scotland" campaign has behaved in a manner resembling the authoritarian populist parties of the early 20th century. I have personally been on the receiving end of one or two taunts from the now infamous "cybernats" or online nationalist lobby, but truth be told I've gotten on surprisingly well; maybe because I've chosen to voice my opinion mainly on this blog and dedicated political forums rather than venturing onto Twitter, Facebook and other social media where people have had abuse hurled at them for endorsing a "No"vote. I tend to think JK Rowling is an overrated author, but I admire her greatly for coming out as a "Better Together" supporter and urging a peaceful and respectful dialogue, despite the fact that she has come under fire from nationalists for voicing her opinion. I'm not sure I agree with the idea of her becoming Queen of Scots, however. 

On the topic of the Queen of Scots, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II caused a media stir by "breaking her silence" on the Scottish referendum. The Queen's comment that she hopes “people will think very carefully about the future” was taken by many on both sides of the debate as an endorsement of the "No" campaign, leading to the usual accusations of the Queen having violated her political neutrality. So telling people to think very carefully about the future is encouraging them to vote no? I'm saying nothing.

The votes are being cast even as I write. Soon the future of not just one, but four countries- and quite possibly the entire world- will be written by Scotland's 5.2 million inhabitants, in the form of millions of a little "x" in one of two little boxes. Unfortunately, being merely of Scottish descent, I get no vote, and no say in the matter. It is now out of my hands. Que sera sera. But I pray earnestly for a Unionist victory. God Save the Queen and the United Kingdom!

O let us not, like snarling curs, 

In wrangling be divided, 

Till, slap! come in an unco loun, 

And wi' a rung decide it! 

Be Britain still to Britain true, 

Amang ourselves united; 

For never but by British hands 

Maun British wrangs be righted! 

No! never but by British hands 

Shall British wrangs be righted!

- Rabbie Burns, "Does Haughty Gaul Invasion Threat"

5 Good Reasons To Vote No - Part 2

Continued from Part 1.

3. The North Sea oil won't last forever.

One of the Yes campaign's major points throughout the campaigning has been that Scotland as an independent country would have a valuable asset in the form of North Sea oil and gas reserves. The issue came up again last night, when Alex Salmond said that "every other country in Europe would give their back teeth to have North Sea Oil". Except the Kingdom of Norway, of course, who already have 54% of the sea's oil reserves and 45% of its gas reserves. Norway is part of the "arc of prosperity" cited by Alex Salmond as models that an independent Scotland could model itself on, before other members of that arc of prosperity- including Iceland and the Republic of Ireland- suffered a spectacular economic collapse when the recession hit. Certainly, Norway has gained great wealth from its share of the oil and gas reserves in the North Sea, but Norwegian and British government sources agree that over half the reserves have already been used. Furthermore, as Alistair Darling pointed out last night, oil is a very volatile source of revenue and an independent Scotland relying on it to buoy the economy would be taking a gamble. Recently, Sir Ian Wood, a major figure in the UK's oil and gas industry, came out against independence warning that "there are only 15 years of reserves left before its decline starts wreaking major damage on the Scottish economy." Sir Ian believes that the Scottish Government has been overestimating the remaining oil and gas reserves in the North Sea. On the other hand, other industry experts yesterday said that the Scottish Government's estimate of 24bn remaining barrels of oil was "plausible." Whatever the case, oil and gas are non-renewable resources, meaning that they are replenished so slowly that they are effectively finite. And reserves are notoriously difficult to predict, meaning that relying on the revenue from North Sea oil to buoy the independent Scotland's economy is building a house on unstable ground.

4. EU membership is uncertain.

Another of Yes Scotland's talking points has been the European Union, which Scots are generally more supportive of than their countrymen in the rest of the United Kingdom. Alex Salmond has repeatedly claimed that independence is the best option for Scots who wish to remain within the EU, as rising euroscepticism south of the border sees the UK Independence Party gaining increasing electoral success and the Conservatives promising a referendum on EU membership if re-elected. However, as I've previously mentioned, Salmond's assertions that upon independence, Scotland would automatically inherit the UK's membership of the Union have been contradicted by members of the European elite. In February, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said that it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for Scotland to join the European Union. Yesterday his sentiments were echoed by Ruairi Quinn, former president of EU's finance council, who predicted that Spain and Belgium would be likely to block Scotland's application. Both countries have significant secessionist movements within their own borders and would not wish to encourage them by allowing a newly independent Scotland into Europe. Mr Quinn also stated that Scotland would need to adopt the euro as a condition of joining the EU, providing its application was accepted, contradicting Alex Salmond's claims that Scotland would be allowed to continue using the pound as the United Kingdom is at present.

Meanwhile, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation have warned that an independent Scotland would have less clout within the EU and less say when it came to issues such as fishing quotas, meaning that Scotland would likely lose out to larger countries- including the rest of the United Kingdom, which will continue to have considerable influence in Europe post-independence. The SFF also described the SNP’s claims that Scotland could negotiate EU membership between a "yes" vote next month and seceding in March 2016 as "very optimistic." Much like the rest of their campaign, then.

5. The United Kingdom is stronger together.

As a unified country, Great Britain and later the United Kingdom achieved more than Scotland and England ever did alone. For better or for worse, the British Empire was the largest empire in world history, and the union flag flew over a quarter of the world's landmass at its height. The Industrial Revolution began here, as did modern parliamentary democracy, influenced as much by the Scottish Enlightenment as by English ideals. Glasgow was called the "Second City of the Empire." Today, Scotland still benefits from being part of one of the world's great powers, a nuclear power with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and the world's sixth-largest economy by nominal GDP and eighth-largest by purchasing power parity. But most of all, the bonds between the people of the British Isles go beyond mere politics and economics; we have deeply influenced each other's culture, and millions of people live in the UK today who have both English and Scottish ancestry, living embodiment of the 300-year-old union between these two ancient nations, along with Wales and Northern Ireland. I will leave the last word to the architect of the Union of Crowns, James VI and I, who laid the groundwork for the eventual unification of Great Britain:

James VI and I in 1606 by
John De Critz the Elder 

"But the union of these two princely houses is nothing comparable to the union of two ancient and famous kingdoms, which is the other inward peace annexed to my person ... Has not God first united these two kingdoms, both in language, religion, and similitude of manners? Yes, has he not made us all in one island, compassed with one sea, and of itself by nature so indivisible, as almost those that were borderers themselves on the late borders, cannot distinguish nor know or discern their own limits? These two Countries being separated neither by sea, nor great river, mountain, nor other strength of nature ..."

- James VI and I, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland

5 Good Reasons To Vote No - Part 1

The Scottish independence debate is really warming up now as we draw close to the 18th September, when the people of Scotland will go to the polls. Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond will be trading blows again tonight in their second televised debate; the first one made for frustrating viewing as both politicians dodged questions and resorted to attacking one another's campaign tactics rather than discussing the core issues surrounding the referendum. Most notably, Darling repeatedly asked what the SNP's "Plan B" was for Scotland's currency if their plan for a customs union with the rump of the United Kingdom failed, and Salmond repeated sidestepped the question. Tonight's debate will no doubt be much of the same.

Personally, I remain firmly wedded to the Union. In case you hadn't noticed. But if you're still not confessed that the Union is best for Scotland, here's my 5 top ten reasons to vote "NO!" on the 18th, posted in two parts:

1. There aren't any definite plans on currency.

Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond, has repeatedly stated that the Scottish National Party's plan is to continue to use the pound sterling after seceding from the United Kingdom, stating that a currency union between the independent Scottish state and the UK would be desirable for all parties. However, Westminster has shown little enthusiasm for the idea of a currency union, and in February the Chancellor announced that the Coalition Government had formally ruled out the idea of an official currency union. In the last debate, the First Minister indicated that Scotland could continue to use the pound after independence whether or not the UK agreed, just as Panama uses the US dollar. This is entirely true- however, without a formal currency union, Scotland would find itself at the whims of the central British government's financial policy, and Scotland could not count on a safety net in the event of a future financial crisis. What's more, the pound sterling is backed by the Bank of England. The Scottish banknotes printed by Scottish banks are not in fact legal tender, but promissory notes that are backed by the Bank of England; since the Bank of England has no real reason to continue backing promissory notes printed by foreign banks in a foreign country, it is by no means clear whether Scotland would still be able to print its own currency upon independence. A further complication is that the SNP hope for Scotland to remain within the European Union post-independence, but EU officials, including European Commission  President Jose Manuel Barroso, have stated that Scotland will need to apply as a new country, meaning that Scotland will likely be expected to adopt the euro.

To make matters worse, the SNP have said that if they are refused a currency union with the rest of the UK, they will walk out on their £140 billion share of UK national debt. Apart from being childish, this is extremely dangerous financially- if the newly independent Scotland's first act as a sovereign country was to essentially default on its national debt, the impact on financial markets could be devastating. The SNP could rock Scotland's economy from Day 1.

2. Border controls would have to be introduced.

Currently, people are free to move between Scotland and the rest of the UK. The SNP have stated that this will remain the case post-independence; however, this is not guaranteed. A number of prominent pro-Union politicians have indicated that border controls between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom would have to be introduced; the principal concern is that Scotland plans to introduce a more lax immigration policy following independence, with Alex Salmond promising to increase net migration into Scotland by 10% in order to expand the workforce. Scotland's population is aging more quickly than the rest of the UK, meaning that the workforce needs to be expanded to pay for Scottish pensions.

Unfortunately, this is at odds with viewpoints on immigration in the rest of the country, where there is pressure for tighter border controls. This means that some politicians are worried immigrants will enter the rest of the UK through Scotland, necessitating border controls between England and Scotland. This could have a serious impact on Scotland's economy, since exports to the rest of the UK account for just over 50 per cent of total exports from Scotland, and imports from the rest of the UK account for around 64 per cent of Scotland's total imports. It would also be a major inconvenience for anyone like myself who is of both Scottish and English descent and regularly visits relatives on the other side of the border- and that's a sizable portion of the UK's population. What's more, if Scotland was required to go through the normal application process to the EU as Barroso suggested, it might be expected to join the Schengen Area, a common travel area established by an agreement in 1995 that enabled passport-free movement between 25 European countries, but not the UK and Ireland. This would almost certainly require border controls between Scotland and the rest of the British Isles.

To be continued.

Royal Martyrs

The martyred King Louis XVI gives money to the poor.

I apologise for not posting anything for a while. Part of the reason for this absence is that I've just returned from France, where I had a rather Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette themed holiday, visiting the Château de Versailles, seat of the Ancien Régime; the Conciergerie, where Queen Marie Antoinette was held prior to her execution; the Place de la Concorde, formerly Place de la Révolution, where the King and Queen were among the hundreds guillotined by the successive revolutionary governments; and the Cathedral Basilica of Saint Denis, where the remains of Louis and his family were interred following the Bourbon Restoration on the orders of King Louis XVIII. The tragic story of the revolution and the murder of the Royal Family was brought to life for me after seeing where they lived and died, but by far the most harrowing moment was visiting the grave of the titular King Louis XVII, son of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, who died in 1795 of tuberculosis almost certainly brought on by the horrific circumstances he was kept in by the revolutionaries after his parents were sent to the guillotine. He had no official grave until 2004, when a heart which DNA testing showed to be that of the ten-year-old King was interred by French royalists along with his family in the royal crypt beneath St. Denis.

Louis XVII, titular
King of France and Navarre

My visit to Paris caused my mind to dwell somewhat on the fate of royal martyrs, among whom three in particular leap to mind; Charles I of Great Britain, Louis XVI of France (of course), and Nicholas II of Russia. All three of these monarchs were deposed and then executed- or, rather, murdered- by revolutionaries. But the similarities do not end here. What struck me thinking about these three men and their fates is that all three were, by all accounts, personally very moral and upright individuals. All three loved their wives and not one of them was known to have ever had an affair, despite the nature of royals' arranged marriages making royal mistresses common throughout history. All three were men of strong Christian faith- Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox. All three men were regarded as reactionaries and tyrants, but all three certainly regarded themselves as being in the right and as defending the true law of their respective kingdoms (or empire, in the case of Nicholas). Louis and Charles both showed great courage when facing their deaths, Charles I famously wearing two shirts in case the cold caused him to shiver and give the impression that he was afraid, while Louis XVI exclaimed to the crowd as he was strapped down, "My people, I am innocent!" The executioner, Charles Henri Samson, later said that the King "bore all this with a composure and a firmness which has surprised us all," putting it down to the King's deep religiosity. Nicholas II, of course, was not even given the courtesy of a show trial by the Bolsheviks; supposedly his last words after being told he and his family were to be put to death were simply, "What? What?"

Finally, all three, upon closer inspection of their lives and reigns, appear to have been more incompetent or weak than outright malicious. Even then, in more ordinary times they might have been remembered as pious, much-loved sovereigns- not particularly militarily successful, or great reformers, but fine rulers nonetheless. It seems to me that when revolution rears its ugly head, it is the gentlest and most moral of rulers who tend to fall. There is a reason for this- strong, politically savvy kings like Louis XIV or the "Iron Tsar" Nicholas I do not fall to revolutionaries. They crush them.

Charles I, King and Martyr

Some might argue that this is a weakness of monarchy; one weak king at a bad time may spell disaster. But Charles, Louis and Nicholas all faced colossal challenges; in similarly troubling times, democracy does not tend to do well either. In fact, it has a tendency to commit suicide by raising dictators to power. Democracy works well enough in stable countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. In the Middle East, however, or in Ukraine, or Thailand, one sees that democracy has not coped well with challenges such as sectarianism or social upheaval. Likewise, if King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette were King and Queen of a modern day France, they would likely be beloved of their people. The much-vilified Marie Antoinette, with her personally charitable nature and exasperation with the stifling traditions of the French court, would probably be seen as a Queen of the People; the libelles that turned the populace on her on the eve of the revolution, with horrifying tales of degeneracy and decadence, would be dubbed "trolls" or prosecuted for, erm, libel. As monarchists should know, the Queen never uttered that immortal line, "Let them eat cake;" she did say, on the occasion of her and Louis' coronation, "It is quite certain that in seeing the people who treat us so well despite their own misfortune, we are more obliged than ever to work hard for their happiness."

In many ways, the sufferings of these monarchs and their families after their overthrow are symbolic of the sufferings of their people. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were followed to the guillotine by thousands of Frenchmen, ironically including many of those who had sentenced the King and Queen to death themselves. Millions of Nicholas II's former subjects perished in the gulags of the Soviet Union, many more than had ever been killed by the Tsarist regime. And Cromwell's Protectorate, which came to power in the aftermath of Charles I's execution and wielded power until Richard Cromwell was overthrown and the Stuart monarchy restored in the 1660 Restoration, was almost a prototype for modern totalitarian regimes- from banning Christmas in 1647 as part of an effort to force Puritan beliefs on the population to the brutal Cromwellian conquest of Ireland from 1649 to 1653, which has been described as genocidal. It is, of course, important that we don't forget the thousands of anonymous individuals who lost their lives or livelihoods to the march of revolution, but in remembering the sovereigns and their families who were themselves martyred for their beliefs, in a way we are symbolically remembering all of those who were lost in the revolutions that toppled those sovereigns and their monarchies. And one martyr is a powerful thing; one martyr who serves as representative for millions more is surely even more powerful.

Official portrait of Nicholas II of Russia and his family
in 1911, seven years before they were murdered.

How British Is The Queen?

We've all heard it said; "the Royal Family aren't really British, they're German." Ignorant republicans with a very limited understanding of British history and the genealogy of the House of Windsor love repeating this line, especially as a counter-argument to monarchists' claims that the monarchy is a key symbol of British culture and identity. Of course, the truth is that the Royal Family are partially of German descent; the current crop of royals are descended from His Royal Highness Albert, the Prince Consort, consort to Queen Victoria and Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. His son, Edward VII, was of his house and therefore a Saxe-Coburg and Gotha himself, as was George V until he changed the name of the royal house to "Windsor" by royal edict during the First World War in response to high anti-German sentiment. But Prince Albert was the last truly German member of the Royal Family, and he died in 1861! Every monarch since has been born on British soil.

Sophia, Electress of Hanover,
George I's mother

Still, when people attempt to claim that the Royal Family "aren't really British," it is not poor old Prince Albert who they pick on. The insistence of some republicans is that in 1714, following the death of Anne, Queen of Great Britain, Parliament found some random Protestant German noble family and imported itself a new Protestant monarch to be King. Therefore, the House of Hanover was simply a "German export" and all descendants of George I are really "German." Firstly, it must be said that many of these people would have a field day if you tried to say that, say, a third-generation Indian immigrant to the UK, who was born in Britain but is entirely of Indian descent, was not really British but Indian. Yet they insist, much like the British National Party who infamously proclaimed that anyone whose ancestors migrated to the UK after 1066 were not entitled to be here, that the family of a German immigrant who arrived in 1714 and have since married into the native population and adopted the English language and British culture are nonetheless not really British but German. It beggars belief.

Alfred the Great of Wessex, first
Kingof the Anglo-Saxons

Secondly, George I was not simply some random German Protestant nobleman. He was only able to claim the throne because he was a descendant of King James VI and I through his daughter, Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia, who was George's grandmother. So the Queen is in fact a descendant of the House of Stuart, and through James, can trace her descent back to Henry VII of England whose daughter Margaret was the Queen of James IV, King of Scots (my avatar), and so mother of King James V. And through Henry VII, our current Queen can trace her descent all the way back to William the Conqueror. Not only that, but the Queen is also descended from Matilda of Scotland, Henry I's queen, through their daughter the Holy Roman Empress Matilda and her son, King Henry II. This is significant because Queen Matilda's mother, Saint Margaret of Scotland, was the granddaughter of Edmund Ironside, one of the Anglo-Saxon Kings of England and a member of England's first royal house, the House of Wessex. This makes the Queen a descendant of none other than Alfred the Great.

So the Queen has a fairly sound claim to the English throne. But what about her Scottish credentials? Well, the first Stuart (or Stewart) King of Scots was Robert II, from whom James IV, and so the Queen, was descended. Robert II took the throne of Scotland in 1371 after the death of King David II, the last of the House of Bruce. Robert's claim to the throne was through his descent from Robert I- the famous Robert the Bruce who defeated the English at Bannockburn- whose daughter Marjorie

Kenneth MacAlpin, according
tolegend the first King of Scots

was Robert II's mother. So the Queen is descended from Robert the Bruce. The Bruce himself was able to claim the throne of Scotland because he was a fourth great-grandson of King David I of the Royal House of Dunkeld. The House of Dunkeld was founded by King Duncan I of Scotland- the very same Duncan killed by Macbeth, although the historical Duncan was a young man slain in battle against Macbeth's army, not an elderly king murdered in his sleep. Duncan was the grandson of Malcolm II of Scotland (Máel Coluim mac Cináeda or Malcom, Son of Kenneth in medieval Gaelic), who was the last King of Scots from the House of Alpin, and a descendant of none other than King Kenneth MacAlpin (Cináed mac Ailpín), the semi-legendary founder of Scotland who united the Scots and the Picts in the 9th century AD to found the Kingdom of Alba.

So, our "foreign" Queen is in fact the descendant of both the semi-legendary first King of Scotland and the semi-legendary first King of England. A German import, indeed.