God Save The Queen?

First topic message reminder :

OK I'll put my hand up as being in the intersect of the Venn diagram of Englishmen that describes being both republican and atheist (so this OP won't go far).

But did my ears deceive me last week?

Did the bint wot did the singin' at HQ get it wrong?

Did she mux-ip her lines?

Doesn't the chorus go

G s o g q
L l o n q
G s t q

I'm pretty sure she replaced the last definite article with another possessive pronoun. Although tbh I haven't been arsed to re-run the vid.
Bad form don't you think from yet another so-called professional lame blonde chorus leader?

Give me anything else but that ham-fisted dirge anyway.

And don't get those military guns firing at me either.
I'm a pacifist as well. (that Venn intersect diminishes further).

Hey Jude,
Don't make it bad
etc.

No slash and burn, bigotry or xenophobia there.

So long as they get the words right.

Irish Londoner wrote:BTW the Brontes are all at least half Irish by descent thanks to the good Rev.  

As are easily the best ¾ of the Beatles.

Hey Jude should maybe be the Lions' anthem.

Can we have Vienna by Ultravox as our anthem... still makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck when I hear it.

Imagane 78,000 fans all screaming "OHHHHHHHH.... VIENNA!!"

I nominate Mumford and Sons to write us something. Least it would have some energy in it.

hell yes to Vienna!   

Rather funny how some people like Jerusalem as an English anthem.  Others like Land of Hope and Glory.  No one selected Why Don't We Do It In The Road.  For me, Jerusalem sounds like a church dirge that I have always equated with a sorry bowel movement (as with all church dirges for me).  Land of Hope and Glory is more upbeat and generally about kicking butt.  

I can certainly understand the thought that England should have a different anthem than GSTQ, which is the UK anthem.  As a constituent part of the UK, having a different anthem does make sense.    

Someone had mentioned other anthems.  La Marseillaise is all blood and guts from the French Revolution, but the music is absolutely stirring.

The American anthem is actually a beautiful poem, later put to mediocre music, about the symbol of the nascent democracy withstanding bombardment by the British.   Actually the words are only about their flag continuing to fly despite 'the bombs bursting in air'.  This was the British (ie. English, Irish, Welsh, Scots) assault on Baltimore Harbour.  That flag was saved and is still on display in washington D.C..

I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above,
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love;
The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.
I heard my country calling, away across the sea,
Across the waste of waters she calls and calls to me.
Her sword is girded at her side, her helmet on her head,[6]
And round her feet are lying the dying and the dead.
I hear the noise of battle, the thunder of her guns,
I haste to thee my mother, a son among thy sons.
And there's another country, I've heard of long ago,
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.

Have always felt these words perfectly paint the idea of loyalty to one's country

That's been hijacked by The World in Union, Scratch and isn't really in the 'sing with gusto' mould. It is a fine piece of music and poetry though, I agree.

This op shows that if anyone thinks for a moment that it's possible to find a ditty that will suit everyone then they are living in cloud cuckoo land. There are way too many people with wildly different opinions to have the smallest chance of compromise.

If anyone seriously tried to produce a new English anthem it would have to be "inclusive" and representative of the whole country. Good luck is all I can say in this multi-touch cosmopolitan country we find ourselves in.

When it comes to songs I love the Italians. Would love to hear Coro di Schiavi Ebrei belted out in Rome a bit more. I quite like the Welsh anthem as well though not as much as when the Scots burst into Loch Lomond.

Ireland's Call was a good idea but poorly executed in my opinion. The trouble with Amhran na bhFiann is that an awful lot people don't know the words and even less could translate it. It makes for some lacklustre performances.

Lastly, because England not having its own really annoys me, all the while we fans keep singing it loudly at HQ it will never change. We all should sing something else like lohag very loudly and ignore GSTQ whilst sitting very quietly. Then GSTQ might drift slowly and quietly under the waves never to be heard at HQ again.

I have all ways said that a national anthem should be about the nation that it is beionf sung about. It should not be about one person ( the queen) in Englands case.

That is why i like Irelands call. the song is about calling on the country to come together and fight for Ireland.

Even the NZ national anthem at the end does say God Save New Zealnd.

But what other song could be sang in it's place. I don't know to be honest.

God Defend New Zealand Madge.

I've always quite liked Jerusalem since the Lions 97 DVD, when the supporters sang it in full party mode. The lady did a good job of singing it on Saturday too. But now I've seen Vienna mentioned, I'd go to Twickenham for every home game just to see the England supporters sing that live.

They could get Max and Paddy singing it too, like they did on That Peter Kay Thing. Legendary.

Hood83 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:God save our gracious Queen!
Long live our noble Queen!
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen.

Just the first verse.  

The song is part of my DNA, so I have no reason to consider whether I like it or not.  Use it. Fire the guns.  Go for Glory.
I think I am a bit too much of a realist to be truly pacifist.  Having seen first hand people and societies bludgeon themselves into the stone age, before our involvement ever started, for hate sake, for religious sake, for family or clan sake, for the sake of hell knows, I have to admit I do not get the human species.  We have it so damn good by comparison, I defies logic.  And what we have is worth protecting.  How we do it is obviously where most of us disagree.  And much of it has not been done well.  I think because no one has found the magic answer.  

Sorry to go off, but it does come out every so often.  But I think we have it, as a group of closely related peoples, pretty damn good.  
Maybe we need more Rugby?

I think WHAT we protect is what people disagree with, as much as how. I don't think it is  human nature to say 'we've got it pretty good'. We protect what we think works, or is worth protecting, but we strive for better. In the case of GSTQ there are clearly plenty of us who think it doesn't work. If it's just intended as a way to pep up rugby players, maybe it works, if it's supposed to bind a nation with a sense of commonality, I'm pretty certain it fails dismally.

I agree that most people would have different ideas of what we are protecting.  And differing notions of what their country means to them.  Even for me, I am not sure, though it is has been an easy decision as a doc to go in the field with the armed forces, or whoever, to support the people who are doing it out there in lousy situations.  Or, as it almost always works out, to be in the pits with them doing what they do.  And it doesn't matter whether I agree with where we are or not.  It's about them.  Them and us. In general, I think we protect our HOME, and not political concepts, certainly not political parties.  

As I said about GSTQ, I was hard wired with it - it has always been there - so whether I like it or not is kind of a weird concept for me.  It is not a great song, for sure.  I don't go about humming it to myself as I walk down the street.   And it is an older song written when loyalty to the Sovereign was loosely equivalent to loyalty to nation.  I suppose I look at it as an artifact of a time gone by, but we have a long history and it is a piece of it, so the song of our nation.    I clearly get that many people don't care for it.  Since we cannot agree here about the anthem we prefer, how can the country?  Ultimately, if England should have its own anthem, how do we select it?

Presumably Warburton will be singing GSTQ this weekend.

Unfortunately Doc, some of us see the monarchy as a symbols of the repression that's been ongoing for 950 years (take that Ireland with your 800 years ). The people are the country, not the rulers. IMO of course. Anthems are a rather pointless waste of time. Another thing to blame the welsh for (they do claim to have started it by singing at the haka, don't they?)

majesticimperialman wrote:I have all ways said that a national anthem should be about the nation that it is beionf sung about. It should not be about one person ( the queen) in Englands case.

That is why i like Irelands call. the song is about calling on the country to come together and fight for Ireland.

Even the NZ national anthem at the end does say God Save New Zealnd.

But what other song could be sang in it's place. I don't know to be honest.

That'll be DEFEND then.

doctor_grey wrote: Ultimately, if England should have its own anthem, how do we select it?

Shoosh - Simon Cowell is everywhere.

HammerofThunor wrote:Unfortunately Doc, some of us see the monarchy as a symbols of the repression that's been ongoing for 950 years (take that Ireland with your 800 years ). The people are the country, not the rulers.  IMO of course. Anthems are a rather pointless waste of time. Another thing to blame the welsh for (they do claim to have started it by singing at the haka, don't they?)

Funny - You are right about the Welsh, of course.  

I agree that people and place are the country and not the rulers (in the resurfacing Soviet Union, Vladamir Putin might disagree).  But some rulers and some institutions become symbols of the country.  As has the monarchy.  Rulers of one country are never universally loved or respected, and always represent some type of aggression or repression to someone else.  Our histories are so closely intertwined in our islands, it can be personal.  I get that.  Doesn't change what I think of our country or monarchy.  And I wouldn't argue your opinion is wrong.  It is simply (likely) different than mine.  A benefit of our country, no doubt, that we can have differing opinions about something as central to the country as this?  It's all good.  

Not exactly sure why we have the anthems before internationals.  I don't need a song to tell me who we are playing.  But I suppose that is the tradition, we have always done it, I suppose.  In the US and Canada they have always sung their national anthems at their pro baseball and hockey matches.  Not even Internationals.   Don't understand that.

LondonTiger wrote:

doctor_grey wrote: Ultimately, if England should have its own anthem, how do we select it?

Shoosh - Simon Cowell is everywhere.

Funny!!!!! Who would be the judges????

No one is 'wrong' in this because it's purely opinion. My mum loves the monarchy. My dad despises them. I take after my dad :shrug

I would just do without but as I said previously, I'd prefer a short GSTQ to a 'better' longer one

If you were at HQ last week and heard how fervently  and passionately GSTQ was sung you would realise that there ain't a chance in hell of it being changed.

Did I hear the name Simon Cowell?

Now you guys are going too far.

God save Si-mon Cowell,
Never throws in the towel,
Forever marketing Muck.

But at least Cher-yl is back,
Perfectly understood by her English pack,
Louis - he just needs a f**k-ing smack,
God save Simon Cowell

Don't go there.  Do not go there.

Jerusalem. I love it.

But the problem is that it's just a bit too complicated for an average HQ audience as a community song (for example look at what they have done to the much simpler Swing Low and the dumbed-down version that they render. They would be lost if they got so far the River Jordan).

They would require a big screen bouncy ball version reminiscent of my childhood junior cinema Saturday matinees.

And that would presume a level of literacy not normally to be associated with the general pre-loaded rugby public.

Anyway it would go on like other some nations who either chose or insist on multiple anthems or multi-lingual multi-verses seemingly principally designed to shame we dumb English thickos.
The flash, arrogant, over-edjercated bar stewards. 

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Presumably Warburton will be singing GSTQ this weekend.

  

rainbow-warrior wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:I have all ways said that a national anthem should be about the nation that it is beionf sung about. It should not be about one person ( the queen) in Englands case.

That is why i like Irelands call. the song is about calling on the country to come together and fight for Ireland.

Even the NZ national anthem at the end does say God Save New Zealnd.

But what other song could be sang in it's place. I don't know to be honest.

That'll be DEFEND then.

rainbow warrior.

So i got the end of the NZ anthem wrong. But, it is still asking "GOD" too DEFEND New Zealand. And not too (DEFEND THE QUEEN)

























0DEFEND

Early start Madge?

Risca Rev wrote:Early start Madge?

It certainly was this morning.

I've just seen Flower of Scotland get absolutely butchered at the Wales U20 v Scotland U20 match.

If there's one song that sounds completely stupid when sung by an opera singer, that's it!

Just stick to the bloody pipes and drums and we'll all be happy!

doctor_grey wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Unfortunately Doc, some of us see the monarchy as a symbols of the repression that's been ongoing for 950 years (take that Ireland with your 800 years ). The people are the country, not the rulers.  IMO of course. Anthems are a rather pointless waste of time. Another thing to blame the welsh for (they do claim to have started it by singing at the haka, don't they?)

Funny - You are right about the Welsh, of course.  

I agree that people and place are the country and not the rulers (in the resurfacing Soviet Union, Vladamir Putin might disagree).  But some rulers and some institutions become symbols of the country.  As has the monarchy.  Rulers of one country are never universally loved or respected, and always represent some type of aggression or repression to someone else.  Our histories are so closely intertwined in our islands, it can be personal.  I get that.  Doesn't change what I think of our country or monarchy.  And I wouldn't argue your opinion is wrong.  It is simply (likely) different than mine.  A benefit of our country, no doubt, that we can have differing opinions about something as central to the country as this?  It's all good.  

Not exactly sure why we have the anthems before internationals.  I don't need a song to tell me who we are playing.  But I suppose that is the tradition, we have always done it, I suppose.  In the US and Canada they have always sung their national anthems at their pro baseball and hockey matches.  Not even Internationals.   Don't understand that.

This is what i disagree with, I think it's a terrible, kitch, reductive 'symbol' of our country. One that a large proportion don't identify with. But then, yes, you're right, how to get an anthem that the majority can rally behind and that represents 50 million odd people? I don't really have an answer, but I do think making it about more than one person is a good place to start. We have reduced the significance of the monarchy in every other way other than some constitutionally ticks, I think the anthem should reflect that, personally.

Land of Our Fathers on the other hand is an absolute cracker. Feels slightly mournful, has a real ebb and flow, a grandness and seems to be sung impeccably. As long as there is not the stupid upwards intonation at the end, it's perfect.

Hood83 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Unfortunately Doc, some of us see the monarchy as a symbols of the repression that's been ongoing for 950 years (take that Ireland with your 800 years ). The people are the country, not the rulers.  IMO of course. Anthems are a rather pointless waste of time. Another thing to blame the welsh for (they do claim to have started it by singing at the haka, don't they?)

Funny - You are right about the Welsh, of course.  

I agree that people and place are the country and not the rulers (in the resurfacing Soviet Union, Vladamir Putin might disagree).  But some rulers and some institutions become symbols of the country.  As has the monarchy.  Rulers of one country are never universally loved or respected, and always represent some type of aggression or repression to someone else.  Our histories are so closely intertwined in our islands, it can be personal.  I get that.  Doesn't change what I think of our country or monarchy.  And I wouldn't argue your opinion is wrong.  It is simply (likely) different than mine.  A benefit of our country, no doubt, that we can have differing opinions about something as central to the country as this?  It's all good.  

Not exactly sure why we have the anthems before internationals.  I don't need a song to tell me who we are playing.  But I suppose that is the tradition, we have always done it, I suppose.  In the US and Canada they have always sung their national anthems at their pro baseball and hockey matches.  Not even Internationals.   Don't understand that.

This is what i disagree with, I think it's a terrible, kitch, reductive 'symbol' of our country. One that a large proportion don't identify with. But then, yes, you're right, how to get an anthem that the majority can rally behind and that represents 50 million odd people? I don't really have an answer, but I do think making it about more than one person is a good place to start. We have reduced the significance of the monarchy in every other way other than some constitutionally ticks, I think the anthem should reflect that, personally.

Frankly having a monarch who could have politicians hung on Tyburn Hill is not such a bad notion. That would keep them honest, eh? In the namby-pamby land world in which we live, the monarchy has allowed itself to be disemboweled to a point beyond recognition.
To wit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaFy0x_Uixo

OK seriously, I was raised with the monarchy and see it as a link to our past and a somewhat positive and benign symbol of the UK. I wonder how the country will continue to view it once Elizabeth passes. She is the only monarch most of us have ever known.

Either way one looks at it, the anthem question will probably remain for a long time to come. Unless someone pens a real beauty, it will probably never change.

All very true Doctor, though having politicians who can hang the monarch may come in handy soon...maybe a bit too much!

majesticimperialman wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:I have all ways said that a national anthem should be about the nation that it is beionf sung about. It should not be about one person ( the queen) in Englands case.

That is why i like Irelands call. the song is about calling on the country to come together and fight for Ireland.

Even the NZ national anthem at the end does say God Save New Zealnd.

But what other song could be sang in it's place. I don't know to be honest.

That'll be DEFEND then.

rainbow warrior.

So i got the end of the NZ anthem wrong. But, it is still asking "GOD" too DEFEND New Zealand. And not too (DEFEND THE QUEEN)

























0DEFEND

As Rusty Crowe said at the Oscars:
"God defend New Zealand, God bless America........But thank God for Australia".

i think it needs changing and only used a when whole of  Britain competing . its not patriotic too me at  all because its used by England  , just like Scottish and Welsh anthems wouldn't be patriotic  to the English .  

Im sure elton john and Tim rice (if he still alive )could come up with something . call it , everyone hate us but we dont care . joking guys

aucklandlaurie wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:I have all ways said that a national anthem should be about the nation that it is beionf sung about. It should not be about one person ( the queen) in Englands case.

That is why i like Irelands call. the song is about calling on the country to come together and fight for Ireland.

Even the NZ national anthem at the end does say God Save New Zealnd.

But what other song could be sang in it's place. I don't know to be honest.

That'll be DEFEND then.

rainbow warrior.

So i got the end of the NZ anthem wrong. But, it is still asking "GOD" too DEFEND New Zealand. And not too (DEFEND THE QUEEN)




























0DEFEND

As Rusty Crowe said at the Oscars:
"God defend New Zealand, God bless America........But thank God for Australia".

Still asking this imaginary god thing to save, bless or defend anything or anyone is pretty daft.  May as well ask the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.

You don't believe in this imaginary god thing obviously, and neither do I. But a big chunk of the world disagree with you. And with our armed forces (or lack of) we might need a bit of a God type thing on our side - every one knows NZ is no good at defence.

Problem with that logic is that in the majority of conflicts, both sides claim that God is on their side.

Funny how God always seems to defend the ones with the greatest capacity to slaughter the greatest number of combatants and innocents. Is Walsh God?

As a substitute for GSTQ: How about 'The Trooper' by Iron Maiden

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Problem with that logic is that in the majority of conflicts, both sides claim that God is on their side.

Funny how God always seems to defend the ones with the greatest capacity to slaughter the greatest number of combatants and innocents. Is Walsh God?

This is so true. And worse because some actually believe in a way which justifies everything they do. Even the things which would make the bloodiest god blanch with horror.

Let's go back to the Rugby - let's get Led Zeppelin to pen the new England anthem.

The problem in this day and age of social media (and I include 'the media' in that) is that penning a new anthem would be an exercise in condemnation, humiliation and ultimately futility.

Imagine if the likes of Twitter had been around when God Defend New Zealand came out.
God Defend New Zealand. You havin´a laugh, Bracken? God Defend You Son 'cos I'm comin´round to your house and smash your face in. As for you Woods with that shoite melody, I will rip off your ears because mine are damaged beyond repair.

And those would be the ones to get by the moderators...

We're stuck with these naff tunes and lyrics and flags (in the case of NZ which for most people is indistinguishable between the Australian flag) but they're our naff tunes, lyrics and flags and that's what unites us and really that's what they were meant to do in the first place. Led Zeppelin might write a tune to replace God Save the Queen that might be acceptable to many music fans but in a few centuries they'll be cringing just like we are now with our anthems.

You mean the Australians and New Zealanders don't share the same flag Learn something new every day

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:..........We're stuck with these naff tunes and lyrics and flags (in the case of NZ which for most people is indistinguishable between the Australian flag) but they're our naff tunes, lyrics and flags and that's what unites us and really that's what they were meant to do in the first place................

I think so too. Well said and right on, brother.