"Rebellious Scots to crush".
This is an easy one. Like a free kick or a penalty.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Symbols/NationalAnthem.aspx
"There is no authorised version of the National Anthem as the words are a matter of tradition. Additional verses have been added down the years, but these are rarely used.
The words used today are those sung in 1745, substituting 'Queen' for 'King' where appropriate. On official occasions, only the first verse is usually sung."
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/LivingintheUK/DG_10012518
"'God Save The King' was a patriotic song first publicly performed in London in 1745, which came to be referred to as the National Anthem from the beginning of the nineteenth century. The words and tune are anonymous, and may date back to the seventeenth century. There is no authorised version of the National Anthem as the words are a matter of tradition."
No "official version" with an extra "anti-Scottish" verse.
Got it?
95 comments:
The words are a matter of tradition.
The verse including 'Rebellious Scots to crush' is part of that tradition.
Congratulations you've just chased yourself round a circle, for an argument that doesn't even exist in most folks minds.
There were rebellious Scots who wanted to replace the King with Charlie. There were a great many other Scots who fought against the Jacobites to ensure that this didn't happen. It's not anti-Scots. It's anti-Rebellious Scots.
This is quite funny.
Not all the Scots were Jacobites Smee, have you fallen for a nationalist myth dear ?
Jim and Observer
No darlings, I haven't fallen for a Nat myth.
I'm perfectly aware that "rebellious Scots" does not mean "all Scots" and probably didn't mean it either at the time.
I said so on a Hootsmon thread earlier today, but you can't see it now as the posts have not only been redlined but removed entirely.
Not my doing; the mods were probably afraid I was going to post in Klingon again or mention Mr & Mrs Sheridan. (Sigh).
"Congratulations you've just chased yourself round a circle, for an argument that doesn't even exist in most folks minds."
I know it doesn't exist in most minds; nevertheless the claim is repeatedly made that there is an "official" version which includes the offending verse.
Not so. Myth busted.
Muttley
Midday was spent cleaning and hoovering for sproglet's 5th birthday. Caught a bit of 3-5pm sun though. Incredible - first time Embra's had a proper summer since around '95.
Here are two specific references showing that the anti-Jacobite verse was abandoned long before the song was adopted, around 1790, as the British national anthem:
Richards, Jeffrey (2002). Imperialism and Music: Britain 1876 to 1953. Manchester University Press, p.90. ISBN 0719045061. "A fourth verse was briefly in vogue at the time of the rebellion, but was rapidly abandoned thereafter: God grant that Marshal Wade...etc"
"The history of God Save the King": The Gentleman's Magazine, Vol 6 (new series), 1837, p.373. "There is an additional verse... though being of temporary application only, it was but short-lived...[but]...it was stored in the memory of an old friend of my own... 'Oh! grant that Marshal Wade... etc.'
For the three-verse version, see also:
Mackay, Charles (1851). The Book of English Songs: From the Sixteenth to the Ninteenth Century, p.203.
White, Richard Grant (1861). National Hymns: How They are Written and how They are Not Written. Rudd & Carleton, p.42.
Hymns Ancient and Modern, Revised Version (1982). SCM-Canterbury Press Ltd, p.504. ISBN 0907547060.
Oh dear!
The 1837 and 1926 publications were historical records of a verse which had long since disappeared from the song and which never formed part of the anthem.
There were quite a few apocryphal verses before the song's adoption as the anthem. One, published in 1745, was doubly offensive, expressing the hope of deliverance from both “France and Pretender” and “Popish Reverie”. Are you also claiming that such populist muck is somehow “official”?
Scottish Unionist
How dim do you need to be mate to try to claim that the verse we're talking about was abandoned in 1790.
It was clearly there on the wall of my scout hall in the 1970's.
My English friends still sing it in retort to my exhortations that they should stick their chariots up their arses.
It's being discussed right now - by you! - so forget your wikipedia based 'knowledge' and take a look to the world around you.
Smee, the only myth in this thread is that you've found a myth worth busting, but if you think I'm the sort of person who trawls through the drudgery of the Scotsman comments section to see what you think about something you're taking sad and delusion to a new height.
Jim
“How dim do you need to be mate to try to claim that the verse we're talking about was abandoned in 1790.”
Mate?
It was abandoned long before 1790. Likely around 1755.
“It was clearly there on the wall of my scout hall in the 1970's.”
It never fails to amaze me how many nationalists, when abroad, say they regularly encounter people who have never heard of Scotland, or who imagine it to be part of England. It never fails to amaze me how many say they were forced as children to learn English history and banned from knowing anything about Scotland. Isn’t it strange that this verse wasn’t on the wall of my Scout hall?
“My English friends still sing it in retort to my exhortations that they should stick their chariots up their arses.”
You have an interesting relationship with your (non-imaginary) English “friends”.
“It's being discussed right now - by you!”
Only because the nationalists’ besieged underdog narrative gives rise to these inane claims that the anti-Jacobite verse still forms part of an “official” version!
Scottish unionist
Mate! Yep, you must be a mate if you're so desperately keen to keep me close to the bosom of your beloved union, or are you just after something of mine?
It never fails to amaze me how many nationalists, when abroad, say they regularly encounter people who have never heard of Scotland, or who imagine it to be part of England.
I've never met anyone who hadn't heard of Scotland, although it's relationship within the UK and in relation to England certainly caused a lot of confusion. I've worked alongside many Germans who thought Scotland was part of 'England'.
It never fails to amaze me how many say they were forced as children to learn English history and banned from knowing anything about Scotland.
I was never subject to such a strange curriculum, learning plenty of Scottish history in primary school and a broader European study towards my O'Grade in senior school.
Isn’t it strange that this verse wasn’t on the wall of my Scout hall?
Not that strange at all, although I'm surprised that it hasn't 'amazed' you. Maybe, my scout master wasn't overly afraid of upsetting Jacobite sensibilities?
Only because...
ROFLMFAO.... and you're still talking about it!
all the best
Jim
PS
You have an interesting relationship with your (non-imaginary) English “friends”.
On this point, you're right. I do have an interesting relationship with many English friends, but none more so than the friend who also takes great pleasure in being able to sing the 4th verse of Advance Australia Fair for our Aussie mates.
Should foreign foe e'er sight our coast.
Or dare a foot to land,
We'll rouse to arms like sires of yore
To guard our native strand;
Britannia then shall surely know,
Beyond wide oceans roll
Her sons in fair Australia's land
Still keep a British soul.
They also tell him to shove his chariots up his arse!
PPS
Where do you reckon the Daily Telegraph got their 'unofficial' version of the lyrics from?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571287/God-Save-the-Queen---lyrics.html
published in a National newspaper in 2007 I note!
Muttley
I have this thing called a "life", which explains why I'm on 'tinterweb all the time.
Since we have now established beyond peradventure that there is no "official version" of the national anthem containing any "anti-Scottish" wordage, let's also remind ourselves of - and agree with - the words of Jim in his first post.
"There were rebellious Scots who wanted to replace the King with Charlie. There were a great many other Scots who fought against the Jacobites to ensure that this didn't happen. It's not anti-Scots. It's anti-Rebellious Scots."
Whatever else, he got that right.
You were saying something about "kippered", I believe.
Muttley
Let me try once more using this thing called "logic" which appears to be alien to you.
It is irrelevant whether some people choose to put certain words to a certain tune in certain circumstances.
The claim is repeatedly made that there is an "official version" of the national anthem which includes a putatively "anti-Scottish" line - which is of course no such thing.
But there is no "official" or "authorised" version of any sort.
So the claim is either a myth, or a lie.
Got it yet?
"How you can defend such english thuggery and english bigorty is unbelievable."
Your slip is showing. Tuck it away. "Civic" nationalism - remember?
But tell me: why do you take such exception to the English nationalist types who indulge in baiting Scots? Look in the mirror sometime!
"Wow, AM2, you've been whipped badly today..."
I haven't been online today. And you haven't made any substantive point anyway.
"Rule Britannia"?
Been waiting for you to drop head first into that one, Muttley.
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/rule-britannia/
A rather fine piece of Scottish poetry, I think you'll agree.
Keep going Wardog; you're doing a fine job of shooting yourself in the foot. "English imperialism", eh? Those nasty, domineering English! Can't you wait to get shot of them?
No no, SU, Muttley is right.
Only the "English", alone amongst all the nations of the world, need to change their anthems and songs to fit modern ideas of political correctness.
After all, it's not as if our neighbours happily sing about "impure blood drenching our furrows", do they?
"it's a pity that Briton's did feel that others could be slaves at the time when the song was established isn't it."
Yes indeed, slavery is a dark stain on the history of most of the world's cultures (including the Arabs, China, India etc.)
But thanks for reminding us that Britain was not only the first country to abolish slavery for itself, but also apply naval and economic pressure to try and force others to give it up too.
That is what you were trying to remind us of, yes?
Muttley
The Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Indians and Chinese were taking and keeping slaves long before England, Scotland or Britain existed.
And the British Empire was the first political entity to outlaw the practice. Another part of Our Glorious History which All of Us can be proud of as Britons.
I know you have no idea how to stick to the point, but let me try again.
The claim is repeatedly made that there is an "official version" of the national anthem which includes a putatively "anti-Scottish" line - which is of course no such thing.
But there is no "official" or "authorised" version of any sort.
So the claim is either a myth, or a lie.
Got it yet?
"Who is saying that their is an 'official' anthem?"
Your CyberNat mates. See Hootsmon comments pages passim.
"Do you accept that the offending verse is still sung by English football fans at every game?"
At "every" game, Muttley? Even when they're playing Germany, or Albania, Malta...?
"Do you agree that it doesn't entirely fit with the idea of a happy union?"
It's called "banter". As our poster Jim has pointed out, the only people offended by it are those who choose to be.
"Would you agree that tyranny or imperialism"
Bzzt! Category error. "Tyranny" and "imperialism" are not the same, nor even the same sort of thing.
" of any sort is a form of slavery?"
Bzzt! Category error again.
(If you don't know what "category error" means, I suggest looking it up.)
Muttley
I'm not "refusing" to answer questions, love, I'm just gently trying to point out that your questions are incoherent and thus meaningless.
To wit, your
"Would you agree that tyranny OR imperialism of ANY sort is a form of slavery?"
is equivalent to
"Would you agree that an apple OR a helicopter of ANY sort is a form of cheese?"
We are labouring the point, Muttley.
Would you like in larger type?
A country can be a "tyranny" with or without having an empire.
And it can be either - or both - without having the practice of slavery.
I'm sure you can think of a few examples, both past and present, if you try hard enough.
"I saw your comment re: Minimum Pricing on the Scotsman"
I see the full extent of your delusional paranoia is settling in, Muttley.
I haven't commented on that story.
As for your question, kindly reread my 9:39 post above again. I've answered it.
Still not thought of any examples of tyrannies and/or imperial entities without slavery, Muttley?
I've thought of several.
Muttley
Re-read 09:39.
It is not only possible to conceive of examples of tyrannies or imperialism which have not involved slavery, there actually have been such cases in real life.
In fact there are number of them still in existence.
Not got a clue yet?
Are your friends mocking you behind your back?
Disgusting. Do you indulge in such bullyboy antics in real life?
I'm this close ---> <--- to just banning you from my blog. I have no idea why sm753 indulges you.
sm753: He would seem to be hinting that the English are imperialists, tyrants, enslave Scotland etc.
Debate and criticism are welcome. But you constantly sneer, insinuate and offer personal abuse. You're a cyberbully - no more, no less.
Whatever.
And you were of course implying the English. Have you forgotten saying the following on my blog?
“Sick english union” & “undemocratic, squanderous english union” are sympotamtic terms that express the uneven nature of the act of union.
You've called me a “colonialist” and an “imperialist” in the past. Which nation do you imagine to be the occupying force?
"Personally insulting Alec Salmond, Scotland's First Minister"
Critique isn't insult.
Nice touch: "Scotland's First Minister". You'll be accusing me of racism next!
But try "Scotland's democratically elected First Minister" next time. That way you can imply that I'm anti-democratic and anti-Scots.
Never mind the societal consequence of such divisive accusations and insinuations. It's all "for the cause", isn't it? Means and ends, eh?
"Smee, where did i mention the 'practice of slavery', my question specifically states 'a form of slavery'."
Sweet suffering Christ, we're back to the category error again.
"Tyranny" and "imperialism" are not and cannot be "forms of slavery" in exactly the same way that apples and helicopters cannot be forms of cheese.
And I can think of several entities which are/were tyrannies and/or imperialist, but in which slavery is/was illegal and none of their inhabitants can be defined as "slaves".
Can't you?
Deny it if you must, but those dots have been well and truly joined now.
Keep going, Wardog. Dig yourself a bigger hole.
Here's an Osama Saeed primer.
Wardoggy, I'm not sure that Scottish Unionist is right to ban you but you've got to admit, your language is often ill informed and foul.
Wardog I don't know why you are bothering here.
Well I do a bit, I too deeply resent the unfounded dot to dot attempts to connect Osama with terrorism. Essentially you could do a dot to dot with any Muslim to link them with terrorism, or any Irish person too.
You could probably do a dot to dot to link most Scots with Adam Busby, for that matter.
But the point is that the links AM" posts show where he gets his dots to dots from, and they are quite clearly organisations with a right wing pro necon agenda.
Anyone with two brain cells can work that out.
So just leave it; this is not worth it.
Jesus Christ, it goes on and on and on.
I will now put the pooch out of its misery.
Consider the remaining British Overseas Territories like Bermuda, the Caymans, Gibraltar, the Falklands and the like.
Are they vestiges of "imperialism"? Ohhhhhh, yes! as Churchill the dog would say.
There are even, arguably, aspects of "tyranny" in the way they're run, since while the inhabitants have a vote on their local governance, external matters are (to varying extents) run by the UK and they have no vote in UK elections.
But is there any "slavery" involved?
Don't be daft.
Same goes for US possessions like Guam, Puerto Rico etc.
I was thinking of cleaning this thread up, but instead I'm going to leave it (for a while at least) as a monument to the vast steaming piles of inane, irrelevant, repetitive ordure which Muttley "contributes".
By the way Smee a helpful hint; try not to leave sexist comments all over the SOS about Nicola Sturgeon. It doesn't exactly enhance your reputation.
ps the UK ''possession'' of the Falklands is most definitely disputed.
pps What would you call the US ''possession'' of Guantanamo Bay and what went on there ?
"By the way Smee a helpful hint; try not to leave sexist comments all over the SOS about Nicola Sturgeon. It doesn't exactly enhance your reputation."
My imaginary cyber-alter-ego has a "reputation" I should care about?
I'm just dishing up and serving back some of the stuff which was (and continues to be) thrown at the likes of Wendy Alexander, Cathy Jamieson, Margaret Curran etc. (And I don't even vote Labour).
If you'd like, I can be equally rude about Christine "Bampot" Grahame, Fiona "Ethnic Cleanser" Hyslop and Christina "Retarded" McKelvie.
"ps the UK ''possession'' of the Falklands is most definitely disputed."
But not by anyone who lives there. Self-determination - got it?
"pps What would you call the US ''possession'' of Guantanamo Bay and what went on there ?"
Gitmo is a sovereign military base ceded under treaty by Cuba to the US. Just like the British bases on Cyprus.
It doesn't have a "population" in any meaningful sense - just people who are sent there, either as staff or detainees. So, not germane to the point.
As to what happened there, that's not germane either.
OK Muttley, since you've now deleted all your comments on this thread, I am *really* going to leave it standing.
There's enough replying-to-yourself and quotation in other posts to give a good picture of the way you carry on.
So, have we all agreed that 'rebellious Scots to crush' isn't really that offensive ;-)
It's always worked for me...
Then where have you heard it used as grist to the Nationalist mill?
The only place other than here - posted as a nationalist myth presumably - where I've seen this is in the Telegraph a few years ago, where it was Lord Goldsmith undertaking a citizenship review, for Gordon Brown.
I suppose it's easier to debunk nationalist myths when you can make up the myth in the first place.
"Then where have you heard it used as grist to the Nationalist mill?"
Hootsmon comments pages, many times over.
The claim appears in this revisionist tripe: "the British state of the time ... added the following verse to the British National Anthem 'God Save the Queen'. God grant that Marshall Wade, etc." Such lies are commonplace.
Ah! It's not a place that makes much sense very often. It certainly lives up to the McWhirter criticisms of the blogosphere - as did the earlier exchange on this thread...
Is this blog then dedicated to addressing the bile spewed there?
Which would be a shame as I thought your analysis of the Scotland office oil report was a pretty decent effort.
Here is an interesting, and largely well researched piece which references an alternative version. This one actually has a sort of quasi-official status as the Privy Council gave it a stamp of approval in 1919.
1
God save our gracious King
Long live our noble King
God save the King!
Send him victorious
Happy and glorious
Long to reign over us
God save the King!
2
One realm of races four
Blest more and ever more
God save our land!
Home of the brave and free
Set in the silver sea
True nurse of chivalry
God save our land!
3
Of many a race and birth
From utmost ends of earth
God save us all!
Bid strife and hatred cease
Bid hope and joy increase
Spread universal peace
God save us all!
SU
I see!
Personally I think it's all a Unionist plot to discredit the modern Nationalist movement by casting them as bampots mired in an inaccurate revisionist past ;-)
...rather than progressives who happen to think Scotland could be better served by those living in Scotland.
Jim
Well Jim, if the latter could exist without the former we might not be having this discussion.
Feel free to drop by my place any time then ;-)
Thank you. And you, mine. ;-)
"Is this blog then dedicated to addressing the bile spewed there?"
Well, I have to admit that the "bile" is a good source of material!
I find it absolutely incredible what guff some people are prepared to believe.
"Which would be a shame as I thought your analysis of the Scotland office oil report was a pretty decent effort."
Why thank you. I do try to be serious and even-handed.
Most of the time.
"Well, I have to admit that the "bile" is a good source of material!"
Bit like shooting fish in a barrel for a man of your talents I'd have thought. Bit of a waste of time though!
If you're barmy enough to believe the National Anthem is anti-Scots, you're hardly going to (be capable of) enter(ing) a serious discussion on the state of the union...
But the Scotland office paper and the ridiculous assertion that Scotland could be a Saudi Arabia (No thank you!) deserve serious appraisal - shame to have those posts alongside this nonsense.
The number of "lurkers" who read this blog - and indeed Hootsmon comments - is a multiple of those who bother to comment.
They're the main audience.
If Scotland decides on "independence" on the basis of a proper analysis of all the pros and cons, thats one thing.
If it does so on the basis of a false prospectus of myths about non-existent oil and associated revenue, imagined historic slights and invented constitutional issues, thats another.
"imagined historic slights and invented constitutional issues"
So on principle the Czechs deserved much of what they got in the 20th century. Vile, lying Czechy!
The shots and screams at Lidice and the Kobyllsy firing range were a bitter sweet symphony!
And Jan Palach was a waste of good matches or lighter fluid.
Aberdonian
You've lost me.
This is Scotland, not Central Europe.
SM
What I am saying is that much of Czech nationalism was founded on myths/historic slights. Therefore if you object to it in Scotland, then ergo you must also condemn on point of principle in the Czech Lands and therefore maybe say "serves you right" to the tragedies that happened on the Czechs after 1918. with particular observance of 1938-1989/91.
There myths revolve around the "national hero" Jan Hus who morphed from his real life of being a proto-reformist to being some sort of "Bohemian Braveheart", exaggeration of the Thirty Years War and the morphing of the Battle of White Mountain from a dynastic battle to one on nationalist lines (echoes of what happened to Culloden in nationalist lore here) and the underplaying of the importance of Czech contributions personally, culturally and economically to the Habsburg state for nationalist ends.
I could go on.
Scottish connections. Well yes. The Czech unionist who saved the union between Vienna and the Czech Lands Albrecht von Wallenstein (real Czech name Albrecht z Valdstejna - he preferred to use the German "civilised" translation of his name) in the Thirty Years War was rubbed out by some Scottish hitmen in 1634.
I can do a more detailed analysis if you wish.
"I can do a more detailed analysis if you wish."
Interesting, but I'll pass at this point, thanks. No matter what the Czechs did, I hope we'll base our decisions on rationality and fact.
I am afraid that when it comes to nationalism, rationality and fact are only part of the equation. Sentiment is a large part.
By the way the leader of the Czechoslovakian independence movement was an academic like yourself. He held professorships in Commercial Law and Philosophy at the University of Prague and a visiting professorship to the University of London in Slavic studies (of which he was later the first chair). I would suggest he was no doubt full of facts and rationale.
(Almnus of Brno, Vienna and Leipzig - not bad for a former blacksmith and locksmith)
But if rationale was the basis of politics always then for example English-speaking Canada should have absorbed itself into the USA long ago instead of producing these delights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXtVrDPhHBg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUqsF8vbR_Q&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL01SReeOqE&feature=related
Not a very nice way to treat your neighbour and main business partner!
"By the way the leader of the Czechoslovakian independence movement was an academic like yourself."
Well thanks, if that's a compliment.
I have never worked in academia and my highest degree is an MA (freebie, of course).
Just because various other nations have made an emotional hash of their separations doesn't seem to be an obvious argument that we should do the same.
I'm thinking of the Slovaks' lost decade after 1992 and the Irish lost seven decades after 1922.
Post a Comment