There is a myth that "God Save the Queen" is anti-Scottish, because for about a week in the 1740s some people added an extra verse with the line
"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."
There is no "official version" with an extra "anti-Scottish" verse.
Got it?
(And in any case, you'd only have a problem if you were a "rebellious" Scot; us loyal ones would be OK. Heeee!)
21 comments:
I'm a bit confused here, your suggesting that there is no 'rebellious scots' verse, yet the the UK government has rejected calls to remove an “anti-Scottish” verse from the British National Anthem.
Are you asking us to believe you over the british Government or are you just lying?
Indeed, they the Labour Government has now confirmed there is no prospect of the National Anthem being changed, insisting it was a source of PRIDE for people across the UK.
Dear oh Dear, I can't help but feel that Brown's over zealous promotion of a vision of Brithness hewn from Prebysterian Puritanism, Imperialism and Colonialism has seeped into this rather unsavoury story.
Let's just remind ourselves what the verse refers to. The jolly tune refers to a tribute to Marshal George Wade, the commander-in-chief of George II’s Hanoverian forces, which states:
“Lord grant that Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring. May he sedition hush, And like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, God Save the King.”
Pride?
Yes, Brown's Government and dare I say it, Unionists in general, equate this with 'pride'.
Probably the same pride they felt when they saw Donald Finlay singing his emotional songs in front og a Union Jack at the RFC fundraiser.
Pride, I ask you?
Complete disgrace.
Earth to Sm753
I think you're wrong on this one.
Let's see if you can admit it.
Earth out.
PS Have you noticed Cahrles Gallagher following you on your blog, he's got John McTernan, Jim Murphy's spin doctor down as 'followed' and has 'no 10' following him.
Spooks.
Which part of:
"There is no authorised version of the National Anthem as the words are a matter of tradition."
...don't you understand?
If there's no "official" version, then the government can't rewrite it.
QED.
(Oh, I suppose they could actually create an "official" version for the first time, just including the the first one or two verses and not the one you're so het up about.
Why don't they do this?
Because it would immediately descend into a boring, tedious hoo-ha with the usual suspects demanding that the thing be completely rewritten so that it didn't mention the Queen, God, "victorious" etc etc.
Yawn.
It's actually one of the more politically correct and non-militaristic anthems out there - being in 3:4 time, it's rather difficult to march to.)
You haven't really answered the question have you.
It is the Labour Government which has now confirmed there is no prospect of the National Anthem being changed, insisting it was a source of PRIDE for people across the UK.
That means the national anthem, the one that the British Government recognises does indeed have that verse in it.
"...don't you understand?"
Are you suggesting that the British Government, the state to which you give your allegiance is wrong on this issue and that Lord Goldsmith, a knight of the realm has been wasting his and our time?
The flag waving public demand to know your position on this important matter of principal.
"It's actually one of the more politically correct and non-militaristic anthems out there"
I'm confused.com
The first definitive published version of the present tune appeared in 1744 in Thesaurus Musicus, as a setting of the familiar first verse, and the song was popularised in Scotland and England the following year, with the landing of Charles Edward Stuart. It was recorded as being sung in London theatres in 1745.
That means it is directly linked to a 'militaristic' tradition, the words originate from war.
Last week the UK Ministry of Justice said that while dropping the contentious verse had been considered it had now been ruled out.
So it appears that the 'contentious verse' is indeed still in the recognised anthem of the United Kingdom.
Have you and AM2 been:
a) Lying
b) Ignorant of the facts
Tedious.
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."
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/LivingintheUK/DG_10012518
"There is no authorised version of the National Anthem as the words are a matter of tradition."
It is logically impossible to make changes to something which does not exist.
Capisce?
Scottish nationalist identity has meaning primarily in reference to the english as "they"
The Nat stance on this issue is weak in positive cultural content and in cultural grievances,
despite the bast efforts of NAT supporters to kick up a stink and mobolise the oppressed Scottish masses it holds no float- thankfully a majority of Modern Scots do not define our current ills in cultural terms and cannot be mobolised emotionally or politically against the "Auld enemy" on linguistic or cultural issues....
But our "colonial masters" could just as easily point out- Isn't the Un-official line of the scottish Anthem 'And stood against him -"gainst who?"-, proud Edwards Army-"Bastards"-and sent him ward tae think again"
-cunningly veiled Anglophobia if ever I saw it!
I see no official edict stemming from the palaces of the high and mighty in Holyrood to change it perhaps because it is a source of Pride?
One rule for "them" and rule for "us" I think is the logical conclusion here.
It's disgraceful. that this most pressing of domestic issues managed to crawl out of the abortion bucket and onto the Sunday Times.
Flower of Scotland marks an important event in Scottish history. Ironically the SNP does not even support "Flower" but advocates "Scots Wha Hae" as the national anthem - they sing it at the annual Bannockburn Rally.
Scotland has no national anthem because of the SNP wanting "Scots Wha Hae" and the other parties not happy with Flower. The usual demand is "lets have a competition". We did in 1999 - Land of Light won and chantered into the dark----
Concerning xenophobic anthems, I suppose we should therefore condemn the Dutch national anthem "Whillemhus" which is a 15 verse rant about Spanish oppression of the Netherlands. In these days of the EU and the Euro-----
"The Spanairds rapes thee, oh my Netherlands so sweet!" - Verse 10
Indeed.
http://www.nationalanthems.info/nl.txt
(It was officially adopted in 1932 - long after the Dutch Revolt)
Not to mention our Portugese mates who apparently want to kill everyone
http://www.nationalanthems.info/pt.txt
(Read "Tomorrow Belongs to Me")
And of course
And we will not go into "Land of Hope and Glory" chorus.
Ah the Caledonian Cringe.
I am with Billy C on this one and advocate the theme tune from the Archers as the UK national anthem.
"It is logically impossible to make changes to something which does not exist."
I think you have a word with HM Government, for it is they that seem to think it's included and doesn't need changed.
Capisce?
Masked Joke
"Scottish nationalist identity has meaning primarily in reference to the english as "they""
No it's not but I love your persona, are you related to sm753, you look exactly as I imagine him to look, balaclava and all......
"The Nat stance on this issue is weak in positive cultural content and in cultural grievances,
despite the bast efforts of NAT supporters to kick up a stink and mobolise the oppressed Scottish masses it holds no float- thankfully a majority of Modern Scots do not define our current ills in cultural terms and cannot be mobolised emotionally or politically against the "Auld enemy" on linguistic or cultural issues...."
Careful, your hyperventilating.
"And stood against him -"gainst who?"-, proud Edwards Army-"Bastards"-and sent him ward tae think again"
Yes, having a un-official national anthem that refers to the defeat of a colonising army led by a King who has 'hammer of the scots' in latin emblazoned on his tomb is equivalent to the UNITED KINGDOM having 'crush rebellious scots'.
Nice logic, shame it's complete 'pash'.
"..cunningly veiled Anglophobia if ever I saw it!"
And by god sir, you've seen 'it'
"I see no official edict stemming from the palaces of the high and mighty in Holyrood to change it perhaps because it is a source of Pride?"
Dear oh dear, your violent disapproval of holyrood is tangible.
"One rule for "them" and rule for "us" I think is the logical conclusion here."
Yes, it's completely logical.
"It's disgraceful."
Yes, it's completely disgraceful
"...that this most pressing of domestic issues managed to crawl out of the abortion bucket and onto the Sunday Times."
Ending with a flourish I see, nice metaphor.
I think you've just weakened Sm753's case, he will be annoyed.
"Ah the Caledonian Cringe."
Indeed, why Charlie Goldsmith thought that an anthem that doesn't include any verse continuing any words that mention rushing rebellious scots needed changing really should be directed to the unionist Labour Party.
Strange isn't it that no nationalist made the complaint this formal and that it was left to a unionist party to remove the non-existent verse.
Or it could be that the verse is actually insulting and simply blows apart any notion that the anthem has anything whatsoever to do with an 'equal union' and everything to do with the domination of one nation over another.
Sm753 has still failed to explain why a verse that doesn't exist is making so much news.
Either that or he's lying.
"It's actually one of the more politically correct and non-militaristic anthems out there..."
When was it first performed in public?
"..a patriotic song first publicly performed in London in 1745,.."
What happened that year?
Mmm... think you're on yer own with this one sm.
Muttley
Let me repeat:
there are two official government websites stating:
"There is no authorised version of the National Anthem as the words are a matter of tradition."
Now, I cannot account for the failure of Sunday Murdoch journalists to find this out.
I also cannot account for the failure of the DoJ, nor Goldsmith ("Charlie", Muttley? I think it's "Peter"), also to find this basic fact out.
I note, also, that I can find no trace on the DoJ website of the various things the Murdoch journos attribute to them. Curious, no?
And finally, if you're expecting me to be a partisan defender of a Labour minister or a Labour-run department, you've not been paying attention.
I refer you to the first post.
There is, officially, no "authorised" version of the national anthem.
Therefore there cannot be any alterations to such, unless one is created. Which would lead to all sorts of useless complications.
If you're that bothered, how about finding any actual evidence that the offending verse has been used in living memory?
(Rugger buggers in pubs don't count, BTW. If they did, we'd have to count "You can stick your f**king chariots up your a*se" as well.)
"You can stick your f**king chariots up your a*se" as well."
ha ha ha - indeed.
Thanks for doing all the leg work on researching the DoJ website - I think can classify this one under 'unresolved'.
http://thejaggythistle.blogspot.com/2010/02/murphys-law.html
Well my giddy aunt.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/corporate-sme/north-sea-funding-to-rise-by-5bn-amid-surge-in-activity-1.1008906
Another crutch of the already splintered unionist argument goes.
Add to that some real public scrutiny on what Jim Murphy actually says and it's all looking rather rosy.
"Another crutch of the already splintered unionist argument goes."
Au contraire - try reading the whole of the article.
"...Oil & Gas UK calculates that the industry could still be delivering 1.5 million barrels of oil and gas per day in 2020..."
Gosh! that's a lot!
"The UK produced 2.48m barrels of oil and gas a day in 2009, down 6% on 2008. "
Oh. No it's not.
So Scotland's currently running a deficit with nearly 2.5 mbd.
Wonder how big the deficit would be at production of 1.5 mbd.
Simple maths, Muttley - you should try it.
"Ah. Er. Um" as stout Nat party collapses.
And the price of oil in 2020?
The Revenue?
9 Years of building an Oil Fund?
Crutch / Snap / Ouch!
"And the price of oil in 2020?
The Revenue?"
You're GUARANTEEING they would be 67% higher than now?
You do realise govt revenue is based on oil company PROFIT, not just a straight percentage of the oil price?
No, of course you don't.
"9 Years of building an Oil Fund?"
How do you "build an Oil Fund" when
a) you have an ongoing deficit, year after year; and
b) you have a large inherited debt?
Oh, I see, you don't - you use any surpluses which come up in the odd year to pay off some of the historic debt.
You were saying something about "ouch".
Post a Comment