The British national anthem is not about the country or its people, is an abomination of our past with notorious offensive words about the Scottish. Well time to go I say, it certainly does not represent non-believers or non-monarchists or the UK as a whole.
2007-02-17 03:21:24 · 22 answers · asked by gibbardfrank 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
NO WAY, keep it as it is.
2007-02-17 03:24:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Are you serious? do you have any understanding of what the anthem really stands for? In a country that is fast losing its identity and falling into a mesh and mix of other cultures trying to dictate our own way of life the national anthem is a bastion of what it is to be British. Our pride in coming together to sing for our nation not just a figurehead. I respect that people from around the world of different cultures, beliefs and race wish to live here and I certainly don't have an issue with that, but the least that can be done is that they respect those of the nation to which they come. You try going to Saudi and proclaiming your christian faith and see how they deal with it. I don't suggest a regime as strict as that but don't deny a nation its rights with ridiculous PC idealism. If you don't like living under this anthem move to a country where you can!
2007-02-17 11:36:12 · answer #2 · answered by shortypayne 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Anyone in my opinion who confesses to know the second verse of the UK National Anthem, has got to be a foreigner. The English know only a couple of lines of the National Anthem, the Scots mumble it under protest never getting beyond the first couple of bars. As for us Welsh, we're not interested since we have the world's best National Anthem, "Land of my Fathers". Which you can only really appreciate if you happen to be a luckless member of the All Blacks standing in the centre of the Millennium Stadium, listening to 40,000 voices sing the Welsh National anthem. You know, when the hairs on the back of your neck stand erect, that you are going to lose.
2007-02-19 04:01:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Even George V hated it and wanted to see it replaced. If you listen to the national anthems of different countries they're much more joyous and upbeat - God save the Queen seems to revel in its Victorian dreariness. Far better would be Land of Hope and Glory, or Jerusalem. Rule Britannia glorifies imperialism too much - so I don't think that's a good choice.
In my opinion it would be far better to choose one of these as our anthem - can you imagine what a modern one's lyrics would be like?
"Oh Britain (making sure to include all our brothers in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales), how lucky we are to have a non-specific deity (or not) watch over us, watch over our subcontracted and privatised industries that are owned by other people in foreign countries! Look how we have included everyone (that suits our purpose, so not muslims, unless they're well behaved and abandon their religion) in our lovely country! It's such a shame that we see the need to destroy the countryside (that is riddled with diseases brought about by corporate carelessness), but that's progress isn't it? Anyone for a beer?!"
I think not.
2007-02-17 11:38:14 · answer #4 · answered by Mordent 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah, i get your point, but then we have a whole new problem of what to replace it with. if you want to represent the athiests and the anti-monarchists, then do you aim to represent the whole country - lots of people have faith - and difft faiths - as we are living in a multicultural country will the music be reflective of that? you'd be opening huge can of worms so on balance i'd let it go - admittedly itdoes nothing for me, much prefer my welsh anthem although its been years since i could remember what it actually means or indeed sing along to it..!
2007-02-17 11:27:09 · answer #5 · answered by third space 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Have a look, in France the national anthem came after Revolution, it is what ur country needs.
2007-02-17 12:49:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes but not for the reasons you cited...
Firstly the drum roll at the beginning isn't exactly Cozy Powell. Also there is no blistering guitar solo in the middle. The reason that the first three lines rhyme is because they all end with the same word, and that's not good songwriting. Nobody remembers the second verse, although its amusing to see sporting professionals bumble their way through it at England events. It also delays the start of football matches which is a pain.
Also, having to sing it standing up just gets bloody tiring and also no one actually believes the lyrics.
2007-02-17 17:18:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No , I would just sooner replace you.
The national anthem is the last bastion of britishness.
The britain that has been the envy of the world for centuries,until tony blair made us the bankrupt laughing stock and dumping ground of the world.
2007-02-17 15:05:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes! Our present anthem was written by a German. We should replace it with "land of hope and glory" written by an Englishman, plus it's a more stirring tune for an anthem
2007-02-17 17:01:19 · answer #9 · answered by cassidy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lets stop messing about with all this political correctness.There has been nothing wrong with this anthem in the past so lets just get on with more important things!
2007-02-17 11:26:59 · answer #10 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What about the lines:
May she defend our laws,
and ever give us cause,
to sing with heart and voice,
etc. (Sorry, I was getting carried away).
Why not just get rid of the verses that are no longer appropiate, and keep the ones that are?
Like it or not, we're still a Christian country, and we're still a monarchy, and personally I have no problem with either.
2007-02-17 11:38:10 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋