[Lord-Voldemort]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
I said she's not as British as myself, I truly believe that and stick to it. That's why I don't understand why she's the symbol of everything that's British.

That's just how the system works - the Sovereign is supposed to be the embodiment of the nation. It's the office rather than the person.

We'll have to agree to disagree - because I don't believe that Britishness should be measured by how few foreign relatives one has. I think it is more about attitude and civic pride. I mean, you could have someone who has as many ancestors as you who have not left these shores - but is unpatriotic, hates the British way of life and intends to move away and never come back. In my opinion, they are less British than someone who, despite having the odd foreign relative, gets involved in national celebrations, has civic pride, believes in British values, etc.

According to my definition, then, I believe the Queen is therefore very 'British'. She has given 60 years of service and duty to the nation and its people.

[Birchington]

I personally would love Jerusalem to be our national anthem, but I believe a referendum would be the fairest, most democratic method of deciding any change to our national anthems.

[Mechie]

No. Rule Britannia is far too jingoistic and asserts the UK's "dominance", which isn't really appropriate in today's modern international community of international relations.

Jerusalem is also balls, it contains one of the problems in GSTQ that it's non-secular, so atheists and indeed non-christians wouldn't really be able to identify to it at all. It's also a terribly self-indulgent load of codswallop.

[xXedixXx]

(Original post by Birchington)
I personally would love Jerusalem to be our national anthem, but I believe a referendum would be the fairest, most democratic method of deciding any change to our national anthems.

The problem is Birchington we can't keep having referendums due to the MHoC having a max number of referendums we can have. So I think it has to be done via a Bill.

[xXedixXx]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
No. Rule Britannia is far too jingoistic and asserts the UK's "dominance", which isn't really appropriate in today's modern international community of international relations.

Jerusalem is also balls, it contains one of the problems in GSTQ that it's non-secular, so atheists and indeed non-christians wouldn't really be able to identify to it at all. It's also a terribly self-indulgent load of codswallop.

We need to stop being ashamed of being patriotic and worried about offending people and be more like the USA and Canada.

I'm an atheist and I identify well with Jerusalem, as much as I'm an atheist and believe that the notion that there is some God is a load of nonsense I understand, respect and recognise that Christianity is a big part of England's history and many British and English values come from Christianity which isn't a bad thing.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
Jerusalem is also balls, it contains one of the problems in GSTQ that it's non-secular, so atheists and indeed non-christians wouldn't really be able to identify to it at all. It's also a terribly self-indulgent load of codswallop.

Lol. Whereas in actual fact, Jerusalem is quite a radical song which draws attention to the impact of industrialisation on the landscape and the people and the dream of building a Jerusalem - a perfect place not a heavenly utopia - there in England. It's been a staple of the Left for generations. Blake, at least when he wrote it, was of the same ideal as Shelley and Byron. The Christian Right has appropriated it because they've never really stopped to think about who Blake was, what Blake believed, and what the lyrics actually say.

[JPKC]

Jerusalem is the only "patriotic song" with any actual meaning, which explains why it's been sung at Labour conferences for God knows how long.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Mechie]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
We need to stop being ashamed of being patriotic and worried about offending people and be more like the USA and Canada.

No we don't, and I really wish you'd stop saying that. The times I've been to America it's cringe-worthy how many times I see the flag, almost everywhere you go it's seen, and it's quite ridiculous. What exactly makes the USA (or, in this case, extend it to the UK) so great that we need reminded of it every few minutes? When I go and see the ice hockey team the Braehead Clan, they play O Flower of Scotland, and everyone is told to stand for it. Do I? No, I see it as ridiculous, and would hate to see that sort of thing become much more widespread in UK culture. In international matches I can see a point to it, but not in domestic matches. That brings me on to my next point - do I see national anthems as something to be proud of, as a way to somehow celebrate and be proud of my country? No, I see it as a bit of fun before sporting events.

I like Scotland, I like the UK. I've lived here all my life and it's the culture I'll probably feel most comfortable in because of this. I still see no reason to somehow feel "proud" of it.

I'm an atheist and I identify well with Jerusalem, as much as I'm an atheist and believe that the notion that there is some God is a load of nonsense I understand, respect and recognise that Christianity is a big part of England's history and many British and English values come from Christianity which isn't a bad thing.

Cool, but I'm sure a lot of non-christians may not share this viewpoint. Why should atheists, muslims, buddhists, jews etc have to have a song about Jesus as their national anthem, that should somehow make them proud to be British?

Also, have you ever listened to the words of Jerusalem? I mean come on, it's just such a load of rubbish. I'll have a look at the first stanza, otherwise we'll be here all day:

(Original post by Jerusalem - first stanza)
And did those feet in ancient time.
Walk upon England's mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On England's pleasant pastures seen!

No, Jesus did not ever come to England. It's a terribly self-indulgent notion to consider that Jesus, who was from Roman Judea, would come to England, because obviously it's so great.

[xXedixXx]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
Cool, but I'm sure a lot of non-christians may not share this viewpoint. Why should atheists, muslims, buddhists, jews etc have to have a song about Jesus as their national anthem, that should somehow make them proud to be British?

Also, have you ever listened to the words of Jerusalem? I mean come on, it's just such a load of rubbish. I'll have a look at the first stanza, otherwise we'll be here all day:



No, Jesus did not ever come to England. It's a terribly self-indulgent notion to consider that Jesus, who was from Roman Judea, would come to England, because obviously it's so great.

1) Because England is a Christian country whether they like it or not. I believe they're being pretty pathetic if they get offended by that. Jerusalem is the proposed English National Anthem not British, so I don't know why you're mentioning Britain there.

2) Yes I have, I think the words are perfectly fine and make me feel proud to be partially English. The same applies to the proposed Northern Irish and Scottish National Anthems, although there's no words in Londonderry Air the tune has the same effect.

3) Are you really concerned about the reality of the lyrics of the song according to the bible?

[JPKC]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
QFA

Do you actually believe that a person's Britishness depends on how indigenous their ethnic stock is (as you suggested earlier)?

That's a far more interesting debate than this talk of songs.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
No, Jesus did not ever come to England. It's a terribly self-indulgent notion to consider that Jesus, who was from Roman Judea, would come to England, because obviously it's so great.

You're missing the question marks. It's actually:

And did those feet in ancient time,
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On England's pleasant pastures seen?

To which Blake's answer is no. His point in the song is that England can make a fine and pleasant land (Jerusalem) not because of some mythic power or notion that Jesus walked on the land but because of what people do in the here and now. We make Jerusalem; Jerusalem doesn't simply exist because it can.

[CLS94]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
I was paraphrasing to make the sentence relative to myself. I feel that you are trying to make Britons feel ashamed and guilty.

You can't just run around changing words, then attributing them to me and giving the impression that your (incorrect) interpretation of them was the one I was attempting to give. You are lieing about what I have said and potentially tainting people's opinions of me through doing so. I find this unacceptable and would be very grateful if you would retract the comment given the clear inaccuracy of the source.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

Don't really see the point of this - Flower of Scotland is already the Scottish national anthem, even if it's not officially the case. Rule Britannia is as bad as GSTQ as well, if it weren't for the limit on referendums I'd suggest that.

[TenOfThem]

Even as a republican I am happy with GSTQ .. the anthem is more about tradition than the actual words

I like Land of H&G but it is far too imperialist

Rule B not quite as bad but meh ... why change

As for Jerusalem ... Blake would be laughing in his grave

[MacDaddi]

Change the English national anthem to I don't know L Of H and Glory/I vow to thee my country/Jerusalem.

Prefer Jerusalem tbh - coming from an atheist.

As for the British anthem, Lizzy is a BRITISH queen so an englishman I find it stupid that we have the anthem as well as the british one.

Rule Brittania is irrelevant as we dont rule the seas anymore but we do still have a reigning monarch

To be honest GSOQ is too droney and boring imo, but that's just me.

Sort one out for NI as well

[xXedixXx]

(Original post by CLS94)
You can't just run around changing words, then attributing them to me and giving the impression that your (incorrect) interpretation of them was the one I was attempting to give. You are lieing about what I have said and potentially tainting people's opinions of me through doing so. I find this unacceptable and would be very grateful if you would retract the comment given the clear inaccuracy of the source.

No. Do you know what paraphrasing is?

[xXedixXx]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
Sort one out for NI as well

I have.. Londonderry Air..

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
I have.. Londonderry Air..

Sorry yeah, I meant good for sorting one out.

[stanlas]

Has anyone suggested 'I vow to thee my country?'
Personally I love the tune (though I suppose the words are sometimes controversial)

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
I wish people would use shall and will properly. In bills of this nature, it ought to be "shall have" not "will have". As to the bill, what a colossal waste of time. Rule Britannia doesn't include Northern Ireland which, by very definition, isn't on the island of Magna Britannia but rather on Hibernia. So much for an all-inclusive anthem. I quite agree that England should have an anthem of its own to sing at football and rugby matches but that's really all that needs to happen. I really don't see the purpose of legislating to make Flower of Scotland and Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau anthems since they already are. Yes they don't have legal status but so what, everyone knows that we Welsh will sing about a land of bards and singers and famous men that is dear to us.

Technically "God Save the Queen" was never legislated to be the national anthem of the UK, and is so in a de facto sense only. Therefore the wording of this bill ("will be changed from 'God Save the Queen'") is completely unecessary and more than a tad confusing, legally.