Jump to content

England National Anthem


9-3

Recommended Posts

God save our gracious queen

Allah save our noble elected member of parliament

Buddah save our head of state

Here's a line for the anti royalist, don't forget the atheists

I think that covers all bases

Yahweh save our queen

Edited by Turkish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confident that you are a knobhead because you choose an obnoxious character from an American tv show as your avatar on an internet football forum.

 

I'm confident that he is a knobhead because of his last reply. ;)

 

For knobhead, read hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God save our gracious queen

Allah save our noble elected member of parliament

Buddah save our head of state

Here's a line for the atheists, we're a nation of non racists

I think that covers all bases

Yahweh save our queen

 

Surely must include a reference to her being born into privileged position and possibly we might benefit from replacing her with an elected Eurocrat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need a colour that 100% of people support ...

 

White, black, brown and yellow quarters, pink shorts for our gays and hold ups rather than socks so the women dont get upset and think the kit is sexist.

 

Perhaps we could have one of the three lions on the badge wear a turban and another in burkah just so no one is offended like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confident that you are a knobhead because you choose an obnoxious character from an American tv show as your avatar on an internet football forum.

 

Sorry would you prefer a saints kit? Maybe put 'Red and White til I die' in my profile and change name to be prefixed or suffixed by 'Saint'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone that thinks changing the bloody anthem will turn our meatheads into world-beaters on the pitch is ****ing deluded...

 

Nobody is. Most people would just prefer to hear something uplifting and inspiring at major sporting events, rather than dull, monotonous droning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an awful national anthem. I've not yet come across an anthem with worse lyrics, and the tune is a dirge. The people in the UK are free to believe in god or not they are also free to support the monarchy or not. That goes for the England players too. Personally I would like the monarchy and the religious organisations in the country stripped of all their wealth and power.

 

"England manager Roy Hodgson expects his players to show pride at representing their country by singing the national anthem at the World Cup." htttp://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/27658211

 

Neither the England manager nor the fans have any right to make such demands of the players. If I was a player I would be furious with the manager making those comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I would like the monarchy and the religious organisations in the country stripped of all their wealth and power.

.

 

Bless - on who's edict? Yours? Maybe we after you have taken their wealth you could put them in camps.

God save the kind-hearted atheist republican folk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine president milliband.

 

This is the argument that "subjects" put forward all the time. Name a ridiculous figure and then "imagine" them as president. Blair, Branston, President Boris. What about King Charles, or King Andrew. We go around the world imposing democracy and deposing Saddam and the like. The only difference between the Germans Reigning over us and Gaddaffi or Assad is timing, how do you think the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's came to rule us? By being nice chaps that the public insisted became head of state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the argument that "subjects" put forward all the time. Name a ridiculous figure and then "imagine" them as president. Blair, Branston, President Boris. What about King Charles, or King Andrew. We go around the world imposing democracy and deposing Saddam and the like. The only difference between the Germans Reigning over us and Gaddaffi or Assad is timing, how do you think the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's came to rule us? By being nice chaps that the public insisted became head of state?

 

Always an easy bite

 

We have a queen and will have a king. If anything, their popularity grows and it's already pretty sky high.

 

Yes, we very much do live in a pretty good democracy. If the will of the people wanted it, there would be no monarchy. But that will is petty non existent

Edited by Batman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bless - on who's edict? Yours? Maybe we after you have taken their wealth you could put them in camps.

God save the kind-hearted atheist republican folk

 

Putting them in camps would require costly security. I'd hang the lot of them from trees and lamp posts around Windsor.

 

Of course, if anyone disagrees, I'm just joking.

 

If you don't disagree, i was being serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a video of our Queen singing it..

 

 

She's cute. Now give her some dragons and an army of eunochs, and we would have a queen I could more readily accept. And she clearly has the intellect required for the job:)

Edited by Ohio Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's cute. Now give her some dragons and an army of eunochs, and we would have a queen I could more readily accept. :)

 

She had to lock the dragons up - she cried and it made me cry.

 

ps..I haven't read the books so no spoilers or I WILL HUNT YOU DOWN AND KILL YOU ON THE TOILET WITH A CROSSBOW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She had to lock the dragons up - she cried and it made me cry.

 

ps..I haven't read the books so no spoilers or I WILL HUNT YOU DOWN AND KILL YOU ON THE TOILET WITH A CROSSBOW.

 

 

Dieing in a bizarre fashion has always appealed to me, so here is a spoiler........She's cute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God save our gracious queen

Allah save our noble elected member of parliament

Buddah save our head of state

Here's a line for the anti royalist, don't forget the atheists

I think that covers all bases

Yahweh save our queen

 

Oooh this made me think it worthy of a reply.

 

Congratulations, you triggered a positive emotional response within me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of "we live in a democracy" kind of thing going on here. Are you sure about that?

 

Getting one choice every 5 years with the option of 3 undemocratically elected (as party leader), identically raised and educated public schoolboys, hardly sounds like democracy to me.

 

Do you believe you're making a difference and that they're listening to you? They're not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of "we live in a democracy" kind of thing going on here. Are you sure about that?

 

Getting one choice every 5 years with the option of 3 undemocratically elected (as party leader), identically raised and educated public schoolboys, hardly sounds like democracy to me.

 

Do you believe you're making a difference and that they're listening to you? They're not.

 

You can vote for anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Won't be long-term problem. One of the British Values that the incredible secretary of state for education, Mr Gove, will introduce is that all children will learn the words of the National Anthem, practice singing it daily and the brightest will even learn the second verse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of "we live in a democracy" kind of thing going on here. Are you sure about that?

 

Getting one choice every 5 years with the option of 3 undemocratically elected (as party leader), identically raised and educated public schoolboys, hardly sounds like democracy to me.

 

Do you believe you're making a difference and that they're listening to you? They're not.

 

We live in a representative democracy without any right of recall.

 

We have the right to vote in our dictators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some good points raised on this thread, to add to the discussion should the England kit be white? Back in 1885 of whenever when white was selected as our colour then the overwhelming majority of the population would have been white, however now not everyone that lives in England is white and we have a mix of races and cultures. surely it is wrong and potentially racist for our national team to be represented by a colour that does not reflect the racial make up of our society.

 

 

The white kit is from the white of the flag of St George, a Palestinian of Greek decent, and represents the universal traits of peace and honesty. But you already knew that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of "we live in a democracy" kind of thing going on here. Are you sure about that?

 

Getting one choice every 5 years with the option of 3 undemocratically elected (as party leader), identically raised and educated public schoolboys, hardly sounds like democracy to me.

 

Do you believe you're making a difference and that they're listening to you? They're not.

 

In that case, form your own political party. Draw up a manifesto and get people to help fund and publicise it. If you get enough people to vote for you, then you will be elected and can run the country how you want for five years. Simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case, form your own political party. Draw up a manifesto and get people to help fund and publicise it. If you get enough people to vote for you, then you will be elected and can run the country how you want for five years. Simple.

 

Why should anyone waste their money on a rigged game? The idea that soldiers and babies would die were mooted by the NO2AV campaign when the revolutionary idea that a parliamentary candidate should have the support of 50% of his or her constituents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is not about the words IMO but the pride of representing the country. If it is about a catchy tune we could get

Stock Aitkin and Waterman get one for us.

 

Ridiculous comment...

 

...I think this year's Eurovision proves beyond any doubt that SAW are no longer the hit makers they once were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say that applies more to someone who makes petty insults and doesn't explain why they disagree with a point.

 

Do you find yourself writing letters of complaint to the local Co-op when someone accidentally puts frozen brocolli into the mixed Broc/cauli floret section ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats a ridiculous analogy, as I hope you already know.

 

Well, I imagine you writing those letters anyway mr legod.

 

The national anthems not the best but you cant change it to exclude monarchy or religion because its what you think it should be. Im mostly Pro Monarchy, they do more good then bad, not entirely sure what the arguements against are ? Except of course the "I didnt vote for them" which is rediculous anyway.

 

As per religion, personally I dont believe in god, but Im not going to stand and throw my thoughts on the subject down somebodies throat. People are free to believe in what they want and do what they want. I mean, its slightly pretentious believing that you are the man to decide on what is representative of the people, and frankly thank christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The national anthems not the best but you cant change it to exclude monarchy or religion because its what you think it should be. Im mostly Pro Monarchy, they do more good then bad, not entirely sure what the arguements against are ? Except of course the "I didnt vote for them" which is rediculous anyway.

 

Why is it ridiculous? We don't live in a 100% democratic country if you can by fluke of birth (and not ability) become head of state. The principle behind that is a key argument against. Yes, they do benefit the country financially more than they cost, but the principle behind the idea that taxpayers should fund the lifestyle of a family and they then hold positions of influence through birth right is unfair.

 

As per religion, personally I dont believe in god, but Im not going to stand and throw my thoughts on the subject down somebodies throat. People are free to believe in what they want and do what they want. I mean, its slightly pretentious believing that you are the man to decide on what is representative of the people, and frankly thank christ.

 

By having a Christian God in the national anthem the state is taking sides. I'm saying there should be a separation of church and state. That isn't pretentious on my part, neatrality and a secular government system is fair to all. It is you that is trying to justify an unjust state of affairs that favours some of the population over others, not me.

 

The state should offer freedom from all religions and remain neutral. You are confused if you think I'm attempting to as you claim " throw my thoughts on the subject down somebodies throat". A state does that when they have a national religion as Britain does with the Church of England having power and/or influence within politics.

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:)

Ah, I was not aware they have lost their crown of hit makers.

 

I have got things all ar*e about tit. I am thinking of a previous hideous Eurovision effort by SAW.

 

I am so very sorry.

 

I think I got confused as this year promised so much;

 

a fresh exciting young singer songwriter, plucked from BBC Introducing, was gonna write and perform her own song. Sure, she might not win, we thought, but she will inject some creativity and show the rest that England might be challenging for douze points...

 

...instead we got a dull dirgy half arsed 'earth song' pastiche that SOUNDED like something Pete Waterman knocked off in ten minutes in the eighties for a Rick Astley album filler track. Oh, and finished an ignominious 17th.

 

There's probably an analogy in there somewhere.

 

In which case, let's revisit the idea of a Stock Aitken and Waterman effort for a new English national anthem. Why the hell not?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it ridiculous? We don't live in a 100% democratic country if you can by fluke of birth (and not ability) become head of state. The principle behind that is a key argument against. Yes, they do benefit the country financially more than they cost, but the principle behind the idea that taxpayers should fund the lifestyle of a family and they then hold positions of influence through birth right is unfair.

 

 

 

By having a Christian God in the national anthem the state is taking sides. I'm saying there should be a separation of church and state. That isn't pretentious on my part, neatrality and a secular government system is fair to all. It is you that is trying to justify an unjust state of affairs that favours some of the population over others, not me.

 

The state should offer freedom from all religions and remain neutral. You are confused if you think I'm attempting to as you claim " throw my thoughts on the subject down somebodies throat". A state does that when they have a national religion as Britain does with the Church of England having power and/or influence within politics.

Having the Royal family has kept us stable and in times of crisis they have been a focal point. Watching the TV last. Igbo and seeing that the free democratic Europe is having a leader none of us has heard of makes democracy a joke. At the end of the day we are powerless whatever the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having the Royal family has kept us stable and in times of crisis they have been a focal point. Watching the TV last. Igbo and seeing that the free democratic Europe is having a leader none of us has heard of makes democracy a joke. At the end of the day we are powerless whatever the system.

 

The royal family hasn't been stable it changed loads of time throughout hostory. Please name a crisis that the royal family helped us get through, the murder of Diana?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The royal family hasn't been stable it changed loads of time throughout hostory. Please name a crisis that the royal family helped us get through, the murder of Diana?

 

World War 2, and I would hardly say that the death of Diana was a crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever your views on the monarchy, there's surely an argument to be made that GSTQ is all about submission, and has almost nothing to say on the real force behind Britain's success; its people.

 

History shows us to be a highly inventive society, whether it's industrial practice, exploration, science or sports. In thousands of years of monarchs, how many really stand out? Contrast that to the almost innumerable stream of British commoners that have made their impact on the world. The only part of GSTQ where the common man is even mentioned is in the fourth verse, which is all about one world government through the British Empire.

 

The vast majority of it is about venerating the monarch and keeping her out of harm's way. It's entirely dismissive of the achievements of British people.

Edited by pap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not sing the theme tune to the Betty Windsor & Phil the Greek show. Nothing to do with Phil the Greeks relatives being Nazi's, or me just hating Betty Windsor, they do lots for Lunn Polly apparently.

 

I would refuse on the basis of being a proud Republican.

 

And as this national anthem is no longer being used....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever your views on the monarchy, there's surely an argument to be made that GSTQ is all about submission, and has almost nothing to say on the real force behind Britain's success; its people.

 

History shows us to be a highly inventive society, whether it's industrial practice, exploration, science or sports. In thousands of years of monarchs, how many really stand out? Contrast that to the almost innumerable stream of British commoners that have made their impact on the world. The only part of GSTQ where the common man is even mentioned is in the fourth verse, which is all about one world government through the British Empire.

 

The vast majority of it is about venerating the monarch and keeping her out of harm's way. It's entirely dismissive of the achievements of British people.

 

I do think a lot of this is true, more glaringly obvious however is for a 'national anthem' it isnt really a portrayal of England (or Britain) and realistically could be about any nation with a monarchy. But it is what it is, not particularly patriotic in my view. Rule britania, land of hope and glory and jarusalem are infinately more rousing IMO.

 

As per the Monarchy, if you really think that we live in a 100% democratic society you are just plain wrong, you have the opportunity to vote for your prefered choice out of a select bunch at which point all the power then resides in parliament and decisions are taken not for the people but more often then not for those in power. The monarchy also brings in a heavy amount of tourism that we would lose should we abandon it. No we dont vote them in, but if we did all sense of intrigue around that particular establishment will vanish. Let them carry on, they barely harm you.

 

Religion and the connection between the state and the church, realistically it probably shouldnt be so, we live in a world of which the views are now accepted that a finite creator is unlikely, I agree, but many dont. And the majority if this country still holds beliefs in god. For that reason I can accept the odd mention of god here and there. Do you never attend a funeral or wedding ? Or are you one who sits at the back and tuts at every mention of anything religious ?

 

Like it or not the democratic system we have is based entirely on appeasing the beliefs and wants of a majority, and in that end means that equality doesnt exactly work in reality as much as many wish it so, its about compramise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per the Monarchy, if you really think that we live in a 100% democratic society you are just plain wrong, you have the opportunity to vote for your prefered choice out of a select bunch at which point all the power then resides in parliament and decisions are taken not for the people but more often then not for those in power. The monarchy also brings in a heavy amount of tourism that we would lose should we abandon it. No we dont vote them in, but if we did all sense of intrigue around that particular establishment will vanish. Let them carry on, they barely harm you.

 

I've actually said the complete opposite regarding democracy on this thread. As constituted here, it's the chance to elect your dictators. Having 650 MPs each representing an area gives the enterprise a veneer of independent legitimacy, but in reality it makes no difference. The whip system keeps the ambitious in line, parties are still parachuting preferred political children into candidacy, even though the general public is dog sick with professional politicians.

 

I'd also disagree that the monarchy does no harm. Front and centre, it says that some people are better than others. Now I'm not one of these idealistic lefties that actually believes everyone has equal potential in every area. I'm never going to be a basketball superstar; Michael Jordan probably has little interest in computer programming. I've got no problem with someone being better than anyone if it's based on merit. Can you honestly say that Prince Charles is the most meritorious candidate for head of state? The best this country has? Hardly.

 

And that for me, is the big problem with the monarchy as a concept. One family elevated above all others for no good reason, "it is the way it is" personified.

 

You'd never employ anyone else these days on the basis of who their parents were and nowt else. An embarrassment, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})