[Albion] So Tomorrow If Those Scousers Boo the National Anthem........

[wellquickwoody]

I’ll leave it to you and your English national anthem whether to boo. It will never be a national anthem in Scotland - a song that talks about ‘crushing’ part of the so called British nation is not and cannot be a true British National Anthem

But the verse that gets sung all the time makes no mention of this.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

We all know where your true loyalties lie HT ...

You can change the account JCFG but you can’t change the “gags” can you?

 

[Recidivist]

Still struggling to remember to say King not Queen! Bit slow I know….

 

[Hotchilidog]

I will either be on the concourse or just silent in my seat. If people want to boo then good on them, if you want to belt it out fill your boots. Our anthem is sh*t, just glorifying the monarch and nothing to do with celebrating the country. I think it’s crass that the Premier League has ‘suggested’ that teams play it before the matches this weekend, just a weak, forelock tugging PR stunt.

 

[AlbionBro]

Don’t care. I won’t be singing it because it’s shite, especially for an atheist like me. Nonsensical dirge that should have been retired years ago.

Won’t boo though.

Fair play bro, so I am assuming your not one of those 50 year olds belting out the 'Hark now hear, Boxing day song' at matches then?

 

[Jaxie]

One of my favourite Lana Del Rey songs. Take your body downtown! It’s up there with “Radio”, “Cola” and “Summertime Sadness” for me. Oh and “Carmen” and “Diet Mountain Dew”.

Wonderful stuff.

National Anthem and Radio for me. Actually the whole Born to Die album.

 

[Guinness Boy]

*NEWSFLASH* the royals have no actual power they are just a politically neutral figure head for our country representing a bit of continuity in a fast changing world. Hands up who would prefer El Presidente Boris Johnson/Tony Blair?

I’ve almost never agreed with any of your accounts but I do agree a ceremonial head of state is better than a President, given how divided the country is.

However, we shouldn’t be paying for it. Charles is independently wealthy. Time to cut them off (from wealth, although Andrew could do with something else being cut off).

 

[Klaas]

I’ve almost never agreed with any of your accounts but I do agree a ceremonial head of state is better than a President, given how divided the country is.

However, we shouldn’t be paying for it. Charles is independently wealthy. Time to cut them off (from wealth, although Andrew could do with something else being cut off).

which one is this one? Baker lite or JCFG? Could be either?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Good post.

Those lazy and tiresome stereotypes are echoed on here as soon as anything to do with Liverpool is mentioned.

Updated so it conveys my full thoughts on the matter.

 

[Jello Biafra]

Boo louder! We can't have that lot getting all the respect and adulation!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Still struggling to remember to say King not Queen! Bit slow I know….

Booooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[Hamilton]

I’m a republican at heart, but I won’t boo. It’s our national anthem.

I also think a lot of republicans don’t think further than their ideology. I’m not sure they’ve thought of what they’d have in its place, how it would be funded, or what would happen after the event.

Personally, I think Charles says a lot of the right things about social justice and climate change. Ironic that republicans want to get rid of him and replace him with, who?

I don’t believe in hereditary principle, and I think the constitutional monarchy has become a cruel human experiment that puts too much pressure on one family. Look how much media coverage has been given to a 9-year-old, an 8-year-old, and a 5-year-old. That’s disgraceful and we’ll damage them on the alter of our constitution. Harry may be misguided in many ways, but he’s right to get out.

So, I won’t boo. I think collective silence would be far more powerful.

 

[Jello Biafra]

Suddenly God Save the King doesn't feel so bad.
At least it doesn't ask me to like anybody else in the country.

The national anthem includes (present tense, despite what some lackey in the Palace who edits its' content may believe) an explicit reference to crushing rebellious Scots. The fact that that it was expunged very recently out of embarrassment doesn't alter the fact that it was used as a method of rubbing the Scots' faces in it for the vast majority of its existence.

 

[Muzzman]

Fair play bro, so I am assuming your not one of those 50 year olds belting out the 'Hark now hear, Boxing day song' at matches then?

Of course not. Don’t be silly.

 

[Jello Biafra]

I’m a republican at heart, but I won’t boo. It’s our national anthem.

I also think a lot of republicans don’t think further than their ideology. I’m not sure they’ve thought of what they’d have in its place, how it would be funded, or what would happen after the event.

Personally, I think Charles says a lot of the right things about social justice and climate change. Ironic that republicans want to get rid of him and replace him with, who?

I don’t believe in hereditary principle, and I think the constitutional monarchy has become a cruel human experiment that puts too much pressure on one family. Look how much media coverage has been given to a 9-year-old, an 8-year-old, and a 5-year-old. That’s disgraceful and we’ll damage them on the alter of our constitution. Harry may be misguided in many ways, but he’s right to get out.

So, I won’t boo. I think collective silence would be far more powerful.

You ain't a true Republican, you just have a bit of cognitive dissonance going on in your head, albeit, not as severe as self-identified monarchists, who can brush aside the king's close relationship with pederasts (convicted or not).

 

[BadFish]

I’m a republican at heart, but I won’t boo. It’s our national anthem.

I also think a lot of republicans don’t think further than their ideology. I’m not sure they’ve thought of what they’d have in its place, how it would be funded, or what would happen after the event.

Personally, I think Charles says a lot of the right things about social justice and climate change. Ironic that republicans want to get rid of him and replace him with, who?

I don’t believe in hereditary principle, and I think the constitutional monarchy has become a cruel human experiment that puts too much pressure on one family. Look how much media coverage has been given to a 9-year-old, an 8-year-old, and a 5-year-old. That’s disgraceful and we’ll damage them on the alter of our constitution. Harry may be misguided in many ways, but he’s right to get out.

So, I won’t boo. I think collective silence would be far more powerful.

Interesting thoughts. I can't help but wonder if Harry and his situation is what that damage from the constitution looks like. The bloke had tried to fight back and constantly gets absolute pelters for his troubles.

As to the question who? Not sure if the answer to that but I would argue, are we getting our money's worth from the royals. I've seen this latest shindig costed between 80 and 250 million. I think the question we need to be asking ourselves is what do we get for that money and it what ever else they cost, and can we afford it?

 

[Hamilton]

You ain't a true Republican, you just have a bit of cognitive dissonance going on in your head, albeit, not as severe as self-identified monarchists, who can brush aside the king's close relationship with pederasts (convicted or not).

Thanks, but I don’t need you to tell me what I am and what I’m not.

 

[BadFish]

You ain't a true Republican, you just have a bit of cognitive dissonance going on in your head, albeit, not as severe as self-identified monarchists, who can brush aside the king's close relationship with pederasts (convicted or not).

Probably less to do with if he was convicted or not and more to do with what he believes is the truth about them. He may well now have know about Jimmy's goings on and may have dismissed what he heard as rumour. With Andrew he may be choosing to believe his brother. Whilst both look foolish from this time and place, I am not sure I blame him too much for his position.

More murky for me is the queen's decision to pay off Andrews accuser while sitting as the head of state.

 

[Jello Biafra]

Pretty much this. Live and let live.

I was at a Wembley final in 1983 (not that 1, the Liverpool Man Utd one earlier in the year) in the Liverpool end, with my dad (and a big Man U supporting friend, but I digress). When the husband of the queen's relative (no idea what he's called, he was the gonk that was wheeled out at Wimbledon every year to present the trophy until recently) appeared to shake hands with the players, he was greeted with a resounding chorus of 'Who the f@*kin' 'ell are you?!, Who the etc. etc. which I didn't join in with because I was too young (14) but I instinctively knew that those supporters were on the money in their assessment of him. Any rational adult'd have joined in as it was hilarious and remains 1 of my most cherished Wembley memories of 1983.

 

[Hamilton]

Interesting thoughts. I can't help but wonder if Harry and his situation is what that damage from the constitution looks like. The bloke had tried to fight back and constantly gets absolute pelters for his troubles.

As to the question who? Not sure if the answer to that but I would argue, are we getting our money's worth from the royals. I've seen this latest shindig costed between 80 and 250 million. I think the question we need to be asking ourselves is what do we get for that money and it what ever else they cost, and can we afford it?

It depends on what we all perceive to be value. Take the top end of those figures. £250m isn’t going to solve child poverty in this country. I doubt it would last a day. But, one might argue that a global TV audience for £250m is value for money.

Long term we need to replace the constitutional monarchy with something else. In my view it has to be non-politicized and it has to be meaningful.

We also have to consider what happens to the revenues of the Crown Estates when we do replace the monarch. There will be a big fight there, and one that Charles would have a strong legal claim to.