Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

National Anthem



Brovion

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 6, 2003
19,402
What is so bad about the Queen and the Royal Family? The notion of President Blair is both frightening and depressing in equal measure. Then what the f*** would we sing?

A real lack of viable alternatives coming through on this thread from all those anti-royalists.
This is going to get off-topic but there would NOT be a President Blair. Or Thatcher. Or Brown. It would be more like President Bobby Charlton with Prime Minister doing the job they currently do.

Why do all monarchists think that the U.S. model is the only way a republic is structured?
 




Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
This is going to get off-topic but there would NOT be a President Blair. Or Thatcher. Or Brown. It would be more like President Bobby Charlton with Prime Minister doing the job they currently do.

Why do all monarchists think that the U.S. model is the only way a republic is structured?
*cough* France do it that way too. Presidents Mitterand and Chirac anyone?
 


Brovion

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 6, 2003
19,402
*cough* France do it that way too. Presidents Mitterand and Chirac anyone?
France also has a Prime Minister. I'm actually being generous to you traditionalists. I don't see anything wrong with having an almost identical set-up to the one we have at present - with the exception that the Head of State is elected. This will give them some legitimacy and enable them to act as a balance against an over-powerful Prime Minister. Currently the Queen plays no role other than to rubber-stamp legislislation that has already been rubber-stamped by Parliament (especially now given the Labour majority). She always approves as it wouldn't be 'right' for an unelected monarch to overturn the supposedly democratic parliament (And don't say the House of Lords could do it as the PM can use the Parlaiment Act to force the Lords to accept legislation).

Anyway, it's a different topic. I won't convince you and you certainly won't convince me.
 


Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,243
Surrey
When you are at an England game and you have 80,000 singing it at Wembley it does work!

Also in matches like the recent world cup games in Germany, 25,000 England fans singing it at full volume does stir the emotions.

Its all these boring lefties, republicans too busy moaning about it whilst drinking German/Belgium lager or more probably Pimms in there local pub that are the problem! They dare now show pride and passion because that is probably un pC these days, lets be middle of the road and unpatriotic because hey it looks cool to my mates!
Sorry but that's just NOISE. :bla:
 






edna krabappel

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
47,225
There are various ways of doing the republic thing, and it always irritates me when people go "well imagine how bad President Blair would be".

Yes, there is an option where you have a head of state with power, ie George W Bush. But in the same way that monarchs used to wield the power, whereas now the Queen is just someone we stick on stamps, republican systems aren't all like that.

There are plenty of countries where the President is merely a figurehead, voted for by the electorate: usually a popular, slightly cuddly even, figure, there to nominally represent the country, but who doesn't really make the decisions. Think of Mary Robinson in Ireland, with Bertie Aherne as the Taoiseach, or Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor. Most of us don't even know who the German President is. Chirac is (I think) still French president, but he doesn't really do much apart from fulfilling a Gallic stereotype, all the work and decisions come down to Sarkozy.

The man above is right, it's more likely any president we had would be someone like this:

616_L1.jpg
:lolol:
 




edna krabappel

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
47,225
Interestingly, it seems that the Australian Government once held a referendum for the populace to decide what their national anthem should be, after GSTQ was thought to be no longer appropriate.

The results of the 1977 vote were as follows:



Advance Australia Fair 2,940,854 43%

God Save the Queen 1,257,341 19%

Song of Australia 652,858 10%

Waltzing Matilda 1,918,206 28%

Over a quarter of voting Australians picked Waltzing Matilda as their preferred choice of national anthem

:lolol:

I guess I Should Be So Lucky hadn't been written back then.
 




Wise words. I'm happy with the Queen, William and even Charles. They are BORN leaders, trained from birth to assert natural British superiority. Politicians are little more than power-hungry, self-serving, sleazy ego-maniacs.

What bollocks.


They are a pointless anachronism that is bloody expensive to maintain, have no constitutional role anymore except a purely ceremonial one (which we caould well do without) - totally undemorcatic, unrepresentative, and generally a waste of space.

This country would be better off without them.

oh, and she's my boss.

Do you like singing stupid songs praising your boss?
 


unnameable

New member
Feb 25, 2004
1,276
Oxford/Lancing
Players from other countries (even the Celts) seem to cry when the national anthems are played. Our lot never do. They ought to cry. After all, God Save The Queen is a soulless dirge. Jerusalem, however, might have us cold-blooded Anglo-Saxons going.
 


Robbie G

New member
Jul 26, 2004
1,771
Hassocks
I hate God Save The Queen. Would much prefer Land Of Hope And Glory to be played. I have nothing against the Queen (nothing against a monarchy), but i feel a national anthem should be sung about a nation, not the 'ruler' of said nation.

On a side note, i am a great fan of Land Of Our Fathers, and God Defend New Zealand. To me they are much more patriotic than GSTQ
 




DJ Leon

New member
Aug 30, 2003
3,446
Hassocks
Being proud to be English ALWAYS get linked to being a racist or a xenophobe. To be politically correct you have to put every other country and their beliefs way above being English, British or whatever you want to call it, that comes way down the list, perhaps even excluded altogether.

We don't have to put 'other countries way above being English', perhaps we could just afford them some respect. Given the example of England football fans - we could perhaps not boo other countries national anthems. Sadly there are reasons why being proud of being English has so many negative connotations.

I like GSTQ by the way. Being at Wembley when 80,000 were singing it reminded me that I'm not immune to a bit of English pride.
 


The Large One

Who's Next?
Jul 7, 2003
52,343
97.2FM
There are plenty of countries where the President is merely a figurehead, voted for by the electorate: usually a popular, slightly cuddly even, figure, there to nominally represent the country, but who doesn't really make the decisions. Think of Mary Robinson in Ireland, with Bertie Aherne as the Taoiseach, or Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor. Most of us don't even know who the German President is. Chirac is (I think) still French president, but he doesn't really do much apart from fulfilling a Gallic stereotype, all the work and decisions come down to Sarkozy.

Nicholas Sarkozy is the French President, the 23rd, (the sixth President of the Fifth French Republic), and co-Prince of Andorra. Francois Fillon is the French Prime Minister. Before he was President, he was Minister of the Interior in Jean-Pierre Raffarin's government.

:)
 






Yorkie

Sussex born and bred
Jul 5, 2003
32,367
dahn sarf
Has to be land of hope and glory or jeruslam, but come on admit it, without looking it up who actually knows the words to these??
I suggest a Verse or two of We Hate Palace, Im sure we all know the words to that one ????????

Me.
TLO doesn't understand the words to God save the Queen. It is nothing to do with deification or glorification.
 


Yorkie

Sussex born and bred
Jul 5, 2003
32,367
dahn sarf
What bollocks.


They are a pointless anachronism that is bloody expensive to maintain, have no constitutional role anymore except a purely ceremonial one (which we caould well do without) - totally undemorcatic, unrepresentative, and generally a waste of space.

This country would be better off without them.

oh, and she's my boss.

Do you like singing stupid songs praising your boss?

£1.18 per person per year.
Yes and she's my boss too. I even have Crown as the title of my job. She gives me 2.5 extra days holiday a year. On Maundy Thursday I have half a day when she's distributed the money, on her birthday and at Christmas.
God save the Queen.
:clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:



:lol::lol::lol:
 


Tesco in Disguise

Where do we go from here?
Jul 5, 2003
3,926
Wienerville
What bollocks.


They are a pointless anachronism that is bloody expensive to maintain, have no constitutional role anymore except a purely ceremonial one (which we caould well do without) - totally undemorcatic, unrepresentative, and generally a waste of space.

This country would be better off without them.

oh, and she's my boss.

Do you like singing stupid songs praising your boss?

couldn't agree more.
 








unnameable

New member
Feb 25, 2004
1,276
Oxford/Lancing
You are talking about races who came from places we now know as being France, Germany, Norway etc.

The Anglo-Saxons as we understood the term were made ostensibly from three tribes, the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes. They held large swathes of what we know called southern England and the midlands from the 5th century until the mid 11th century. The are we live in was primarily held by the Saxons - hence the name Sussex.

Sussex means South Saxons, as in Kingdom of. Essex means East Saxons. Wessex means West Saxons. Middlesex means Middle Saxons.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here