talking

Is there any better reason for retaining the current British national anthem than the fact that nearly every person in Britain hates it?

Last Wednesday, the House of Commons debated a proposal that would see England get its own anthem for sporting events. Predictably, mention of anthems quickly turned the debate to the popular gripe about ‘God Save the Queen’ which is currently Britain’s favourite reason to mumble incoherently as we pretend to enjoy a patriotic singalong.

I understand the antipathy to the anthem yet I really don’t see the fuss. To me it’s a point of national pride that we have the worst anthem in the world. It’s musical rhypnol. There we often are, celebrating another sporting success with the adrenaline pumping through our new World Champion’s drug-free limbs. Up they leap to the podium with gold medal gleaming, their arms waving as if trying to milk a giraffe. It’s the happiest moment in their eighteen long years. And then it begins. The Anthem.

‘Gooooood’…

‘Saaaaavve’…

‘Ourrrrrrr….’

‘Graaaaaaaa…’

‘…aaaaaaaa…’

‘…cious Queen’

Doesn’t it just sucks every particle of joy from the air? It’s a sometimes wonderful torture seeing the champ struggle to suppress their pent-up energy as the slow plodding melody rattles along like an old wardrobe on broken castors.

Not that the pace is the only problem with the anthem. It also invokes all the worst or best (depending on your politics) symbolism of Empire, including a fair bit about God which you will find moving at a level inversely proportional to the number of books by Richard Dawkins you have on your shelves. It’s also so far removed from reality to be technically a fantasy to rival anything by Tolkien.

You might be surprised to learn that I don’t know the Queen personally and we rarely meet socially. Yet I’ve never once thought her particular ‘gracious’ if, by that, we mean ‘kind’ and ‘warm’. ‘Bored’ and ‘distracted’ seem far better descriptions. In fact, I’d be more inclined to have the lyric rewritten to reflect the reality of modern secular Britain, though we would probably get something that’s quite difficult to hum:

Universal causality save our bored Queen,
Provide better-healthcare-than-the-usual to our indifferent Queen.
Universal causality save the Queen.
Send her non-judgmentally,
Pretty perky (if she’s talking horses) and in a nice hat (frilly),
Long let her be on our stamps (not too keen on licking Charles’s face)
Universal causality save the Queen.

Yet what I perhaps find most irritating about the anthem is that it’s meant to be a ‘national’ anthem yet celebrates the virtues of just one person. Where are the 58 million other verses to describe the rest of us?

It’s not that I have a particular gripe with the Monarchy. As a way of organising a state, monarchies seem better than most. From a humanitarian point of view, however, it does seem unduly cruel to whichever poor sap gets lumped with The Crown. Prince William really stood no chance. The individual is lost as soon as the Archbishop drops a billion in bullion and blood diamonds on their bald spot. What if he’d wanted a different career? Novelist? Academic? Plumber? There, perhaps, goes the greatest rock drummer the world would have ever known had tattoos, groupies, and body odour been permitted in royal circles. That’s the reality we fail to remember when we jealously eye the royals. Imagine if your entire life stank of newly-opened hospital wings and Earl Grey welcomes.

‘So what do you do?’

‘I serve cakes, Your Majesty…’

‘I should imagine it’s very rewarding…’

‘Oh it is… Sometimes I also serve biscuits.’

The role of monarch is a life sentence, which is precisely why the anthem suits it so well.

Critics are right to point out that there are better alternatives. ‘Land of Hope and Glory’ gets the toes tapping, though it is still, perhaps, a bit too God and Empire to please The Guardian. ‘Jerusalem’ is lyrically a class apart but not that easy to whistle when you’re up a ladder stringing bunting. ‘Zadok the Priest’ is my personal choice with five minutes of warbling strings before we’d belt out the chorus. But would people constantly confuse national celebrations with UAFA Champion’s League nights?

Not that any of this really matters. Even if there was a perfect alternative we could all agree on, my preference would still be to stick with what we have.

I might hate it but I don’t hate it as much as I could hate others. And that’s my fear. The moment you accept that we could change our anthem, then changes would come more often than we like. It wouldn’t take a particularly potty bit of thinking on behalf of a potty government (Corbyn/Boris) to tie it to a Downing Street petition. 500,000 names on a petition and bingo: a new anthem quicker than you could drop a hat or wave a flag. Of course, it would begin well enough with everybody singing ‘Rule Britannia’ but, before you know it, you’d be busy Scaramouching and expecting me to do the Fandango.

‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ is just the beginning of the popularist hell we’d create. We’d be launching destroyers to Robbie William’s ‘Angels’ and kicking off football matchs to the strains of Lady Gaga’s ‘Poker Face’.

Yet there is one final and perhaps justifiable reason I don’t mind keeping what we have. Our anthem is more likely to send us to sleep than it is likely to get the blood pumping. Do we really want to become a nation the equivalent of Tottenham Hotspur, running out to ‘Duel of the Fates’ from Star Wars? We’d become a nation studs-high tacklers, prone to play the man and not the ball.

Our anthem is tired, boring, and utterly dull, as befits a nation prone to understatement and not taking itself too seriously. Unless, of course, I could convince you to listen to the Wirral’s favourite sons in the form of Half Man Half Biscuit

David Waywell writes and cartoons at his blog The Spine.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

11 Comments on "Carry On Saving the Queen"

  1. I realize that the national anthem is an anathema to many people. Why don’t we have a competition to select the most voted for tune? Something similar to the Euro-vision song contest minus Terry Wogan. How about nominating the theme music of Chariots of Fire or the less arousing theme of Coronation Street?

    • NO! That’s exactly what I don’t want. Like I said: turning it into a competition or a petition would unleash all manner of hell, though now I think about it, ‘Chariots of Fire’ isn’t a bad call so long as we could come up with some decent lyrics. Does anybody have Tim Rice’s phone number?

  2. Limehouse Blues would be my choice, just to make the military bands earn their corn. I’d choose the arrangement of one of your fellow Lancastrians Jack Hylton.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nho2G0Wf6n8

  3. My vote would be for Jerusalem, it’s the mention of “England’s green and pleasant land” that does it. Anthems are a funny thing because when I hear one I want to do different things depending on the country:

    British – Start a revolution
    Italian – Smile
    Russian – March West and conquer something
    German – Conquer everything
    French – Fill in the Channel Tunnel
    American – Take out the battery from my cellphone and change ISP
    Welsh – Join in, even though I don’t speak a word of the language

    The Russian is probably the most impressive as it’s about the land, the party and the people where as the current British effort concerns an OAP receiving aid from a sky fairy.

    • mahatmacoatmabag | 17th January 2016 at 6:52 pm | Reply

      But Peter you wrote on 15/01/16 ” no more backing Israel ”
      Surely nothing recognises Israels sovereignty over Jerusalem & the importance of the Judaeo-Christian value system to the UK & England in particular than having Jerusalem as the English national anthem. Yet you who live in Germany & wish the West to abandon Israel into the hands of its enemies, must surely see the ironic dichotomy of your favouring Jerusalem as the English national anthem.

      • William Blake’s Jerusalem has nothing to do with the Jerusalem in the Middle East.

        • mahatmacoatmabag | 17th January 2016 at 8:55 pm | Reply

          Jane, there is only one Jerusalem, ( literal meaning city of peace ) the city built by King David & eternal capital of the Jewish people for over 3,000 years, also known in the bible as Zion. Did you somehow miss all the Biblical references in the song:” And did those feet in ancient time Walk upon England’s mountains green? And was the holy Lamb of God (Jesus Christ) On England’s pleasant pastures seen? And did the Countenance Divine Shine forth upon our clouded hills? And was Jerusalem builded here Among those dark Satanic mills? Bring me my bow of burning gold: Bring me my arrows of desire: Bring me my spear: O clouds, unfold! Bring me my chariot of fire! (Elijah) I will not cease from mental fight, Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand Till we have built Jerusalem In England’s green and pleasant land.” I expect Corbyn will be upset if Jerusalem becomes Englands nation anthem given his fondness for Hamas, anyway enjoy the song : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKRHWT6xdEU

          • I never said it wasnt religious. The lyrics are taken from Blake’s ‘New Jerusalem’ and the song is about building the New Jerusalem in England.

  4. Indeed, and I suggest that mahatmacoatmabag actually listens to the lyrics of ‘Jerusalem’ or looks them up on the Internet. I think you might find the following link of interest:

    https://www.thewi.org.uk/faqs/why-was-jerusalem-chosen-as-the-wis-anthem

    As for my suggestion on 15/1/2016 I agree, I did suggest that the USA stops sending aid to Israel and, in the same paragraph, I also suggested that the Western powers stop meddling with the various Middle East states via arms sales and political influence. Leave the Arabs and Israelis to sort the mess out themselves.

    Now back to more musical matters.

    • mahatmacoatmabag | 17th January 2016 at 9:53 pm | Reply

      Peter you can tap dance around it all you like it all comes down to Jerusalem being the eternal capital of the Jewish people in the land of Israel and Israel being a light unto the nations inspiring them to achieve great things. The west does not meddle in the Mid-East by way of arms sales, quite the opposite since they are necessity for the survival of western allies under threat from the forces of evil who have no problem getting hold of massive amounts of mostly Russian weapons & the export of arms to pro-western Mid-East states is also vital to the hard hit economies of western countries providing much needed revenues & jobs. You also seem to be stuck in the Arab – Israel conflict state of mind. The main conflict in the Mid-East for decades now has been Arab on Arab wars , Sunni on Shia wars, regional terror & insurgency & bloody civil wars of a religious or ethnic nature, the Israel / Palestinian dispute being a sideshow and not one that threatens the Oil exports of the Mid-East which keeps the lights on in the west & keeps vehicles and trade moving.

Leave a comment

favorites.png
Comments are moderated before they are published. Please consider if you're contributing to the discussion before you post. Abuse and general negativity will not be allowed to appear on the site. This might be the Internet but let's try to keep things civil.
 

Your email address will not be published.


*


*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.