On the subject of national anthems, The Star-Spangled Banner sounds pretty epic, which is fitting because America likes to think of itself as an extraordinarily epic country. God Save the Queen sounds kind of lame to me.
For those of us in the UK who don’t believe in God - or wish for the Royal Family as an idea to come to an end, it is very lame.
Why would/should God save the Queen? Why should he? Shouldn’t he save all of us? There is an inference there that promotes the Queen above the citizen.
Plus, it is quite a depressing turgid tune too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34268442 - Why some people don’t sing the national anthem
Technically, the monarch gets its power from God (supposedly), so I guess that’s the reasoning there.
Aye, the Church and the then-State inventing and re-inforcing their self importance and power over the people, and it’s continuation - of sorts - to the present day…
I much prefer to remember…
from a certain point of view, of course…
The problem is, when you are talking about the stealing of land and property and whatnot with the Royal Family, you are talking about events that happened hundreds if not a thousand years ago.
Is it part of what the Royals (and/or those in power) represent / symbolise to this day - not just hundreds of years ago.
nonetheless the people that actually stole the land and property are long dead. The Royals of today basically don’t have any real power.
What Ryan McAvoy says, plus it not about their power literally - it is more about their place in the modern society and for the future. They considerable money they receive in handouts, subsidies and not paying taxes like everyone else - despite having substantial personal fortunes (often off the backs ‘being’ a Royal), lands, homes & invetments etc - all the while people are on the poverty line, foodbanks use is in the millions and there is shortage of land/homes for the young/poor.
The actual concept of being born in to a life of privilege such as this - not being meritocratic, and how to change/adapt this over time.
The previous PM of the UK made a big statement of ‘us all being in it together’ after the financial meltdown of 07/08 and the affects of unnecessary and enforced austerity since. Unfortunately it turned out the poor are all in it together suffering - whilst the rich and powerful - they were all ok, to the point of benefiting from it…
The gap between rich and poor has significantly increased, even working people are using foodbanks as they struggle to makes ends meet as wages have been kept low by companies whose profits still increase…
It’s an uncomfortable focal point for inequality here, many still love, like, admire the Royals - whether the tradition or on a ‘personal’ level - yet there is a growing realisation that this concept really does need to adapt to survive.
I, myself, prefer them to be amabassadors for the country in a time of change for them - though would also like to see them due taxes, sell off or lease off some lands, houses for the benefit of the public purse, and have them pay greater share for their way out of their personal fortune instead of those from the taxpayer, as well as the stopping of subsidies such as the £370m given to them to repair Buckingham Palace, the £37m to repair the Windosr Castle after it’s fire in 1992, and the £27m in a face-lift for the same castle a couple of years ago - as a few high profile examples…
A new anthem - for a more modern inclusive-Britain to aspire to the present or future would be most welcome too…
Just remember, you could strip them of everything and make them paupers, but the poor will still be with us. If you want to take more power from them, you’ll get no objection from me. However, if you take enough power from them, they might be able to validly argue that they should have the right to vote.
As for the repairs to Buckingham Palace, and Windsor Castle, may I remind you that they are both historic buildings, maybe for than, and not for the Royals, they should be preserved.
As for a change in the Anthem, Jerusalem was mentioned, the only problem I see with that is that it is named after a city that is not in the UK. Jerusalem is in Israel. That is like America using an Anthem named “Paris”. It seems odd to me.
No-one is saying that we should make the Royals paupers or that if we abolished the Royal Family that the poor would not exist - I fail to think how you reached this conclusion from what has already been said on this subject.
Just the way people were talking is all. I stand corrected.
Who is talking in this way?
I misunderstood. Sorry. Like I said, I stand corrected.
As everyone else is entitled to vote in a modern society the Monarchy certainly wouldn’t be denied the right to vote if/when it entered the 21st century, nor is it against any constitutional law for the Monarchy to currently vote.
I could have sworn the Monarch isn’t allowed to vote in elections.
No, they are allowed vote. I suggest further reading on the subject if you are mistakenly thinking or stating otherwise.
I stand corrected again. I know in the movie “The Queen” it talks like the Sovereign isn’t allow to vote. Is there at least a custom that the Monarch doesn’t vote?
Re Jerusalem the anthem - I would suggest you listen to it and read the lyrics and have a think about what it pertains to -
before stating it’s about a foreign place not in the UK…
nonetheless, it is obvious where the name comes from.
The title of the anthem is, as has been pointed out already, irrelevant - it is the aspiration and content (which directly refers to England) to which the lyrics and meaning of the song that has importance - and not the title.
Maybe you right.
Historic buildings lived by rich people should not be maintained by the taxpayer ad-infintum - the people who live and benefit from them should pay for their upkeep, no? If I lived in a listed historic building I would not expect the taxpayer to pay for it’s upkeep according to UK law - so why should the Royals be any different?
The buildings you listed aren’t just any ordinary historic buildings. They are national landmarks. This isn’t about who currently lives in them, this is about their historic importance. In American importance historic landmarks can get government funding to help preserve them.
It’s not about what historic landmarks in America getting government funding - that is not the benchmark and is somewhat of a false equivalency.
The Royals have lived in these building for years (making them historic building on that basis) - they are responsible for the upkeep for them. That they have failed to do so - and then run to the Govt for handouts to now maintain them in a time of austerity rankles with many, and as originally stated goes against the ‘we’re all in this together’ statement previously mentioned by the then PM.
Well I don’t much about what when on and what it is the Royals were supposed to do but didn’t, nor why they didn’t. I just think the bare minimum should be done to preserve the historic landmarks. If the Royals can do that, fine. If they truly can not, I don’t think the solution is to let them fall apart.