When teaching the subjunctive in German I found "God save the Queen" helpful to show that this verb form is still in use in English and to illustrate what subjunctive means, (even if as Ferney points out above the words themselves are meaningless .... unless you believe in the existence of a supernatural being that might somehow be encouraged to intervene in the fortunes of our head of state if we all sing a song together.)
-
-
The words remind me of my sister's German pen friend who came to stay - who thought it was amusing to sing God Shave our Gracious Queen - she was not so keen on Deutschland unter Alles being sung in reply .Comment
-
You're right about Deller. I do not know the author of the "alternative" version but p. 15 of http://www.eclassical.com/shop/17115...1735921_01.pdf appears to imply that it, too, is by Dryden, though with how much accuracy I cannot tell. Another recording by Sylvia McNair using this version seems not to credit the author - see http://cluster1.cafe.daum.net/_c21_/..._menu=sch_updw . Might it have been William Congreve?...Originally posted by Mary Chambers View PostComment
-
"Wherethe wand'rer findeth rest"? That won't do, will it.Comment
-
A friend has this suggestion -
“God bless our native land!/May heaven’s protecting hand/Still guard her shore./May peace her laws defend./Foe be transformed to friend/And Britain’s power depend/On war no more.
"Not on this land alone,/But be God's mercies shown/From shore to shore:/Lord, make the nations see/That men should brothers be,/And form one family/The wide world o'er."
Still got God in it, but you can't have (or not have) everything.
I'm not sure where the words come from, but he is (or was) a member of the Communist Party of GB.Comment
-
Not until Dave agrees to take in a whole lot more refugess, no, it won't!Originally posted by Flosshilde View PostComment
-
That's certainly an improvement on the words to which we're accustomed, but the problem with it is that these words have been written to fit the same old boring tune to which God save the Queen is sung and doubtless still will be by those who are not dissatisfied with it. The other criticism is of its implications that its un-PC exhortation of men to act like brothers leaves the c.52% of the nation's population open to continue to fight like cats if so they choose. That said, with a little tweaking, it has much going for it and it is not even anti-Royalist.Originally posted by Flosshilde View Post
Its first line appears to have been taken from the much earlier verses - see http://www.lutheran-hymnal.com/lyrics/tlh577.htm and http://www.hymnary.org/text/god_bles...d_firm_may_she - that also fit the tune of the UK National Anthem that once stood as America on which, as S_A pointed out, was the theme on which Ives wrote some variations for organ which Schuman later orchestrated. It also exists with an additional middle verse and was written by the Englishman William Edward Hickson, who died in 1870 long before anyone could have been a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain! - see http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/natant.htm.Comment
-
So, all in all, the goal is the most pc anthem possible?Comment
-
I wouldn't put it quite like that, especially as not everyone shares precisely the same view of what constitutes or should be thought of as constituting PC in the first place.Originally posted by Demetrius View Post
No, the most universally acceptable possible is what would seem the most commendable, Ithink - i.e. one capable of embracing as many members of the UK population as possible, not least those who have come to settle there from other countries. That said, the questions remain as to whether UK or indeed any other nation actually "needs" a National Anthem at all and, if so, for what specific reason/s and on what occasions it should be used.
To return to the issue of whether Jeremy Clarkson (why does that name keep coming to my mind when Corbyn is who's meant?) should or should not sing the National Anthem as now it stands on occasions when others around him are doing so, one might be tempted to ponder on the correct answer while contemplating his almost comically woolly and prevaricative responses to the question as to whether he would kneel before the Queen - as tradition has so far demanded of those being received into the Privy Council - when the fate of such reception befalls him; I cannot help but think that he passed up a golden opportinity for a wisecracking knavish-tricksy answer by not responding with something along the lines that if it's good enough for the Queen herself not to sing the National Anthem it's good enough for him!...Comment
-
Don't man and brothers just mean mankind, humankind, in this context? I have no objection to it, nor to Alle Menschen werden Brüder in the Ode to Joy.Comment
-
-
Well, yes, of course they are generally perceived to do so in reality; the question, however, is not whether they do as whether they should, for which reason I sought merely to refer to the un-PC aspect of the use of male terms to cover everyone, male, female or otherwise.Originally posted by Mary Chambers View Post
Incidentally, your reference to the language of the Schiller here reminds me of my amusement when I read "Deutschland unter Alles" in Barbirollians' #62...Comment
-
That's the question. Some strands of feminism suggest that using male generalizations (The German language uses them extensively: teachers (pl) = Lehrer (pl), which is a plural indicating males, while Lehrerinnen (pl) indicates females. As soon as you don't know exactly which or if you adress a group of mixed gender, you usually go with the male version) are demeaning and should be abolished. Other strands of feminism argue that that is a nonsense argument that only serves to draw attention away from actual issues (equal pay, equal rights in regards to child rearing etc). So, basically, it may offend or not offend depending on where you fall on this issue.Originally posted by Mary Chambers View PostComment
-
...which might all be taken to demonstrate that, as the task of writing words for a National Anthem that would please - or at the very least be acceptable to - everyone or at the very least the majority of UK citizens is a nigh-impossible one on more grounds than there are in a cup of coffee, it raises the question as to the need for such an anthem in the first place!...Originally posted by Demetrius View PostComment
-
There are examples of anthems that are/were only instrumental, not sung - East Germany did so for the latter part of its existence, reason being, among other things, that the text expressed a wish for unifying Germany, which was at that point no longer an intention of the GDR.Originally posted by ahinton View Post
To have no anthem at all would probably feel a bit awkward at international sporting events. Also, there are diplomatic traditions to greet visiting dignitaries with their anthem, that too might be a bit weird.Comment
Comment