God save the Queen !

[MrGongGong]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60RJEKhDjHM

(not Luxembourg, sorry)

But I prefer this version

[french frank]

Don't man and brothers just mean mankind, humankind, in this context?

What is the consequence of women agreeing that they DO feel 'included'? There seem to be more men feeling it definitely excludes them If you are acquainted with several languages which have (masculine) forms which imply both male and female you tend to be less bothered. Perhaps?

By the way, we used to sing the Parry setting of Richard II's 'sceptred isle' speech - all about royalty and Christian service - but also about sister nations. And the 'seat of Mars' refers to the 'fortress' which will defend itself from war (and infection, apparently).

[MrGongGong]

What is the consequence of women agreeing that they DO feel 'included'?

Which ones?
I suspect there will be a difference of opinion with regard to age

[P. G. Tipps]

Unlike others here, I couldn't possibly comment ....

[french frank]

Which ones?
I suspect there will be a difference of opinion with regard to age

So be it. I merely said 'women' (generalising) and posed a question.

Mary Chambers comment that 'mankind' in context included women as well seems pretty sound. The OED has four examples in the 19th and 20th centuries where the word meant, specifically, men: but in context it is contrasted with 'womankind' (and on one occasion with 'childkind' as well.) The primary meaning, with examples from the 13th-20th centuries, is: ' The human species. As a collective noun: human beings in general'.

An interesting example of the use in 1924 by the linguist Otto Jespersen: 'Mankind (now stressed on the second syllable) comprises all human beings, but the younger mankind (stressed on the first syllable) is opposed to womankind.'

And for those that want to point out that the word was 'brothers' - same applies: it can mean 'members', especially when referring to co-religionists. Plymouth Brethren were/are of both genders.

[Gordon]

As has been pointed out the current anthem is not the nation's it's the monarch's, hardly appropriate for a modern nation [whatever that is in the UK today]. And that dirge of a tune is certainly is more likely to make one lose the will to live. It's not lack of patriotism that keep people silent it's sheer boredom.

I am Welsh and at least our words are about the nation, people [including fallen warriors], landscape, freedom and, importantly, the language. At rubgy matches you certainly get a sense that the Welsh crowd means what it's singing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtCOprRDUm8

English rugby crowds are happier with a sombre negro spiritual about swinging low [why not swinging high]!! The Scottish anthem has similar sentiments to the Welsh.

Perhaps we need a competition for a New Anthem for New Britain, one that is more appropriate for the modern world. It would of course [as has been stated above] have to be fully PC being Inclusive, non-sectarian, pacifist, gender neutral, non agist, etc etc, bound from the start to be meaningless to all. Perhaps we should do away with words and have a Humming Chorus version with a rousing tum-ti-tum tune that people can make their own words for.

I've always had a sneaking regard for he tune of the old Russian anthem and also the US one.

When I was a student in Liverpool I used to go to Anfield where the Kop always sang "God save our Gracious Team", "send them victorious, Happy and glorious" etc taken up by local group Scaffold towards the end of their hit Thank U Very Much:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjnkmNyArNg

[Demetrius]

So be it. I merely said 'women' (generalising) and posed a question.

Mary Chambers comment that 'mankind' in context included women as well seems pretty sound. The OED has four examples in the 19th and 20th centuries where the word meant, specifically, men: but in context it is contrasted with 'womankind' (and on one occasion with 'childkind' as well.) The primary meaning, with examples from the 13th-20th centuries, is: ' The human species. As a collective noun: human beings in general'.

An interesting example of the use in 1924 by the linguist Otto Jespersen: 'Mankind (now stressed on the second syllable) comprises all human beings, but the younger mankind (stressed on the first syllable) is opposed to womankind.'

And for those that want to point out that the word was 'brothers' - same applies: it can mean 'members', especially when referring to co-religionists. Plymouth Brethren were/are of both genders.

The traditional meaning of for example mankind is indeed a general one.

The argument I know and have heard is that still, while person XY clearly addresses both genders, his use of the 'male' form still demeans and puts down females and ferments a belief in superiority among males. Frankly, 95 % of the time we use language with out consciously picking it apart. I'm not sure whether most males realize enough of these generalizations for what they are to actually effect their thinking on the subject.

[Serial_Apologist]

Perhaps we need a competition for a New Anthem for New Britain, one that is more appropriate for the modern world. It would of course [as has been stated above] have to be fully PC being Inclusive, non-sectarian, pacifist, gender neutral, non agist, etc etc, bound from the start to be meaningless to all.

Jerusalem is still widely viewed as the top choice for a replacement. The one problem, its reference to only one part of the UK, could be solved I suppose by re-wording that particular line: "In our just green and pleasant land".

[MrGongGong]

Jerusalem is still widely viewed as the top choice for a replacement. The one problem, its reference to only one part of the UK, could be solved I suppose by re-wording that particular line: "In our just green and pleasant land".

And the fact that it starts with a series of questions to which the answer is NO?

[LeMartinPecheur]

Jerusalem is still widely viewed as the top choice for a replacement. The one problem, its reference to only one part of the UK, could be solved I suppose by re-wording that particular line: "In our just green and pleasant land".

Just and green, or only slightly green? I fear the music (rhythm and melodic contour) will lend more support to the second reading

[Though it might still be a reasonable factual statement...]

[Serial_Apologist]

And the fact that it starts with a series of questions to which the answer is NO?

What a shame! I quite like the idea that JC came over to found the Glastonbury Festival.

[Serial_Apologist]

Just and green, or only slightly green? I fear the music (rhythm and melodic contour) will lend more support to the second reading

[Though it might still be a reasonable factual statement...]

Yes, I see what you mean...

(Justine Greening also crosses my mind as well, now! )

[MrGongGong]

What a shame! I quite like the idea that JC came over to found the Glastonbury Festival.

I didn't think Jeremy was responsible for that?

[Serial_Apologist]

I didn't think Jeremy was responsible for that?

He kept his mouth shut.

[Mary Chambers]

Messing with William Blake's text? Never!