Would YOU stand for the National Anthem?

**french frank** · 03-12-16, 11:53

Originally posted by ahinton View Post

That said, the bills for restoring the Houses of Parliament is anticipated to be little short of that for doing the same to Buckingham Palace and the taxpayer will have to fund both projects.

Funny old world: it cost £1bn to refurbish Broadcasting House - funded by the licence fee payer (literal definition, not Charter definition).

**Bryn** · 03-12-16, 12:07

Originally posted by ahinton View Post

No, but those residences will still have to be staffed and maintained, as FF rightly notes. If their royal occupants vacate them and they're then used as museums, I have no doubt that, like Versailles and other such places, they will remain big tourist attractions and, provided that the income that they can generate from tourists will pay for their staffing and upkeep, all will be well and, if that income falls short of those costs, the taxpayer would presumably fund the difference for the continued existence of these national assets.

But the royals don't own them anyway; they use them; ...

True in the case of Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, but not of Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House which are both Brenda's own property.

**ahinton** · 03-12-16, 12:28

Originally posted by Bryn View Post

True in the case of Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, but not of Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House which are both Brenda's own property.

Thanks for the correction. I don't know how much the taxpayer pays to fund Balmoral or Sandringham or what income they generate. However, the point here isn't any of that but who would or would not stand for the National Anthem as it is now or as it might be if it were changed to a non-monarchist one; there would, for example, appear to be no immediately obvious reason why Republicans refuse to stand for a non-monarchist one whether or not UK retained a monarchy (not that I'm suggesting that they'd have to or be expected to do so).

**Serial_Apologist** · 03-12-16, 16:56

Originally posted by ahinton View Post

Thanks for the correction. I don't know how much the taxpayer pays to fund Balmoral or Sandringham or what income they generate. However, the point here isn't any of that but who would or would not stand for the National Anthem as it is now or as it might be if it were changed to a non-monarchist one; there would, for example, appear to be no immediately obvious reason why Republicans refuse to stand for a non-monarchist one whether or not UK retained a monarchy (not that I'm suggesting that they'd have to or be expected to do so).

However, the heading of this thread is, Would YOU stand for the, not a, national anthem.

**Richard Barrett** · 03-12-16, 17:03

Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post

However, the heading of this thread is, Would YOU stand for the, not a, national anthem.

Although as far as I'm concerned the answer is the same. I would stand for the International but only because then I can sing more loudly.

**ahinton** · 03-12-16, 17:07

Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post

However, the heading of this thread is, Would YOU stand for the, not a, national anthem.

That's fair comment, of course, although I think it not unreasonable that any consideration of why some might not stand for it embrace the refuseniks' reasons why, which could well include the overt monarchism of the words to the current one.

**ahinton** · 03-12-16, 17:08

Originally posted by Richard Barrett View Post

Although as far as I'm concerned the answer is the same. I would stand for the International but only because then I can sing more loudly.

At what dynamic level might you sing Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, if I might ask?...

**pastoralguy** · 03-12-16, 17:19

Originally posted by ahinton View Post

At what dynamic level might you sing Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, if I might ask?...

Ask John Redwood! Iirc, his dynamic level was pppp diminuendo...

**ahinton** · 03-12-16, 17:27

Originally posted by pastoralguy View Post

Ask John Redwood! Iirc, his dynamic level was pppp diminuendo...

Ah yes, I remember it well; indeed, it had something of the 4'33" about it only with the piano being substituted with lip movements...

**french frank** · 03-12-16, 18:35

Originally posted by Richard Barrett View Post

It's more important (obviously) to break down social hierarchies in general than it is to dispose of one or other symbol of these. While the US system was set up as an alternative to hereditary monarchy, it was also set up to ensure that executive power rested in the hands of a wealthy oligarchy, which has been the case ever since (and perhaps never more so than in the 21st century!), and which in the end is not so very different from a monarchy when compared with a (for the moment hypothetical) non-hierarchical society.

Of course. But your 'sweeping away' of the monarchy goes along with laying the foundations for a totally different society, different wealth distribution and power structures. I'm not sure that the broad masses who might at one time have been natural revolutionaries actually exist now - however much they're told it will create a better, fairer world. Many of them want their Queen and have been relative beneficiaries from a hierarchical (paternalistic?) society. It's been swings and roundabouts for them: some things could be better, somethings could be worse.

**ahinton** · 03-12-16, 18:48

Originally posted by french frank View Post

Of course. But your 'sweeping away' of the monarchy goes along with laying the foundations for a totally different society, different wealth distribution and power structures. I'm not sure that the broad masses who might at one time have been natural revolutionaries actually exist now - however much they're told it will create a better, fairer world. Many of them want their Queen and have been relative beneficiaries from a hierarchical (paternalistic?) society. It's been swings and roundabouts for them: some things could be better, somethings could be worse.

But even were that 'sweeping away' of the monarchy to occur and to go along with "laying the foundations for a totally different society, different wealth distribution and power structures", would national anthems of previously monarchist nations be expected to disappear under those new foundations on the grounds that they might be deemed divisive because they're nationalistic?

I think that this discussion deserves to separate out considerations of the national anthems of UK and monarchist nations which purport to celebrate those monarchies from those that don't, so that opinions as to whether people would stand for what kind of national anthem might be revealed; I realise that this broadens the scope of the discussion which S-A correctly reminded me centres on the question as to whether people would stand for the UK national anthem as it is now, but if the question's to be answered, it seems reasonable for anyone answering it to say why they would or would not do so and some such answers might be based upon positive or negative views of that monarchist content.

**Richard Barrett** · 03-12-16, 20:50

Originally posted by french frank View Post

Of course. But your 'sweeping away' of the monarchy goes along with laying the foundations for a totally different society, different wealth distribution and power structures. I'm not sure that the broad masses who might at one time have been natural revolutionaries actually exist now

What is required is patience and that the ideas are kept alive.

**french frank** · 03-12-16, 21:10

Originally posted by Richard Barrett View Post

What is required is patience and that the ideas are kept alive.

I would 'Like' that if we had a Like button here. Perhaps I'm too impatient to be a socialist.

**P. G. Tipps** · 04-12-16, 08:24

There are such things as (at least) temporary 'lost causes' and therefore maybe time for some to 'move on'? Doing that does not necessarily mean any current 'lost cause' promoter has to ditch his/her views as things and time can and do change, of course.

I don't think anyone is saying republicans should stop believing in republicanism, merely that they should recognise that the overwhelming majority of 'the people' in the UK clearly do not share their views.

I suppose there is a little bit of "republicanism" in all of us, even monarchists like myself who do not support the institution out of any huge love for the Royals but, rather, the conclusion that the system's benefits vastly outweigh any human flaws displayed by some of them on occasion.

As far as I'm aware no one is actually forcing anti-monarchists to stand for the NA though I have to say that in any civilised society we may well be asked to do things we might not particularly like in the interests of simple order ... the workplace is an obvious example. The argument that republicans, of all people, should simply accept the clear 'will of the people' is also a very strong one.

I hope that does not somehow come across as yet another of my apparent 'contradictions' ...

**ahinton** · 04-12-16, 08:34