Why doesn't England have a National Anthem?

[itwontletmechoose]

It's frustrating to hear them sing the 'God Save the King' British national anthem. Why doesn't England have its own national anthem instead of singing one which covers all of the union (in theory)?

If the King let it be known they preferred a new anthem, then it just happens.

Unless this is yet another are where the "mysterious powers" we are required to keep a monarchy for turns out to be a load of bollocks too.

Well the way it’s being destroyed I can see their point.

id like schools to teach British culture over all the inclusivity stuff they do. Bring back the singing of hymns, British history properly taught rather than self flagation. I’d like to see nativities in all schools.

all school kids involved in local traditions, celebration of May Day - learning maypole.

Cookery programmes concentrating on traditional British food.

Kids programmes on British myths and legends. traditional stories in schools. There’s no need to make much of other cultures in schools and in the media

Actually, it's very English to express shame at being English and then being annoyed when anyone, especially foreigners, take that at face value.

If it's not normal to express any pride in your background unless you're drunk, why would you expect anyone else to have any regard for it?

British or English culture?
Liz Trump agrees with you. She reckons British kids should be eating pork pies & black pudding.

Btw not that I want to upset the Lancashirians but the best black pudding in the world is from Clonakilty. 😉

'I vow to thee, my country' would be a fabulous national anthem.

As I said “British” - it’s important to learn about the cultures of the countries that make up Britain

You mean White British Culture and White British History, don't you? Just say it. The Victorians and the British Empire without all the awkward colonial bits. The Kings and Queens of England, but without too much about the peasants. A little bit of a fudge around William the Conqueror and right sort of small boat crossing the Channel a long time ago. Happy hymns and nativities, but not too much on the history of state-sponsored religious persecution over the centuries. Nice history.

Btw not that I want to upset the Lancashirians but the best black pudding in the world is from Clonakilty.

I'm a Lancashire/yorkshire mongrel (with a dash of Welsh) but the only edible black pudding I've encountered yet is Stornoway. I'll try to remember to try your recommendation sometime.

No one’s history is “nice” but British history is very predominant white history isn’t it? How can you think otherwise? There’s been a smattering of people who aren’t white here across the centuries - but 99.9% of our major historical occurrences have been white yes, because Britain has always been an overwhelmingly white country. What are you suggesting?

I think they're referring to the British Empire and the dreadful things we did to people in other countries. I could be wrong but I do believe the Empire is covered in history but perhaps not enough is taught, I don't know but British history is very long and covers a lot.

I think it’s important that the age of Empires is taught. It was a period when many countries were colonising various parts of the world. European countries were particularly successful for several different reasons and arguably out of all the various countries colonising other areas of the world England was particularly successful.

There’s a long history of various empires, Mongolian, Alexandrian, ottoman, Roman etc etc. All have had both positive and negative effects on the people and territories they acquired. When we look at the Roman Empire here we don’t start hand wringing demanding reparations etc. History is what it is. We have to judge people by the standards of their day.

When I say teach British History, traditionally it has been taught in a certain way, key points. As you say British history is very long, there have been key points that have shaped Britain. Having a unified understanding of the past brings a country together. When we allow history to be taught in a revisionist moralistic manner then is can be used to divide rather than unite.

There's only so much time to teach history and so much to cover. I think that children should be taught about the negatives of the Empire and particularly the policy of divide and rule which has repercussions today.

@Devonbabs when were you born ?
Attitudes have changed. British history has affected many people very negatively. We cannot teach children Rule Britannia style lessons we would be teaching ignorance and ignoring some British children's history. Mostly we learnt English history and that had to change.

But with so little time, why concentrate on the British Empire? Surely if you want to illustrate the concept of divide and conquer- what better place to start than Alexander the Great (the phrase allegedly came from his Dad) after all this is what so many civilisations who tried to emulate Alexander have copied. What Britain did was simply emulate something which had been done by multiple civilisations over the millennia, there was not much particularly unique to it apart from being the most successful out of its contemporaries.

The “look at the big nasty British Empire” rhetoric is rather disingenuous if it’s not taught in the above way. In every conflict, in every change of borders, every time two cultures clash there’s winners and losers.

When were you born? What a bizarre ageist question.? Why did it have to change? We are teaching a history of a country. A very long history.

I'm not understanding your point. Britain has a 1000 year old history and there is limited time to study it all. Are you suggesting that the history of Britain is scrapped and instead pupils study Empires?

Yes, GSTK is very dreary. I’d like Jerusalem or the tune of Land of hope and glory - with some new words, but not all. A really rousing tune is a must!

Trouble is, if it were ever agreed that we should have a new one, what’s the betting it’d be something equally uninspiring - like the sort of U.K. Eurovision entry that invariably gets zero points.

Britain has a 1000 year old history

Does it ? Every day is a school day. So the migrations of entire civilisations around 6000-3000 BCE are nothing ? The civilisations that cluttered the South West with their interminable long barrows are a figment of the imagination ?

Even the sodding Romans were calling it Britannia when Julius Caesar popped in in 54 BCE.

I’m suggesting that if we are going to teach about the British Empire this needs to be done in the context of examples of other empires rather than using it as a political weapon to put down Britain. If it can’t be taught in a balanced way maybe it should be left out the curriculum.

Don’t mention the Roman invasion!!! Apparently the concept of divide and conquer has only been around since the British Empire though so not sure how the Romans did it.

Yes, but you seem to be coming from the only teach the nice bits perspective. Great white saviour, the industrial revolution had no downsides, white cliffs of Dover and bravely standing alone, etc.

Dancing round the maypole, singing hymns, and traditional songs and stories - it's all a but Summer Isle, isn't it?

My bad. I was thinking along the lines of recorded history which was about 2,000 years ago. I wasn't aware, not having been at school for decades, that they taught history going that far back. I remember learning about the Romans, maybe the Vikings but don't remember going further back than that.

Britain spent at least two hundred years stomping over the world, invading other countries and imposing our culture on them. It is entirely reasonable that we understand the cultures we invaded and have since welcomed to our country to help build our economy.

Actually, I’m saying teach it in a balanced way but on a way that we and children are proud to be British. What do you think are the downsides to the Industrial Revolution that aren’t revisionism or anachronism? What do you think were the upsides to the Empire?

The trouble is, when we start along the lines of “Oh big bad Britain” what do you think happens to pride in one’s country? If you don’t have pride in that country, what do you think happens to that country?

So you don’t agree with teaching kids about the culture of their country )those were the first things that popped into my mind) - you find British culture all a bit twee do you?

Culture is full of rituals which create a social cohesion and individual stability through that sense of belonging. they are important to any society. Shared knowledge and experience, being a part of something bigger. That culture can be local (eg making Well dressings in Derbyshire) or national eg coming together for a 2 minute silence on armistice day ( not typing through it).

it’s singing the National anthem together. Singing together seems to be a primordial way of affirming membership of a group.

Are you anti tribe - are you purely individualistic in your view of human nature?

We need commonality, humans are tribalistic. It doesn’t really matter what those tribes customs are but they need to be shared by all members. If you stick competing tribes on one bit of land human history shows is it’s never peaceful

As did France Spain Portugal, the Netherlands Persia. Macedonia, Rome, Scandinavia. Etc etc . In fact every single successful country has done something similar - most countries were formed out of such colonisation of various little kingdoms. It’s just the way the world was shaped.

It’s not really a good or bad thing - certainly nothing we should be beating ourselves up about now. Interesting how you word it “to build our economy” though still them and is for you deep down isn’t it?