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)?

That's not the history I got taught at school.

To be fair I dropped history after S2 but up to that up to that point we did votes for women and the suffragettes, WWII (and what I remember of that was the evacuees experience and the Holocaust), the Jacobite Rebellions and the Highland Clearances.

Wouldn't call any of that the 'nice bits'.

Did you not do the Stone Age?

Sounds a great curriculum

I can't remember. It was decades ago.

Yes, England should have their own and we should scrap GSTK altogether.

God Save the King is an utter dirge and should be abandoned. Very self-congratulatory for a monarch too, which is really why they themselves don't sing it. Just get rid!!

Scotland already has Flower of Scotland which is lovely, and Wales has Land of My Fathers which is a great tune. Why couldn't England adopt Jerusalem, or something similar?

Actually, I agree with you. I've changed my mind on Jerusalem now. I prefer this one. Written by Gustav Holst as part of The Planets Suite. Great tune, and I love the words.

Well actually Millenia ago. - sorry couldn’t resist,

I too could get behind this. - there’ll be someone along in a sec complaining the second verse is alienating to atheists but there you go.

Actually I don't entirely like the words of 'I vow to thee, my country'. I don't believe any nation is owed 'the love that asks no questions', particularly if it's followed by 'That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best'. Soft words to a lovely tune exhorting unquestioning sacrifice don't strike me as at all a good idea. I love my country but we should certainly question and seek to improve!

(And it bugs me that I can't listen to the planets without those words inserting themselves over the music)

Well I’ve had a go at some others - needs some work but I’ve gone for a MN inspired anthem.

To Holst”s Jupiter

I am begrudgingly going to sing a long to this
Entire and whole and perfect the nature of my kids
The poster asks no questions
we suspects she’s taking piss
To Boden joules and Primark, clutches pearls to chest
Labour never falters, but sure we’ll pay the price
Single sex spaces, the final sacrifice

And there’s another country, I heard it’s name is France
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that prance
We wish there was no Brexit. We would all be moving there.
We always drink her Champers and scoff her Camembert
And there is only secular, there’s no deity ‘lowed there
And her ways of socialism
No Tories hiding here.

We were teaching history from a white man's perspective. Not women's perspective. Not the effect those white men had on anybody else. It was selected memory history.
It's not ageism asking how old you are with your opinion of teaching a narrow and out dated view of British history.

But it’s not “out of date” so whose perspective do you think history should be taught from?

Your mistake is you think change is improvement, All that’s happened is the agenda for which the teaching of history is being used has changed.

Can you at least see how harmful this “nasty old Britain” rhetoric is for social cohesion in Britain is?

These discussions are very frustrating.

I live in a country that was part of the Empire and some of my family were involved in the fighting. They were Irish, a point I keep very firmly in mind when a game of victim top trumps develops.

It's no good saying the Empire was good or bad. From a modern perspective it was very much both, depending on where you were or what you're talking about. I see absolutely no prospect of the system of parliamentary government introduced her by the British being abolished in favour of something more trad. It's said that teaching of history was biased before, but as this 'empire bad' response is more about politics than the lives of people who have gone before, it's fanciful to think it's any less biased.

Very well worded

I'm not saying teach Empire bad. I am saying teach from the perspective of more than just the ancestors of the white elite.
The amount of time teaching history is pretty pitiful.
I would like a bit more of Herstory teaching as well.

Right?!!

Can you at least see how harmful this “nasty old Britain” rhetoric is for social cohesion in Britain is?

Can't you see how socially divisive the anti-multicultural approach is? Honesty in teaching is what's required. That life can be complex and confusing, and that good and bad aren't things that happen in isolation. That right and wrong are rarely clear cut, much of life (and history) is shades of grey, and being the victor generally allows you to decide which is which regardless.

Ooo good idea! 🇬🇧👨🏻

But that isn’t the message which is coming out, it’s ooh isn’t Britain awful. What do you mean by multiculturalism? Do you really believe it can work or should members of a society follow one set of cultural norms? Can a society ever be cohesive where members are following different cultural norms - I think this will always create conflict.

I wouldn’t like any “her”story taught, it’s meaningless and totally ignores the etymology of the word history and is only used by the I’ll informed wokarati,

I’m all for balanced teaching of History, where this is an accurate reflection. What I cannot stand is the absolute bollocks and self flagation championed by groups such as the national trust and social media types of ooh the British are evil.

so for example the treatment of women linked to the witch trials is a very interesting area. The rise of the feminists in the 19th/e20th century esp in the context of the rise of spirituality is all part of British history and not enough work has been done

I don't agree with this at all. Back in the 90s I studied the Industrial Revolution for GCSE and then sixteenth century European history for A-level. Historians were not concentrating on rich white men and hadn't been for ages. We certainly didn't. Show me someone who says history still has that bias and I will show you an ideologue who is after some kind of unobtainable purity, like a Reformation cleric who wants to smash things up and cause mayhem.

What has changed is that history has become much more thematic. That's made it very political, value-laden and more akin to some version of sociology that we are supposed to take the correct lesson from. It's just a little bit Orwellian and it's taken the subject away from what is should be based in, ie, a sympathetic but value-neutral study of past times.

I live in England and English but identify as Scottish (no other reason than I love the place). I think it should be 500 miles by the proclaimers as a reckon I’m within 500 miles of john’O’ Groats!!!!
Na I dont her that either…
Do anthems even matter? Isn’t star spangled banner to the tune of the French NA? Or the other way around?? Who decides these things anyway? Lol

What's awful is when British culture is divorced from the reality of the past. You can't teach or study British history the multiple cultures of the Empire, and one of the most significant imports of the empire was the cultures of the countries that made up the empire.

Take the Colston statue. How can you describe someone as a philanthropist without looking at the darker aspects of how he had the money in the first place? It's difficult to say anything about Britain's pre-abolitionist role in the slave trade other than it was awful. But you can then build on that through to the more enlightened politics of abolition.

It's not about Britain Is Awful. If you interpret it that way it says more about your insecurities about British history. Countries are like the people that make them up, they occasionally make mistakes, but overall you'd hope they try their best.