National Anthem - anyone know the words???

[cherry]

This may be hard to believe for some of you, but I have no clue to the words of the National Anthem. I have been asked by dd's nursery teacher to help her learn the first verse by Friday, so if anyone can help me out here that'd be great!

Some of the stars on Monday are far wealthier than the Queen - Elton and Paul McCartney for example, yet I don't hear you saying that they should go and live in a tower block. I don't think Tony and Cherie are short of a penny either. It seems there is no condemnation of seriously rich pop stars, politicians, footballers etc and yet apparently it is wrong for the Queen to to be wealthy.

But isn't that precisely because they've earned their money? And I know it's a mad world that people who sing songs earn more than those who save lives, but that's the way life is.

There was an interesting piece in the Guardian the other day which argued that in future years the monarchy will have to scale down in order to remain at all credible (sell properties, reduce civil list to core family members etc), and that its primary function is to fulfil the need we all have for a benevolent figure to look up to........in the US that role is combined with the highest political office which produces the best opportunity for corruption and power/status-hungry hangers-on who affect governance of the entire country.

IFO don't like the idea of President Blair. Sorry for the ramble!

bells, I had exactly the same pleasant feelings when we were in Algerian republic for the independence day celebrations, the flags and bunting were all out and everyone was having such a good time!

Doesn't it strike anyone else as a bit funny that the BBC can show crowds having a good time in the streets of Bagdad with a commentary to the effect that it's Saddam Hussain's birthday, so forced, state sponsored celebrations are going on, and the following month, they are showing crowds having a good time in the streets of London, with a commentary that OF COURSE, everyone is out having a good time because they all love the Queen so much!

OK, as a compromise, let's make the Royal Family a bit smaller by not paying "minor royals". I'd be interested to know what all you revolutionaries propose to have instead of a monarchy. What do you want instead, what will it do, how will you fund it? Many commentators have said that the Monarchy reinforces the rich/poor divide. But let's be honest, that would exist (and continue to grow) without a Monarchy. I think that HM is a fine ambassador for this country (better than T Blair). Also, she sets a good example. Even though she has been given a privileged position, she serves others which is a fine principle.

yes but talking of principles... the principle that the queen should be seen as the head of the country and that sh is worthy because of birth is wrong - if not in reality then in principle .....no the rich poor divide woudnt lessen any because she is not their - but she stands for a privilaged elite entitled to her status only by birth, not election its wrong. it wouldnt matter if she created money for this country - which she obviously does - speaking to officials and dignitaries from other countries doing her diplomatic bit, and then there is the revenue she brings in by tourism ..... still its all wrong - the principle of someone as the head of our country without election is wrong - no matter how nice she is, how much money she creates, how many jobs she secures, how many people she makes happy etc its just wrong

oh and while we are on the subject - i wont fly the union jack either - but will fly the english flag because i think the union is a farce too!

Custardo. Maybe I have missed something. But why is the union a farce? I am Scottish born, I live in England and love it. Have an English husband, and my daughter is English with Scottish blood. We are all British, surely?

ks - it's the result of a thousand years of living in slavery. The propaganda starts with king/queen fairy tales (just so you grow up thinking it's normal) and continues through school with an official version of history that ignores the local democracy enjoyed by the anglosaxons pre the norman conquest(with its accompanying nationalization of the land which has never been returned to the people). Disgraceful episodes such as the wiping out of the Fen people in the 18th century are ignored altogether. The propaganda continues through the rest of your life with events like last weekend. Etc, etc.
Actually, IMO, the Queen is the biggest single victim of the monarchy/upper classes system. She, poor woman, just does as she's told.

I'm married to a Fen person Sml - can you elaborate?. Are you talking about the diseases etc in the aftermath of the fens being drained in the 17th century?. Just curious because my husband is obsessed with East Anglian history and he hasn't mentioned this to me!!

I agree that the royals are victims too - but how come eg the Scandinavian lot appear to be a bit more 'normal' ie break out of their roles, than ours?

In that case why do children's stories featuring Kings and Queens remain so popular in Republics?. Hasn't just about every country on earth had its land effectively "nationalised" at some point in its history? I would be interested to see a list of those that haven't. FWIW, the only Royals who get paid from the Civil List are the Queen, Prince Phillip and until her death the Queen Mother. All the others are paid for by the Queen herself.

A look around the world today suggests that republics don't enjoy a greater level of democracy than monarchies.

It's just all the baggage that comes with the monarchy-simpering royal correspondents, the idea we should repect one person more than others simply because of who their parebts were. The Guardian comments were good, particularly liked the comments made about Prince Charles, that he pontificates on many topics but because he's Prince Charles he cannot be asked to account for/justify his views in debate.

My uncle was at Cambridge at the same time as Charlie and his low level of intellect was a running joke. At least William is at a university suited to his grades!

ks, just an observation that republics do not necessarily seem to be more democratic than monarchies (although I didn't means to suggest that the opposite is always the case).

How about the ridiculous situation that arose in Belgium? The previous king (Baudoin) opposed a law legalising abortion, he abdicated whilst parliament passed the law and then parliament reinstated him. Struck me as bizarre. Apologies to any Belgians if this is incorrect (Pupuce, I think?)

I was just thinking of places like China, Zimbabwe, a number of Latin American countries and former USSR which are all republics and have some of the worst records for human rights abuses anywhere combined with undemocratic political systems. I don't know the answer to whether the UK is automatically less democratic than say Italy because of the monarchy. I would have thought that issues such as proportional representation were more relevant. Are Norway and Sweden (monarchies) more or less democratic than Finland (republic) I wonder?. I guess my point is that I wonder how relevant the monarchy is in the context of a democratic and open political system?.

It's not really a subject I have much of a view on to be honest - am just extremely bored at work!.

bundle - maybe that says more about us. Maybe the Scandinavians aren't quite as obsequious as us.

Agree that fairy tales are still popular, but they don't portray a very good image of royals - Rumplestiltsken (sp?) and The Princess and the Pea show pretty nasty, despotic kings. Just wish they were revised so that the 'lucky brides' tell them to sod off when they have 'won' the king/prince's hand in marriage.

Good point Tinker - I can't really think of a fairy tale which gives a positive view on royalty!

Sorry ks but can't think of any more "Devil's advocate" comments to make so its the Marigolds for you.....