NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm British and i refuse to sing the national anthem. I intentsly dislike the monarchy but my form tutor is planning on forcing me to sing it. Unfair?

No. It's fair.

Yes, unfair. Sing the Sex Pistols version, maybe?

I persisted in singing "Waltzing Matilda" over our national anthem when I was in school.

No. It's fair.

Why is it fair? I'm being forced to make statements at a contrast to my personal beliefs

I'm tempted to spit on you :mp5:

I'm British and i refuse to sing the national anthem. I intentsly dislike the monarchy but my form tutor is planning on forcing me to sing it. Unfair?

I think it's pretty pointless to refuse to sing the national anthem, and equally pointless to attempt to force someone to do so.

Why is it fair? I'm being forced to make statements at a contrast to my personal beliefs
Your in school. He's your teacher.

I'm tempted to spit on you :mp5:

:confused:

:confused:
i dunno, i'm just feeling very patriotic today (blame the cricket, sport always gets me like this) and s/he's an idiot

don't sing that crap if you don't believe in it.

either mime it so your form tutor stops being an asshole, or sing the Sex Pistols version (nice on Kanabia :P )

i dunno, i'm just feeling very patriotic today (blame the cricket, sport always gets me like this) and s/he's an idiot

Hm. Well.

Its a stupid thing to enforce patriotism.

I'm tempted to spit on you :mp5:

wow i don't even know you and I already hate you, i love this country. Even if i hate the monarchy

Whilst I may not like our national anthum (I would prefer "Land of Hope and Glory" or Rule Britannia), it is a sign of your allegiance to the country, not who it is about, the Queen is just a figure-head, the head of state not the state itself. Ok, maybe forcing you is a little on the harsh side, but even Republicans (Note for americans and other aliens: people who are for a Republic rather than conservative) sing God Save the King/Queen.

God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and Glorious,
Long to reign over us;
God save the Queen!

O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies
And make them fall;
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
Oh, save us all!

Thy choicest gifts in store
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign;
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the Queen!

Not in this land alone,
But be God's mercies known,
From shore to shore!
Lord make the nations see,
That men should brothers be,
And form one family,
The wide world over

From every latent foe,
From the assassins blow,
God save the Queen!
O'er her thine arm extend,
For Britain's sake defend,
Our mother, prince, and friend,
God save the Queen!

P.S. The cricket is going well isn't it.

Hm. Well.

Its a stupid thing to enforce patriotism.
well if it's that big-a-deal to him/her then s/he won't be arsed about getting a detention or lines or whatever for not singing it, but really s/he's just being silly

I'm British and i refuse to sing the national anthem. I intentsly dislike the monarchy but my form tutor is planning on forcing me to sing it. Unfair?


The Monarchy is part of our heriatge. Refusing to sing the nation anthem shows your ignorance. Your form tutor is acting well. Why won't you sing the national anthem? -- It's coz your stupid and don't appreciate that without the Queen we would have Tony Blair as the head of State. The point of the monarchy is not the power it has but the power it WITHOLDS.

Don't be so ignorant -- learn the facts before making stupid decisions.

wow i don't even know you and I already hate you, i love this country. Even if i hate the monarchy
you hate me cause i think you should sing the national anthem whether you like the Queen or not? well, quite frankly you just sound even sillier and more pathetic than i originally thought :rolleyes:

The Monarchy is part of our heriatge. Refusing to sing the nation anthem shows your ignorance. Your form tutor is acting well. Why won't you sing the national anthem? -- It's coz your stupid and don't appreciate that without the Queen we would have Tony Blair as the head of State. The point of the monarchy is not the power it has but the power it WITHOLDS.

Don't be so ignorant -- learn the facts before making stupid decisions.
well said

Whilst I may not like our national anthum (I would prefer "Land of Hope and Glory" or Rule Britannia), it is a sign of your allegiance to the country, not who it is about, the Queen is just a figure-head, the head of state not the state itself. Ok, maybe forcing you is a little on the harsh side, but even Republicans (Note for americans and other aliens: people who are for a Republic rather than conservative) sing God Save the King/Queen.

Well, i'm an internationalist. I don't feel loyalty to any country, as I see them as just artificial boundaries. Should I be made to partake in a display of forced loyalty that is against my fundamental beliefs?

Well, i'm an internationalist. I don't feel loyalty to any country, as I see them as just artificial boundaries. Should I be made to partake in a display of forced loyalty that is against my fundamental beliefs?

Well said

Hm. Well.

Its a stupid thing to enforce patriotism.
especially patriotism towards a unjust monarchy that have never done anything to deserve their position

boo! down with the monarchy! :mad:

you hate me cause i think you should sing the national anthem whether you like the Queen or not? well, quite frankly you just sound even sillier and more pathetic than i originally thought :rolleyes:

Its a matter of principle they are forcing me to show loyaltly

Its a matter of principle they are forcing me to show loyaltly
and why shouldn't you show loyalty to your country? your country that's put you through school, kept you healthy, etc

and why shouldn't you show loyalty to your country? your country that's put you through school, kept you healthy, etc

As i explained i love my country except for the monarchy

Well, i'm an internationalist. I don't feel loyalty to any country, as I see them as just artificial boundaries. Should I be made to partake in a display of forced loyalty that is against my fundamental beliefs?
No man should be forced to do what is against their beliefs.
And I thought that Internationalist was an album by Powderfinger...

No in all seriousness I have spent the almost all of my life in non-Commonwealth countries, excepting NZ where I lived for 3 years, and whichever country I was in I learned the national anthem, not as a sign of patriotism, but as a sign of thanks for letting me be there, be one of them. I am proud to be English (well actually I also have Welsh and Scottish blood), but I am also proud to be a citizen of Brazil and other countries.

As i explained i love my country except for the monarchy
then sing the National Anthem, it's for your country, the Queen is Head of State, she represents this country

and why shouldn't you show loyalty to your country? your country that's put you through school, kept you healthy, etc
monarchy, country and government are all different things.

one can be proud (or loyal) of one's country, or even just its values, and still dislike the monarchy.

besides its not the monarchy that put us all through school - it was the government.
and don't say "yeah, her majesty's government" cos we all know its by title only...

Hm. Well.

Its a stupid thing to enforce patriotism.

So you didn't like howards idea of schools being forced to raise the aussie flag then?

I'm British and i refuse to sing the national anthem. I intentsly dislike the monarchy but my form tutor is planning on forcing me to sing it. Unfair?


TERRORIST!!!! A TERRORIST!!!! THROW HIM OUT!

monarchy, country and government are all different things.

one can be proud (or loyal) of one's country, or even just its values, and still dislike the monarchy.

besides its not the monarchy that put us all through school - it was the government.
and don't say "yeah, her majesty's government" cos we all know its by title only...

and why shouldn't you show loyalty to your country? your country that's put you through school, kept you healthy, etc

Actually, I beg to differ. It's the work of the people of Britain that put him through school and kept him healthy. The government is just an intermediary - they didn't magically pull the money from somewhere.

So you didn't like howards idea of schools being forced to raise the aussie flag then?

Certainly not. Now, the Eureka rebel flag, perhaps... :D

monarchy, country and government are all different things.
one can be proud (or loyal) of one's country, or even just its values, and still dislike the monarchy.
besides its not the monarchy that put us all through school - it was the government.
and don't say "yeah, her majesty's government" cos we all know its by title only...

Actually Her Majesty forms the Government out of the party with the majority of votes from a General Election. She may just as easily ask an opposition member to form the Gov't. She has the power to kick the Gov't out of office, the power to dissolve Parliament, the power to appoint Lords and Bishops. Do not underestimate the restraint she must exercise to put up with Blair...
And in a round about way the monachy is responsible for you being able to go to school. Just think about the Great Charter of 1215 and what it lead to.

Actually Her Majesty forms the Government out of the party with the majority of votes from a General Election. She may just as easily ask an opposition member to form the Gov't. She has the power to kick the Gov't out of office, the power to dissolve Parliament, the power to appoint Lords and Bishops.

And why does she deserve this power? for being born into the right family at the right time? it makes me sick

Actually, I beg to differ. It's the work of the people of Britain that put him through school and kept him healthy. The government is just an intermediary - they didn't magically pull the money from somewhere.

oh yeah, cause it would all totally work without someone to organise it and decide where stuff is spent, anarchists :rolleyes:

I'm not against having a government, but i'm not against the monarchy either, i like the way things are run now (well, not completely obviously but i mean i like that we get government and monarchy), it's stupid to think we need to change that, and as long as we have a monarchy the monarchy will be head of state and will represent our country, and so our national anthem will be directed towards the Queen, though it probably should really be changed to 'Land of Hope and Glory' but it isn't so tough! if you love your country you should damn well sing the national anthem!!

oh yeah, cause it would all totally work without someone to organise it and decide where stuff is spent, anarchists :rolleyes:

Just because I don't believe in a heirarchical government doesn't mean i don't believe in community governance...

And why does she deserve this power? for being born into the right family at the right time? it makes me sick
yes, just like if Joe Bloggs has a rich daddy with a successful business he deserves to inherit it, long, long ago, people fought for the crown and earnt it, then they passed it down to their children then their children's children, etc, etc

Just because I don't believe in a heirarchical government doesn't mean i don't believe in community governance...
i thought you were an anarchist.....

Actually, I beg to differ. It's the work of the people of Britain that put him through school and kept him healthy. The government is just an intermediary - they didn't magically pull the money from somewhere.


very true

Actually Her Majesty forms the Government out of the party with the majority of votes from a General Election. She may just as easily ask an opposition member to form the Gov't. She has the power to kick the Gov't out of office, the power to dissolve Parliament, the power to appoint Lords and Bishops. Do not underestimate the restraint she must exercise to put up with Blair...
And in a round about way the monachy is responsible for you being able to go to school. Just think about the Great Charter of 1215 and what it lead to.
oh please :rolleyes:
the queen has no real power (as in she daren't actually excersise any powers she has left), and it was hardly her (or one of her bigoted ancestors) who said "lets pay for every child in the land to have a state education" or "lets fund a NHS" was it? otherwise it wouldn't be a state educaiton, it would a 'royal education' lol
she hardly pays for any of my education either - taxpayers do, just like kanabia said (in a way)

And why does she deserve this power? for being born into the right family at the right time? it makes me sick
She is impartial, unlike an elected official she can act with the country in mind, not her reelection campaign. Having an impartial person, with the power to dismiss the goverment if it is demanded by the people is one of the things that makes Britain and the Commonwealth great.

i thought you were an anarchist.....
there are many different types of anarchy, same as there are any type of political ideology

i thought you were an anarchist.....

Yes, I am, but in the sense that I believe that there shouldn't be a "government" and that we should govern ourselves on a community level. I am an anarcho-communist.

yes, just like if Joe Bloggs has a rich daddy with a successful business he deserves to inherit it, long, long ago, people fought for the crown and earnt it, then they passed it down to their children then their children's children, etc, etc


I don't believe adults should be able to use inheritence to give their children an unfair advantage. Higher inheritance tax

very true


oh please :rolleyes:
the queen has no real power (as in she daren't actually excersise any powers she has left), and it was hardly her (or one of her bigoted ancestors) who said "lets pay for every child in the land to have a state education" or "lets fund a NHS" was it? otherwise it wouldn't be a state educaiton, it would a 'royal education' lol
she hardly pays for any of my education either - taxpayers do, just like kanabia said (in a way)

Yes I bloody well pay for your education. But if King John (who, incidentally was a compleatly different family to the Queen) hadn't signed Magna Carta garanterring the Barons more power, creating the basis of the goverment (or at least the Lords), and if a later Archbishop of Canterberry hadn't subsequently changed the word "Barons" to "Free men" we would, in all liklyhood, have not had the goverments that in 1906, 1907 and 1911 signed the Schools Acts and the additions made to it (by the way it was a Liberal Goverment), We would not have been gifted a National Health Service by the Tories in the 50's.

Yes I bloody well pay for your education. But if King John (who, incidentally was a compleatly different family to the Queen) hadn't signed Magna Carta garanterring the Barons more power, creating the basis of the goverment (or at least the Lords), and if a later Archbishop of Canterberry hadn't subsequently changed the word "Barons" to "Free men" we would, in all liklyhood, have not had the goverments that in 1906, 1907 and 1911 signed the Schools Acts and the additions made to it (by the way it was a Liberal Goverment), We would not have been gifted a National Health Service by the Tories in the 50's.
digging a tad far back to warrant loyalty to this queen, i think

THIS queen does very little for me, this queen has done nothing to deserve what she has, this queen costs each tax payer 62 pence a year, and i will not sing a song blindly praising this queen whether it be the national anthem of this country (which i do quite like) or not


edit: Yes, I am, but in the sense that I believe that there shouldn't be a "government" and that we should govern ourselves on a community level. I am an anarcho-communist.
yay for anarcho-communism! yay for communitarianism! :) :)

I don't believe adults should be able to use inheritence to give their children an unfair advantage. Higher inheritance tax
people work hard and build up businesses for their families, what would be the point if when you died your family would hardly get anything?

Yes I bloody well pay for your education. But if King John (who, incidentally was a compleatly different family to the Queen) hadn't signed Magna Carta garanterring the Barons more power, creating the basis of the goverment (or at least the Lords), and if a later Archbishop of Canterberry hadn't subsequently changed the word "Barons" to "Free men" we would, in all liklyhood, have not had the goverments that in 1906, 1907 and 1911 signed the Schools Acts and the additions made to it (by the way it was a Liberal Goverment), We would not have been gifted a National Health Service by the Tories in the 50's.

Hmm, I disagree. There is no reason the French and American revolutions, and the ideas from them, wouldn't have spread to Britain afterwards.

Reads name of title reads again and again* Lol you say God help lol why you call on something you dont believe?

The Monarchy is part of our heriatge. Refusing to sing the nation anthem shows your ignorance. Your form tutor is acting well. Why won't you sing the national anthem? -- It's coz your stupid and don't appreciate that without the Queen we would have Tony Blair as the head of State. The point of the monarchy is not the power it has but the power it WITHOLDS.

Don't be so ignorant -- learn the facts before making stupid decisions.

Somehow I don't think that argument is going to fly with Sinn Fein.

digging a tad far back to warrant loyalty to this queen, i think

THIS queen does very little for me, this queen has done nothing to deserve what she has, this queen costs each tax payer 62 pence a year, and i will not sing a song blindly praising this queen whether it be the national anthem of this country (which i do quite like) or not


edit:
yay for anarcho-communism! yay for communitarianism! :) :)
it was actually found that the monarchy brings in more money than it costs us

Reads name of title reads again and again* Lol you say God help lol why you call on something you dont believe?

Its the lyrics to the anthem

still lol

oh yeah, cause it would all totally work without someone to organise it and decide where stuff is spent, anarchists :rolleyes:

Do you often miss the point so much? The whole point of anarchism is not that there is nobody to 'organise it and decide where stuff is spent', instead the responsibility is shared out amongst everybody.

Hmm, I disagree. There is no reason the French and American revolutions, and the ideas from them, wouldn't have spread to Britain afterwards.
The likelyhood is that the American revolution would never have happened because the Brits probably wouldn't have been there.
As for theFrench revolution, the people got tired of the upper-classes and decided to get rid of them, with as much blood and gore as possible.

especially patriotism towards a unjust monarchy that have never done anything to deserve their position

boo! down with the monarchy! :mad:

*waves British flag in one hand, Royal Standard in other*

The Royal family do deserve their position by virtue of being the descendants of the ancient rulers of this land. And the only thing that comes with "the position" is a title and a heap of cash. No power. The monarchy is a symbol of our nation, and the Queen is a figurehead with no legislative, execurive or judicial powers.

Unjust? Where did that come from?

And look at the alternative: President Blair.

Just sing this

God save the queen her fascist regime
It made you a moron a potential h bomb !

God save the queen she ain’t no human being
There is no future in england’s dreaming

Don’t be told what you want don’t be told what you need
There’s no future no future no future for you

God save the queen we mean it man (God save window leen)
We love our queen God saves (God save... human beings)

God save the queen cos tourists are money
And our figurehead is not what she seems
Oh God save history God save your mad parade
Oh lord God have mercy all crimes are paid

When there’s no future how can there be sin
We’re the flowers in the dustbin
We’re the poison in your human machine
We’re the future your future

God save the queen we mean it man
There is no future in england’s dreaming

No future for you no future for me
No future no future for you

*waves British flag in one hand, Royal Standard in other*

The Royal family do deserve their position by virtue of being the descendants of the ancient rulers of this land. And the only thing that comes with "the position" is a title and a heap of cash. No power. The monarchy is a symbol of our nation, and the Queen is a figurehead with no legislative, execurive or judicial powers.

Unjust? Where did that come from?

And look at the alternative: President Blair.

So she's related she hasn't EARNED her poisition even Tony Blair has had to work to gain his power. And that heap of cash could be doing much better things

it was actually found that the monarchy brings in more money than it costs us

As far as I'm concerned this is irrelevant to whether we should keep the moanrchy or not: personally my main affront is that I was born a subject of the Queen, rather than a citizen of my society. Such outdated nonsense should be consigned to the ashtray of history where it belongs.

it was actually found that the monarchy brings in more money than it costs us
It's true, something like 50 or 60 million I seem to recall. Wasn't it in an article in the FT back in Febuary or March?

Do you often miss the point so much? The whole point of anarchism is not that there is nobody to 'organise it and decide where stuff is spent', instead the responsibility is shared out amongst everybody.
I honestly don't think that would work, i know for a fact that i wouldn't want any responsibility whatsoever, and there's plenty of people like me out there, some people are meant to lead, some are meant to follow

THIS queen does very little for me, this queen has done nothing to deserve what she has, this queen costs each tax payer 62 pence a year,
THIS Queen, or at least the Monarchy she represents, is the major touristic attraction of Britain, thus earning every penny she costs...
Face it, in a world where most tourist producing countries are republics or dictatures, or some even democracies, a real living monarchy is very attractive, and brings probably billions each year to Britain...
I mean, why the hell would I want to visit a notoriously wet and grisly country?

If you sing the national anthem, nobody will notice. The universe carries on as normal.

If you don't, the only person who'll notice is your tutor and they'll give you some punishment. The rest of humanity will be ignorant to your sacrifice, the universe carries on as normal.

You might as well sing the damn song. It'll make your life slightly easier. Neither course of action will make any difference to the relative power or importance of the monarchy - if you want to do that, write to your MP or something... But remember; without the Queen and Lords, who keeps the rest of the government in check?

The Royal family do deserve their position by virtue of being the descendants of the ancient rulers of this land.

1066 counts as 'ancient'?

And look at the alternative: President Blair.

OH GOD NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

God save the Queen!



people work hard and build up businesses for their families, what would be the point if when you died your family would hardly get anything?
Hear, Hear!

I think my name says it all. Sid and Johnny summed it all up really!

If you sing the national anthem, nobody will notice. The universe carries on as normal.

If you don't, the only person who'll notice is your tutor and they'll give you some punishment. The rest of humanity will be ignorant to your sacrifice, the universe carries on as normal.

At the risk of proving Godwin's Law here:

If you perform the fascist salute, nobody will notice. The universe carries on as normal.

If you don't, the only person who'll notice is your superior and they'll give you some punishment. The rest of humanity will be ignorant to your sacrifice, the universe carries on as normal.

The likelyhood is that the American revolution would never have happened because the Brits probably wouldn't have been there.
As for theFrench revolution, the people got tired of the upper-classes and decided to get rid of them, with as much blood and gore as possible.

Possibly - with regard to the American revolution - However, I beg to differ about the French revolution. It was an uprising against aristocrats, not the upper classes in general. And then the middle class became the new aristocracy. Eh.

:p

Still, Rousseau, Voltaire, etc. helped form the concept of modern 'democratic' government.

I honestly don't think that would work, i know for a fact that i wouldn't want any responsibility whatsoever, and there's plenty of people like me out there, some people are meant to lead, some are meant to follow

Then you would be free to opt out of the meetings and spend your time doing other things.

But remember; without the Queen and Lords, who keeps the rest of the government in check?

Agreed. The Lords kept back the Ban on Hunting, at least for a while. (The Commons are getting too much power, IMO)

THIS Queen, or at least the Monarchy she represents, is the major touristic attraction of Britain, thus earning every penny she costs...
Face it, in a world where most tourist producing countries are republics or dictatures, or some even democracies, a real living monarchy is very attractive, and brings probably billions each year to Britain...
I mean, why the hell would I want to visit a notoriously wet and grisly country?
how many tourists come to britain to see the actual royal family? how many are allowed to see the royals, in fact? fucking zero.

tourists come to see the castles, the changing of the guard, the royal this or that... all of which doesn't actually require the royal family to be alive and can stand for a long time after the royals hit the dust.


So she's related she hasn't EARNED her poisition even Tony Blair has had to work to gain his power. And that heap of cash could be doing much better things
precisely. thank you!

1066 counts as 'ancient'?
Errm, that was just the year when the Normans became the rulars of Britain, you are forgetting Harold Godwinsson, Edward the Confessor, HalfaCnut, Cnut, and many English (and one or two Scotish) kings before that. Alfred the Great and his son and Grandson united the three areas of Britain (Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria). What about Queen (ok honerary title, but still carries my point) Bodicea?

how many tourists come to britain to see the actual royal family? how many are allowed to see the royals, in fact? fucking zero.

tourists come to see the castles, the changing of the guard, the royal this or that... all of which doesn't actually require the royal family to be alive and can stand for a long time after the royals hit the dust.

I think you'll find that it does make a difference...

At the risk of proving Godwin's Law here:

If you perform the fascist salute, nobody will notice. The universe carries on as normal.

If you don't, the only person who'll notice is your superior and they'll give you some punishment. The rest of humanity will be ignorant to your sacrifice, the universe carries on as normal.

My Grandfather, a Nazi slave worker taken from Lithuania, refused to salute Hitler when his motorcade drove past while he was in Berlin. He got challenged, and got into trouble, but hey - if nothing else, his story is something i'm proud of. Perhaps, one day, my children be proud because I refused to sing my national anthem.

Actually Her Majesty forms the Government out of the party with the majority of votes from a General Election. She may just as easily ask an opposition member to form the Gov't. She has the power to kick the Gov't out of office, the power to dissolve Parliament, the power to appoint Lords and Bishops. Do not underestimate the restraint she must exercise to put up with Blair...

What you have said is strictly quite untrue.
The Queen asks the head of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons to form a government. This is a requirement of Her Majesty in our (unwritten) Constitution. She may NOT invite the leader of the party with less seats to form a government. And asking the leader of the winning party to form government is a ceremony: nothing more. She cannot deny the winner of the election the right to form a government.
She cannot "kick government out of office," as this can only be done by Paliament itself in a Vote of No Confidence in the ruling party.
The Queen dissolves Parliament at the Prime Minister's instruction.
The Queen appoints Lords at the Prime Minister's instruction.
The Queen appoints Bishops at the Archbishop of Canterbury's recommendation - as his post is a partly political post, Government effectively controls that as well.
The Queen has NO power whatsoever. As wonderful as She is, Her Majesty is simply a figurehead, and everything she does is simply ceremonial - like nearly ALL monarchs in today's world.

*waves British flag in one hand, Royal Standard in other*

The Royal family do deserve their position by virtue of being the descendants of the ancient rulers of this land. And the only thing that comes with "the position" is a title and a heap of cash. No power. The monarchy is a symbol of our nation, and the Queen is a figurehead with no legislative, execurive or judicial powers.

Unjust? Where did that come from?

And look at the alternative: President Blair.
unjust was because they haven't earned their position

and there's no reason why in a Republic the prime minister need be the president. in fact that makes no sense at all and is a really stupid arguement :rolleyes:

My Grandfather, a Nazi slave worker taken from Lithuania, refused to salute Hitler when his motorcade drove past while he was in Berlin. He got challenged, and got into trouble, but hey - if nothing else, his story is something i'm proud of. Perhaps, one day, my children be proud because I refused to sing my national anthem.

Kudos to your Grandfather.



EDIT: I'll point out here that I am not comparing the British monarchy to the Nazis or the Italian fascists here, just using them as an example where it is in my opinion best to let ones own conscience decide the correct path to take.

Then you would be free to opt out of the meetings and spend your time doing other things.
but then i would have absolutely no say in anything, whereas with a proper government i at least get a say in who runs the country without having to take any of the responsibility

What you have said is strictly quite untrue.
The Queen asks the head of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons to form a government. This is a requirement of Her Majesty in our (unwritten) Constitution. She may NOT invite the leader of the party with less seats to form a government. And asking the leader of the winning party to form government is a ceremony: nothing more. She cannot deny the winner of the election the right to form a government.
She cannot "kick government out of office," as this can only be done by Paliament itself in a Vote of No Confidence in the ruling party.
The Queen dissolves Parliament at the Prime Minister's instruction.
The Queen appoints Lords at the Prime Minister's instruction.
The Queen appoints Bishops at the Archbishop of Canterbury's recommendation - as his post is a partly political post, Government effectively controls that as well.
The Queen has NO power whatsoever. As wonderful as She is, Her Majesty is simply a figurehead, and everything she does is simply ceremonial - like nearly ALL monarchs in today's world.

Actually she can still seize any piece of land she likes, and can also declare war or make piece with any country.

I think you'll find that it does make a difference...
i think you'll find, even if that is true, we'll survive without it

My Grandfather, a Nazi slave worker taken from Lithuania, refused to salute Hitler when his motorcade drove past while he was in Berlin. He got challenged, and got into trouble, but hey - if nothing else, his story is something i'm proud of. Perhaps, one day, my children be proud because I refused to sing my national anthem.

Does the Austrailian government do nasty things to people who don't sing the national anthem?

i think you'll find, even if that is true, we'll survive without it

O_o Okay, I'm guessing that you don't live in a tourism-centric area... If you did, you'd realise just how much impact a living monarcy has. In the castles, for one, they can say 'Oh, and Prince so-and-so comes in here from time to time...'

Errm, that was just the year when the Normans became the rulars of Britain, you are forgetting Harold Godwinsson, Edward the Confessor, HalfaCnut, Cnut, and many English (and one or two Scotish) kings before that. Alfred the Great and his son and Grandson united the three areas of Britain (Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria). What about Queen (ok honerary title, but still carries my point) Bodicea?

Nope: I'm waiting for you to tell me how William the Conqueror was a descendent of the ancient rulers of Britain/England. If you trace back his genealogy he is claimed to be descended from the mythological Norse giant Fornjót, who unless I am sadly mistaken, was never a monarch in the British Isles.

monarchy is such an outdated system just scrap it now you brit's should have some sort of revolution over there

how many tourists come to britain to see the actual royal family? how many are allowed to see the royals, in fact? fucking zero.

tourists come to see the castles, the changing of the guard, the royal this or that... all of which doesn't actually require the royal family to be alive and can stand for a long time after the royals hit the dust.

Weell, being from the continent, let me tell you: you're wrong. It doesn't matter, if somebody sees the royal family. They're your best ad camapign. They make all those castles, guards and so on a living thing. Without them (and the rest of the nobility that belongs o the monarchy), Britain would definitly become a "has-been-Country". Go, have a look at Portugal, to see what this means.
Stone-Disneyland. :eek:

monarchy is such an outdated system just scrap it now you brit's should have some sort of revolution over there

I agree but what nationality are you?

monarchy is such an outdated system just scrap it now you brit's should have some sort of revolution over there

Whats the point in overthrowing people who have no power whatsoever?

Kudos to your Grandfather.



EDIT: I'll point out here that I am not comparing the British monarchy to the Nazis or the Italian fascists here, just using them as an example where it is in my opinion best to let ones own conscience decide the correct path to take.

Yeah, neither was I. The point being is that if you don't want to do something you don't believe in, you don't have to and shouldn't be forced to...

Does the Austrailian government do nasty things to people who don't sing the national anthem?

Yeah, we get called "unaustralian" and pelted around the head with footballs and beer bottles. And remember that episode of the Simpsons where they go to Australia? The boot thing is true.

monarchy is such an outdated system just scrap it now you brit's should have some sort of revolution over there

Bugger off - that already happened. The Civil War. Roundheads and Caveliers. Torrington. We went without Monarcy for one generation, then brought it back.

What's it they say about those who don't learn from History?

Actually she can still seize any piece of land she likes, and can also declare war or make piece with any country.

Sieze land, yes, at the approval of Government: that is her Right as Queen.
But war and peace: she has to "sign" a treaty before it comes into force, but she wouldn't necessarily have to agree with it; and Government declares war, not the Queen. Government don't have to do anything the Queen tells them to: She may be Head of State, but that means nothing: it is an honorary title. And being able to sieze land is not power.

Disrobia, can I suggest that you either ask a child right's group or a school counseller whether you can be forced to sing God Save The Queen by your tutor?

I agree but what nationality are you?
American but I in no way think our system is better (a fucking electoral college)

Disrobia, can I suggest that you either ask a child right's group or a school counseller whether you can be forced to sing God Save The Queen by your tutor?

Thanks for the advice but i'm still tempted by Pure Metal's idea of singing the Sex Pistols version

monarchy is such an outdated system just scrap it now you brit's should have some sort of revolution over there

Sorry, what nationality are you?
Absolute monarchy is an unrealistic system of government, yes, autocracy cannot work in today's world - look at Russia - but our monarchy is Constitutional, they are figureheads, and have no power. Get rid of them and you become just like all the other countries, countries that have abolished their monarchy and effectively destroyed their heritage.

After a brief stop at Wiki...
At the risk of proving Godwin's Law here:

Heh, point taken. However, I did suggest an actually useful thing he could do to prevent "God Save The Queen" being sung that'd not get him punished - write to his MP (he might be able to email them here (www.writetothem.com) ). The trick being to get your way whilst staying in the system.

Hmm, that site even offers the chance of a long-term relationship with your MP. Must be lots of lonely politicians out there...

Thanks for the advice but i'm still tempted by Pure Metal's idea of singing the Sex Pistols version

Hey, that was my idea :p

Nope: I'm waiting for you to tell me how William the Conqueror was a descendent of the ancient rulers of Britain/England. If you trace back his genealogy he is claimed to be descended from the mythological Norse giant Fornjót, who unless I am sadly mistaken, was never a monarch in the British Isles.
Ah well what happend was circa 1054 Harold (Edwards chief advisor with lots of land and power) went to Normandy and delivered a message from Edward, officially recognising William the Bastard as the next king (and one chronicler of the period suggests that Edward adopted William as his son). There were also earlier family connections via an Aunt of Edward being related to the Norman Dukes. Also during his early life Edward lived with Drogo of the Vexin, and the Vexin were allies of the Normans.
The reason William invaded with his army was that Harold had gone back on the oath and had made himself king.

but then i would have absolutely no say in anything, whereas with a proper government i at least get a say in who runs the country without having to take any of the responsibility

As far as you having 'absolutely no say in anything' in our imagined anarchist society, you could pop into a meeting every now and again if you desired and have your say.

Even in a democracy such as ours you have a responsibility: if you vote for them and give them your mandate, then you become partially responsible for them and the actions they take on your behalf.

Yes, its unfar. People should not be forced to be proud of their nations, sing national anthems, or any of that stuff.

Just don't sing it. Keep your mouth shut and make no sound. There's no need to actively show disrespect by singing somethign else, but you ought to be well within your rights by keeping schtum.

I never sang it - it's a dirge and I'm no patriot anyway. And yes, I'm enjoying watching England in the cricket (well, I say watch but I've just got the Guardian's over-by-over report on - hilarious and well worth a read).

Weell, being from the continent, let me tell you: you're wrong. It doesn't matter, if somebody sees the royal family. They're your best ad camapign. They make all those castles, guards and so on a living thing. Without them (and the rest of the nobility that belongs o the monarchy), Britain would definitly become a "has-been-Country". Go, have a look at Portugal, to see what this means.
Stone-Disneyland. :eek:
britain is already a "has-been" country. if only the absurdly patriotic and conservatives would just wake up and realise it we could get on with the future...

but actually, i do accept your point about the monarchy being good for ads. but thats it! lol
we can replace them with Blair ;)
*pisses off the conservatives even more :P *

how many tourists come to britain to see the actual royal family? how many are allowed to see the royals, in fact? fucking zero.

tourists come to see the castles, the changing of the guard, the royal this or that... all of which doesn't actually require the royal family to be alive and can stand for a long time after the royals hit the dust.



precisely. thank you!

Complete rubbish, i once braught my american fiacee to london, and the queen was giving a speech in hyde park, we just went in, and watched, it was for free. Ive also met the queen, ive also met the duke of edinborough. And im not one of those royalists that follow the family everywhere.

EVERY american ive met love the fact we have a monarchy, canadians come to see there head of state, so do the aussies, and the new zealanders. The queen appears publicly a LOT!!!! just find out where and go.

Or u can pay £1750 to have a drink with her ;)

Also, the queen gets a lot of business contrats for britian, IE mitsubishi have a lot of business in england, because the queen went to japan and invited the directors of mitsubishi to have dinner on the yacht britannia, such deals bring billions to the country.

My own opinion on the family is, yes its unfair they get all this media power and wealth but, hey, bill gate's kids got it lucky too.

The monarchy should stay, its a symbol, the only argument agasint them ive seen is "cos its unfair" what a shame we can lose this tradition cos of jealousy :rolleyes:

As far as you having 'absolutely no say in anything' in our imagined anarchist society, you could pop into a meeting every now and again if you desired and have your say.

Even in a democracy such as ours you have a responsibility: if you vote for them and give them your mandate, then you become partially responsible for them and the actions they take on your behalf.

Heh, I feel like I have 'absolutely no say in anything' in this society. I mean, I can vote -in fact, by our law, we are forced to-, but what's the point when I disagree with all candidates and the vast majority disagrees with my views, and I have theirs imposed upon me?

Ah well what happend was circa 1054 Harold (Edwards chief advisor with lots of land and power) went to Normandy and delivered a message from Edward, officially recognising William the Bastard as the next king (and one chronicler of the period suggests that Edward adopted William as his son). There were also earlier family connections via an Aunt of Edward being related to the Norman Dukes. Also during his early life Edward lived with Drogo of the Vexin, and the Vexin were allies of the Normans.
The reason William invaded with his army was that Harold had gone back on the oath and had made himself king.

Indeed, I'm disputing none of this, but as you see it isn't in accordance with Little India's earlier claim that "The Royal family do deserve their position by virtue of being the descendants of the ancient rulers of this land" unless we interprete the year 1066 as ancient or tenuous relation by marriage alone to be equivalent to being a descendent of someone.

Yes, its unfar. People should not be forced to be proud of their nations, sing national anthems, or any of that stuff.
Rather than unfair, I think it's completely ridiculous.

Hey, that was my idea :p

whoops of well you rock too better now? :)

whoops of well you rock too better now? :)

Yes. Much better. :D

does conservative in britain mean the same as it does here in america :confused:

Yes, its unfar. People should not be forced to be proud of their nations, sing national anthems, or any of that stuff.
People should not be forced to do anything.

To the person who originally asked the question about singing the national anthem. Just don't. If you are challanged simply tell your Form tutor that you do not wish to sing the praises of what you belive to be an outmoded, classed system. They can not punish you for that. If they do they are standing in the way of your right to express yourself peacefully, in this case by not singing the anthem.
Personally I think you should simply sing it, but it's entirely up to you.

But don't sing the Sex Pistols version, that WILL get you in trouble.

does conservative in britain mean the same as it does here in america :confused:


yeah, but conservatives here (or tories) normally arnt as right wing as american conservatives , some are, most arnt.

As far as you having 'absolutely no say in anything' in our imagined anarchist society, you could pop into a meeting every now and again if you desired and have your say.

Even in a democracy such as ours you have a responsibility: if you vote for them and give them your mandate, then you become partially responsible for them and the actions they take on your behalf.
i'm perfectly happy only needing to think about politics and making a big decision once every 4 years, i'd be a lot happier knowing that somebody competant who's been through school and has actually studied and gained the necessary qualifications is in charge rather than a load of moron meglamaniacs getting together and argueing as a way of sorting things out

Indeed, I'm disputing none of this, but as you see it isn't in accordance with Little India's earlier claim that "The Royal family do deserve their position by virtue of being the descendants of the ancient rulers of this land" unless we interprete the year 1066 as ancient or tenuous relation by marriage alone to be equivalent to being a descendent of someone.

"Ancient" was used to demonstrate that it was a HELL of a long time ago, not to indicate that Queenie is descended from men living in caves saying "ug ug" twenty million years ago - probably exaggerating and definitely stereotyping.

It has been proven that She can trace her line back all the way to King David of Jerusalem - yes, Jesus' descendant. And so her descendants are rulers, and probably every matriarch or patriarch of her bloodline has been a ruler of some sort.

People should not be forced to do anything.

To the person who originally asked the question about singing the national anthem. Just don't. If you are challanged simply tell your Form tutor that you do not wish to sing the praises of what you belive to be an outmoded, classed system. They can not punish you for that. If they do they are standing in the way of your right to express yourself peacefully, in this case by not singing the anthem.
Personally I think you should simply sing it, but it's entirely up to you.

But don't sing the Sex Pistols version, that WILL get you in trouble.

yeh i think i'll take that idea and maybe sing the other version on the last day

People should not be forced to do anything.

To the person who originally asked the question about singing the national anthem. Just don't. If you are challanged simply tell your Form tutor that you do not wish to sing the praises of what you belive to be an outmoded, classed system. They can not punish you for that. If they do they are standing in the way of your right to express yourself peacefully, in this case by not singing the anthem.

Depending upon the possible existence of an signed agreement between Disrobia's parent/guardian and the school, they could well be within their legal rights to force him/her to do many things against his/her will.

However, as this is a matter of conscience I think seeking advice from someone who has some knowledge in this field might be a wise idea. There should be someone in the school that Disrobia can ask, or some Child Right's body that they could talk to about it.

Rather than unfair, I think it's completely ridiculous.
Yes, its ridiculous as well.

does conservative in britain mean the same as it does here in america :confused:

Errm sort of. In America it is rather more right wing than in Britain. Also we have the Conservative Party, so people could be called Conservatives if they voted for them or if they are members of the party.

i'm perfectly happy only needing to think about politics and making a big decision once every 4 years, i'd be a lot happier knowing that somebody competant who's been through school and has actually studied and gained the necessary qualifications is in charge rather than a load of moron meglamaniacs getting together and argueing as a way of sorting things out

Whoa, that sounds just like the current system as well, doesn't it? ;)

Indeed, I'm disputing none of this, but as you see it isn't in accordance with Little India's earlier claim that "The Royal family do deserve their position by virtue of being the descendants of the ancient rulers of this land" unless we interprete the year 1066 as ancient or tenuous relation by marriage alone to be equivalent to being a descendent of someone.

Oh stuff! There's no doubt that since then there'll have been marrying in from the Old Familys. Heck, since then the monarchy as joined with (most recently) the Stuarts - i.e. Old Scots Kings. And before that there's all the Forein Monarchy.

"Ancient" was used to demonstrate that it was a HELL of a long time ago, not to indicate that Queenie is descended from men living in caves saying "ug ug" twenty million years ago - probably exaggerating and definitely stereotyping.

It has been proven that She can trace her line back all the way to King David of Jerusalem - yes, Jesus' descendant. And so her descendants are rulers, and probably every matriarch or patriarch of her bloodline has been a ruler of some sort.

Theres no evidence, or anything credible anyway the jesus was amrried, or had children, personaly, if he didnt, it woudent affect my faith but, theres no hard evidence.

Oh stuff! There's no doubt that since then there'll have been marrying in from the Old Familys. Heck, since then the monarchy as joined with (most recently) the Stuarts - i.e. Old Scots Kings. And before that there's all the Forein Monarchy.

Thankyou!

But don't sing the Sex Pistols version, that WILL get you in trouble.

Yeah, it's probably a bad idea. Her Royal Highness didn't use her power to ban it for nothing... :rolleyes:

britain is already a "has-been" country.
Most european countries are up to a point. Although some of them are rather "would-be". But I think, with the Monarchy gone, you'd get over tha point. Museum.

but actually, i do accept your point about the monarchy being good for ads. but thats it! lol

It's not a small feat, believe me. Over here, it's the only thing what makes Britain likeable. Ok, there's tea and black hats, but then, that's it. :)

we can replace them with Blair ;)

Well, with Blair it'd be more Disneyland than anything else. But then, he's already W's lap dog... :D

"Ancient" was used to demonstrate that it was a HELL of a long time ago, not to indicate that Queenie is descended from men living in caves saying "ug ug" twenty million years ago - probably exaggerating and definitely stereotyping.

Less than a thousand years doesn't qualify as ancient to me, but your mileage appears to vary.

It has been proven that She can trace her line back all the way to King David of Jerusalem - yes, Jesus' descendant.

Jesus' descendent? You have proof that Jesus sired heirs? This I must see.

And so her descendants are rulers, and probably every matriarch or patriarch of her bloodline has been a ruler of some sort.

This just leads to the question of what justified King David/Jesus as leaders and how this right, in whatever bizarre form it takes, can be passed through the DNA.

Theres no evidence, or anything credible anyway the jesus was amrried, or had children, personaly, if he didnt, it woudent affect my faith but, theres no hard evidence.

Just because Queenie and Jesus came from the same bloodline doesn't mean she is a direct descendant of him, merely that she is descended from some branch of his family - likely one of his brothers or sisters, or cousins: I think you get the picture.

People should not be forced to do anything.

In principle, I would always support this point of view.

On the other hand, when children are potty-trained, they are forced, as they are when they are taught to count, i.e. they are forced to think that a 7 comes AFTER a 3 and not before it. (Why? -- Because someone says so.) etc.

So coercion is in "the 'nature' of our (i.e. human) culture".

Ah well ...

Whoa, that sounds just like the current system as well, doesn't it? ;)
not really, no, and at least Tony Blair etc know what they're talking about, I'd rather have him in charge than give people like Alansyism responsibility

Oh stuff! There's no doubt that since then there'll have been marrying in from the Old Familys. Heck, since then the monarchy as joined with (most recently) the Stuarts - i.e. Old Scots Kings. And before that there's all the Forein Monarchy.

Statistically yourself or I are most likely also descendents of the ancient rulers of the land at some point. In order to validate the current monarch's claim the importance of passing the crown to the eldest heir should be shown.

On the other hand, when children are potty-trained, they are forced, as they are when they are taught to count, i.e. they are forced to think that a 7 comes AFTER a 3 and not before it. (Why? -- Because someone says so.) etc.


Hmm. Comparing being forced to sing 'God Save The Queen' to being forced to shit. Interesting.

"Ancient" was used to demonstrate that it was a HELL of a long time ago, not to indicate that Queenie is descended from men living in caves saying "ug ug" twenty million years ago - probably exaggerating and definitely stereotyping.

It has been proven that She can trace her line back all the way to King David of Jerusalem - yes, Jesus' descendant. And so her descendants are rulers, and probably every matriarch or patriarch of her bloodline has been a ruler of some sort.

Twenty million? Err perhaps you are slightly out there. Homo sapiens sapiens only really evolved about 100,000 years ago. Even Australopithecus species of East Africa (refer to "Lucy" dated at about 4-6 million years old) which are the earliest found bi-pedal uprights, aren't even related to the humans we know today, except by some very tenuous evolutionary links.

Your right about the King of Jerusalem bit though.

Complete rubbish, i once braught my american fiacee to london, and the queen was giving a speech in hyde park, we just went in, and watched, it was for free. Ive also met the queen, ive also met the duke of edinborough. And im not one of those royalists that follow the family everywhere.

EVERY american ive met love the fact we have a monarchy, canadians come to see there head of state, so do the aussies, and the new zealanders. The queen appears publicly a LOT!!!! just find out where and go.

Or u can pay £1750 to have a drink with her ;)

Also, the queen gets a lot of business contrats for britian, IE mitsubishi have a lot of business in england, because the queen went to japan and invited the directors of mitsubishi to have dinner on the yacht britannia, such deals bring billions to the country.

My own opinion on the family is, yes its unfair they get all this media power and wealth but, hey, bill gate's kids got it lucky too.

The monarchy should stay, its a symbol, the only argument agasint them ive seen is "cos its unfair" what a shame we can lose this tradition cos of jealousy :rolleyes:
good for you.
most brits don't get to see her much more than the occasional peep at an annual speech or something. i have never seen her though i don't live in london which i'm sure counts for somehting...


her business dealings are not carried out by her, i'm damn well sure. she has an army of servants to do that for her - just like everyone keeps saying, she's just the figurehead. she's not the one who sits round the negotiation table hammering out business deals lol
besides i thought the mitsibushi deals were sealed when chancellor gordon brown visited...

Just because Queenie and Jesus came from the same bloodline doesn't mean she is a direct descendant of him, merely that she is descended from some branch of his family - likely one of his brothers or sisters, or cousins: I think you get the picture.

Hey, if we are going to accept the Bible as written as a valid source of genealogical evidence, then we can all trace our bloodlines back to Adam, which makes us all equal, no?

Less than a thousand years doesn't qualify as ancient to me, but your mileage appears to vary.

Were you around 1000 years ago? Somehow I doubt it.

Jesus' descendent? You have proof that Jesus sired heirs? This I must see.

Not Jesus' decendant, King David's descendant - as I have already said, just because they share the same ancestor doesn't mean that she is his great great ........ grandaughter.

This just leads to the question of what justified King David/Jesus as leaders and how this right, in whatever bizarre form it takes, can be passed through the DNA.

I expect that King David was descended from a long line of Kings before him, who would, in one way or another, have been chosen from among the people to be King - I expect.

the Queen represents the U.K (and the commonwealth) she represents all that we have done after all these years she shows us that we will never be beaten (well since 1066 anyway) and if you decide to spit on the nation and its history your history then I feel bad that we got rid of the firing squad

Whoa, that sounds just like the current system as well, doesn't it? ;)
hehehe :D

Arn't the Royal family all really German anyway?

Hey, if we are going to accept the Bible as written as a valid source of genealogical evidence, then we can all trace our bloodlines back to Adam, which makes us all equal, no?

Not wanting to anger any religious people here, but...

The Bible is not a valid written source of genealogy.
In fact, it's validity on the whole is questionable.
But as this is not a religious thread, let's not go there.

I expect that King David was descended from a long line of Kings before him, who would, in one way or another, have been chosen from among the people to be King - I expect.
Yeah, your right. For the most part Kings of Jerusalem had to be appointed by the other important people in the city. Of course being the son of a previous rular was a very valuable asset.

But as this is not a religious thread, let's not go there.
A very wise decision.

Yeah, your right. For the most part Kings of Jerusalem had to be appointed by the other important people in the city. Of course being the son of a previous rular was a very valuable asset.

That's a turn up for the books.

i'm perfectly happy only needing to think about politics and making a big decision once every 4 years, i'd be a lot happier knowing that somebody competant who's been through school and has actually studied and gained the necessary qualifications is in charge rather than a load of moron meglamaniacs getting together and argueing as a way of sorting things out

Ted Heath - music scholarship at university.
James Callaghan - left school at 16, no further formal education.
Harold Wilson - degree in history.
Margaret Thatcher - degree in chemistry.
John Major - left school at 16, no further formal education.
Tony Blair - degree in law.

Of those I would say that probably only Blair and Wilson would be counted as having qualifications even vaguely related to the position of PM.

Arn't the Royal family all really German anyway?
Well if you go by the scale of King George then yes. Of course there is also quite a lot of Greek thrown in now...

Of course by the same measure, a lot of Americans are Irish or Dutch or any number of other nationalities. I can say the same of quite a few countries. The human race is a bit of a mongrol isn't it.

The Bible is not a valid written source of genealogy.

Then why claim that the Queen is a descendent of King David on its basis?

Of course by the same measure, a lot of Americans are Irish or Dutch or any number of other nationalities. I can say the same of quite a few countries. The human race is a bit of a mongrol isn't it.

And the white English who describe themselves as 'anglo-saxons' are mainly German, Danish, Viking, Roman/Italian and Irish...

Ted Heath - music scholarship at university.
James Callaghan - left school at 16, no further formal education.
Harold Wilson - degree in history.
Margaret Thatcher - degree in chemistry.
John Major - left school at 16, no further formal education.
Tony Blair - degree in law.

Of those I would say that probably only Blair and Wilson would be counted as having qualifications even vaguely related to the position of PM.

And yet Blair is the most slimy, underhand, sadistic bastard of the lot.
Sorry Maggie but you aren't even in Tony's league...

Then why claim that the Queen is a descendent of King David on its basis?

The Queen does not base her claim - that happens to be proven - to descendancy from King David on the Bible, it is based on other sources.

And the white English who describe themselves as 'anglo-saxons' are mainly German, Danish, Viking, Roman/Italian and Irish...
You forgot Welsh..
I did say mongrol's didn't I.

answer the question! http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=438123

And yet Blair is the most slimy, underhand, sadistic bastard of the lot.
Sorry Maggie but you aren't even in Tony's league...

You're funny, I like you.
Personally, I hate Blair *grits teeth to mention his name* and can't comprehend why anyone would choose to re-elect the Labour party knowing that Blair would be PM again. But at least he's stepping down from politics at the end of this term. Hurrah!

Ted Heath - music scholarship at university.
James Callaghan - left school at 16, no further formal education.
Harold Wilson - degree in history.
Margaret Thatcher - degree in chemistry.
John Major - left school at 16, no further formal education.
Tony Blair - degree in law.

Of those I would say that probably only Blair and Wilson would be counted as having qualifications even vaguely related to the position of PM.
yes but they're still all a hell of a lot more compotent than the majority of the rest of the country, if they had no idea about politics then they never would've been able to climb to the head of a major political party nevermind end up running the country

Not Jesus' decendant, King David's descendant - as I have already said, just because they share the same ancestor doesn't mean that she is his great great ........ grandaughter.

It has been proven that She can trace her line back all the way to King David of Jerusalem - yes, Jesus' descendant.

Huh? Are you claiming that she is simultaneously both Jesus' descendent and not Jesus's descendent here?

Ah... I see the problem here - you aren't able to tell the difference between 'descendent' and 'ancestor' - did you intend to write 'It has been proven that She can trace her line back all the way to King David of Jerusalem - yes, Jesus' ancestor'?

You forgot Welsh..
I did say mongrol's didn't I.

Damn. I counted the Scots as Irish, in case you were wondering - the Picts are always problematic.

The Queen does not base her claim - that happens to be proven - to descendancy from King David on the Bible, it is based on other sources.
so what? yesterday's answers have nothing to do with today's questions, and if her daddy was king yesteryear, thats no reason for queenie to be queen today

Why on earth you (in general) have to sing the national anthem in the first place?

While still in school we sang it about once or twice a year. I don't think any teacher could have cared less if someone did not sang it.

And yet Blair is the most slimy, underhand, sadistic bastard of the lot.
Sorry Maggie but you aren't even in Tony's league...

Come the revolution I'm all for hanging all the lawyers, chemists might get a by ball though.

Huh? Are you claiming that she is simultaneously both Jesus' descendent and not Jesus's descendent here?

Ah... I see the problem here - you aren't able to tell the difference between 'descendent' and 'ancestor' - did you intend to write 'It has been proven that She can trace her line back all the way to King David of Jerusalem - yes, Jesus' ancestor'?

Probably. It's the Summer holidays, I'm hardly on top form.

You're funny, I like you.
Personally, I hate Blair *grits teeth to mention his name* and can't comprehend why anyone would choose to re-elect the Labour party knowing that Blair would be PM again. But at least he's stepping down from politics at the end of this term. Hurrah!
Thank you! So he says he is stepping down, but can we trust him, I mean look at his record "We won't have a referendum... Oh yes we are" "We will not ban fox hunting... Oh yes we are" "We listen to the Unions... Oh sorry we didn't hear you", I could go on for several hours. All I can say is I am glad I never voted for him...

The Queen does not base her claim - that happens to be proven - to descendancy from King David on the Bible, it is based on other sources.

I saw that chart, and it meant nothing. In fact, I saw it as proof that the antichrist is part of the royal family.

Why on earth you (in general) have to sing the national anthem in the first place?

While still in school we sang it about once or twice a year. I don't think any teacher could have cared less if someone did not sang it.

I couldnt sing it even if i wanted too. I've completely forgotten the words.

Come the revolution I'm all for hanging all the lawyers, chemists might get a by ball though.
No, what you do is try them first, but by rules which you make up as you go along, and allow public egg throwing, then you hang them.
As for chemists... I dunno they are quite useful for things.

I couldnt sing it even if i wanted too. I've completely forgotten the words.

As long as you remember where the 'No surrender' bit goes you can probably bluff your way out of a kicking.

Statistically yourself or I are most likely also descendents of the ancient rulers of the land at some point. In order to validate the current monarch's claim the importance of passing the crown to the eldest heir should be shown.

Eldest? :confused: As far as I'm aware, Old Kings would choose which heir based on competance, not age.

And the white English who describe themselves as 'anglo-saxons' are mainly German, Danish, Viking, Roman/Italian and Irish...
*is Anglo-Celt* XD

Interesting thought - probably closer to the original question of the thread than the last six pages.
Not being American I wouldn't know, but...

Don't American children have to pledge Allegiance to the flag once a week?

Feedback?

Eldest? :confused: As far as I'm aware, Old Kings would choose which heir based on competance, not age.

Quite possibly, but in modern times the tendency has been for the crown to pass to the first born or the first born son.

*is Anglo-Celt* XD

* is mainly Scots-Irish with a touch of Pict (although that is probably just something I like to think based on the way I look) *

I'm tempted to spit on you :mp5:
So you would rather have forced patriotism? thats like forcing a belief ... you can make them go through the motions but you cant make them believe

And as such what is the point of making him sing it?

Sorry, don't know who posted this...
Statistically yourself or I are most likely also descendents of the ancient rulers of the land at some point. In order to validate the current monarch's claim the importance of passing the crown to the eldest heir should be shown.

WHY? Are you saying that if the third child was the first son and the crown went to him, his claim to descendancy from his great grandfather was void?

Just because the Crown doesn't always pass to the first born child doesn't mean that that child is any less related to his ancestors. If the father of a child is descended from King David, the child is too, no matter if he was the firstborn or twentythird-born.

We lost the geneology charts generations ago - so I used appearances of a lot of family memebers to get 'Anglo-Celt' too. ^_^

I couldnt sing it even if i wanted too. I've completely forgotten the words.

As have I. V_V

So he says he is stepping down, but can we trust him, I mean look at his record "We won't have a referendum... Oh yes we are" "We will not ban fox hunting... Oh yes we are" "We listen to the Unions... Oh sorry we didn't hear you", I could go on for several hours. All I can say is I am glad I never voted for him...

*grumbles about the Fox Hunting bit*

Interesting thought - probably closer to the original question of the thread than the last six pages.
Not being American I wouldn't know, but...

Don't American children have to pledge Allegiance to the flag once a week?

Feedback?

Yes I seem to recall something like that being compulsory.

Whilst I may not like our national anthum (I would prefer "Land of Hope and Glory" or Rule Britannia), it is a sign of your allegiance to the country, not who it is about, the Queen is just a figure-head, the head of state not the state itself. Ok, maybe forcing you is a little on the harsh side, but even Republicans (Note for americans and other aliens: people who are for a Republic rather than conservative) sing God Save the King/Queen.

God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and Glorious,
Long to reign over us;
God save the Queen!

O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies
And make them fall;
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
Oh, save us all!

Thy choicest gifts in store
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign;
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the Queen!

Not in this land alone,
But be God's mercies known,
From shore to shore!
Lord make the nations see,
That men should brothers be,
And form one family,
The wide world over

From every latent foe,
From the assassins blow,
God save the Queen!
O'er her thine arm extend,
For Britain's sake defend,
Our mother, prince, and friend,
God save the Queen!

P.S. The cricket is going well isn't it.

Well, I think "God Save the Queen" is a very good anthem for the United Kingdom and the Commonweath. The monarch deserves respect. Even the after the English Civil War they could not imagen England without a monarch. Really, it's not like the Kings and Queens were bad like in Russia or France.

I do feel however, that "Land of Hope and Glory" or "Flower of Scotland" should be sung in school. Just as in Canada and Australia they sing their national anthems.

As for being forced to sing "God Save the Queen". Why would you not want to sing it? It is showing respect for the Queen, and the nation. Just get over your phase, you have a bloody republic!

So he says he is stepping down, but can we trust him, I mean look at his record "We won't have a referendum... Oh yes we are" "We will not ban fox hunting... Oh yes we are" "We listen to the Unions... Oh sorry we didn't hear you", I could go on for several hours. All I can say is I am glad I never voted for him...

Neither did I!
I didn't vote for anyone, and probably wouldn't have done even if I was old enough to.

I'm tempted to spit on you :mp5:


Oooh can I join in please

*grumbles about the Fox Hunting bit*
*grumbles too*
But on the plus side now all the foxs that are fool enough to wander onto my farm get a bullet between the eyes, and the local "foxes are so wonderful and cuddly" group can't do anything about it because I am within my rights now. I got 86 during one week of lambing.

Just because the Crown doesn't always pass to the first born child doesn't mean that that child is any less related to his ancestors. If the father of a child is descended from King David, the child is too, no matter if he was the firstborn or twentythird-born.

No: my point being here that we are all most likely related to King David - some more closely than others. In order to validate the position of the Queen on that basis you should explain why she reaps the benefits while the rest of us don't.


Aside from which, claiming a bloodline however direct from some chap who reigned several thousand years ago in a land a thousand miles away and whose mandate for becoming monarch hasn't been satisfactorily explained to me, does little to persuade me of the justice in our current set-up.

Oooh can I join in please
well i'm not actually going too cause it would be awfully unladylike, but you go ahead i guess (though it's also dreadfully ungentlemanly)

*grumbles too*
But on the plus side now all the foxs that are fool enough to wander onto my farm get a bullet between the eyes, and the local "foxes are so wonderful and cuddly" group can't do anything about it because I am within my rights now. I got 86 during one week of lambing.

Strange, I thought one of the arguments in support of fox hunting was that it was so difficult to control the fox population by other methods. You seem to be doing your bit quite well without getting all tarted up in a red coat and having a glass of sherry in your hand.*



* well, for all I know you might tart yourself up in a red coat and drink sherry whilst out with your shotgun, but you know what I mean.

*grumbles too*
But on the plus side now all the foxs that are fool enough to wander onto my farm get a bullet between the eyes, and the local "foxes are so wonderful and cuddly" group can't do anything about it because I am within my rights now. I got 86 during one week of lambing.

Good for you! Heh, the cousins next door are having contests to see who can get the most.

Well, I think "God Save the Queen" is a very good anthem for the United Kingdom and the Commonweath. The monarch deserves respect. Even the after the English Civil War they could not imagen England without a monarch. Really, it's not like the Kings and Queens were bad like in Russia or France.

I do feel however, that "Land of Hope and Glory" or "Flower of Scotland" should be sung in school. Just as in Canada and Australia they sing their national anthems.

As for being forced to sing "God Save the Queen". Why would you not want to sing it? It is showing respect for the Queen, and the nation.
The fact is that I remembered all the words to the anthem, ergo showing respect enough that I can. And I do have respect. My father was a Major in the British Army, and he bloody well saluted the flag every morning, as a mark of respect to Her Majesty.

No: my point being here that we are all most likely related to King David - some more closely than others. In order to validate the position of the Queen on that basis you should explain why she reaps the benefits while the rest of us don't.


Aside from which, claiming a bloodline however direct from some chap who reigned several thousand years ago in a land a thousand miles away and whose mandate for becoming monarch hasn't been satisfactorily explained to me, does little to persuade me of the justice in our current set-up.

Why do you question the legitimacy of Her wearing the Crown? I never have, and probably never will, as the Queen is, no matter what you think, an important part of our country, our heritage, our legal system and our government; despite the fact she has no power.

I seriously doubt that anyone can satisfactorily explain why any monarch has the right to sit on a throne, other than by virtue of being descended from the Royal line of the country.
I imagine that when most countries were "founded" the main instigator of the foundation of the realm would be crowned as King/Queen. If you were part of a new country, would you accept me as King if I had founded the country in the first instance and had been responsible for all laws, government, orgainsation etc etc?

Strange, I thought one of the arguments in support of fox hunting was that it was so difficult to control the fox population by other methods. You seem to be doing your bit quite well without getting all tarted up in a red coat and having a glass of sherry in your hand.*



* well, for all I know you might tart yourself up in a red coat and drink sherry whilst out with your shotgun, but you know what I mean.

The point was that while I let the hunt go accross my land (and yes i did get lot's of sherry) there were less than 40 foxes caught in the whole lambing season. They lived more, which the local "foxes are cuddaly" brigade have started to realise.
And I don't use a shotgun, I could injure one of my animals with that. I have a couple of old rifles, a .22 and my grandfathers .303 and they do the job very well.

The fact is that I remembered all the words to the anthem, ergo showing respect enough that I can. And I do have respect. My father was a Major in the British Army, and he bloody well saluted the flag every morning, as a mark of respect to Her Majesty.

Okay, well then what is your problem? Do you want to see how far they'll go to make you sing the song, or is it you what to stand up for your right not to honour the Queen. Because if you have respect for the Empire you'll sing for it's ruler.

Strange, I thought one of the arguments in support of fox hunting was that it was so difficult to control the fox population by other methods. You seem to be doing your bit quite well without getting all tarted up in a red coat and having a glass of sherry in your hand.

Interesting. Although I am not the best horse rider, I imagine it would be rather difficult for anyone to drink sherry and ride at the same time.*

*When I say "ride," I mean a real ride, not just a quick walk around the stable. I mean galloping through woods and fields, etc.

you hate me cause i think you should sing the national anthem whether you like the Queen or not? well, quite frankly you just sound even sillier and more pathetic than i originally thought :rolleyes:

I think it was more the rather pathetic and retarded way you chose to express that opinion myself. Besides, if spitting on people you don't like was common practice, the streets of Blackpool would be awash with phlegm.

I think it was more the rather pathetic and retarded way you chose to express that opinion myself. Besides, if spitting on people you don't like was common practice, the streets of Blackpool would be awash with phlegm.

You're funny, I like you.

Can I ask you why you are singing the national anthem?

Is it something you have to do every day? Or is it for a special occasion?

God Save the Queen is the national anthem of the United Kingdom
Englands National Anthem is Land of Hope and Glory
Wales is Land of My Fathers
Scotland is Scotland the brave

God Save the Queen is sort of a sum up of all them anthems

Bah, it's a crappy national anthem, let's have Land of Hope and Glory instead.
Much Better. :)

I think it was more the rather pathetic and retarded way you chose to express that opinion myself. Besides, if spitting on people you don't like was common practice, the streets of Blackpool would be awash with phlegm.
you obviously havn't been to Blackpool lately


edit: and by that i mean the streets are awash with phlegm

Okay, well then what is your problem? Do you want to see how far they'll go to make you sing the song, or is it you what to stand up for your right not to honour the Queen. Because if you have respect for the Empire you'll sing for it's ruler.
I do sing the anthem when it is appropiate. I also know the words to Jeruslaem and Rule, Britannia, as well as Flower of Scotland. I do honour the Queen, but I am not going to foce anyone else to do the same if they do not wish to. My father taught me from an early age that we should respect the Queen, and I have. But as I said I will not force anyone to conform to my views.

Bah, it's a crappy national anthem, let's have Land of Hope and Glory instead.
Much Better. :)
Only problem is, Land of Hope and Glory doesn't represent Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well, whereas God Save the Queen mentions no nation specifically. This makes the four countries of the Union equal. Using Land of Hope and Glory would make England seem more important than the other three, which is bad - that's the way to break up the Union, I think!

Can I ask you why you are singing the national anthem?

Is it something you have to do every day? Or is it for a special occasion?

God Save the Queen is the national anthem of the United Kingdom
Englands National Anthem is Land of Hope and Glory
Wales is Land of My Fathers
Scotland is Scotland the brave

God Save the Queen is sort of a sum up of all them anthems
Very true.

Only problem is, Land of Hope and Glory doesn't represent Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well, whereas God Save the Queen mentions no nation specifically. This makes the four countries of the Union equal. Using Land of Hope and Glory would make England seem more important than the other three, which is bad - that's the way to break up the Union, I think!
What about Rule, Britannia? That doesn't mention any specific countries, it just says Britain.

V_V The only one that I know the words to is Jerusalem (which I can't spell).

I'd sing the rest if I had notation, though.

What about Rule, Britannia? That doesn't mention any specific countries, it just says Britain.

That one could work too.

It's a bit long though.

That one could work too.

Change it to the witchdoctor song by The Cartoons. People would sing it even if they didnt want to. Its contagious I tells ya *head explodes*

Change it to the witchdoctor song by The Cartoons. People would sing it even if they didnt want to. Its contagious I tells ya *head explodes* Lol.

V_V The only one that I know the words to is Jerusalem (which I can't spell).

Now Jerusalem is a good contender for England, but it fails to take into account Wales and Scotland, both of which are also important to me (I have a strange family, ie: one grandparent from Wales, one from Scotland, one from England and I think the other must be from Mars... either that or the Isle of Man it's hard to tell the differance).

I'm British and i refuse to sing the national anthem. I intentsly dislike the monarchy but my form tutor is planning on forcing me to sing it. Unfair?

And yet I'm sure you use money, stamps, passports etc without question. All these have references to the monarchy on them, why don't you stop using those as well, as a sign of protest?

Fact is, you're at school. You do as you're told or you get out.

And yet I'm sure you use money, stamps, passports etc without question. All these have references to the monarchy on them, why don't you stop using those as well, as a sign of protest?

Fact is, you're at school. You do as you're told or you get out.

Brava!

Brava!
Is that the female version of Bravo?

I also hate monarchy. I respect dictators more than monarchs because it takes skill and effort to launch a coup or manipulate your way to the top but all a monarch has to do is be born into the right family.

Is that the female version of Bravo?

Not being female I wouldn't know...
but Brava sounds better than bravo.

Yeah, it is.

I also hate monarchy. I respect dictators more than monarchs because it takes skill and effort to launch a coup or manipulate your way to the top but all a monarch has to do is be born into the right family.

Because everybody can pick which family to be born into... Marrying, that's the tricker.

I also hate monarchy. I respect dictators more than monarchs because it takes skill and effort to launch a coup or manipulate your way to the top but all a monarch has to do is be born into the right family.

So you would allow a corrupt and oppressive dictatorship because you think the dictator is clever and likely to be a good leader because he or she launched a coup?
I hope you don't decide to go into politics.

And yet I'm sure you use money, stamps, passports etc without question. All these have references to the monarchy on them, why don't you stop using those as well, as a sign of protest?

Fact is, you're at school. You do as you're told or you get out.

You have a lot less of a choice when it comes to using sterling money, etc than compared to singing an anthem though to be fair

Not being female I wouldn't know...
but Brava sounds better than bravo.
I didn't say you were a woman. I asked only because in several languages an "a" is used at the end of a word to signify that it is used by a woman.
Besides if I remember my Italian "Brava" is "well done".

So you would allow a corrupt and oppressive dictatorship because you think the dictator is clever and likely to be a good leader because he or she launched a coup?
I hope you don't decide to go into politics.
I second that.

I didn't say you were a woman. I asked only because in several languages an "a" is used at the end of a word to signify that it is used by a woman.
Besides if I remember my Italian "Brava" is "well done".

I never said you had.
I just generally think that Brava sounds better.

So you would allow a corrupt and oppressive dictatorship because you think the dictator is clever and likely to be a good leader because he or she launched a coup?
I hope you don't decide to go into politics.

You can respect something more without supporting it more

I never said you had.
I just generally think that Brava sounds better.
Righto.

i am proud to have the queen as the figure head of the place that i am proud to come from and live in. if you were not at school then i would say it is your right (although that is one of the things she represents) not to sing along, however being at school means that you should do as you are told... sorry thats just the way things are!

i am proud to have the queen as the figure head of the place that i am proud to come from and live in. if you were not at school then i would say it is your right (although that is one of the things she represents) not to sing along, however being at school means that you should do as you are told... sorry thats just the way things are!

Why should you do as you're told when disobeying your teacher has no impact on lessons or discipline within the classroom? I have no problem with the statement "you should do as you're told in school" when it applies to necessary actions but in this case it singing the anthem isnt all that necessary

You can respect something more without supporting it more

But you are more likely to support a cause or person you respect than one that you don't.

Why should you do as you're told when disobeying your teacher has no impact on lessons or discipline within the classroom? I have no problem with the statement "you should do as you're told in school" when it applies to necessary actions but in this case it singing the anthem isnt all that necessary

Er, just by disobeying you're creating a disiplinary problem... And how is it your -place to decide what is neccissary?

So you would allow a corrupt and oppressive dictatorship because you think the dictator is clever and likely to be a good leader because he or she launched a coup?
I hope you don't decide to go into politics.
and you would allow yourself to be ruled by someone who's only claimed right to be there is because their daddy was ruler? :rolleyes:


i hope you don't go into politics :p

But you are more likely to support a cause or person you respect than one that you don't.

I'm just pointing out that you made a big assumption based on Letilas post

Er, just by disobeying you're creating a disiplinary problem... And how is it your -place to decide what is neccissary?

Is the singing of the national anthem necessary to the teaching of any subject?

If the teacher sets up a situation such as this where there is a high probability that students will disobey, with no real gain to the class, it is their fault that discipline breaks down.

Why should you do as you're told when disobeying your teacher has no impact on lessons or discipline within the classroom? I have no problem with the statement "you should do as you're told in school" when it applies to necessary actions but in this case it singing the anthem isnt all that necessary

Maybe so, but think about it: if you see another child in the classroom - imagine you are still at school if needs be - who is directly disobeying an "order" from the teacher. If one child disobeys, then more are likely to join in, and eventually you will find yourself in a situation where none of the children do as they are told.
I think that when asked in school to sing the national anthem, it should be sung, whether it is necessary or not.

It is a sign of respect to the NATION, not necessarily the Queen.
Besides, if the starter of this thread - sorry, can't remeber who you are! - is made to sing the national anthem, it doesn't mean he means the words he is singing.

I'm just pointing out that you made a big assumption based on Letilas post

I merely questioned what Letila had posted earlier on: that a dictator would have more respect from them than a monarch. I asked whether that meant that they would support corrupt dictatorship, I didn't say that they would.

Is the singing of the national anthem necessary to the teaching of any subject?

If the teacher sets up a situation such as this where there is a high probability that students will disobey, with no real gain to the class, it is their fault that discipline breaks down.

There is beifit to singing it - even if it's just soas you learn to carry a tune!

And what was said above me.

Maybe so, but think about it: if you see another child in the classroom - imagine you are still at school if needs be - who is directly disobeying an "order" from the teacher. If one child disobeys, then more are likely to join in, and eventually you will find yourself in a situation where none of the children do as they are told.

I merely questioned what Letila had posted earlier on: that a dictator would have more respect from them than a monarch. I asked whether that meant that they would support corrupt dictatorship, I didn't say that they would.

Look at the last sentence of the post we're talking about. Seems like a big implication was made but maybe i'm wrong

There is benifit to singing it - even if it's just soas you learn to carry a tune!

And what was said above me.

Can you give me some real benefits apart from carrying a tune? There are plenty of other songs to teach if thats your aim.

Edit: I think I already pointed out that it is the teachers fault if they get themselves into such a situation by the methods we're arguing

Look at the last sentence of the post we're talking about. Seems like a big implication was made but maybe i'm wrong

Ah, I understand.
Whilst I do not wish to cause offence to anyone, think about it: would you have in government a person that respects dictatorship?
Personally, I don't think that would be good.

Can you give me some real benefits apart from carrying a tune. There are plenty of other songs to teach if thats your aim.

Maybe there are, but this is one that you *should* know.

Ah, I understand.
Whilst I do not wish to cause offence to anyone, think about it: would you have in government a person that respects dictatorship?
Personally, I don't think that would be good.

I dont have a problem with them respecting a dictator for his/her intelligence and cunning. Its only if they support such a government that problems arise

Maybe there are, but this is one that you *should* know.

So you're just not going to answer my question then?

and you would allow yourself to be ruled by someone who's only claimed right to be there is because their daddy was ruler? :rolleyes:

The Queen doesn't rule, she has no say in the way the country is run, as I have said countless times.


i hope you don't go into politics :p

Why not? Because I believe that monarchy is a good thing?

So you're just not going to answer my question then?

I don't see a single questionmark in your post.

I don't see a single questionmark in your post.

Fine. If I edit it maybe you'll answer

I don't see a single questionmark in your post.

BTW question mark is two words :p

Can you give me some real benefits apart from carrying a tune?

How do you define 'real'? Surely it's obvious that the ability to carry a tune is a benefit?

BTW question mark is two words

I know - just felt like spelling it differently. ^_^

How do you define 'real'? Surely it's obvious that the ability to carry a tune is a benefit?

But you dont need to use the national anthem to teach someone to carry a tune. It seems like there are plenty of others which could be used to teach that without having to worry about a break in discipline

Well, a teacher in a *British* school shouldn't need to worry whether students want to sing the *British* anthem - it should be a given that they will!

Well, a teacher in a *British* school shouldn't need to worry whether students want to sing the *British* anthem - it should be a given that they will!

Not in West Belfast it won't.

Why do you question the legitimacy of Her wearing the Crown?

Because it is in my nature to question things rather than to blindly accept those things which are spoonfed to me.

I seriously doubt that anyone can satisfactorily explain why any monarch has the right to sit on a throne, other than by virtue of being descended from the Royal line of the country.

Ah, so your defence of the right to reign for the monarch is now that it is either inexplicable or non-existant?

If you were part of a new country, would you accept me as King if I had founded the country in the first instance and had been responsible for all laws, government, orgainsation etc etc?

Nothing against you personally here, but no - I wouldn't accept anyone as my monarch.

Well, a teacher in a *British* school shouldn't need to worry whether students want to sing the *British* anthem - it should be a given that they will!

So they should blindly follow their country and never question it? What you're basically saying is that only a real briton would sing the anthem.

Interesting. Although I am not the best horse rider, I imagine it would be rather difficult for anyone to drink sherry and ride at the same time.*

*When I say "ride," I mean a real ride, not just a quick walk around the stable. I mean galloping through woods and fields, etc.

The 'stirrup cup' was taken by the hunters while they sat on their horses, but the horses were stationary. Whether this counts as actually riding the horse is a matter iof semantics.

So they should blindly follow their country and never question it? What you're basically saying is that only a real briton would sing the anthem.

Quit sticking words in my mouth. What I said was that if you are in a British school and you're told to sing the British anthem, you should be happy to sing.

Might just be my bumpkin opinion, but I know what I said.

I couldnt sing it even if i wanted too. I've completely forgotten the words.
La, La, La, I believe :D

Quit sticking words in my mouth. What I said was that if you are in a British school and you're told to sing the British anthem, you should be happy to sing.

Might just be my bumpkin opinion, but I know what I said.

Ok i apologise for making an assumption there.

As for the bit in bold I still have yet to see a good reason why everyone should be happy about singing the anthem just because they are in a british school

Quit sticking words in my mouth. What I said was that if you are in a British school and you're told to sing the British anthem, you should be happy to sing.

Even if you feel that the Queen should not be saved by God, nor that she should long reign over us, nor that she should be particularly happy or glorious?

Im scottish and very very very very proud of it, as we scots tend to be, and i was just wonder if the english people here feel more english or british, and wot does britain acctualy mean to them??

As for the bit in bold I still have yet to see a good reason why everyone should be happy about singing the anthem just because they are in a british school

Okay, maybe it's just my school where singing is done all the time, often for no reason at all.

Even if you feel that the Queen should not be saved by God, nor that she should long reign over us, nor that she should be particularly happy or glorious?

Why not just go into Private or Home education, then?

*blink* Am I being ganged up on?

God Save the Queen is the national anthem of the United Kingdom
Englands National Anthem is Land of Hope and Glory
Wales is Land of My Fathers
Scotland is Scotland the brave


Very true.

Apart from the bit about 'Land of Hope and Glory' being England's national anthem, 'Land Of My Fathers' being Wales' national anthem and 'Scotland The Brave' being Scotland's national anthem. Their status as such is entirely unofficial.

scotland the brave isnt the nat anthem, its flower o' scotland, altho really its should be scotland the brave, FoS is a pub song

Im scottish and very very very very proud of it, as we scots tend to be, and i was just wonder if the english people here feel more english or british, and wot does britain acctualy mean to them??

I prob'ly feel more English - well, Devonshire - as everywhere else is just 'up north somewhere'.

The Queen doesn't rule, she has no say in the way the country is run, as I have said countless times.




Why not? Because I believe that monarchy is a good thing?
pfft its called humour... look into it sometime ;)

Why not just go into Private or Home education, then?

Because when I was at school it was my parents like other workers who were paying for the schools to operate through their taxes, and I do not see the compulsory singing of the national anthem to be a necessary part of the education process. Certainly children should be told what their national anthem is and at least be shown the words to it, but forcing them to sing it is an entirely different thing.

Would you say that having to sing the national anthem is an important or necessary part of schooling?

If Grampus is muslim they deport him, the country is going down the pan

They should make to take an oath of allegiance when u nxt entre the country from abroad, gotta keep the bloody white ppl in chek

If Grampus is muslim they deport him, the country is going down the pan

Again please, but this time coherently.

Sry i was just sayin, wot this all the terrorism going around, and the additude certain politicains hav and many tabliods, sooner or later it feels lik they will be deporting anyone with brown skin who offends the british state, i wish they get round to Bernard Manning

You want guilt, try living in a calvinst country

Because I/my parents are paying for the schools to operate, and I do not see the compulsory singing of the national anthem to be a necessary part of the education process. Certainly children should be told what their national anthem is and at least be shown the words to it, but forcing them to sing it is an entirely different thing.

Would you say that having to sing the national anthem is an important or necessary part of schooling?

No, but-

*goes back to first post to see what the sit was again*

*bolds some words*

Isn't that what's going on anyway? The OP didn't say 'sing it every day for the rest of his life' he said 'planning to sing it' which implies once. And what better way to learn it than singing?

You want guilt, try living in a calvinst country
I would kill myself seriously

I can understand humans needing more but I dont get what need calvanism fufils