Rule Britannia

[David Guiza]

I saw that GMB were at the forefront of hard hitting journalism again by picking up on comments made by Lily Allen with regard to calling for Rule Britannia to be banned and thought I'd go one step below GMB and see what the general consensus of Foxestalk posters was on this topic.

 

I can't say it's something I've actively thought about in the past and It doesn't realistically bother me either way, I don't think, though I would note that I can see where she is coming from. Yes it's just a song from centuries ago, but the connotations are questionable and if it were Americans singing about slavery 'because it's part of their history' then I'm sure a few eyebrows would be raised.

 

It ties in quite closely with my thoughts on the Royals and some of the grandiose acts that go on in Parliament, e.g. Black Rod and the like, in that I'm not quite sure where I stand. Part of me quite likes the pompous nature of it all and that they've survived for centuries, and I love going to the cricket and just enjoying things like the hymns that are just quintessentially British, however I also can't see past how bizarre and ridiculous it all is. How Parliament can discuss serious and life changing topics after a ceremonial panto involving somebody that sounds like a questionable porn actor has paraded through the house is beyond me, and how a 90 odd year old woman can deliver a Queens speech about poverty and the like whilst sitting on a chair and wearing a hat that are worth more than a small nation is equally baffling. 

 

I think ultimately I am for 'moving on' and away from our questionable past, whilst acknowledging that it existed. Other countries have done so, but we seem desperate to hold on and that can be seen by some arguments in respect of Brexit and with the 'poppy fascism' debate.   

[Beechey]

The song has nothing to do with enslavement of other people.

The lyrics: "Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!" are a command from God for Britain to exert itself through naval power.

The lyrics: "Britons never, never, never shall be slaves" simply refers to the fact that such naval power ensures that no foreign nation could overcome Britain's defences at sea.

[Raj]

Anything Lily Allen says I'd disagree with.

She's a wrong un

[Jimothy]

Just now, Raj said:

Anything Lily Allen says I'd disagree with.

She's a wrong un

I've heard she thinks you're great.

[David Guiza]

4 minutes ago, Beechey said:

The song has nothing to do with enslavement of other people.

The lyrics: "Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!" are a command from God for Britain to exert itself through naval power.

The lyrics: "Britons never, never, never shall be slaves" simply refers to the fact that such naval power ensures that no foreign nation could overcome Britain's defences at sea.

To play devil's advocate, one could argue that the proclamation of exerting power across the world is referring to a time in which we did enslave people and the 'never shall be slaves' is effectively saying, we won't be enslaved, unlike you who we have enslaved.

 

As I say, I don't really have too strong of an opinion either way but I am interested as to what the general feeling is. British history in respect of the empire is complex at best.

[Alf Bentley]

I'm not in favour of banning Mein Kampf, never mind Rule Britannia. 

 

Freedom of speech should always be the starting point - unless a document or song is actively promoting hatred and violence or something.

Otherwise, if you don't like some words, you should challenge them.

 

I'm rather in favour of a bit of historically-based pageantry and nonsense like Black Rod etc. All good fun and a reminder that previous times existed.

I do think that schools should probably cover the British Empire better in history lessons - pros, cons, reasons, explanations, context, consequences etc....but not out of self-flagellation but out of a quest for better understanding of history.

 

I've never sung Rule Britannia, as it tends to be associated with different political views from mine, but don't find it offensive given its historical context - the words are pretty mild, too.

It has a good, rousing tune, though so I'd quite like to be able to join in.

 

For now, though, if I have to sing along to a rousing, historically-based fun song with dubious lyrics, I'll stick with this little corker.... 

 

  

 

[Rusko187]

20 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I saw that GMB were at the forefront of hard hitting journalism again by picking up on comments made by Lily Allen with regard to calling for Rule Britannia to be banned and thought I'd go one step below GMB and see what the general consensus of Foxestalk posters was on this topic.

 

I can't say it's something I've actively thought about in the past and It doesn't realistically bother me either way, I don't think, though I would note that I can see where she is coming from. Yes it's just a song from centuries ago, but the connotations are questionable and if it were Americans singing about slavery 'because it's part of their history' then I'm sure a few eyebrows would be raised.

 

It ties in quite closely with my thoughts on the Royals and some of the grandiose acts that go on in Parliament, e.g. Black Rod and the like, in that I'm not quite sure where I stand. Part of me quite likes the pompous nature of it all and that they've survived for centuries, and I love going to the cricket and just enjoying things like the hymns that are just quintessentially British, however I also can't see past how bizarre and ridiculous it all is. How Parliament can discuss serious and life changing topics after a ceremonial panto involving somebody that sounds like a questionable porn actor has paraded through the house is beyond me, and how a 90 odd year old woman can deliver a Queens speech about poverty and the like whilst sitting on a chair and wearing a hat that are worth more than a small nation is equally baffling. 

 

I think ultimately I am for 'moving on' and away from our questionable past, whilst acknowledging that it existed. Other countries have done so, but we seem desperate to hold on and that can be seen by some arguments in respect of Brexit and with the 'poppy fascism' debate.   

Where's the harm in keeping traditions though? The world is constantly evolving and with that, I feel it's important to remember the foundations of which this country is built upon. Things like Parliament (as crap as it is right now), Royal Family and Rule Brittania is our history, which we should acknowledge and continue to practice. 

I interpreted the highlighted point as though we should "drop these traditions", I'm hoping I have misinterpreted your post in general, but for me other great nations haven't moved on.

There are many traditions in countries that are continued to be practised to this day, in this year alone we saw Thailand have a new King and Japan have a new Emperor.

 

Personally I'd rather ban Lily Allen

[Beechey]

10 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

To play devil's advocate, one could argue that the proclamation of exerting power across the world is referring to a time in which we did enslave people and the 'never shall be slaves' is effectively saying, we won't be enslaved, unlike you who we have enslaved.

 

As I say, I don't really have too strong of an opinion either way but I am interested as to what the general feeling is. British history in respect of the empire is complex at best.

I think that's a pretty big stretch. That is the poem's only mention of slavery, and it's absolutely nothing to do with inflicting slavery on other people. You could made such reaches for basically any sentence in history.

Read the following verse. It's clearly about Britain being strong enough to not fall to foreign powers.

 

The nations, not so blest as thee,
Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

[David Guiza]

4 minutes ago, Rusko187 said:

Where's the harm in keeping traditions though? The world is constantly evolving and with that, I feel it's important to remember the foundations of which this country is built upon. Things like Parliament (as crap as it is right now), Royal Family and Rule Brittania is our history, which we should acknowledge and continue to practice. 

I interpreted the highlighted point as though we should "drop these traditions", I'm hoping I have misinterpreted your post in general, but for me other great nations haven't moved on.

There are many traditions in countries that are continued to be practised to this day, in this year alone we saw Thailand have a new King and Japan have a new Emperor.

 

Personally I'd rather ban Lily Allen

That's my question essentially, where do you draw the line with the traditions that you keep? My view is probably similar to @Alf Bentley's post, minus the questionable music video, in that I wouldn't want anything banned because it's a slippery slope and I don't really agree with censorship. I also agree that the British Empire should be taught to a far greater degree in schools as I didn't learn a single thing about it during my time and anything I now know is as a result of TV/Film/Books etc. 

 

I'm in favour of moving on, but both acknowledging and respecting tradition and the past where necessary. Ignoring our history is just as damaging as 'banning' it. My point probably goes beyond Rule Britannia and encapsulates anything like the Royal Family, Parliamentary Traditions, Blacking up Morris Men etc, all those bizarre things that we do in our great nation. I say we as a collective, I can't say I've ever blacked up and danced around a May Pole... as of yet. 

 

It's a difficult balancing act to keep traditions alive, but also not to carry traditions/aspects of history into the modern day that should have stayed in the past. There are songs, phrases, terminology etc that were used as recently as a decade ago that most reasonable people wouldn't repeat now, for example.

 

On a related topic, as a lover of film I have a moral quandary over certain things that crop up on otherwise fantastic pieces. Take Breakfast at Tiffanys for example, where the tight fisted Japanese Landlord is played by Mickey Rooney with tape on his eyes which, through the eyes of 2019, is utterly mental, but I wouldn't for a second want that film to be censored in any way. 

 

16 minutes ago, Beechey said:

I think that's a pretty big stretch. That is the poem's only mention of slavery, and it's absolutely nothing to do with inflicting slavery on other people. You could made such reaches for basically any sentence in history.

Read the following verse and tell me with a straight face it's about anything other than Britain being strong enough to not fall to foreign powers.

 

The nations, not so blest as thee,
Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

When you consider that the song was written in the 1700s where Britain was an active member of the slave trade, it is certainly at least mildly controversial. It's also somewhat hypocritical to sing a song about ruling the waves when celebrating victory in the Second World War, for example. 

 

It is what it is though, history. They are just words to a song of over 250 years ago that have no real baring on anything, but I can see why some would criticise the use in modern day. It probably doesn't help that it was brought up by Lily Allen who isn't who you'd want to represent you in debate. 

[bovril]

20 minutes ago, Beechey said:

I think that's a pretty big stretch. That is the poem's only mention of slavery, and it's absolutely nothing to do with inflicting slavery on other people. You could made such reaches for basically any sentence in history.

Read the following verse. It's clearly about Britain being strong enough to not fall to foreign powers.

 

I think it's a big stretch to say Britain exerting power around the world has nothing to do with colonialism, and I doubt people in other countries would agree with you. 

 

Not that I want it banning, of course. 

[Dr The Singh]

WTF

[Strokes]

Lily Allen as a discussion starter and thought provoker, hold about as much credibility as @treer.

[RonnieTodger]

I did wonder when this might be brought up, I bet GMB were rubbing their hands together when our lord and saviour Lily Allen picked up on it. Luckily Piers "The World's Gone Mad" Morgan can fight the corner too, what a time to be alive 

[leicsmac]

49 minutes ago, bovril said:

I think it's a big stretch to say Britain exerting power around the world has nothing to do with colonialism, and I doubt people in other countries would agree with you. 

 

Not that I want it banning, of course. 

This.

 

It's one thing to be strong enough defensively to thwart international opponents, it's quite another to actually take the fight to the oppositions home turf and impose your own will on them - and like it or not the British Empire at the the time this song was conceived did exactly that.

 

Of course, such values were fair for their day seeing as everyone else was keen on the same thing, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be critically examined.

[ealingfox]

If it triggers the gammons I'm all for it 

[David Guiza]

20 minutes ago, RonnieTodger said:

I did wonder when this might be brought up, I bet GMB were rubbing their hands together when our lord and saviour Lily Allen picked up on it. Luckily Piers "The World's Gone Mad" Morgan can fight the corner too, what a time to be alive 

Yeah it's sort of like when Forest play Derby, you wonder if there is a rule somewhere that both sides can lose and be liquidated as a result. 

 

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This.

 

It's one thing to be strong enough defensively to thwart international opponents, it's quite another to actually take the fight to the oppositions home turf and impose your own will on them - and like it or not the British Empire at the the time this song was conceived did exactly that.

 

Of course, such values were fair for their day seeing as everyone else was keen on the same thing, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be critically examined.

Precisely my point.

 

I don't have a firm foot in either camp outside of thinking it's a little outdated, but these things should be considered even if the outcome is a resounding no.   

[Beechey]

1 hour ago, bovril said:

I think it's a big stretch to say Britain exerting power around the world has nothing to do with colonialism, and I doubt people in other countries would agree with you. 

 

Not that I want it banning, of course. 

I disagree completely. The Royal Navy did not come to being from a thirst for colonisation. It came to fruition from the defence of (what was then) England from the Spanish Empire. The words "never shall be slaves" almost certainly refers to these conflicts.

"Exerting" is not a word used in the poem - I brought it into the discussion, it refers to "ruling the waves", meaning simply to have a more powerful fleet than your competitors. It is an undisputed historical fact that the Royal Navy's strength kept major invasions away from British shores throughout history. At the time of writing, the Royal Navy was not the all-conquering force it became in the 19th and 20th centuries, meaning the command of "Rule, Britannia!" meant literally a call for the Navy to be invested into such that it becomes the pre-eminent force on the world's oceans.

 

44 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This.

 

It's one thing to be strong enough defensively to thwart international opponents, it's quite another to actually take the fight to the oppositions home turf and impose your own will on them - and like it or not the British Empire at the the time this song was conceived did exactly that.

 

Of course, such values were fair for their day seeing as everyone else was keen on the same thing, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be critically examined.

We need to add historical context here: the Kingdom of Great Britain was not the large empire the British Empire came to be in the 20th century. The Seven Years' War hadn't happened yet, France was the world's global superpower - Great Britain was probably considered a second-rate power at the time compared to the empires of Spain and France. Let me add context by showing you a graph which plots the spend as. a percentage of the economy with the size of the navy - and I'l last you to try and pinpoint 1740.

 

 

The year 1740 is just about where the military spend as a percentage of the economy as a whole starts to shoot up - coincidentally, also around the start of the Seven Years' War (1756) - the war which would shape the globe to this day.

I can absolutely, 100% assure you, this song at the time was not a celebration of Britain's power, but a call for a fleet which could adequately defend the islands against France, Spain and Portugal. There are precisely no connotations to enslaving others, taking other's land or forcing your will on others, but merely the defence of the country. People need to actually read the lyrics and consider the history instead of projecting their vision of Great Britain in the colonial era on it.

 

You seem to be placing the poem about 100 years in the future from when it actually came to being.

 

Of all the songs to be annoyed about, this frankly is not one of them.

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Beechey said:

 

We need to add historical context here: the Kingdom of Great Britain was not the large empire the British Empire came to be in the 20th century. The Seven Years' War hadn't happened yet, France was the world's global superpower - Great Britain was probably considered a second-rate power at the time compared to the empires of Spain and France. Let me add context by showing you a graph which plots the spend as. a percentage of the economy with the size of the navy - and I'l last you to try and pinpoint 1740.

 

 

The year 1740 is just about where the military spend as a percentage of the economy as a whole starts to shoot up - coincidentally, also around the start of the Seven Years' War (1756) - the war which would shape the globe to this day.

I can absolutely, 100% assure you, this song at the time was not a celebration of Britain's power, but a call for a fleet which could adequately defend the islands against France, Spain and Portugal. There are precisely no connotations to enslaving others, taking other's land or forcing your will on others, but merely the defence of the country. People need to actually read the lyrics and consider the history instead of projecting their vision of Great Britain in the colonial era on it.

 

You seem to be placing the poem about 100 years in the future from when it actually came to being.

 

Of all the songs to be annoyed about, this frankly is not one of them.

Fair enough...could it be said that the sentiment within that song (not the song itself) then led to the aforementioned expansion of the fleet and the consequences thereof? And this is of course saying nothing of those who have used the song to express their own sentiments about "ruling the waves" since and now.

[Guest MattP]

@Beechey has absolutely romped this thread, appreciate the input as well. I've learned a lot from it.

[urban.spaceman]

LOOK AT ME AND HOW VIRTUOUS I AM LET'S ALL BAN THIS SONG WHAT I DON'T LIKE BECAUSE I CAN'T COPE WITH THE NUANCES OF HISTORY AND OTHER PEOPLE HAVING OPINIONS DIFFERENT FROM MINE...

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

LOOK AT ME AND HOW VIRTUOUS I AM LET'S ALL BAN THIS SONG WHAT I DON'T LIKE BECAUSE I CAN'T COPE WITH THE NUANCES OF HISTORY AND OTHER PEOPLE HAVING OPINIONS DIFFERENT FROM MINE...

Um....judging by reactions of some towards nuanced views and opinions of the British Empire and what it did and didn't accomplish isn't this a little pot and kettly?

 

...or is the simple opinion that "it did good things and though it did bad things everyone was doing similar at the same time so it was okay" what passes for nuance?

[davieG]

If we're going to consider banning anything it should be God Save the Queen

 

The lyrics are questionable to say the least especially the last verse.

 

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 our enemies,
And make them fall!
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all!

 

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 ov'er.

 

From every latent foe,
From the assasins 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!

 

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!

 

Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the Queen!

 

At least Rule Britannia is about the Country not focusing on an individual and is a decent tune.

 

GSTQ is an absolute dirge.

 

Of course if the Scots vote for Independence maybe  we should make it a law to never sing it without including the last verse  

 

 

[David Guiza]

1 hour ago, Beechey said:

I disagree completely. The Royal Navy did not come to being from a thirst for colonisation. It came to fruition from the defence of (what was then) England from the Spanish Empire. The words "never shall be slaves" almost certainly refers to these conflicts.

"Exerting" is not a word used in the poem - I brought it into the discussion, it refers to "ruling the waves", meaning simply to have a more powerful fleet than your competitors. It is an undisputed historical fact that the Royal Navy's strength kept major invasions away from British shores throughout history. At the time of writing, the Royal Navy was not the all-conquering force it became in the 19th and 20th centuries, meaning the command of "Rule, Britannia!" meant literally a call for the Navy to be invested into such that it becomes the pre-eminent force on the world's oceans.

 

We need to add historical context here: the Kingdom of Great Britain was not the large empire the British Empire came to be in the 20th century. The Seven Years' War hadn't happened yet, France was the world's global superpower - Great Britain was probably considered a second-rate power at the time compared to the empires of Spain and France. Let me add context by showing you a graph which plots the spend as. a percentage of the economy with the size of the navy - and I'l last you to try and pinpoint 1740.

 

 

The year 1740 is just about where the military spend as a percentage of the economy as a whole starts to shoot up - coincidentally, also around the start of the Seven Years' War (1756) - the war which would shape the globe to this day.

I can absolutely, 100% assure you, this song at the time was not a celebration of Britain's power, but a call for a fleet which could adequately defend the islands against France, Spain and Portugal. There are precisely no connotations to enslaving others, taking other's land or forcing your will on others, but merely the defence of the country. People need to actually read the lyrics and consider the history instead of projecting their vision of Great Britain in the colonial era on it.

 

You seem to be placing the poem about 100 years in the future from when it actually came to being.

 

Of all the songs to be annoyed about, this frankly is not one of them.

That is interesting, my history knowledge from that period isn't overly great. If it's not modern history, the Tudors, Greeks or Romans then I'm not overly well versed.

 

Looking further at this article - https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Rule-Britannia/ - it seems to suggest that we were actively trying to expand, rather than defend, and began to colonize:-

 

The first public performance of ‘Rule, Britannia!’ was in London in 1745, and it instantly became very popular for a nation trying to expand and ‘rule the waves’. Indeed, from as early as the 15th and 16th centuries, other countries’ dominant exploratory advances encouraged Britain to follow. This was the Age of Discovery, in which Spain and Portugal were the European pioneers, beginning to establish empires. This spurred England, France and the Netherlands to do the same. They colonised and set up trade routes in the Americas and Asia.

 

Additionally, this article suggests that it was actually a protest song against George II

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9260167/Rule-Britannia-was-Royal-revolt-song-against-King-George-II.html

[David Guiza]

10 minutes ago, davieG said:

If we're going to consider banning anything it should be God Save the Queen

 

The lyrics are questionable to say the least especially the last verse.

 

 

At least Rule Britannia is about the Country not focusing on an individual and is a decent tune.

 

GSTQ is an absolute dirge.

 

Of course if the Scots vote for Independence maybe  we should make it a law to never sing it without including the last verse  

 

 

I've always preferred Jerusalem because I find it more in keeping with 'Britishness', but then I have no religious interest so that's a dilemma in itself! 

 

Or, as the liberal that I am, I would go with something like this:-

 

I rode out on a bright May morning like a hero in a song,
Looking for a place called England, trying to find where I belong.
Couldn't find the old flood meadow or the house that I once knew;
No trace of the little river or the garden where I grew.

 

I saw town and I saw country, motorway and sink estate;
Rich man in his rolling acres, poor man still outside the gate;
Retail park and burger kingdom, prairie field and factory farm,
Run by men who think that England's only a place to park their car.

 

But as the train pulled from the station through the wastelands of despair
From the corner of my eye a brightness filled the filthy air.
Someone's grown a patch of sunflowers though the soil is sooty black,
Marigolds and a few tomatoes right beside the railway track.

 

Down behind the terraced houses, in between the concrete towers,
Compost heaps and scarlet runners, secret gardens full of flowers.
Meeta grows her scented roses right beneath the big jets' path.
Bid a fortune for her garden—Eileen turns away and laughs.

 

So rise up, George, and wake up, Arthur, time to rouse out from your sleep.
Deck the horse with sea-green ribbons, drag the old sword from the deep.
Hold the line for Dave and Daniel as they tunnel through the clay,
While the oak in all its glory soaks up sun for one more day.

 

Come all you at home with freedom whatever the land that gave you birth,
There's room for you both root and branch as long as you love the English earth.
Room for vole and room for orchid, room for all to grow and thrive;
Just less room for the fat landowner on his arse in his four-wheel drive.

 

For England is not flag or Empire, it is not money, it is not blood.
It's limestone gorge and granite fell, it's Wealden clay and Severn mud,
It's blackbird singing from the May tree, lark ascending through the scales,
Robin watching from your spade and English earth beneath your nails.

 

So here's two cheers for a place called England, sore abused but not yet dead;
A Mr Harding sort of England hanging in there by a thread.
Here's two cheers for the crazy diggers, now their hour shall come around;
We shall plant the seed they saved us, common wealth and common ground.

 

 

Can't quite see Harry Maguire and co belting that out for some reason 

[Strokes]

Oh whilst we are on the subject of banning offence music Lily....