Talk:God Save the Queen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 God Save the Queen is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Caribbean
Caribbean Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Caribbean, and areas of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Anguilla work group. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Words to the song

I think you should include the words to the full British National Athem in this article.
Thanks,
Troop350 08:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bilingual Canadian Often Sung Version????

I know it says this version is often sung, but I've never heard it before!!! Is it because it is only often sung in certain places, or have I been living under a rock for the past years?--72.137.205.70 18:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Johanna

I think the discussion of the melody; as regards Liechtenstein, Germany and Norway, ought to be removed. The article as stands regards the National Anthem of Great Britain, the song is the same, the melody is therefore immaterial.

If the national anthem of the above countries uses or used the same melody it should be mentioned in the relevant pages.


[edit] ???

what i think happened havnlt checked it orignally there wer4 verses here. then i added the two missing oens which which went before that scottish one. - fonzy

Does Northern Ireland have an alternate anthem? -- Zoe

No, but you can chant "No surrender" between "God save the Queen" and "Send her victorious" in tune with the music, if you like. Jonathan3 21:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they played "Londonderry Air/Danny Boy" at the Commonwealth Games last year, but I'd never heard it done before, and it may just have been the NI Commonwealth Games Committee's idea. Usually one side of the community's happy with GStQ and the other side would just ignore it or boo. -- Arwel

I don't think there is an alternative anthem. I'm surprised, come to think of it, that it was never included in the Good Friday Agreement. After all, the renamed the police-force and incredibly created a new logo everyone could agree with, redesigned the symbolism for court rooms, created a new logo for the assembly, etc. I'm surprised they never touched the anthem, or found a mutually agreed one. I'll ask Steven King, David Trimble's special advisor, the next time I see him whether there is one in the pipeline or whether it never was touched. STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:41 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Anyone got anything to say about the tune (which I believe is called "America")? Deb 19:55 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

I *think* the tune has the same name as the song - when the US was looking round for songs of its own they lifted the tune, used their own words, and created the "America" of which you speak. But I could well be wrong :) UPDATE: Bit of searching round, apparently the tune dates from the mid 1700s, and has been used a national tune quite commonly! Verloren

I believe the Swiss national anthem had the same tune until recently, and Liechtenstein's still does. Germany's did before 1918 as well. But, at any rate, this is a year old discussion. What I'm wondering about is the discussion of the last verse. This verse begs God to allow Marshal Wade to defeat the Scottish Jacobite armies. Marshal Wade was fighting the Scottish Jacobite armies in 1745, and was defeated by them and replaced by the Duke of Cumberland (apparently). But yet the article claims that this verse was added later than the song's origins in 1745. That doesn't make any sense - why would they add a verse about a defeated general beaten by an already defeated threat? It seems fairly clear that this verse must have been in the song originally, and to have quickly become obsolete. Anyone know about this? john k 03:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The reason not to include the full lyrics is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of songs, poems, documents, novels or anything else. See: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. There is a sister wiki project, Wikisource, that has been designed precisely for the purpose of hosting primary source material like this. Putting this stuff on Wikipedia not only contradicts its purpose it also creates unnecessary duplication between the two sister projects. I dont think any one is going to be put out by having to click a single extra link to see the full text. Iota 18:07, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The reason for Wikisource's existance is as a repository for lengthy documents that don't belong in full in this project. A hundred or so words as in the lyrics to a national anthem do not need to be solely placed in Wikisource. In the process of removing the lyrics you also removed the link to Marshal George Wade. Thus making the link from that article to this one confusing. The stanza also contains the line "Rebellious Scots to crush" which is of some encyclopaedic interest don't you think? Indeed the article says This support caused the later attachment of a verse, shown last in the list below, which has an anti-Scottish sentiment, and is rarely (if ever) sung nowadays. You thus made this line confusing as the verse was no longer shown. Mintguy (T) 18:23, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mintguy, I agree with you that the whole lyric should be listed here. But did you see my comment above? I'm dubious about the claim that the line about Wade crushing rebellious Scots could possibly be a later addition. Wade was defeated by the rebellious Scots very shortly after the very first performance of the song. It only makes sense that the verse about Wade was an original verse, which very quickly ceased to be sung because Wade himself was a failure. 19:00, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wade wasn't defeated - Chas and co evaded his army on the way south - see Jacobite Rising - it was Cope who got bashed before this version of the song. A UKTVhistory programme claimed the song/tune was originally written for Louis of France and given to the Old Pretender in exile, but I've no other source for this so didn't try to add it. dave souza 07:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian verse footnote call

There's a footnote call with no corresponding footnote on the last line of the English Canadian verse. Anyone knows what the note should be? Also, it's numbered 3, but there seems to be no 2. [User:Valmi|Valmi[User_talk:Valmi| ✒]] 05:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Protocol

Is it worth including a line about protocol in this. I read a while back that there was a muck-up when the queen visited america a few years back and they had it all arranged for her procession to parade in to the national anthem. But of course, she stops to receive the national anthem, which they played til the end, she carries on, they start again, etc. Quite the chaos because the British knew their protocol, and the American protocol was different. I can't find the date of the incident for the life of me though, yet...Graldensblud 01:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambig

I was a little surprised when the article implied that Deutschland Über Alles was based on the tune of God Save the Queen. I had to go listen to both to verify.

They are not the same tune. Deutschland... is a tune by Haydn, inspired, as this article says, by the concept of an anthemn honoring the monarch. I have corrected the sentence in the article that implied, erroneously, that Siegerkranz was the Haydn tune. It was this tune. --StanZegel 04:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Handel and sexual relations with "George I's wife"

This is not in Mme de Créquy or her 19c 'editor'; and if true, needs to be sourced, and put under Handel and, but not here, where it isn't germane. At any rate, I suspect silliness or vandalism. Bill 13:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Verse 2 - vandalism?

Verse 2 (as currently shown) has to be a joke - the words just don't sound right! I'm not quite sure enough of this to delete it though. Can anyone else help? Thoughtcriminal 13:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Line missing?

Verse 2 is correct, which is one reason why it isn't heard very often. A choir director of mine had some fun when he was asked to put together a choir to sing at the university's 25th anniversary celebrations. Asked to include the National Anthem, he suggested that we should sing more than one verse, which was readily agreed to by the relevent authorities who knew less about it than he did - to their slight embarrassment when we actually sang the first three.

There seems to be a line missing from the 'alternative' verse 6 that starts "George is magnanimous". Every copy that I can find online seems to have been taken from this Wikipedia entry, other than three lines that are quoted in a John Buchan novel found at Project Gutenburg. What is the source of this verse, is there even any confirmation that it was really used, and if it's accurate what is the missing line?

Yes, it is certainly missing. I've added a metrical filler in its place, and sent a note to the originator of the edit, asking him to reconstruct it.--StanZegel 05:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The source is Bonnie Prince Charlie, Fitzroy Maclean, Canongate Books Ltd. 1989 ISBN page 142. It shows the "verse" as is, without the missing line, though with the third and last lines inset. Maclean doesn't give his source, there is "A select bibliography" at the end of the book, but nothing obvious....I'll change the formatting and add this source to the article...dave souza 11:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Composer of the tune?

I read this article and was very surprised to see that the composer is identified as Henry Carey. I recollected that the Oxford Companion to Music has a long analysis of the origin of the tune in which it completely dismisses Carey, under a heading of "An American Misattribution of the Tune". I checked and see that Scholes gives a convincing demolition of the Carey claim. He proposes that the attribution should be 'Traditional' or, possibly 'Traditional; earliest known version by John Bull,'. Is there any reliable source to support Carey? Bluewave 11:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Text was added that the tune is of Methodist/Christian origin. This is unsupported by any reference and at odds with the Scholes analysis of the origins. I have deleted this and suggest it should only be reinstated if supported by some evidence. Bluewave 09:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The royal anthem in Norway?

Is this the royal anthem of Norway? Thought it was "Ja, vi elsker dette landet" (Yes, we love this country)?


You are going on about the national anthem of Norway. The article comments upon the similarity between "God Save the Queen" and the Norwegian royal anthem. It's entirely different from the national anthem. Informed Owl (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

[edit] Jerusalem

"There has been some debate about replacing God Save the Queen with Jerusalem, another patriotic song popular in England."

This line is in the opening few paragraphs in the article suggesting this is quite a prominent debate, which to all intents and purposes, it is not. More suggestively however, it implies that Jerusalem would replace God Save The Queen as the national anthem of the United Kingdom, which wouldn't happen since Jerusalem references England alone. While there may be debate to use Jerusalem at sporting events etc. for English teams, it is not a national (UK) debate and I think this line is poorly placed and misleading. --Ayrshire--77 14:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I've moved this line to the "Other UK Anthems" section of the article, under the international football entry. The weak nature of any real debate, which is intended to reserve GSTQ for UK national use rather than subnational (and thus neutralising the "England using the UK national anthem" argument), doesn't justify this statement's prominence in opening paragraphs, particularly without real explanation or supportive evidence. --Ayrshire--77 15:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ycchh!

Who added that awful synthesized voice file at the bottom? It sounds... well, it has synthesized voices, shouldn't that be enough? We should get rid of it.Agent_Koopa 02:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It demonstrates the melody but... That's about it. A simple MIDI file can do that better if a suitible audio file cannot be found. The synthesized voice used currently is simply destracting, and you can't make out what it is saying anyway.DMAJohnson 03:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Removed. There is no justification for those versions being there - they are just terrible, and add *nothing* to the article. If they belong anywhere on WP then it is in an article about speech synths in singing. But here? No, they are just a novelty. 138.37.199.199 10:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] God Save the King

Will this be changed to redirect to God Save the King when/if the Prince of Wales becomes king? Morhange 22:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

One would assume it will be moved to God Save the King, and other similar articles will do the same (Queen's Counsel, for instance). But seeing as the Queen is still alive, it stays here. john k 23:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Send her what?

What does "send her victorious" really mean? I reckon it's along the lines of "make her victorious" or "send her victory" but could someone please substantiate this assumption? Thanks, Maikel 20:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a rather clumsy 'split' sentence. The main meaning is: "Send her to reign over us for a long time", (and keep her victorious, happy and glorious while she is there). I am a native English-speaker, but I agree that this is probably a difficult line to translate. Most British are fond of, but not 'fanatical' about the anthem. Most of us get the third line wrong (and sing "God save OUR Queen"), and of course every two years the English insert an extra fourth line ("Da-da-da-da-da") and change the country's name to 'Enger-land' for a couple of weeks:-) (ChrisR, UK)

[edit] New Zealanders sing God Save the Queen in English but not Maori?

Is it true that when singing God Save the Queen in New Zealand, only English is used? I ask this as as the official information has no Maori lyrics there.--Jusjih 12:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


God Save the Queen is never sung in New Zealand. It is very strange that it has been includeed here. The only New Zealand Anthem is God Defend New Zealand.

Because they are both legally New Zealand's national anthems Ignorantia juris non excusat: "On Monday, 21 November 1977, then Minister of Internal Affairs Hon D A Highet, announced in the New Zealand Gazette 'that the National Anthems of New Zealand shall be the traditional anthem 'God Save The Queen' and the poem 'God Defend New Zealand', written by Thomas Bracken, as set to music by John Joseph Woods, both being of equal status as national anthems appropriate to the occasion'. This action was given with the consent of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II." Brian | (Talk) 10:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of God save the Queen, a French origin

The origin of God save the King/Queen is the song "Grand Dieu sauve le Roi", which words were written by Duchess de Brinon. The melody was written by Lully, to celebrate the Louis XIV's cure in 1686 (a dent problem).

It was translated to latin "Domine, salvum fac regem" and then became the Royal anthem for France until 1792.

When the catholic king of England Jack II of England (Jack VII of Scotland) came to Saint-Germain-en-Laye, after his deposition by his protestant son-in-law William of Orange, he discovered its music. Later, his partisans will arrive in England, singing this anthem in his honnor.

It is after Culloden's battle that permitted to the Stuarts to come back to power that the Hanovre family, victorious, will choose this anthem as a royal anthem for Great Britain.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredjoyb (talk • contribs) 20:30, 26 June 2006

Already covered in History section ...dave souza, talk 20:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Is it really a national anthemn ?

I just read on [[1]] that GOD SAVE THE QUEEN is sung in the United Kingdom as a matter of tradition. It has never been proclaimed the national anthem by an Act of Parliament or a Royal Proclamation. Is that correct (in which case the introduction to this article should be changed?)

I think the article makes it clear that it has been adopted by the nation as a national anthem but that it has never been formerly proclaimed as such by law. There is no reason to prevent a nation adopting a national anthem through common usage, rather than proclamation. Bluewave 16:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to underline that: Britain does not have a written constitution. Most of our constitutional istitutions evolved without Act of Parliament or a Royal Proclamation. There is no statute or constitutional document which says we should have a Prime Minister or a Cabinet, for example. Constitutional status derives primarily from customary practice and national consensus. So while the statement that GSTQ has never been "officially" proclaimed is technically correct, it would be quite misleading to leave the reader with the impression that the National Anthem is therefore in any sense "unofficial". I would therefore like to rephrase this section slightly. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Stating this is 'unofficial' is a bit like calling the office of the Prime Minister of Canada 'unofficial'. --Breadandcheese (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. It has been unchallenged as the de facto national anthem since at least the 1790s. You could argue about the exact version that is the national anthem (but certainly not one that included the Marshall Wade verse: that was abandoned years before it took on national anthem status. Bluewave (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] King?

At the present moment, as Queen Elizabeth II is in reign, I think that it is appropriate that every instance to "King/Queen" should be removed and replaced simply with "Queen". A note at the end explaining that the song is sung with "King" and "his" and "he" when the reigning monarch is male would be sufficient.

The main reason I think this should be done is because the article reads rather clumsily in its present state. It may have originally been written as "God Save The King" but the song is so old now that the details of its creation are now auxiliary to the details of it's use in popular culture.

Similarly, once Charles/William accedes to the throne the article should be changed to the lyrics appropriate for a male monarch and an explanatory note explaining its change of lyrics when a female reigns would be appropriate.

Thoughts?


"God save the King" gets redirected to here, so if/when the crown passes to a king, the redirect can just be switched.

And sign your comments in future! Joevsimp 15:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Not/Nor in/on this land alone" verse - date?

We've got two stories here: this verse is claimed to be one of the original 6 ("Although in the original lyrics, verses 4–6 ...") but later included under " In 1836, William Edward Hickson wrote four alternative verses: ...". Does anyone know the facts?

[edit] Yet another version

I think I saw another version of the National Anthem in a Ulster Free Presbyterian hymnbook with "Frustrate their knavish tricks" replaced by "Frustrate their popish tricks". Would this be worth mentioning anywhere? -- the GREAT Gavini 14:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

| I think it would be worth putting in there somewhere, as it is another perception and historically it would have been somethign that would have been sung alot in Ulster being the Protestant part of Ireland, now called Northern Ireland. Tony 10/10/06 8:41 BST

I had always thought that "popish tricks" was an old version (rather than a Free P version) and a quick google search came up with this: "...slight amendment... made at the request of King George V. He asked that the line 'Frustrate their popish tricks' should be changed to 'Frustrate their knavish tricks'." http://www.stgeorgesnews.org/2005/04f05.htm Jonathan3 21:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bold

Is there any need for the song title to be in bold throughout? That isn't a standard practice. Biruitorul 01:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Vilĉjo 16:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Same as "America"

In the text, it notes U.S. song "My Country 'tis of thee" is different words to the same tune - which is true. But the it states that "America" (Oh! beautiful for spacious skies/ for amber waves of grain) is also sung to the same verse - which is clearly NOT true. I am a novice at wikipedia, but took the liberty of editing this out. (now where is the damn tilda ?)Lorenzo10 01:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That's good, you took it out fine. As for the tilde, it is above the Tab key and next to the 1. You will have to press shift in order for the tilde to work. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, besides the Samuel Francis Smith-written "America", there are other songs that are sung to the tune of "God Save the Queen", like The Prayer of the Russians. Heck, even there were several old American songs of the mid-to-late 18th century that are (or were) also sung to the tune of "God Save the Queen", like:

- "God Save George Washington" - "God Save America" (not to be confused with the Irving Berlin-composed God Bless America) - "God Save the Thirteen States"

Fascinating, isn't it? Don-Don (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verse about the Scots

I have made several edits today including some changes to what the article says about the verse regarding the crushing of the Scots. This verse appears to have been very short-lived (it wasn't in the published 1745 version and had become an almost-forgotten curiosity by 1836) and I have found a couple of references to support that. I noticed that Alistair McConnachie issued a challenge in 1999 in the letters pages of The Herald for anybody to show him printed evidence in a programme from an official function anywhere in the world, in the last 250 years, which proved that this "rebellious Scots" verse had ever been sung. He says "I'm still waiting, and I don't expect to be surprised anytime soon." Bluewave 16:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now made some bolder changes, including trimming some of the lyrics section. This article was perpetuating a version of the song which is reproduced on lots of internet sites but is grossly misleading. For example, it implied an accepted numbering of verses (which there isn't) and gave a strange ordering of verses. For example, it listed the Marshal Wade verse as "verse 6" and "Not in this land alone" as "verse 4". The problem with this is that "Not (actually Nor) in this land alone" was written in 1836, by which stage, the Marshal Wade verse had been almost forgotten, so that numbering seems wierd. It certainly seems best not to perpetuate this misleading listing of verses (hence my edits). Bluewave 17:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I've included the motive for the writing of this verse- 'the Scots' were Jacobites, not the Scottish nation, and although more Scots actually fought on the Hanoverian side than the Jacobite side, it has continually been misinterpreted as being anti-Scottish. Perhaps the real culprit of the piece was the poor lyricist in the first instance. --Stevouk 10:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Alistair McConnachie is a nobody and certainly doesnt deserve a mention on wikipedia -CM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.119.109 (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1545

I came across this while looking for something else:

But three other events of this same year [1545],... And, thirdly, the words of the National Anthem were, so to say, born on board the Portsmouth fleet, where the “Sailing Orders” ended thus:—­“The Watchword in the Night shall be, ‘God save King Henrye!’ The other shall answer, ’Long to raign over Us!’”(William Wood (historian) (1919) Flag and Fleet How the British Navy Won the Freedom of the Seas)

Might be worth a footnote in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the section on the history of the words, it does say Scholes says that as early as 1545 "God save the King" was a watchword of the Royal Navy, with the response being "Long to reign over us". It looks like you may have found the source that Scholes was quoting! Bluewave 15:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Films etc

I have grouped the references to films etc under a new heading of cultural references. I'm not really sure about these: listing every time the song appears in a film would not add to the article! I am not sure what is notable about these particular examples. (And the one from west Side Story is probably not even this song really.) Bluewave 12:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I've got a feeling....

....that the final half of the third verse of William Hixton's alternate version of "God Save the Queen" used a little bit of a reference to the Francis Scott Key poem The Defense of Fort McHenry, which was later reworked as a song that's also the official national anthem of the United States of America: The Star-Spangled Banner, which borrowed its tune from the British drinking song To Anacreon in Heaven. Of course, the first verse of "God Save the Queen" ("God save our gracious Queen....) is, in my honest opinion, more easier to sing than any verse of any national anthem, especially "The Star-Spangled Banner". Can't wait to hear a little less of "SSB" and lots more of "GSTQ" when I'm heading to the United Kingdom to spend two years at a music school in Leeds. Don-Don (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] X Japan cover

I am pretty sure this is a cover of the Sex Pistols' song and not a cover of the British national anthem. If so, I don't think it qualifies for a place in the current article...and I'll delete it. If I am mistaken, please correct! Bluewave 16:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] grammar: singular / plural confusion ?

1st para - "The melody is also used... and were used " ?? Oniscoid 12:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lyrics - should they be here?

Someone has added a template proposing the move of the lyrics to Wikisource. I understand the logic for this but am not sure that it would improve the article. The article includes quite a bit of discussion about the lyrics, the different versions of the song and the attempts by various lyricists to improve the song, and I think it is helpful to have the lyrics present on the page to support that discussion. Also, other articles on similar topics (eg The Star-Spangled Banner) reproduce the lyrics in the article, so it is not out of line with other articles. Any views? Bluewave 08:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Move most of them except the official version to Wikisource. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about the cultural references section?

I suggest the cultural references section should be deleted.

  • In the Broadway musical West Side Story... the Sharks are most likely whistling "My Country, 'Tis of Thee", not "God Save the Queen".
  • In the Nazi propaganda film Titanic... is it really notable that the band plays it?
  • In many Squareenix games there's a weapon named Save the Queen... but has this got any connection with the song?
  • In the film, Gandhi leads the singing of "God Save the King"... again is it really notable?
  • In "Bridge on the River Kwai", PoWs sing the anthem... again not notable. Not mentioned in the Wikipedia article about the film. Not so memorable os the PoWs whistling the tune of "Hitler has only got one ball"!
  • On The Ren & Stimpy Show the anthem of the Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen has the same tune... not notable enough to be mentioned inthe Ren & Stimpy article.
  • The Scarlet Pimpernel sings the song several times... but surely this is not an important and notable part of the novel?

Anyone care to make a case for keeping these? Bluewave 17:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hixton version

The Hixton version reports to provide his version which was published in 1836. If so, why does it refer to a female monarch? Obviously, when Hixton was writing, the monarch was a King, William IV. If this is Hixton's version, we shouldn't be changing all the genders. john k 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Anthem - Australia

The Article on Australia refuses to have the Royal Anthem on its infobox, which is inconsistant with most other articles about Commonwealth Realms. Instead the consensus on the talk page opts for a small mention as a footnote. If anyone else finds this inadequate then I draw your attention to Talk:Australia#Royal_Anthem_2 Thank you. Biofoundationsoflanguage 09:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Damn non-conformism colonists! We should send them to a continent gaol on the other side of the world as punishment for their arrogance! WikiTownsvillian 12:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Sad that serious discussion is sidetracked like this. I'd like to see GSTQ listed on the infobox of every nation where it is used as a national or royal anthem. Australia is out of step with our other articles on Commonwealth nations. --Pete 23:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Skyring, I am not sure why you are playing ignorant, as if you are asking these questions for the first time. It was discussed over and over, and you were blocked for canvassing opinion on pages such as this one. All this ground has been covered before. Do you actually have anything new to add? --Merbabu 22:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
If you can't address the point I make, instead choosing to be offensive, then you might like to find another place to play. --Pete 00:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
My post was to point out that your points have been addressed. I thought it was fairly clear. I don't know why you'd chose to take offence at that, or ironically follow it up by 'find another place to play'. --Merbabu 02:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
If you don't understand why your non-contributions above are counter-productive, then I can't really help you. --Pete 03:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Australia. --Merbabu 23:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Lot of stuff there about population figures and official language, perhaps you could be more specific? I know what you are trying to do, but again you miss the point. Deliberately, in my view. We've moved forward and are talking about wiki-wide questions here, not local opinions. If you want to argue against consistency in this context, then please present your case. I can't see any reason why Australia should have a different presentation to articles on other Commonwealth nations in the exact same circumstances, such as Canada, among several others. --Pete 01:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
No, you've got around the wrong way. You should establish that there is consistency. Simply cos country (a) has it, why should country (b) have it - and that should be established on Talk:Australia. WHich is why I've already said (a) we've covered this exact same point, and (b) pointed you towards Talk:Australia. Please try and be more collaborative and to the point. Not by canvassing other pages for more favourable opinion. Please take your discussion to Talk:Australia, not here. --Merbabu 03:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I have it exactly right, thank you very much. Conducting discussions on a class of articles should be done at a level high enough to include all members of the class. That's common sense. It is also common courtesy, allowing all interested parties to discuss the issue. --Pete 03:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Template_talk:Infobox_Country#Anthems, Talk:Commonwealth_of_Nations#Royal_Anthems, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#National_and_royal_anthems and of course A u s tr a l i a, you think this discussion hasn't already been brought to enough people's attention? WikiTownsvillian 04:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess it comes down to what's considered pertinent for the infobox; in Canada the Royal Union Flag remains an official flag, but it is not, as such, included in the infobox on Canada.
The one thing I do question about the edits at Australia regarding the Royal Anthem is the claim that it is played only in the presence of a member of the Royal Family. There is no source to back up such a statement. --G2bambino 00:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Canada - and several other Commonwealth nations - have GSTQ in the infobox as the Royal Anthem. I can't see any reason why we should treat Australia differently. --Pete 03:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, no, neither can I. Reading through the discussion at Talk:Australia, it seems most are arguing for it's exclusion because the infobox is only to deal with the most basic information, showing only the national flag, the national anthem, the national arms, etc. God Save the Queen may not be the national anthem, but it seems to me that it was decreed to be an anthem that applies nationally - it is the Royal Anthem all across Australia, and always so, not just when a member of the Royal Famliy is present.
Additionally, as for precedent, not all articles on countries that are monarchies list a royal anthem; whether this is because there actually isn't one I don't know. Of the Commonwealth Realms, currently Australia, Barbados, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines do not list a royal anthem in the infobox. Non-Commonwealth Realm monarchies that do have a royal anthem in the infobox include Sweden, Norway, and perhaps Spain - the national anthem is Marcha Real, or Royal March.
Perhaps this is something that should be brought up as a Wiki-wide policy. In fact, a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries shows no provision even for the national anthem to be included in the infobox. Maybe your concerns should be raised there. I would follow along, of course. --G2bambino 20:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I took the initiative to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#National and royal anthems. --G2bambino 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You have my support in this. I'd like to see some uniformity in the way we treat anthems, so that readers can expect consistency across articles. --Pete 03:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Louis XIV's anal fistula

A very amusing anecdote indeed, but the link doesn't really explain the whole fistula business unless you have access to the full article text. Does note 4 actually cover this fact or not?

Peter Isotalo 15:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess the reference should really be to the original article rather than a pay-per-view version of it. Like any reference to a printed source, we either have to accept the reference or check the source. Bluewave 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Ahem... *cough* I could produce a rather lengthy rant about how common it is for users to refuse to check anything printed before smearing fact-tags all over articles, but I'll try to keep my behavior consistent here. However, this particular example is a bit more serious because it includes references to an anecdote that the article claims isn't true. Considering how obviously comical and prejudiced it appears to be, there's reason to suspect that it might not be appropriate content.
Peter Isotalo 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I just re-read the section and I would agree that it certainly is a bit misleading at present. Scholes refers to the widespread belief that the tune was written by Lully: he doen't say anything about the anal fistula (although the current text implies the widespread belief in this too). Maybe we ought to remove the 2nd half of that sentence until someone can come up with a less misleading wording and clearer citation. Bluewave 17:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd say I'm rather forgiving when it comes to informing about popular myths as long as they're properly refuted, but I know most others are not. If anything can be said in its defense, it's a very uplifting statement. :-)
Peter Isotalo 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be great if there was some serious evidence that the origin of the song was "God save the King's arse" but, sadly, I doubt if it's true. Bluewave 08:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Patricia Ranum only writes that Lully composed "Domine, Salvum Fac Regem" for the healing of Louis XIV anal fistula (or if you prefer His Majesty Royal Fistula). The question is  : is this song at the origin of God Save the Queen/King. I don't think so (compare sheet papers), but the fact that it is a popular belief in France is the truth. Nevers

[edit] Origins / Other Anthems on the same tune

The article doesn't seem to mention that the God Save The Queen tune was the Swiss national anthem 'til the crowning of Queen Elizabeth II. The tune also most certainly originates in the medieval ages (cf. the very similar genevan anthem "ce qu'ê l'aînô.

[edit] Reorganization

I undertook a reorganization of the article to put things in a coherent order, remove duplicate information, and generally to make it adhere to WP:STYLE. The result was as follows: [2]. This does not remove any relevant or non-repeated information, but merely reorganizes it. User:TharkunColl has, as usual, brutishly reverted without valid reasoning, though eventually requested I discuss the change. Discussion is now open. --G2bambino 23:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why you keep on using the word "brutishly" to describe my attemps to clean up your POV? TharkunColl 23:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Is this what you wanted to start a discussion about? --G2bambino 23:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You made radical changes to the article without starting a discussion. This makes you a hypocrite. And your strange liking for the word "brutish" may, just possibly, make you something far worse. TharkunColl 23:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Moving content around is not a radical change - nothing was added, only what was repeated was removed. Again, is there an actual reason you wanted this discussion initiated? --G2bambino 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of arguing with you? Please answer my previous question. TharkunColl 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure. You're the one who asked for a discussion to be initiated about the edits to the article, and it was. You now, seemingly, don't want to discuss the edits to the article. --G2bambino 23:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's a request to both of you - Stop edit warring, it will get the page locked. GoodDay 23:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of what organization you two are doing, this is complete madness. I didn't see much POV in the article in either version, but good use of the citations. Anyways, I have begun to upload recordings to Wikipedia from a PD collection that I have. So this means any websites to mp3 versions will most likely have to be removed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please summarise the main changes that you want to make to improve the article and why they are needed. Perhaps that will help focus the discussion. Thanks. Bluewave 06:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I summarised them above: put things in a coherent order, remove duplicate information, and generally to make it adhere to WP:STYLE. This means I merged Commonwealth-specific information into a large section with the country-specific information as subsections, and then alternate uses outside the Commonwealth in another section, etc., etc. In fact, what I specifically did - though it was by no means perfect (it wasn't allowed to sit long enough to be refined) - is here.
I suspect, though, that as TharkunColl does not seem to have any actual specific concerns about the reorganization - at least, none he's expressed in this discussion he requested be started - there isn't much of a discussion to focus. --G2bambino 14:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I had a look at your proposed version and couldn't easily tell how it was better than the previous version. One thing that immediately struck me was the opening sentence which seems weaker than that in the current article: "God Save the King/Queen is a song with unkown origins that has evolved to presently serve various functions throughout different countries." This doesn't really help establish the notability of the song. Also I'm not sure why the tune, lyrics and performance sections are sub-sections of its use in the Commonwealth. I would argue that lyrics, tune and performance are what makes up the song, and deserve to be main headings. I'm not opposing a reorganization, just trying to verify whether the current proposal is going to improve the article. Bluewave 15:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Per your first comment: Certainly, the reworked intro may well be poorly worded. As I said, what I did was hardly perfect; it was really actually just a start.
Per your second comment: The way the article is presently worded it seems as though the tune originated in England - part of the UK, which is part of the Commonwealth - and the different versions of lyrics seem specific to different countries - i.e. there are numerous versions in the UK, a different one in Canada, etc. Thus, I organized the lyrics to be country-specific. Currently, information on the original lyrics is duplicated. --G2bambino 15:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The recent edits have, I think, tried to give GStQ a more "world-view emphasis". I suggest that this rather misses the point that the queen in the title is Queen Elizabeth II. Hence, it seems odd that the opening sentence doesn't mention this or the British origins of the song (although it does mention a "republican context" - which seems bizarre for GStQ). Yes, there have been adaptations of the song, with different words, like "My Country, Tis of Thee" (which has its own article), but that is not the main point of notability of the song. Unfortunately I don't have time over the next couple of weeks to do a thorough review of the article, but hope that others may do so. Bluewave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluewave (talk • contribs) 09:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The queen being referred to in "God Save the Queen" is only Elizabeth II in countries where Elizabeth II is sovereign. Plus, a tune used around the world - though not necessarily with the same lyrics - has to be looked at from a world-viewpoint right off the bat. I've tried to give an emphasis to its English origins and current British use in the opening paragraph. Beyond that, I don't see why the lengthy sections on the use of the song in the UK aren't sufficient to show that the song is predominantly associated with Britain.
As for the rest of the article, I didn't touch the text written by others; I merely moved it all so that relevant pieces were collected together under appropriate headings and there was no repetition. --G2bambino 15:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Songs which are based on the tune but adapted for a different King/Queen (or no monarch at all) generally have their own articles and don't need to be treated equally in this article. Origin is not English but British (eg unproven whether it was originally a pro-Hanoverian or pro-Jacobite song!) Bluewave 15:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, by all means, please correct any mistakes I've made. However, the song - even with the same, or similar, lyrics - currently acts as an anthem outside the UK. Thus, a world-view in the opening still seems to be in order. --G2bambino 15:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] God Save the King x2

I have been redirected here for discussion over the issue of the official name of the song. From evidence gathered including official UK Governmnet records [[3]] and from prior knowledge, The official name for the Anthem of the United Kingdom and therefore extended to the Commonwealth of Nations as the "Royal Anthem" is "God save the King" and not "God save the Queen" as stated on Wikipedia.

Although the words King/Queen are replaced depending on the gender of the Monarch of the Commonwealth within the song, the actual name for the song remains "God save the King". Although a minor issue, it can make a big difference, if asked in Great Britain what the Nations flag is called, most people will reply "The Union Jack" although the official name is "The Union Flag" although minor I would like a full investigation into the official name of the Anthem.


As pointed out to me by another user, it is quite possible that each Nation in the Commonwealth may well have seperatly changed the official name. However in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all Dependancies, the officail name still remains "God Save the King" Sammy Jay 00:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

By all means, change the article title to God save the King. It's not that big a issue. GoodDay 14:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The "official UK government records" are a single website, and one that speaks specifically about "God Save the King" being used as the national anthem of the UK, and in the context of the early 19th century, when there was indeed a male sovereign on the throne. Thus, I don't think we can rely on this singular source for absolute verification. --G2bambino 15:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
There's lot of ways to do this: 1)Leave article as is, until the Queen passes on; 2)Change to God Save the King, which would simply require -redirects- for Canada & other commonwealth realms where required and 3)Changed to God Save the Queen (King), then upon Queen's death (and assuming she's succeeded by a male) reverse to God Save the King (Queen). GoodDay 17:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use in New Zealand

Surely New Zealand should not have it listed as a National Anthem, as New Zealand adopted "God Defend New Zealand" as the National Anthem. Yes it is used for royal occasions, but it should only be listed as royal, not as national. Drkshadowmaster Contributions Talk Page 01:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand has two national anthems. --G2bambino (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Poster

Is that recruiting poster really WW1? I thought air raids were only an issue in WW2. --Doric Loon (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The source says it's from WWI; created in 1915. --G2bambino (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It shows a Zeppelin raid. That was WWI technology. There were air raids in WWI (and considerable public fear of their potential, which the poster is playing on). Bluewave (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welsh anthem not official

The section Other United Kingdom anthems states that the welsh anthem, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, is official. The article on it says that it is traditional but has no official status; this is what (as a brit) I have understood for some time. If the situation has changed, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau should be edited as such. If not, as I expect is the case, "official" in this article's description should be changed to "traditional". In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I propose to make that change. SamBC(talk) 14:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)