[BaggieSteve]

Can I say to talkSAFT that I wasn't scoffing at your comment on the cancellation of Rule Britannia. I was assuming that's what it was - you didn't say in your post what had triggered your comments - and I was just smiling at that assumption.

i'd also say that it's not been cancelled, it just isn't being sung due to the lack of an audience and the requirements for social distancing - i'm sure it will return as a mass sing song when the LNotP returns to normal. They will still play it and I'm sure all those who want to will sing at home.

Having said all that, I'd personally be delighted if it never saw the light of day again. It was written in the 1760s, it bore no relation whatsoever to the armed forces when it was written (it has closer links to the Revolution of 1688 and the following year's Bill of Rights than it does to the military) and bears absolutely none now. Likewise, let's ditch Land of Hope and Glory, it's just a load of jingoistic tosh - Elgar thought the Pomp and Circumstance March was one of the most beautiful pieces he had written but hated the words that Benson added. I have as much love for my country as the next person but I just don't want to express that through words written 200+ and 100+ years ago when it was a different time, different challenges and, in all honesty, different values. I like the idea of looking forward - however the future appears - rather than looking back to some perceived golden age, which, truth be told, wasn't all that glorious.

I know a lot of fellow Baggies on this site will strongly disagree with what I've written - that's OK. Let's face it, it would be pretty crap if we all thought the same, and also extremely surprising as we are a cross section of society united by one thing - the Baggies. I'd also hate anyone to think that I'm some young idealist spouting these views - I'm a 65+ old fella, a lifelong abolitionist of the monarchy, a "leftie", and, in case I'm accused of having no love of tradition due to the comments above, I'm just completing a postgrad History degree on, ironically, the Victorians. More importantly, I'm a lifelong Baggie.

And, as importantly, have we signed anyone yet??

[Ska'dForLife-WBA]

It was written in the 1760s, it bore no relation whatsoever to the armed forces when it was written (it has closer links to the Revolution of 1688 and the following year's Bill of Rights than it does to the military) and bears absolutely none now.

1740s, not 1760s. It *did* bear some relation to the armed forces, as it was written for a masque about King Alfred's navy repelling a Viking invasion, and presented a deliberate parallel between that conflict and the ongoing War of Jenkin's Ear, with Alfred a proxy for the German-born but highly Anglophilic Prince of Wales, who'd commissioned both the masque and the song to big himself up as a potential future king.

The Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights were thrown into the mix more as a result of its adoption by the anti-Walpole Patriot Whigs, and when the Jacobites had another crack at the throne in '45, its themes of constitutionalism over absolutism were cemented in.

Honestly, I haven't sung it myself since I was a kid, but there's nothing remotely objectionable about it, it doesn't do anyone any harm whatsoever, so people who enjoy it should have every chance to.

[Devongone]

A Baggie quoting Elgar (a Wolves fan), now I've heard it all.

People love I Vow to thee My Country too - Holst with saccharin sentiment stirred in..

[Dingle-Dingle]

Whilst we are about it, can we ban Amazing Grace so loved by the BLM movement. It was written by a slave trader after he was shipwrecked off the coast of Ireland and then rescued (His cargo was not saved). He wrote it to thank God for saving him.

DD

[BaggieSteve]

It was written in the 1760s, it bore no relation whatsoever to the armed forces when it was written (it has closer links to the Revolution of 1688 and the following year's Bill of Rights than it does to the military) and bears absolutely none now.

1740s, not 1760s.  It *did* bear some relation to the armed forces, as it was written for a masque about King Alfred's navy repelling a Viking invasion, and presented a deliberate parallel between that conflict and the ongoing War of Jenkin's Ear, with Alfred a proxy for the German-born but highly Anglophilic Prince of Wales, who'd commissioned both the masque and the song to big himself up as a potential future king.

The Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights were thrown into the mix more as a result of its adoption by the anti-Walpole Patriot Whigs, and when the Jacobites had another crack at the throne in '45, its themes of constitutionalism over absolutism were cemented in.

Honestly, I haven't sung it myself since I was a kid, but there's nothing remotely objectionable about it, it doesn't do anyone any harm whatsoever, so people who enjoy it should have every chance to.

Ska'd, you're quite right it was the 1740s - I'm afraid my typing is as hopeless as ever. I think the argument over its meaning will never be resolved; as you rightly say it was written, in effect, for George II's son to big himself up by linking him to Britain's growing naval dominance. I personally don't believe, however, that the song is a paean to the sailors of Britain's navy, which was sort of the point I was trying to make about it not being linked to the armed forces, but rather to British might and the 'glorious' Prince of Wales.

Although I personally don't like it, I have no issue if others do. I take the same approach with religion and the monarchy...each to their own.

---

A Baggie quoting Elgar (a Wolves fan), now I've heard it all.

People love I Vow to thee My Country too - Holst with saccharin sentiment stirred in..

It gets worse, I listen to Led Zeppelin as well

---

Whilst we are about it, can we ban Amazing Grace so loved by the BLM movement. It was written by a slave trader after he was shipwrecked off the coast of Ireland and then rescued (His cargo was not saved). He wrote it to thank God for saving him.

DD    

I wasn't aware anyone has banned anything

[drewks]

What I object to is having other people's opinions forced on me. This is happening more and more.

I see now that good old Radio 2 is having some sort of a Black Music programme.

Would they like to balance things up with a White Music programme sometime?
Shock, horror, heaven forbid.

---

(Wowza - this thread has struck a chord or 2!!)

[Ska'dForLife-WBA]

It was written in the 1760s, it bore no relation whatsoever to the armed forces when it was written (it has closer links to the Revolution of 1688 and the following year's Bill of Rights than it does to the military) and bears absolutely none now.

1740s, not 1760s.  It *did* bear some relation to the armed forces, as it was written for a masque about King Alfred's navy repelling a Viking invasion, and presented a deliberate parallel between that conflict and the ongoing War of Jenkin's Ear, with Alfred a proxy for the German-born but highly Anglophilic Prince of Wales, who'd commissioned both the masque and the song to big himself up as a potential future king.

The Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights were thrown into the mix more as a result of its adoption by the anti-Walpole Patriot Whigs, and when the Jacobites had another crack at the throne in '45, its themes of constitutionalism over absolutism were cemented in.

Honestly, I haven't sung it myself since I was a kid, but there's nothing remotely objectionable about it, it doesn't do anyone any harm whatsoever, so people who enjoy it should have every chance to.

Ska'd, you're quite right it was the 1740s - I'm afraid my typing is as hopeless as ever. I think the argument over its meaning will never be resolved; as you rightly say it was written, in effect, for George II's son to big himself up by linking him to Britain's growing naval dominance. I personally don't believe, however, that the song is a paean to the sailors of Britain's navy, which was sort of the point I was trying to make about it not being linked to the armed forces, but rather to British might and the 'glorious' Prince of Wales.

Yeah, it's Heart Of Oak that explicitly praises the sailors of the Navy. But the thing with Rule Britannia - and one of the reasons for its longevity - is that different people have brought their own meanings and interpretations to it over time. For instance, as I wrote above, in the space of five years it quickly evolved from Frederick's personal anthem claiming credit for the victory at Porto Bello whilst thumbing his nose at the old man and his German ways, to the Patriot Whigs' exhortation for Britain to remain ready to face the twin threats of France and Spain, to a general celebration of Hanoverian constitutional monarchy over Stuart absolute monarchy. But by the 1780s, the "never never never" line was being used by abolitionists as a rhetorical tool to highlight the hypocrisy of praising British freedom while slave-catchers still advertised their services openly in newspapers. In the context of the abolition debate, Rule Britannia was framed as an ideal to live up to: its words would be meaningless until the principle of freedom it espoused applied to all men. And once slavery was abolished and the Royal Navy was leading the global fight against it, Victorians were able to bring an extra note of moral triumph to the party.

Some songs will always be prisoners of their origins. A World War Two ditty like "We're Gonna Have To Slap The Dirty Little Jap", for example, was (thankfully) never going to have a shelf life beyond August 1945, and you'd struggle to impart any deeper meaning to its lyrics other than a sincere lust for indiscriminate violence against people of a yellow persuasion. With that in mind, it's astonishing to reflect that a song with such a narrow initial purpose as Rule Britannia, written nearly 300 years ago, should have touched an ongoing chord with people in the way it has.

[Salopbaggie]

I know this will probably not be a popular contribution, however there seems to be IMO a bit of slightly inaccurate info here.

As I understand it, it is not the BBC who have stopped funding licenses for the over 75's, it is the government by expecting the BBC to pick up the bill for what was a government policy.  Labour brought in the free TV license for the over 75's in November 2000, along with the funding to pay for it.  Needless to say the Conservatives did not like it and George Osbourne in 2015/16 said they were no longer going to fund it and gave a couple of years notice of their intention to stop.  Lets not forget that Boris before the last election campaigned on the promise of "making sure the elderly do not lose the ability to access the BBC for free."

It should also be noted that those over 75's who are in receipt of pension credit will continue to receive a free licence., e.g. pensioners whose only income is the basic state pension and the top up from Pension Credit.

You can even have a small private pension as well and still be eligible for Pension Credit, (you can check online if you are eligible for pension credit by going to this address (remove the space)
https://www.gov .uk/pension-credit/eligibility.)

It is only those whose income is more than the amount which would not qualify for Pension Credit who will have to pay.  Of course this may hurt some people who are just over the pension credit limit.  This may be more an argument to get rid of the licence fee altogether, but it is also hard to justify how a family of 4 or 5 with a single minimum wage income, should have to pay for a licence, when the Queen with all her millions would not, purely based on her age.

We also have to ask why is it the BBC who are for all intense and purpose 'now' a private company, are expected to provide their services for free.  Why is there is no outcry demanding British Telecom provide their services for free for the over 75's.  Incidentally it will not be to many years before I am a member of this very prestigious club.  Please don't beat me up to badly.

---

What I object to is having other people's opinions forced on me. This is happening more and more.

I see now that good old Radio 2 is having some sort of a Black Music programme.

Would they like to balance things up with a White Music programme sometime?
Shock, horror, heaven forbid.

---

(Wowza - this thread has struck a chord or 2!!)

I think you are referring to the planned 'I Have A Dream Day' on Radio 2 which is one special days programming to commemorate the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s iconic speech on 28 August.

[drewks]

Yes I think it is, Salopbaggie.
I admire MLK and all he stood for too, but the point I am making is that the BBC, or any other organisation in the UK for that matter, would NEVER be thinking of holding a "White Only" anything!

[Arcane Astral Aeons]

Yes I think it is, Salopbaggie.
I admire MLK and all he stood for too, but the point I am making is that the BBC, or any other organisation in the UK for that matter, would NEVER be thinking of holding a "White Only" anything!

MLK was influential back in the 60`s and respect to him for what he stood up for
however times have changed  and without wanting to be accused of racism  this BLM protests really are pissing me off
i do not agree with racism in any way shape or form....but playing this "i am a victim of racial profiling " is to be blunt becoming a tad tedious
as has been mentioned in previous posts  are we now becoming afraid of black people playing the "race card"
bloody country is in turmoil we could do without all this