Some of the keenest defenders of God Save the King barely defended the song. The most-respected No case came from an atheist who finds “a bit of a dirge” and calling on God “a bit daft”, yet would not change it. Keeping the anthem won comfortably.
That was the shape of the No case: tradition over taste. Another top-rated voice argued anthems “just should not be touched”, warning of a Pandora's box over how often to change one. The leading No argument framed it as continuity, the Crown and a shared inheritance. A harder edge appeared too, with one voter sick of “lefties who hate our country and its history”.
Yes voters argued mostly about the music and the words. “It's a terrible slow dirge”, said one in the most-respected Yes argument, which insisted this had nothing to do with politics. Others went after the lyrics, one calling “Send him victorious, long to reign over us” the language of servants. Republicans were there, but so was one voter who said they were not anti-Royalty and still found the anthem out of date.
On replacements, Yes voters had answers where one No voter asked “To what?”. Jerusalem, Land of Hope and Glory and I Vow To Thee, My Country all got names. The other most-respected Yes idea was a split: God Save the King for the UK, and Jerusalem for England. Even some No voters wanted England to have its own anthem.
The argument ran on whether an anthem is a tune to be judged or an heirloom to be kept.
71 Opinions
Anthems, monuments and other long standing ceremonial artefacts just should not be touched. Their power is in their longevity and in reminding us of our shared history. Changing it opens a Pandora’s box (how often do you change it?) and detaches the society from its roots
As an atheist, I find calling on God to save anyone a bit daft. A large section of the country does not believe in a sky fairy, or does not pray to the same god. I also find the song a bit of a dirge personally. But it's tradition and I wouldn't change it just for the sake of changing it. I am suspicious about the motivations for a call to change it.
No. Keep God Save the King. Our national anthem is part of the history, continuity and constitutional identity of the United Kingdom. I want to see our civilisation, traditions and culture survive, not have another piece of our inheritance discarded in the name of modernisation. The Crown has endured through generations of change, and the anthem reflects that shared history. We should be passing these traditions on, not replacing them every time fashions change.
This was nothing to do with politics, it's a terrible slow dirge. Okay the words are bad as well.
Why is this even being discussed?
God Save the King/Queen for the United Kingdom and for Great Britain. But Jerusalem for England.
No. Just go away. This is one of the usual favourites for lefties who hate our country and its history. They change the school curriculum, take heroes off bank notes, want to change the anthem to something more ‘inclusive’. Just do one, I’m sick of this nonsense.
It’s embarrassingly bad. Land of Hope and glory or Jerusalem please stuff the king
The national anthem is servile and embarrassing. "Send him victorious, long to reign over us" the language of servants, get rid.
As someone who is completely ambivalent about both the royals and religion, I don't believe we should change it. You need a hell of a good reason to completely change tradition and identity, and a basically-undecided survey of a few thousand people from a biased sample isn't nearly good enough. We also know that Scotland and Wales aren't going to change theirs for our benefit, either, so why? No thanks. Come up with a better reason and I'd be inclined to say yes.