by William French
As Rafael Nadal basks in his second Wimbledon triumph and la furia roja prepare for their World Cup semi-final against Germany, one could expect Spanish sports fans to be lustily belting out their national anthem in triumph. Except, of course, for one small detail – La marcha real does not have any words. The former Francoist lyrics were deemed unsuitable after Spain’s democratic renewal in the late 1970s and although the same tune was kept, the Spanish national anthem remains without words to this day.
National anthems reveal much about a country’s sense of self and how it wishes to be projected to the wider world. Spain has opted for a model which combines continuity and compromise, and which itself could be seen as symptomatic of a country where the notion of one single unifying national identity is hotly contested.
One of the delights of the World Cup even for a non-football fan is listening to the whole range of anthems and how they influence fans and players alike. Few can fail to be moved by the revolutionary chorus of La Marseillaise, even if ideas of egalité and fraternité were not hugely in evidence amongst ‘les bleus’ on the pitch. Similarly, there can be no better example of South Africa’s post-apartheid reinvention as a “Rainbow Nation” than its new national anthem which fuses the stirring ANC standard Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika with the old Boer hymn Die Stem van Suid-Afrika in a gesture of deft inclusiveness and magnanimity.
What then of England? It would be going too far to blame their disastrous World Cup on having to sing God Save the Queen before every game, but certain parallels do suggest themselves: anachronistic, boastful and ill-suited for the modern world. Just as the lumpen performances of Terry, Lampard, Rooney et al showed the lack of confidence and cohesion in Capello’s team, so our royalist anthem reveals a warped self-image which obscures the dynamism and vibrant flair we see around us every day.
For while other anthems celebrate defining moments of shared national experience, Britain – and particularly England – remain in hoc to an eighteenth century invocation of the divine right of monarchy. The “ties that bind” in this case are those which continue to fix the Royal Family at the apex of the British class system, still commanding a degree of respect, deference and indulgence from the rest of the country which ought to offend every democratic sensibility.
The pernicious influence of the monarchy runs much deeper than just the tawdry soap opera of the Windsor family. Ultimately the individual personalities and characteristics of this family are irrelevant; it is the institution they literally embody which is a constant affront to modernity and an insidious promoter of a deeply conservative ideology. The great 19th century poet and radical Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote that “monarchy is only the string which ties the robber’s bundle” and the metaphor still holds today.
If and when Prince Charles does become King it should not be his views on architecture, science or education that should cause us greatest concern (destructive and ignorant as they are). Rather it is the fact that he will be upholding a tradition that places one family above all the other millions of families in this country by dint of blood, that rewards privilege and inherited wealth over independence and innovation, and that condemns the country to be forever looking back to an imperial past rather than building a better future for all.
Of course, changing a song sung before a football game will never answer all these complex issues, let alone resolve the debate on how to devise an inclusive republican alternative. But it can lead to some very simple yet profound questions being asked. Who are we singing for? What does our country mean to us? What do we look and sound like to the rest of the world?
And even if we agree on answers to these questions, we are then faced with one pressing, practical choice: what should we sing instead? The Scots and Welsh already have Flower of Scotland and Land of my Fathers for the sporting arena. For the England fan too, there is a clear alternative; the poetic, stirring and well-loved Jerusalem. Blake’s haunting verse combines with Parry’s solid English tune to form a true national anthem that more than holds its own against our peers.
But what of Britain? If we are to move away from an archaic vision of Queen and Country, pomp and circumstance, we need an anthem that truly represents all those aspects of modern life that make Britain great – multiculturalism, music, creativity, fashion, an ability to laugh at ourselves, and irony. We need an anthem that celebrates all parts and peoples of this country, not just one German-Greek family, but which doesn’t reject all the tradition and heritage which continues to inform our current identity, however obliquely.
I once read an interview with Mark E. Smith of the Fall when he talked about meeting Dutch fans who had listened to his band on Radio 1’s Peel Sessions and kept wanting to know more about the minutiae of his lyrics – such as “what does ‘mithering’ mean?”. To me that sums up the glorious richness of British cultural life, its strong regional identity, linguistic diversity yet also its ability to appeal to people way beyond our national borders.
Wit, a defiant quirkiness and a delight in the absurd are central strands of British identity from Chaucer to Lewis Carroll and Monty Python. So for a new national anthem, what about the Fall’s cover of the Kinks’ own tongue-in-cheek homage to imperial bygones, Victoria? Just imagine a Wembley crowd singing along with one voice to the opening line; “I was born, lucky me, in a land that I love…” Blake couldn’t have put it better himself.
William French is a Labour member and former foreign correspondent.
July 6th, 2010 at 11:38
Not much to say, other than Mark E Smith was no fan of Labour, often precisely because of the profound social conservatism that comes with being working class, which Labour have done their best to villify for decades now. For example, see this interview (do read the whole thing; it’s worth it)…
http://www.shanemacgowan.com/articles/nme89.shtml
Secondly, in my experience those who have a problem with the monarchy, both as an institution and as a family, are more often than not simply chippy middle-class types who resent the fact that there could be an institutional and ideological barrier to their own (imagined) upward mobility. I addressed this, very briefly, here…
http://wp.me/pJiP0-bc
July 6th, 2010 at 12:02
I cannot agree with on any level. The national anthem is burnt into the hearts of people like me, who served our country and I for one would fight to keep it, along with the monarchy. Members of the armed forces still swear allegiance to our Queen and not any government. You may think it archaic, but to old warhorses like myself it still means something.
July 6th, 2010 at 12:16
Ha! Michael, I doff my cap for finding that excellent NME piece. Whether Mark E. Smith votes Labour or not isn’t really the point though – rather, that his contrary wit and imagination are the sort of “British” qualities we should be celebrating. I think his quote about the England team is remarkably prescient though: “The England team are all bloody minor executives who can’t kick the ball in the back of the net, can’t do the bloody job they’re hired to do.”
Tom – surely patriotism is not just the preserve of monarchists? My granddad served in the RAF but felt no personal allegiance to either King or then Queen. Frankly if I was in the Forces now, I’d find it insulting to see the young Princes going through this charade, diverting precious time and resources, when 18-year-old squaddies are up to their neck in Helmand…
July 6th, 2010 at 12:20
From a purely musical/choral perspective, God Save the Queen and a whole host of other national anthems, whether or not at the World Cup, are utterly uninspiring. Give me Italy’s or Uruguay’s any time: perfect examples of opera-as-anthem, with historical-snapshot lyrics which prove that music itself is as important, if not more so, than up-to-date content. They are cases of acting singing a song, however high or low one’s skills are, rather than intoning words to music. And singing in public is an art that has sadly withered in many places (I’m not speaking as a total folkie, by the way).
As an aside, I still wonder why Cristiano Ronaldo is the only Portuguese player not to be seen singing their anthem, which isn’t bad as tunes go. Is it a matter of can’t-sing-won’t-sing? (Given the damage it would do to his marketing image).
July 6th, 2010 at 12:26
Uruguay’s is astonishing. It was akin to being in Viennese concert hall listening to a romantic era symphony rather than watching the prelude to a football match in their game against Ghana (and theirs wasn’t bad either)! I’m going to rig my TV up to an amp tonight!
They are still cheating so and sos though. I wonder if Beethoven ever deliberately hand-balled? Brahms? I bet Wagner did.
July 6th, 2010 at 12:30
Footballing composers would be a worthy successor to that fantastic Python skit about Germany vs Greece philosophers match. (Marx was right about it being offside, too). Beethoven and Brahms against, um, Nana Mouskori and George Michael?
The Uruguay anthem is a real delight, I have to agree!
As for Ronaldo – maybe he’s been saving his vocal cords until he starts crooning lullabies to Cristiano Jnr…
July 6th, 2010 at 12:48
@William – of course his voting preference isn’t the point (it was the social conservatism bit I was trying to focus on); but I fail too see your point on the (apparent) conflict between supporting the monarchy and celebrating Mark E Smith’s contrarian wittiness (and superb stagemanship, too).
My father was an infantryman, and he isn’t a huge fan of the monarchy either, though he is patriotic and defensive of the institutions and traditions of our country, which includes the monarchy – but then again, being personally offended or frustrated by the monarchy isn’t really a sound basis for saying the monarchy must therefore be bad. Nor for saying that it must be anathema to a democratic society.
Again, it’s largely middle-class chippiness that is the root here, and the call for republicanism is very much an expression of that resentment (the success of which will be the final triumph of the plutocratic classes). Which is precisely why Guardianistas in particular so loathe the flag-waving working classes – especially when they so inconveniently turn up, en masse, to honour their Queen (rather than their cultured masters), be it for state celebrations or the singing of an anthem.
July 6th, 2010 at 15:03
Michael – Your arguments would carry more weight if you backed them up with concrete examples rather than sweeping generalisations. When did the “flag-waving working classes” last “turn up en masse to honour their Queen”? I remember walking past Buckingham Palace during the 2002 jubilee shindig and most people in the crowd were Australian or American tourists. Ordinary Londoners of all backgrounds just carried on their daily lives as usual. And this is surely the point – the monarchy is at best an irrelevance but at worst, a debilitating anachronism which stifles debate on forging a new consensual national identity. Queen Liz or Citizen Smith – for me, there’s no contest!
July 6th, 2010 at 16:10
I could, of course, use myself as the concrete example that you demand, or offer the views of numerous other friends and family who think broadly the same as I, but then I’m sure these aren’t the kind of ‘concrete examples’ that would satisfy you. For in truth all we really have is sweeping generalisations, forged through a mix of personal experience and overall perceptions of the mood of one’s country, of one’s locality, and of one’s comrades.
For which reason I hope you won’t mind me pointing out that your argument against monarchy as presented here is built upon its own sweeping (and faulty) generalisations, both sociological and ideological. In light of that, I do hope that you’ll permit me one of my own when I say that the disdainful villification of the patriotic ‘white van man’, who sings his anthem with pride and who lines the avenues at the death of ‘Queen Mum’, is the ‘evidence’ upon which I base my assertions.
The monarchy is at best a constraint on the accumulation of power by an otherwise all-consuming oligarchy, and at worse it is an anachronism that, however irritating it might be for the bourgeois ‘revolutionaries’, remains stubbornly popular, both at home and abroad. Subject Blair or President Blair? – for me, there’s no contest.
July 6th, 2010 at 18:37
I support the monarchy …..of England.
I also support Jerusalem as the English national anthem.
In rugby this is now just about the case after years of pressure.
It always cheeses me off when English teams are forced to sing the British national anthem an implcation the British political class would prefer the English would shut up and not exist.
July 7th, 2010 at 15:34
Ah, the “English” monarchy – wasn’t that defeated at Hastings in 1066? In all seriousness, your post proves the point that the current monarchy cannot adequately reflect the diverse identities within modern Britain.
As for the “President Blair” argument (or “President Thatcher” as it was in the bad old 1980s), this really is a non-starter. The irony is that it was the PM’s power under the royal prerogative that enabled Blair to go to war in Iraq without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny.
A sensible republican settlement could end up strengthening the power of parliament and inspire greater democratic engagement. Look at how Mary Robinson reinvigorated Irish political life in the 1990s — and how her Belfast-born successor Mary McAleese has sensitively built bridges with the North and helped defuse sectarian suspicions.
Does Britain really lack the ambition and imagination to do something similar? I beg to differ!
July 7th, 2010 at 16:53
One wonders if the writer of this piece has noticed that Jerusalem is a musing on the power of Jesus Christ to heal England’s social and spiritual ills, and the articulation of a profound desire to bring about an ideal Christian society in England (by force, if need be).
I would posit that any effort to awkwardly crowbar the new religion of multiculturalism into this ancient song is misguided at best, and evidence of wanton arrogance at worst.
July 9th, 2010 at 05:15
Superbly written piece. I wonder will this debate gain much traction in the UK? The Windsors seem to have pulled themselves a long way from the abyss they faced in the early 1990′s – the two young Prince’s being their ultimate assets – though the Queen too draws huge respect for her longevity if nothing else. Given my base in Australia, I do wonder if ever the Republican movement here will win popular support – certainly it doesn’t seem to be a priority for the new PM, and I suspect it won’t be for some time.
July 15th, 2010 at 15:59
As Enda says, that was a superbly written piece.
You know England team is going to sing Jerusalem at the Commonwealth Games.
My pick for England (on its own) would have been Vindaloo.