| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| Dave Coull |
AN OFFENSIVE ANTHEMThis letter, from Alan Hinnrichs, appears in the "Herald":AN OFFENSIVE ANTHEM I am both an atheist and someone who wants to see an independent socialist Scottish republic. However, these were not the primary reasons I felt compelled to protest against the playing of God Save the Queen at Hampden before Wednesday's Scotland v Northern Ireland friendly international. Verse six of God Save the Queen celebrates the ethnic cleansing of the Highlands which took place after the '45: "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." It is deeply offensive. God Save the Queen promotes a class-based view of Britain which has no place in the 21st century. It emphasises the superiority of the monarch and the aristocracy over the people. The other reason I chose to protest against the anthem was to register my opposition to a Great Britain football team at the next Olympics, which would put the future of the Scotland national side in jeopardy. Alan Hinnrichs, Dundee. I know Alan Hinnrichs. He has been active in anti-war campaigning and other activities in Dundee for quite some time. He is a very keen football fan, and goes to loads of Scotland matches, even following the team to far-flung international destinations. I would say that Alan is pretty certain to be involved in opposition to a Great Britain football team for the 2012 Olympics, and that, through his footballing contacts, he could help to involve folk who never usually take part in political demonstrations. |
||||||||
| mairead |
The original God Save the King was actually a Jacobite hymn written for James V11
but hijacked by the Hanovarians and had that verse added. |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
It is odd that, of the four "home nations" in football, two of them, Wales and Scotland, have their own anthems for international football matches, while the other two, Northern Ireland and England, have to share the same song.
England fans have a wonderful song, with a great tune, that they could sing, Blake's "Jerusalem", with its specific references to England (not Britain). Some of them already do sing this. Maybe somebody should try to write an "Ulster" anthem, of a non-sectarian nature, which can gain the support of the divided communities of Northern Ireland. But whether anybody does this or not, I don't think the hostile reaction of Alan Hinnrichs and other Scotland fans to "God Save The Queen" on Wednesday night was an insult to the people of Northern Ireland. Rather, it was a reaction to the inherently anti-Scottish nature of that song. Mairead wrote "The original God Save the King was actually a Jacobite hymn written for James V11, but hijacked by the Hanovarians and had that verse added." Yes, I'm aware of the Jacobite origins of the song. This sort of thing happens quite a lot. The same tune is used for the USA patriotic song "My Country Tis Of Thee, Sweet Land of Liberty", (my wife knows all the words...), while the Scottish Republican song "The Scottish Breakaway" (I know all the words off by heart....) is to the tune of "The Sash" (I know that as well....) And yes, the only thing that made the Hanoverian version different from the Jacobite one was the addition of that offending verse. Nowadays, they don't sing it, but nevertheless the anti-Scottish origins of this song, as applied to the Hanoverian ancestors of the present Queen, make it offensive. And yes, it really WAS specifically anti-Scottish; not merely anti-Jacobite, but part of a general mood of anti-Scottishness in England at that time. This anti-Scottishness meant that even Scots who had sided with the Hanoverians suffered. Besides, as Alan Hinnrichs says, "God Save the Queen promotes a class-based view of Britain which has no place in the 21st century. It emphasises the superiority of the monarch and the aristocracy over the people." That applies to both the Jacobite and the Hanoverian versions. I find it very interesting that Alan gives, at the end of his letter, an additional reason for the hostile reaction to the playing of that song. "The other reason I chose to protest against the anthem was to register my opposition to a Great Britain football team at the next Olympics, which would put the future of the Scotland national side in jeopardy". Now THAT is certain to be a continuing, and growing, source of conflict in footballing circles in the next few years. |
||||||||
| mairead |
sorry, double post. 
|
||||||||
| Aventinian |
That verse was never 'added' as such - it was recorded as having been sung in a couple of theatres. Meanwhile at the same time, GSTK was committed to print and those doing so had evidently not heard of this 'verse'. In the interim, countless (probably hundreds) of different verses have been penned to GSTK/Q - including rather unpleasant ones by the Jacobites. As extra verses go, this one was quickly forgotten, and is only known today likely because Scottish nationalists have trawled it up from the very depths of history. So it's about offensive to Scottish people as it is to the Queen (whose ancestors were mocked in a Jacobite verse) and Presbyterians (also condemned). One must therefore come to the conclusion that it is not remotely offensive at all. Dave - you clearly keep a standard of company befitting your own degree. On several matters of fact, this fellow is simply wrong, and on everything else he is simply trying to find reasons for his own prejudices. |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
According to news reports, a substantial number of the Scotland supporters at Wednesday night's game, numbering hundreds if not thousands, took part in the hostile reaction to "God Save The Queen".
Aventinian wrote "it's about offensive to Scottish people as it is to the Queen (whose ancestors were mocked in a Jacobite verse) and Presbyterians (also condemned)". Even if that were true, Alan Hinnrichs has a point when he says "God Save the Queen promotes a class-based view of Britain which has no place in the 21st century. It emphasises the superiority of the monarch and the aristocracy over the people." And as Alan also says, "The other reason I chose to protest against the anthem was to register my opposition to a Great Britain football team at the next Olympics, which would put the future of the Scotland national side in jeopardy". Aventinian, you previously suggested that any protests about that issue would probably be confined to myself and a couple of other folk. Even at this early stage, I think you've already been proved wrong about this. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
At least that's a fair enough objection, if you think in those terms.
Why, because your friend (using yet another fallacious argument) decided to write into the Herald about it? Was he one of the chums that took part in your famous Holyrood protest? |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
I quoted from Alan Hinnrichs' letter to the Herald that one reason he protested at the Scotland versus Northern Ireland game on Wednesday was in order to register his opposition to a Great Britain football team at the next Olympics.
I suggested that, even at this early stage, Aventinian's prediction that any protests against a GB team for 2012 would consist of myself and two other folk already looked wrong. Aventinian asks "Was he one of the chums that took part in your famous Holyrood protest?" No. I'm not actually all that close with Alan, not in regular contact with him, and it never even occurred to any of us to ask him if he would like to take part in that event. "Why, because your friend (using yet another fallacious argument) decided to write into the Herald about it?" No. Because hundreds of people have already taken part in a protest linked with this issue. Since Alan attends nearly all of the Scotland matches, he is very much involved in the "Tartan Army" of Scotland supporters, he knows a very large number of the regular attenders at Scotland matches personally, and if he says the protest on Wednesday was at least partly about the prospect of a Great Britain team for 2012, then it was. |
||||||||
| mairead |
Aventinian, If that verse was not added then why is it still in print in the hymnaries of very old bibles??? | ||||||||
| Aventinian |
I think being an anachronism would be the least of its problems there, since God Save the Queen is not a hymn! So basically, I think you've been misinformed. If anyone was, however, to print that it would be effectively a mistake. So far as I know, the only historical accounts of this verse being used appeared in the Gentleman's Magazine - which published the song in 1745 without this verse, but then commented on it as being in existence around then looking back from the 19th century. |
||||||||
| mairead |
Sorry to contradict you Aventinian, but because you are not aware of it does not mean it is not there. If you seek out an old bible, (late 19th/early 20th century, you will find it in the hymnary, and it is not there not by mistake either..
As I stated before it WAS a Jacobite Hymn (minus the offending verse) before it was hijacked by the Hanovarians and the offensive verse added. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
I've never even seen a Bible with a hymnal included. Moreover, the Church of England has never had any official hymnals or hymnaries. The only two significant hymnals by Anglicans at the time you mention are Hymns Ancient and Modern (1868) and The English Hymnal (1906). Both include the National Anthem in some context. The former includes two versions, with three verses in the first (2nd being "O Lord God arise...", the third being "Thy choicest gifts...") and two verses in the second (the 2nd being "Nor in this land alone"). The latter hymnal has three verses (the second being "Thy choicest gifts..." and the third being "Nor on this land alone"). These books are widely available if you wish to confirm what I say. So now we've eliminated all but the obscure, I think the burden of evidence now falls to you. So come on, a title, an edition and a page number please. |
||||||||
| Holebender |
For a start, I'm prepared to bet she was referring to a Church of Scotland bible with hymnal included. They certainly had them when I went to Sunday School.
I probably still have one kicking around at home somewhere... but that's over 4500 miles away. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
So the assertion is that, this supposedly offensive verse was only being sung by the people who it was supposed to offend, whilst everyone else was using something else? Does that not seem just a tad unbelievable to you? As I'm not a Presbyterian, I'll admit it's rather difficult for me to come across the Scottish hymnals - I assume the "Church Hymnary" of 1898 and/or its revised edition of 1927 would be the one being referred to? I can probably track that down too in the next few days and have a review. I won't hold my breath, mind. |
||||||||
| Holebender |
Eh, no. The assertion is, as I understand it, that the offensive verse was published in a Church of Scotland hymnal. It is only you who is asserting that it was not available anywhere else. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Well, evidently it's not used in any other hymnals used in the established churches of the UK - even though their hymnals are published unofficially. Why it would be in a Church of Scotland hymnal, when it evidently isn't used in elsewhere, which to my knowledge would require its approval by the General Assembly, is beyond me. As such, I find it suspicious, as well as the fact that I can find no reference to this being the case, and indeed can find sources demonstrating that its only actual recorded use was in 1745 and was quickly forgotten, being later recorded in the Gentlemen's Magazine. I've also found that, in 1999, a figure within the Scottish branch of UKIP: 'issued a challenge, in the letters pages of The Herald for anybody to show me 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 been sung', adding in a 2002 article in a magazine that 'I'm still waiting, and I don't expect to be surprised anytime soon.' (http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/monscot.html) Indeed, I believe a similar issue was raised in the letters page of The Herald not a few months ago, and was responded by someone pointing out that the verse in question was soon forgotten. I didn't see that being refuted either. Now, considering I've only got a vague reference to 'a hymnary' in 'a Bible' to go on, I think I've refuted this argument commendably. Of course, one could exist - Mairead might be have the sellotape out manufacturing one herself as we speak - but it is incredibly unlikely quite simply because it would be inaccurate, arguably offensive and ridiculously anachronistic. |
||||||||
| The Lithgae Jambo |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7126929.stm
Some of the lyric to the UK national anthem God Save the Queen may change to make them less offensive in Scotland, a government adviser says. The sixth verse of the song urges God to help 17th Century commander Marshal Wade "crush" the "rebellious Scots". Ex-Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, who is advising Gordon Brown on citizenship, said a "number of people" had raised concerns over the lyric. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Yep, clearly Lord Goldsmith doesn't have a clue what he's on about, as I believe was also raised in the Herald letters page. Personally I think the story of it is nothing more than Nationalist propaganda. |
||||||||
| mairead |
It may have been printed in the hymnary section of the old Scottish bible, but it was never sung by the Scottish people to my knowledge. | ||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Well not all at once anyway, if only for logistical reasons. But it's sung by thousands of Scottish people on a regular basis. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
I assume she means the supposed 'second/third/sixth/nth (delete as appropriate) verse'. But yes, I'm still not seeing any decent referencing of this supposed fact. Since it seems we are aren't necessarily talking about the C of S's "Church Hymnary" (which, I understand is the only official one of this era) then I think something ought to be provided. | ||||||||
| mairead |
Perhaps Aventinian you could have the good maners to refer to me as Mairead and not SHE in future.
While the first coule of verses may be sung by thousands of deluded folks, the offensive verse is NOT, though no doubt you are singing it to yourself these days.. |
||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Why is it offensive? |
||||||||
| Jimbo |
Good point Agent. As Aventinian rightly points out, the official version does not have this verse as part of the anthem. Let's get real here. This verse was penned at the time because of the perception in the south that the Scots were the protagonists on the Jacobite side. What was in fact a fight between two factions (Hanoverian and Jacobite) for the throne in London, has down the years become a misconception with many that it was a Scottish v English conflict. The actual truth of the matter is that Scots, English and Irish fought on both sides. The Hanoverians won. That gave them gloating rights. At the end of the day, that's all it was. I've heard worse after football matches. If the verse had (rightly) said 'Rebellious Jacobite's to crush', would anyone find it offensive? IMO, for what it's worth, it's a bloody crap, dirge of an anthem that should be dumped - along with the monarchy. |
||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Agreed on all points. |
||||||||
| Corby Boy |
As with so many things in history - things are taken out of context and twisted for political ends.
I don't give a monkeys chuff about GSTQ. I personally dislike the tune for its uninspiring quality. I think the Archers theme tune would be a great new anthem for England and Donald where's yer troosers for Scotland. 
|
||||||||
| Holebender |
Having been reminded to have a look through an old Church of Scotland hymnary (revised edition) I can confirm that God Save the King is included as Hymn 631, and that only two verses are printed. | ||||||||
| Blackleaf |
If God Save the Queen is "anti-Scottish" because of the words "rebellious Scots to crush", then surely Flower of Scotland is anti-English because of the lyrics "Those days are past now, And in the past they must remain, But we can still rise now, And be the nation again, That stood against him, Proud Edward's Army, And sent him homeward, Tae think again."
And those who think God Save the Queen is anti-Scottish - as most of you lot do - obviously don't know their history. The last verse talking about "rebellious Scots to crush" was NOT an official part of the National Anthem. It was appended at the time of the Jacobite Uprising by a music hall performer. The "Scots" it refers to isn't the Scottish people but the Jacobites. The emphasis is on "rebellious", not "Scots". It is the same as writing a verse after the July 7th bombings stating 'Yorkshire terrorists to crush' - the stress would not be on 'Yorkshire' but 'terrorists', so it's not actually "racist" to the people of Yorkshire but just a group of Yorkshire terrorists. This verse was a short lived populist addition at the time of the Jacobite rebellion and has never been officially part of the National Anthem lyrics. Considering that the Jacobites (who have many supporters amongst Scottish nationalists on this forum) were trying to restore the House of Stuart, who were ABSOLUTE monarchs, we should all be happy that the "rebellious Scots" were crushed. After all the Stuarts were hardly a great advert for how to rule a nation. And if William III never defeated James II in 1690 we would have been ruled by an Absolute Monarchy, rather than a more democratic Constitutional Monarchy (especially nowadays) which William III and the Hanoverians helped establish, for much longer. Your "Bonny" Prince Charlie was a drunkard, a philanderer, a wife-beater and obviously supported Absolute Monarchy through his Jacobitism, and James II wanted to convert the whole of Britain to Catholicism, not something which the majority of people would have wanted (not that any of this is mentioned in the glorified, romantic version of Scottish history.) So no foreign nation is named or attacked in the anthem - it is not xenophobic - unlike 'Flower of Scotland'. And, anyway, I don't see why we should change the lyrics of God Save the Queen just to please the PC Brigade. |
||||||||
| Jimbo |
I wouldn't say the words in Flower of Scotland are anti English, Blackleaf. A song that mentions sending an invading army scurrying for their border is all it is, just that and that alone. The emphasis is on 'proud Edward' not the English.
Unlike GSTQ, the verse that refers to your 'proud Edward' fleeing from the field of battle is factual. The Battle of Bannockburn, is considered the worst defeat ever suffered by the English. Although they outnumbered the Scots by approx' 20,000 against 6,000 the Scots casualties were light, whereas the English casualties numbered almost 12,000. Not that this is mentioned in the glorified, whitewashed version of English history. No foreign nation is insulted in the anthem, merely mention of a 'proud' king leading an invading army, being soundly beaten and sent scurrying for home. The verse in GSTQ that refers to 'rebellious Scots' was based on a misconception (see my previous post). The character of Charles Edward Stuart (not good) has been well documented in many Scottish history books. You should try reading one. The history of Scotland is a rip-roaring tale, and factually told. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
From the BBC:
Football matches in France will be called off immediately if spectators jeer during the French national anthem, says the country's sports minister. France's national anthem was booed in Tuesday's friendly win over Tunisia. "Any match at which our national anthem is whistled at will be immediately stopped," said Roselyne Bachelot. French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said the booing was "insulting" and that in the event of a repeat it would be necessary "to call off matches". "It's insulting for France, it's insulting for the players of the French team, it should not be tolerated," he added. "I think we should stop the matches when the anthems, whichever they are, are booed." http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/africa/7671299.stm Quite bloody right. The NI Team ought to have walked out of the match with Scotland. |
||||||||
| Blackadder |
Personally, I find all national anthems distasteful. I hate jingoistic nonsense.
But if we have to have piece of music to represent your nation ... let it not be that awful dirge O Flower Of Scotland. I rather like For A' That An' A' That ... but then, that's my rebellious Young Socialist leanings poking through from all that time ago when I first hated McConnell! 
|
||||||||
| mairead |
Blackleaf.
Your comment on Bonnie Prince Charlie clearly shows you have no knowledge whatsoever of the man or his life before and after Culloden. His wife Louise was not an innocent sent to an old man, but was well used to men. She was a money grabbing, serial adultereress and the stories of him beating her were spread by her and her lover Alfieri. However, the truth eventually came out and the Pope ordered Alfieri out of Rome. His drinking only became a problem after he returned to Italy on the defeat at Culloden and was exacerbated by illnesses such as Depression, Diabetes, and epilepsy. He also suffered from Dropsy. And if you consider what post traumatic stress has done to modern military folk, then you can imagine what it did to him. He also suffered from that and was prone to episodes of deep depression during which he turned to alcohol, to blot out the memory of those who had died in his name.. He was no coward, and if you are referring to him leaving the field after the battle of Culloden, he did not LEAVE, but was taken forcibly off by his officers, because if he had died or been captured then executed, the Jacobite cause was forever lost. His treatment of those he defeated in battle while in Scotland shows him to be a man of great honour, and when compared to the bestial treatment meted out by Cumberland and his men after Culloden, puts Charles Stewart standing high indeed, while Cumberland has cast a bloody stain on the name of Hanover that will never be removed. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
I find it entertaining that you are willing to apply modern standards of conduct to the likes of Cumberland, yet you'd almost certainly be found excusing the atrocities of the likes of William Wallace. |
||||||||
| Shagpile |
When Labour gave us devolution it did come with a price tag. Tony Banks was the first of the Labour sports ministers to 'call for' a united British football team. (but that's as far as HIS 'Britishness' goes). He's Lambasted the Scots at every oppertunity since then, even blaming Scotland for turning the clocks back! Lord Coe chaired the sucessful London bid, and he's also on EUFA's ethics committee. As an Olympian himself he should know that the Olympics are supposed to be apolitical. Yet there he is politicising the IOC and EUFA right up the ying yang. The SFA are now being punished by the BEEB for non-participation, they will not receive one penny of licence payers money as their qualifiers will not be shown on the BBC. Of course it's not the BBC, it's their bosses in the government. How else can you explain the breech of charter obligations? I sinceerly hope the national anthem is booed, and every kick of the British ball, in every game that Sir Alex's English 11 play. This is all that Scotland is getting in the 'sucessful' British bid. Whilst Glasgows games will done on the cheap. How's today's standards measuring up to those of Cumberland, Hse of Stuart, Hse of Hannover or Wallace for that matter. Remember this is an equal union. 
|
||||||||
| Shagpile |
PS This exercise in Britishness will bite back. It will add further confusion to what is indeed British or English... especially in the rest of the world.
Hell mend them. |
||||||||
| Shagpile |
It's not just me who thinks so.
http://soccerphile.blogspot.com/2...on-britain-its-only-olympics.html |
||||||||
| mairead |
Just as a matter of interest, I have managed to find the original words of the Jacobite hymn to King James which became' the present National Anthem.
God save the King, I pray God Bless the King, I pray God save the King Send him victorious Happy and Glorious Soon to reign over us God save the King God Bless the Prince of Wales The true born Prince of Wales Sent us by thee Grant us one favour more The King for to restore As thou hast done before The Familie God bless the Church I pray God bless the church, I pray Pure to remain Against all heresie And Whig's Hipocrasie Who strive maliciouslie Her to defame God bless the subjects all And save both great and small In every station That will bring home the King Who hath best right to reign It is the only thing Can save the nation. Source. The Romance of the White Rose, by Grant R. Francis. |
||||||||
| Runaway Weegie |
The same tune is also used as the national anthem of Lichtenstein. The words are different, in Lichtenstein it's called Oben An Jungen Rhein which is German for "God Save Our Secretive Banking System and Russian Oligarchs' Money Laundering".
Apparently the official status of "God Save the Queen" isn't due to any Act of Parliament or Royal Proclamation, it's the anthem purely because of custom and use. So if we don't like it we can customarily start to use something else. We All Live In A Yellow Submarine gets my vote. The Spanish national anthem doesn't have any words to it at all. A year or so ago the Spanish Olympic Committee held a competition to write lyrics for the anthem to be sung when Spanish athletes won at the Olympic Games. The winning entry was hated by just about everyone. I can't remember how it went, it was something along the lines of "Isn't it nice to be nice. We're all Spanish and we're all nice, isn't that nice." The Spanish conservatives objected because the new anthem failed to mention god, the Catholic church, bullfighting or killing anyone. The left objected because the new lyrics didn't mention the struggle of the Spanish working classes, or women, or ethnic minorities or lesbian and gay people, and anyway anthems are a symbol of regressive nationalism and like, so 19th century. The Basques and Catalans objected saying "But we're not all Spanish. That's the bloody point. You're just not listening again. Sheesh." Everyone else just laughed and the entire idea was quietly dropped. |
||||||||
| agentmancuso |
|
||||||||
| mairead |
I believe the same tune is also used in the US of A, but with different words.
Where did the presenttune for GSTQ come from anyway? |
||||||||
| Runaway Weegie |
The origin of the tune is lost in time. Supposedly the tune is very similar to a tune composed by John Bull (who was a real person, a English composer who lived from 1562 to 1628). The first few bars are found in some pieces by the composer Purcell, and one of these pieces actually has the words "god save the king" set to it. Other sources claim the tune is that of an old Scots carol called Remember Thou Oh Man.
It still sounds like a dirge though. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
I stumbled upon the holy grail today. A bible from a Church of Scotland church with a hymnary in the back: to be specific, the 'Church Hymnary, revised edition (1927)' - so the books must have been made between then and the 1960s (although this hymnary continued in print till 1973).
GSTQ featured. Two verses: the first and the 'thy choicest gifts...' one. Also included, as a separate hymn immediately after, was the other four verses of William Hixton's alternative version of the National Anthem from 1836, viz:
Nothing about crushing rebellious Scots. |
||||||||
| Lord Pitsligo |
I like God Save the Queen. Its empirical evidence of the ineffectiveness of prayer. | ||||||||
| agentmancuso |
|
||||||||
| mairead |
It's also a blooming dirge. | ||||||||
| agentmancuso |
I don't much like the sound of it either, but not being musical I can't really say if that's just a sort of guilt by association. | ||||||||
| Aventinian |
At least I believe we've dispelled all your other arguments. If your only criticism of it now lies in it being a dirge, then I think my work here is very much done. |
||||||||
| Lord Pitsligo |
Well, that and the fact it pays tribute to a parasite. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
The Queen has devoted virtually her entire adult life to the service of this nation for not even a penny in wages. Quite what makes her a 'parasite' is beyond me... |
||||||||
| Lord Pitsligo |
Explain how she has served me. |
||||||||
| Alasdair |
She's your head of state.
I'd pay her twice wyhat she gets at the minute if it means avoiding the election of some career politician whose agenda is purely short-term poltical and financial gain. The way I see it is that it the least bad option, at least if someone is born to it they devote their life to it, if they're elected to it it's more likely to be about personal ambition. I'd hate to have the queens role (I don't look good in a frock!?) imagine the complete lack of personal freedom, the lack of real choice, the demands of travelling, speaking, hosting, for your entire life. I'm no monarchist, but rather that than the alternative. And on the anthem, it's a dirge and it's offensive. Whether or not you agree on the offensive issue is irrelevent, a large number of people are offended by it, therefore it's offensive. |
||||||||
| Lord Pitsligo |
That's what they said to William Wallace.
At least the politician would actually do something and be accountable. Unlike the queen who just lives a privelidged life while producing a bunch of in-bred half wits as kids. And can I say I think you look lovely in a frock 
|
||||||||
| Aventinian |
They were quite right too. From what I understand, he owed allegiance to his feudal superior who had given allegiance to the King of England.
The Queen works full time despite being in her 80s, for no salary. I for one wouldn't consider her lifestyle as privileged, I'd consider it an unpleasant duty (which she did not want, incidentally) which she has undertaken. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
I think you're making the dramatic mistake of confusing your political chums for the world: the vast majority of people are not remotely offended by the National Anthem. It contains no offensive lyrics and never has done; those who suggest it does are simply rabble-rousing.
By being employed as the head of state. By advising and meeting with her government, by raising the profile of Britain overseas, by donating millions of pounds every year to the Treasury, by providing support to charities, the armed forces and other important organisations... need I go on? |
||||||||
| Lord Pitsligo |
None of which actually benefits me as far as I can tell. |
||||||||
| Lord Pitsligo |
You do actually realise that people don't like to be oppressed, don't you? |
||||||||
| Alasdair |
[emphasis mine] Really?! When the President of the US looks squirmish upon meeting your head of state, and when he's cacking himself meeting Prince Phillip (perhaps rightly so, afterall the old bugger might mistake him for a fox or an ethnic minority!?) you know that theit doing something right!!! |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
I don't see that as oppression given the context of the time, it was simple feudalism. Wallace never suggested he was against that.
Good government benefits you. |
||||||||
| Lord Pitsligo |
It was a general statement in response to the constant "just do as your told and accept the status quo" tone in many of your posts.
We don't have a good government in the UK. |
||||||||
| Alasdair |
We certainly don't at the minute, although that doesn't mean that the system isn't good ... it's just the twits that have been elected into it that have ballsed it up. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
I'd agree entirely with that. I can't recall who said it, but countries only get the governments they deserve. Labour should have been voted out in 2005. They weren't. |
||||||||
| mairead |
Aventinian.
At the time of Wallace's execution, Baliol, ( if that is the feudal superior to whom you refer) was not the King in Scotland. Wallace supported Baliol's claim though, but he was NOT guilty of treason as that charge can only be laid against a traitor to a King or Country. Baliol was NOT the King of Scotland at that time, nor was Edward 1st, as the Scottish throne was empty, and England WAS a foreign country. And sorry Aventinian, but while the tune of GSTQ might be a definate dirge as far as I am concerned, the words were still taken from a Jacobite hymn to King James by the Hanovarians, and altered. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
I was actually talking about Edward and the allegiance given to him in the Ragman Rolls etc.
Treason in the traditional sense is simply a betrayal of allegiance. Hence the (now fairly obsolete) distinction between High Treason and Petty Treason.
Edward considered himself Lord Paramount of Scotland.
No need to apologise for history. I quite like the idea of Jacobitism. Not that it's at all relevant in the modern age, but it's certainly romantic. |
||||||||
| mairead |
Edward may have considered himself Lord Paramount, it didn't make him so though. As he was not the lawful King of Scotland, it still remained a separate country and Wallace should never have been tried for treason. Wallace did not betray England or King Edward, and how could he, when he was a citizen of Scotland and owed no allegience to England, however King Edward saw himself. | ||||||||
| Babygael |
Poor Av has goat Scotland and england confused as per!
|
||||||||
| Aventinian |
No, but the submission of his feudal vassals to him most certainly did. Not only had the nobility - the community of the realm - given fealty via John Balliol, Edward's vassal, they had also given fealty directly to Edward I.
That's a completely anachronistic way of looking at the situation. It was a feudal society: the King of Scotland owed fealty to Edward, just as Wallace's feudal superior owned fealty to the King of Scotland. Anyway, in the historic tradition, which Britain still adheres to, treason was against individuals - superiors - not states or countries. It would have been just as easy to try Wallace for treason against his own King had he not been removed from his position. An affront against a principal is presumably an affront against his agent too. Indeed, if you don't hold Edward's claim to overlordship (and to be frank, I don't think you've made a case at all on that front) then Baliol would still have been lawful King of Scotland since Edward would not have had the authority to remove him. Your argument is essentially circular. |
||||||||
| agentmancuso |
As indeed he was. |
||||||||
| mairead |
Baliol was by his descent a lawful King of Scotland. Had Edward not intervened there would have in all probability, have been a battle between Bruce and Baliol for the throne.
The big mistake the Scots made was inviting the sly Edward to decide and he decided in favour of Baliol, not because he had the greater claim, which was a fact, but because he saw Baliol as the weaker man. He knew Bruce, a highly trained knight who had trained at his own court, would never yield to the authority of an English King of Scotland, the way Baliol did. There was NO King of Scotland when Wallace was captured and executed, therefore no act of treason was committed and you can try to twist it how you like, but that IS a fact. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Monarchy in Scotland has always been about more than just descent. Whilst the Kingship of Scotland was rightfully his, it was also his to do with as he pleased, including submission to another as an overlord.
The only part of that I'll remotely object to is that claim that Robert the Bruce would not submit to Edward. He did, on several occasions.
No it's not a 'fact', it's an opinion based on flawed logic, anachronistic nonsense and a complete ignorance of the nature of treason. I agree, there was no King of Scotland at the time. There was an overlord, to which Wallace owed allegiance and fealty which he had freely given. He betrayed that, and was thus properly convicted as a traitor, regardless of what Braveheart says...
On what basis? And does that make Bruce a traitor then? And every subsequent Scottish monarch? |
||||||||
| agentmancuso |
On the basis that he was accepted as such by the community of the realm of Scotland.
No. |
||||||||
| mairead |
Aventinian
Bruce never submitted to Edward after ghe became King. Prior to that, as one of Edwards Knights at the English court, he probably did submit. Sorry, but it is you who is now spouting nonsense. Probably because you read so many Anglified versions of Scottish history. Wallace died a patriotic and heroic Scot, murdered by an avaricious and devious king. England was foreign soil, and it's King a foreign King.. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Whatever fairy tales get you to sleep at night, eh? |
||||||||
| Lord Pitsligo |
You seem to be scared of any change Av. Almost every stand you take on a subject revolves around not upsetting the staus quo. Why is that? |
||||||||
| mairead |
Well Lord P, sometimes the truth is hard for some folk to take, so they live in a wee fantasy wolrld where everything is what they would like it to be. | ||||||||
| Aventinian |
I suspect it's something to do with me being a conservative... |
||||||||
| agentmancuso |
|
||||||||