Now here, I agree with you.
Novel is probably the wrong word as I think it’s a very old tradition but I know what you mean
There’s a joke in there somewhere… novel… naval… I’ll come back to it
1 Like
Confess I often use a neutral badge - partly because the new Padre one looks like the Iron Cross. I’m sad when the Church contaminates the Cross as a symbol, because I still think that Jesus dude talked some sense…
Historically, representative of the “Nones” (not the best term - silent majority?!) has foundered on agnostics etc. not being “organised” (which for many, of course, is the whole point!). Being a “coordinating” chaplain trying to “hold” the whole thing gently is a minefield - I’m getting better at judging when the “God bit” gets too much, and try to talk about the freedom we have to not sing the National Anthem, or say Amen, without getting carted off by the Gestapo… I love the Navy’s rankless idea - it reassures new Cadets when I talk about it! I suspect we’re moving to a diverse, “mixed ecology” of commemorations where the “preachier” padres gradually get edged off and things broaden - interested to learn from best practice elsewhere (while bewaring “bloat”!).
Thanks to everyone who’s chipping in on this. All the best for 2025!
1 Like
Couldn’t agree more. It’s been really interesting to further develop my sense of what various cohorts value, and why.
on this point - @OC.1324 do you not sing the National Anthem on the basis it references “God”?
and on the back of that: How easily will it be to “revert” to a non religious status of the Country as a whole by default based on the argument made those without religion in the UK are the greatest/growing majority while the National Anthem remains so religious?
it follows that a republican would choose not to sing the National Anthem based on the words retaining the continuity of the monarch…does it also follow for an atheist?
while i can see the benefit to a non religious Remembrance ceremony (and for decades/generations there has been none religious wedding ceremonies) when does a minority belief start to influence the national anthem?
this is in danger of becoming a discussion about becoming a republic, as would a change of National Anthem be a sign of lack of support for the royal family, or a move to the modern view on where religion sits in the UK…?
Consider the much more religious country of the USA for instance and their National Anthem is free of all religion (yet they do adopt the “In God We trust” motto
There’s a lot to unpick here, not least the fact that we have an established state religion while the USA has a clear separation (for all the good it does).
I think we should try separating how things are from how things could be. Sure, how things are is interesting and relevant insofar as it helps us understand the status quo, but baking in the assumption that it ever should have been that way makes change more difficult and it taints the conversation with a bias.
For example, today we have a group of MPs looking into modernising the House of Commons, where those not wishing to take part in morning prayers effectively lose the ability to be seated on busy days and therefore be called upon in the house to speak and represent their constituents, because there aren’t enough seats.
Typical commentary about “young MPs” being arrogant for seeking change and toppling “British tradition” again unhelpfully suggests one is unpatriotic for seeking fair treatment and the removal of religious privilege (and what is politics about if not seeking change?).
To your question, you are correct. I don’t sing the national anthem because I’m constantly paying lip service to a religious concept I find laughable. I can’t mean it no matter how loud i sing it.
National anthems should be a thing that all citizens, disagree as we all will about a lot of political stuff, can still get behind. And so on that basis, I’d say that a national anthem that continues to focus exclusively on two things that large proportions of the population don’t agree with (monarchy and religion) is something that needs to change. What’s the point in a national anthem that people cant actually unite behind?
Anyone not wanting to change it is basically admitting they’d rather people ignore it or pay lip service to it than find something we all mean when we say it.
I’m happy to regard the national anthem as a piece of music regardless of the words. If you don’t like the words then don’t sing them or have your own alternative.
I quite like the words of the rather blood thirsty French anthem as well as the tune.
The USA one is a bit of a battle cry as well and not a bad tune.
There is a very funny sketch on You Tube where Billy Connelly suggests the anthem should be the Archers theme tune as ours is boring 
While I get what you’re saying, we’re not just talking about any old piece of music, we’re talking about something which is given the status of national anthem, much as a standard isn’t just another piece of cloth — we give them additional meaning.
Having people not engage fully with it or replacing the words with something else completely misses the point of having a national anthem.
The wider point here is: “why should I have to sit there quietly while my national anthem excludes me?”.
And that’s where it ties into the inclusive remembrance.
We are all citizens, and if we respect the idea of letting people have their personal religious or non-religious beliefs without fear of prejudice, so too must we be firm with the idea that they are private.
It therefore follows that it isn’t acceptable for people to start integrating their version of a religious or non-religious world view into something that is for everyone, be that a national anthem, the start of a representative parliamentary session, or Remembrance Day.
And it’s particularly important because, no matter how large a particular group may grow, there will always be those who don’t share that view, and so it is important not to disenfranchise them in their own country. Being inclusive and secular protects minorities (change as they will over time) from being steamrolled by the majority of the day.
I can promise you that I’ll never advocate for a public humanist ceremony, because I stand by this principle that everyone should feel welcome and engaged.
Worth noting actually that one could change the national anthem without having to also change the status of the Church of England or monarchy.
Though one’s feelings towards all these things will doubtless be consistent.
This is what I was on about 
It’d certainly have more energy! 
Alternative suggestions have sometimes included Jerusalem (mystical/mythical - 2nd verse better than 1st? My Sqdn only spoiled it once by setting fire to an acrylic jumper while singing “bring me my bow of burning gold”…)
… or “I vow to thee” - 2nd verse is arguably about the “Kingdom of God”, but is capable of wider interpretation, probably as Blake meant…
An address on the current Nat. Anth. might consider whether HMS Victorious or Glorious were actually any good as carriers, but that’s maybe for yet another thread 
I’ve always considered Jerusalem to be the English national anthem (regardless of what some sporting bodies use) and have considered whether God Save The King deserves a special place covering all Commonwealth Realms (similar to its current status in Canada), which leaves Rule Britannia as the obvious choice for the UK national anthem.
Rule Britannia does pop into my head as a good candidate with lots of oomph (always goes down well with rum at the end of Traf Night), but I confess I’d have to check the lyrics for any unintended consequences.
I’d personally be keen that any replacement national anthem doesn’t lean too hard into any nationalistic vibes. I’d prefer to make sure we focus on values and making a better country for the future, rather than getting dewy-eyed over a rose-tinted view of the past, rooted in empire.
Jerusalem? Just a series of questions to which the answer is no; and anyway, it’s an explicitly religious text!
respectfully Jerusalem only works for England:
And did those feet in ancient time
walk upon England’s mountains green?
…
In England’s green and pleasant Land
if we are talking about a National Anthem for the UK, or Great Britain, Wales, Scotland an NI need consideration.
While tensions in NI have eased, somehow singing out “England’s green and pleasant land” on the Streets of Belfast makes me feel uneasy.
Considering the (admittedly recently falling) interest in Scottish independence i doubt there will be much interest in claiming a National Anthem which praising England
as such agree with @JustCallMeFlight - it is better/only suited as a Anthem for England rather than than GB/UK nation as a whole
“never never shall be slaves” is not an inspiration to scoff at, but gives me an awkward shudder, given the UK’s Slave history is hardly something to be proud of.
1 Like
Unless I am mistaken England along with Scotland does not have an official agreed national anthem. I am not sure about NI, but getting anything agreed there would be difficult. They cannot agree on the names of some place names.
GSTK is the the national of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Wales has Land of my fathers Hen, Wlad Fy Nhadau. The only nation of the UK with an anthem.
Getting an agreed national anthem can be difficult The Netherland national Anthem still pledges allegiance to Spain as they cannot agree on a new version. The Dutch declared independence from Spain in 1581
1 Like
Ending the slave trade at enormous human and financial cost is certainly something to be proud of
7 Likes
i agree - there are positives to the history, but not all of it is squeaky clean and given society’s bent on only remembering what they want to (the negative) this could be less than ideal to bring it up…