Jump to content

Talk:God Save the King/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Wrong citation interesting nonetheless

While the citation about the anal fistula (now removed) to Patricia Ranum's excellent article does mention Charpentier, it does not establish that the Marquise de Créquy said anything about an anal fistula. It's actually an article about Charpentier's work, which was not done at the court of Louis XIV. Charpentier was instead the court musician of another noble court - that of Mlle de Guise, a sovereign princess of the house of Lorraine. Nevertheless, there's a wealth of information about Charpentier and French music of the 17th century in that article. There was an anal fistula, Charpentier did perform, but composed no special work for that fête, and the actual work performed is unknown.--LeValley 22:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It is also not the case that Charpentier's musical manuscripts of the 17th century contain the God Save the King/Queen tune, at least not according to Ranum or her main source, Hitchcock. If anyone can find (his musical manuscripts are in the National Archives in Paris) the actual melody or anything like them in Charpentier's work, that would be the proper citation (or find some scholar, like Ranum, who has found that manuscript). Since Ranum has clearly combed those archives for her work and did not find it, it is wrong to cite her as the source of this information. In short, yes Charpentier composed music that was eventually played to celebrate the King's health. Did he compose God Save the King/Queen? Unknown. Which thing was played that day? Unknown.--LeValley 23:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
It remains confusing how Scholes, an expert on music history, could also be an expert on Mme de Créquy, whose work is generally regarded as genuine (but edited for publication in 1850). Further, Mme de Créquy's passage on the composition of the song mentions not Charpentier but Lully as the composer (so if Scholes is arguing against her saying that Charpentier wrote it, he ought to have read her manuscript - Chapter IV, last three paragraphs. She clearly states its Lully - but in her version, there's no mention of WHICH party of Louis XIV it was played (other scholars place the religious service at the old Abbey of Montmartre, the secular service at city hall, and the party at the Luxembourg Palace, whereas de Créquy mentions that the song debuted at Saint-Cyr. De Créquy also states that the song was written to accompany Louis XIV's entry into his chapel at St Germain en Laye, nothing to do with any anal fistula, as far as I can tell. She does insist that the song is French and Handel stole it, that much is true about her. I've removed this bit:

Scholes points out gross errors of date which render these claims untenable, and they have been ascribed to a 19th-century forgery, the Souvenirs of the Marquise de Créquy.[1] because Scholes does not in fact take on the task of establishing the fakery of de Créquy, perhaps Scholes merely points out the plagiarism by Handel is unlikely. I believe that's clear from context, but hard as I try, I can't find a citation from Scholes on the subject. That is the citation that's needed to restore this claim to the article. Scholes, anyone? LeValley 23:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"Full" version?

I have just deleted a so-called "full version" as this is unsourced. I very much doubt if there is such a thing as a full version, but some reliable sources would be needed to establish such a thing. The deleted example included the Marshall Wade verse (why that and not the Jacobite verse?). It also included one verse from the Hixton version (why not all of them?) but omitted the anti-French verse. The reality is that over the song's history (as stated in the article) numerous attempts have been made to add/remove/rewrite/replace verses and to rewrite the whole thing. So I don't think we can ever have a full version.

On a similar point, there are no citations for the translations into other languages. Do these versions have citable sources, please? If not, they should be deleted. Bluewave (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Scots' Version a Joke?

Serious question here, been followed links around after having an urge to look up the the German ship the "Admiral Graf Spee", and through following links about navies, ended up here. After a quick glance to check the lyrics of the anthem, noticed the Scottish one, and it sorta gave me the impression that it was a mockery. Not sure if it's in fact correct, or just phonetic with the Scottish language (possibly still a mockery?). Anyways, just thought I'd bring this up for you wiki-wizards to clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.251.3 (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The only way we can tell if it's authentic is if someone provides a citation and readers can check on the source. This is why Wikipedia insists that the content is referenced to reliable sources. I pointed out (above) this lack of sources for some of the non-English versions and was giving anyone who cared about them a chance to produce a reference before I delete them. Bluewave (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

So-called Welsh version

Please delete this farcical GoogleTranslation added by CalicoCatLover. It's pure gobbledegook (Confirmation: here!). 80.42.53.200 (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted it. I work on cy:, where it has been added twice, and reverted both times, as it makes no sense to fluent speakers. Paul-L (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that the other non-English versions may be similar. Somebody has pointed out concerns about the Scots version (below) and I've already deleted an unsourced so-called "full" version. Bluewave (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Team England - Commonwealth games

It is worth noting that team England only used Jeruselem in the 2010 Commonwealth games. In all games before this they used Land of Hope and Glory.

The change was after a vote on the team England web site but the poll attracted less than 100 votes in total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.170.28 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Public events in Canada

User:UrbanNerd objects to the sentence "and ['God Save the Queen'] is sometimes played and/or sung together with the national anthem, 'O Canada', at public events." His reasoning for this was that, in his personal experience, "i have never (not even once) ever heard GSTQ played at any public event with O Canada, ever." No sources to support this, just hearsay. I found the following links that show "God Save the Queen" played at the same event as "O Canada":

  • [1] "Master of Ceremonies to greet and introduce O Canada... Master of Ceremonies asks all to stand and join in singing of God Save the Queen..."
  • [2] "The crowd sang the national anthem O Canada followed by the royal anthem God Save the Queen..."
  • [3] "1057.20 O Canada... 1130.15 GOD SAVE THE QUEEN..."
  • [4] "God Save the Queen - Royal Newfoundland Regiment... O Canada - Royal Newfoundland Regiment..."
  • [5] "O Canada... was sung and of course, God Save the Queen."
  • [6] "Remembrance Day Music: 'O Canada'... 'God Save The Queen'."
  • [7] "...[T]he playing of O Canada, God Save the Queen..."
  • [8] "ORDER OF SERVICE: O' CANADA... 'GOD SAVE THE QUEEN'..."
  • [9] "'O Canada' must be played and sung at the commencement of major or significant school sponsored assemblies and ceremonies... 'God Save the Queen' may be played and sung to close a program."
  • [10] "O Canada... God Save the Queen..."

However, UrbanNerd refuses to recognise these as supporting sources because the events they're related to aren't, in his personal definition, public. I found the definition of "public" to be:

Main Entry: 1pub·lic
6 a : accessible to or shared by all members of the community [11]

But, UrbanNerd maintains this does not apply to any event organised by a legion or government body, even when the public is free to attend. I wonder if others could weigh in on this with their take on the matter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

wow nice job. Plenty of sources there to justify the sentence remaining in the article. I must confess reading some of those documents makes me rather jealous. National anthems and flags in schools?, thats pretty rare here, our lefties dont like any form of patriotism. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Miesianiacal again you have "forgotten" relevant arguments and facts. You seem to "avoid" info that doesn't promote your views. My comments were:
I wouldn't consider any of the links you provided public. Every one of them is military or policing related. With the exception of the CBE which does not play it but states a law that it "may" be played. A public event should be "public", not military affiliated. Plus most of the veterans fought before O'Canada was even created, thus GSTQ was the unofficial anthem. Perhaps stating that it is sometimes played with O'Canada at military affiliated events would clarify it. Or leave it out completely as I would prefer. It is up to you. UrbanNerd (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Link 1 - Alberta Police and Peace Officers’ Memorial Day Ceremony - Govenment ceremony
  • Link 2 - Held on February 15, 1965 (before O'Canada was Canada's legal anthem)
  • Link 3 - The Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Command
  • Link 4 - Newfoundland & Labrador Police and Peace Officers' Memorial Parade
  • Link 5 - WW2 Memorial by members of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment
  • Link 6 - Royal Canadian Naval Association Burlington Branch monument unveiling
  • Link 7 - Annual Veterans' Service in honour of Veterans and peacekeepers
  • Link 8 - South Vancouver Veteran's Council Remembrance Day March
  • Link 9 - Calgary Board of Education - "God Save the Queen" may be played and sung to close a program
  • Link 10- Canadian Navy & The Black Cultural Society for Nova Scotia.

Saying that is sometimes played at public events with O Canada is misleading. It is never played at public events unless it has military or other "armed forces" affiliation. The statement was misleading, period. It needs to be restated to offer no suggestions that regular public events in Canada play it, or leave it out completely. When was the last time it was played at a sporting event ? The 1966 Winnipeg amateur bowling championship ? UrbanNerd (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

To repeat myself from above: "UrbanNerd refuses to recognise these as supporting sources because the events they're related to aren't, in his personal definition, public." We are here to establish whether or not they are indeed public events, meaning the sources support the claim. Please avoid making personal comments about other users. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Can "military or other "armed forces" affiliation" events not be considered Public events if they take place in public? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I have already offered a viable solution. Stating that GSTQ is sometimes played at public events is plain misleading. Military events seem to be the only one's to play it within the last 40 years. What if it went: "it is sometimes played along with O Canada at military events". Or something to that affect. You seem to be more focused on promoting the use in Canada than coming up with a solution.
  • Is it played at sporting events ? No
  • Is it played at schools ? No (although "allowed" in Alberta)
  • Is it played any non military events ? No
It only makes sense that if it is to be included to clearly state it is (sometimes) played at (some) military and armed forces events. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
You're misrepresenting the sources. Some are for events related to legions. One is for the first flying of the national flag. One is for the Black Cultural Society of Nova Scotia. Others are for police ceremonies. And you still avoid the point of this discussion, which is: Are events to which the public is invited - regardless of the host organisation - considered public events. Your list above is merely OR. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
False, they are all military and police events in the refs. No OR involved here. Find me proof the GSTQ is played at non-military events. UrbanNerd (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you have the Black Cultural Society of Nova Scotia mixed up with the Black Panthers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you read your own reference ? It's the Black Cultural Society of Nova Scotia and the Royal Canadian Navy celebration of William Hall (VC). The first black person to get the victoria cross. And someone who fought before Canada or O Canada officially existed. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Yea, Black Cultural Society of Nova Scotia. Not military. But, regardless, it's only you who's created this imaginary stipulation that any event organised by any group remotely related to the government is not a public event, even if the public is part of the event. That's WP:OR; unless you can prove your claim to be true. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The song is only played at events with military or armed forces affiliation. If you can prove otherwise be my guest. Non military events in Canada do not play GSTQ, period. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
So, in other words, you've no way at all of supporting your assertion that an event organised by the military, a government department, a legion, or the like, is not a public event, even when the public is welcome to participate. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
"The song is only played at events with military or armed forces affiliation" Some of those military events are public events, there for the wording saying GSTQ is sometimes played with O Canada is not inaccurate. Maybe we should try and agree a new sentence which goes into more detail about when it may be used rather than going round in circles about the previous wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
That is what I have been suggesting. Maybe something like: "it is sometimes played along with O Canada at military events". Or something to that affect. UrbanNerd (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Yea, I've absolutely no objections to tweaking the wording or going into more detail. But there's absolutely no reason to adhere to UrbanNerd's made up definition of a public event. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
WW2 was a "public event" by your definition. Doesn't mean you should say "Sometimes bomb are dropped on the public in the streets of London". Leaving the statement open to interpretation like that would cause confusion. But that aside we should be coming up with a suitable explanation. I vote, "it is sometimes played along with O Canada at military events". UrbanNerd (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not my definition. It's the dictionary's. (Perhaps you should write Webster's with your odd WWII analogy.) Yours, on the other hand, so far still seems entirely made up, which means having the article imply that the royal and national anthems are only ever heard together at military events is just not on. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we stop the personal attacks and get on with a solution. Thanks. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Calling your analgoy odd is not calling you odd. So, perhaps we should stop with the false accusaions of personal attack and get on with a solution. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that though it is UrbanNerd doing all the objecting, it's me who's to find the solution; to fixing a sentence that's been as it was for a long time and wasn't originally inserted by me, ironically. Of course, as it was long-standing in the article, it should, per guidelines, stay as is until he's found a consensus to remove it; but, apparently repeatedly deleting it seems more appealing to him.

Regardless, I've reworded the sentence to align literally with what the sources state. I trust UrbanNerd has no more objections and, if he does, will discuss them here rather than deleting again. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You are ridiculous. If you think smug, adolescent remarks are "finding a solution" you are incorrect yet again. I offered a solution and all you could do is compete for the last unrelated comment like a child on the playground. The edited text although still skewed to your pov will do. Goodbye UrbanNerd (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
lmao i thought Miesianiacal's comments were very reasonable considering what has taken place. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

God Save the Queen was played during the conclusion of my high school graduation ceremony. Maybe that means little, but surely it's proof enough that it can and HAS been used for non-military affairs. Or rather, I should say that it's proof enough that it is in use if the criteria that it "isn't in use" is that some random wiki user simply hasn't "heard" it play often enough. I graduated in 2009, by the way, from a public high school in Southern Ontario in Dundas. Druid126 (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Gentle Giant

I'm a little shy to add this information, but I remember that the seventh track of Gentle Giant's first record ended with a cover of their national Hymn its title is The Queen . - εΔω 16:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Souvenirs, Vol 1, Chapter IV". Retrieved 2007-04-02.

Greek version

I'm surprised that no one has noticed this before, but the supposed "Greek version" is complete nonsense. It is at best a Google-translated version of the original song. Constantine ✍ 22:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest if no one can find a legitimate reference for it, it be removed (or perhaps be replaced if a different and legitimate reference can be found). Trackratte (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic version

Unless someone sources the Gaelic versions within the next few days I plan to delete that section. This is the English Wikipedia so our major interest would be in information on how often they are used, who translated them and so on. Still, I will not object to the inclusion of a properly sourced translation. MathHisSci (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never spoken much Gàidhlig but even I can tell that that's a legit translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.126.213 (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"Knavish" vs. "Popish" Tricks

The entry claims that the line "frustrate their popish tricks" was changed to "frustrate their knavish tricks" on the request of King George V, but this assertion is unsourced and appears to be unfounded. A Google Books search provides no support for it, and additionally suggests that the "knavish" version is older, as no references to the "popish" version appear in the database before about 1840. I'm taking the claim out.

Angus Johnston (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Was Arne the composer?

The introduction claims that Thomas Arne composed the melody. This is supported by a reference to website, which however just seems to be written by a private person with no historical expertise.

The history section does not repeat the claim that Arne is the composer, merely saying that he wrote "one version" of it. Is this the version that is sung today? MathHisSci (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

To say that the origin of the melody is "unknown" or to say it has been composed by an English composer is rubbish! It is most likely that it's origin is actually a Central European melody/song, probably Swiss or German and has been introduced to English musicians via their contacts to composers on the continent (Haendel, for example), which would also explain it's use in countries like Bavaria, Saxony and others, for a long time! --82.113.98.205 (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

British National Anthem

The wording given in the boxout of the full version of the National Anthem has the wording of Line 5 of the first verse as "tranny and glorious", whereas this should be "happy and glorious". I would be grateful if this could be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth Fuller (talk • contribs) 20:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Audio sample

The audio sample is O, Canada, not God Save the Queen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.57.226 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Fanfare

The article has no mention of the fanfare sometimes performed by heralds immediately before God Save the Queen, usually when the Queen herself is present. An example here. I have a vague recollection it was composed by William Walton for the coronation in 1953 but I could be wrong. 121.45.200.207 (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It was composed by Gordon Jacob. I will add this with references. Dbromage [Talk] 05:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The monarch does not sing

I observed that Her Majesty did not sing the song during the wedding of Prince William. Prince Phillip did. I assume the protocol is that the reigning monarch does not sing that song. Group29 (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No, what would the Monarch sing? 'God Save My Gracious Self'? In all seriousness, the Queen does not sing GSTQ as it is essentially addressed to her. Conay (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually GSTQ is addressed to God! Dbromage [Talk] 05:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Touché. Conay (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

Why was the infobox reverted back to a messy, inconsistent, disorganised arrangement from a more clearly ordered and consistent version?

This version 1_ omits the fact that GStQ is both a royal and national anthem of New Zealand, Tokelau, and Jersey (and is ordered in such a way that to acknowledge such in that setup would require listing New Zealand, Tokelau, and Jersey twice); 2_ pulls the British Overseas territories apart from the UK (for an unapparent reason) and puts them at the top of the list; 3_ ignores the existence of the Isle of Man; 4_ ignores the existence of Cook Islands and Niue; and 5_ ignores the existence of Australia's and Canada's territories.

Whereas this version 1_ does not needlessly include territores (as territories, the national and/or royal anthem of the country of which they are territories will also automatically be the national and/or royal anthems of those territories); 2_ includes all the dependencies of New Zealand and the United Kingdom alongside New Zealand and the UK; 3_ makes clear for all which countries or dependencies have GStQ as either a national anthem, a royal anthem, or (without any duplication) both.

Perhaps the individual who returned to the first version listed above could explain in what way its superior to the latter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

References to deleted verses ?

There seem to be numerous references to verses that have been previously deleted, especially the "second verse" (which I think usually refers to the 'O Lord, our God, arise' one) - examples:

In the "Lyrics in Britain" section, it references "Scatter our enemies... assuage their malice and confound their devices" which isn't included anywhere else. In "Alternative British versions", it references the with "Notably, the question arose over the phrase "scatter her enemies.""

On that topic, should the section "Standard version in the United Kingdom" be amended ? The box contains the current official version (from the Monarchy website) but the text surrounding it clearly refers to the middle 'O Lord, our God, arise' verse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:12:1075:21B:63FF:FEBD:81B5 (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the only verses that are actually used are the first verse and the third verse ("thy choices gifts in store"), the 2nd one is never used. In fact, the third verse is often called the second verse, for example at the Last Night of the Proms [12]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Song name

A claim was made in the lead that the song's actual and permanent title is "God Save the King" and to call it "God save the Queen" is merely " colloquial". This link was used as a supporting citation; however, it makes no similar assertion. The Canadian government, for example, officially calls the song "God Save the Queen". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

My edits that listed "God Save the King" as the official name in the lead sentence was only to prevent IPs and new users from marking the "God Save the Queen" name as a "mistake"[13] or "mis-named".[14] I admit that I may have misread that citation. I have no problems with the current version now. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading this back I'm sorry if I sound a little snippy here; I really don't mean to so just take it as being direct and honest. As one of the people who edited to correct "God Save the Queen" to the "God Save the King" version, I'd like to say I've known this as fact for some time and so was surprised when it was corrected with the explanation: Partial revert - It is a common practice to refer to the song colloquially as "God Save the Queen" when the monarch is a female - it should not be considered a "mistake". To me that suggested that a colloquialism was held to be above an actual fact in terms of encyclopaedic entries, which I found odd. To have subsequently found people actually dispute that it's a fact was doubly surprising. That said I've had trouble finding actual evidence online, due in part to the lack of knowledge that the colloquial title might not be correct, as well as the age of the anthem and the fact that the original writers obviously don't have a website to reference and are, in fact, unknown. I re-read the supporting citation you're talking about and I still read it as supporting my view on this; I can however, despite myself, also see how you could read it differently. I would like to throw this piece of supporting evidence into the mix. It's hardly 'proof' but it does show that a national newspaper also believes "God Save the King" to be the correct title. Definitely worth further investigation at the very least. Thanks for reading. --Cdfbrown (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

How about for Wikipedia to follow official practice re: the song's official title and have "GSTK" redirect to "GSTQ" when a female monarch occupies the UK throne and vice versa when a male monarch occupies it? 96.36.104.238 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on God Save the Queen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

no 'criticism' section

Many people in Britain absolutely hate this slow monotonous song pandering to an un-elected dictator and pathetic 'tradition'. Why is there no mention of this?80.154.120.247 (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of British people and British citizens overseas are perfectly happy with the anthem and the monarchy. No serious criticism of the anthem has ever really surfaced. 109.155.215.147 (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No they are not. There is growing discontent for out royals and how we are expected to worship them. Dislike of this awful song is the epitome of this discontent. Only old people sing it. 31.209.163.158 (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not British, but then, having a criticism section of a Wikipedia page has precious little to do with nationality anyways. What I wanted to say was this: Unless these so-called criticisms are reliably sourced they cannot be included in the article, no matter how "true" they may be. So I have a two-fold suggestion to you anonymous users with only an IP address: First, search for sources in reliable outlets that will substantiate what you are claiming. Secondly, you all may want to consider getting a proper Wikipedia account with a regular user name. Your edits will thus be taken more seriously and are less likely to be challenged or reverted. I urge you to consider these points ASAP. Thanks. With sincere concern from an American Wikipedia editor, --Jgstokes (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

yea right, having an actual account makes no difference to the drones. Seems this page is still under the watchful eye of royalist sycophants82.34.106.120 (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC).

I resent that. I am not a royalist. I am a citizen of the United States of America. My interest in this article is that the song appears in the hymnbook of the LDS Church, of which I am a member. Nor am I a sycophant. It seems you love giving epithets without researching to ensure the shoe fits. In the meantime, to address the relevant issues that this topic is supposed to be covering, what I said was fully within WP policy guidelines. If these claims cannot be verified by a reliable source, they should not be included. As to the other issue not relating to this article, it is standard procedure for a registered WP editor to suggest to users without an IP address that they may want to consider creating an account. With that being said, back to the topic this article is supposed to be about. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on God Save the Queen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on God Save the Queen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Comma after "God"

I know that this title has probably long been adopted as it is, but shouldn't there be a comma after "God", anyway? It is an addressed subject and should therefore be set off with a comma. OlJa 18:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

No, because God isn't being addressed in the title. The title means, "May God save the Queen." If this song was directly addressed to God, then the title would need a comma. Besides that obvious fact, the less obvious answer is that none of the hymnals featuring this song add a comma after "God." Since that's how it appears in the hymnbook, that's how it should appear here. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Version

The section on the Canadian Version incorrectly states that in Canada we only use the first and third verses as our Royal Anthem. The source quoted is wrong, here is the link to the Government of Canada's page on our Royal Anthem. http://canada.pch.gc.ca/eng/1445001063729 Note how all three verses are used despite a typographical error where there is no paragraph break between the first and second verses. As I have no experience with editing Wikipedia I hope someone would be willing to change this.

Also, here are the official French lyrics, http://canada.pch.gc.ca/fra/1445001063729/1445001063732 The French lyrics on the Wikipedia page are completely different and the citation leads to a page that doesn't exist.

45.72.162.36 (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Title

I was mulling over an WP:RM to move this to God Save the King. There's previously been discussion here about how we'd move it when a man accedes to the throne—I think we will, but isn't pegging the title to the current monarch simply recentism? The song was (probably?) originally "God Save the King", has been thus for a majority of its existence, and, barring major changes to British succession, kings will be more likely than queens in the future. It may seem strange at first to regard something as long as Elizabeth's reign as recentism, but in the long run, it really is. And we're supposed to have that sort of long-ranging vision. I mainly hesitate to do this because of all the other titles it could impact (e.g., Queen's Counsel). But if we're going to be moving them all anyway one day... (please ping if you want to discuss this; I'm not watching) --BDD (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@BDD: Actually, I've always wondered this myself, and I think it should just keep getting moved depending on who's on the throne at the moment. After a coronation, if the new monarch is of another gender, we just mass-move everything...MediaKill13 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The rule-of-thumb for WP:RECENTISM is the ten-year test. The UK/Commonwealth anthem has been "God Save the Queen", without a break, for the past 64 years. With breaks, it has been "God Save the Queen" for 128 of the past 200 years. It is true that it is quite likely to revert to "King" within (say) the next 10 years, but we are not supposed to predict the future. Were we to do so, it is also very likely that within (say) the next 30 years the rules of succession will be changed to give male and female members of the royal family equal rights and equal chances of acceding to the throne; and given the propensity of women to live significantly longer than men, it is also extremely likely that, over the next 200 years – if the monarchy survives – there will be significantly longer periods with a reigning queen than with a king. So no, there is no need to consider moving this article. GrindtXX (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I suppose that's fair. Hypothetically, if we ever decided to fix this title and similar ones and resolve never to move it based on the gender of the reigning monarch, "King" would win out. The ten-year test just gets a bit murky if we get, say, a year into a king's reign. --BDD (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify my own position: yes, I think the article should be moved as and when a king accedes (and back again as and when another queen accedes); but no, I don't think it should be moved to "King" now, simply because that's been the title for "a majority of its existence". A change of monarch is (usually literally) a once-in-a-generation event, quite different to the sort of lightweight ephemeral event that WP:RECENTISM is concerned with. Wikipedia tries to model itself to some extent on print encyclopedias, like Britannica, so consider this. A print encyclopedia would normally publish an updated new edition once a decade or so. That's not often enough to take account of every passing news event, but it is often enough to take account of major changes, such as a new monarch; and I'm pretty confident that a print encyclopedia, unless it was concerned solely with the strictly historical aspects, would put this article (and equivalent articles) under "King" or "Queen" according to the sex of the reigning monarch. GrindtXX (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Boer Lyrics to Gods Save the Queen

We have just been on a South African battlefields tour at Talana and as part of that we sat around a camp fire in a Boer singalong. Our song sheet did not include the Boer version of God save the Queen as sung by them in the Anglo Boer War. Can anyone supply the lyrics for that? It would be much appreciated, Thanks169.0.126.206 (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

"With heart and voice to sing"

Over the past few months, Sintflut17 has repeatedly added to the lyrics box the claim that "when the monarch is male, the last two lines of the third stanza ["To sing with heart and voice / God save the Queen!"] are changed to: "With heart and voice to sing / God save the King", "for rhyming purposes". Other editors (myself included) have challenged this claim, either by adding a "citation needed" tag, or ultimately by deleting it. Sintflut17 has simply restored it, still without citing a source. I have now looked a little more deeply into this, and there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. There are multiple print sources, dating from the reigns of male monarchs, of the key line still being "To sing with heart and voice"; and in this reversion an IP also draws attention to a 1914 sound recording. By contrast, the only place the "With heart and voice to sing" line seems to appear is in a 1745 published variant set of lyrics: see here and here. It has certainly never been used with any consistency under a king. It might (arguably) merit a brief mention in the body of the text, carefully worded and properly sourced. But it doesn't belong as an unqualified statement in the lyrics box. I am now going to delete it (again). GrindtXX (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I personally agree with you that it needs a reference but I haven't heard of anything like that before and as for "the rhyming purposes" it doesn't rhyme as it is so why change it. ILikeCycling (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on God Save the Queen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Curious thing about the title

I assume the article is at GSTQ (not GSTK) because the current monarch is female. Will it be moved every time this changes? Heh. Equinox ◑ 18:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Equinox: Haven't thought about it before. But since you, mentioned it, perhaps! PS Are you a Brit? (I'm Aussie) — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 23:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's one of those songs whose title changes depending on the sex of the monarch. Similarly, Queen's Counsel (QCs) become KCs. As for moving the title when Charles succeeds his mother, that takes 5 seconds. And William is coming after him, and then George. So it will be at least a century before we can realistically expect another Queen Regnant. Not exactly a big problem from the Wikipedia perspective. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on God Save the Queen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on God Save the Queen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Bugs

When I play the music, the Table on the right gets longer and longer (downwards), and when I stop the music, the extending stops. It eventually makes the page twice as long. Did this happen to anyone else? (MacBook Pro 2012 running on safari)KittenDude172 (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Close per WP:SNOWBALL. Timrollpickering 00:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

God Save the Queen → God Save the Monarch – Gender neutral terminology, and would avoid the pointlessness of moving this page whenever the monarch changes, thus providing better longevity. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Domine, Salvum Fac Regem

There is a separate article about that work, and, while the first (and only the first) line is similar, it doesn't claim that it has the melody of God save the Queen. Its melody as played here sounds nothing like God save the Queen (whereas it does sound, to my incompetent ears, like something Lully could have written). It would be useful if somebody who can read sheet music would check whether the melody linked to in the article (whatever its source) is that of God save the Queen. If not, the text in that paragraph shouldn't suggest that, as it currently seems to do.--94.155.68.202 (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

According to its article, "Domine, Salvum Fac Regem" was composed for the coronation of King François I in 1515, so it couldn't be a translation of a song composed by Lully in or after 1686. That whole paragraph is horrendous. Here is the original paragraph as written in September 2005. Obviously, bits and pieces have been added and subtracted over the years to produce this. I would be very surprised if Scholes wrote even half of what is attributed to him here. I have edited it so that it at least makes some sense, but somebody with knowledge of the subject and a familiarity with Scholes's Companion needs to rewrite it completely. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:E0E9:D09B:A6F0:3B76 (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Ireland

I have removed two erroneous references to Ireland from the infobox, but have left the reference to the Irish Free State, which – as it was technically a dominion of the British Empire – I assume did retain "God Save the King" as a royal anthem (but not as the national anthem, which was "The Soldier's Song"). Having said that, it would be helpful to have a section in the article specifically on the anthem's use in Ireland, if anyone can point to some reliable sources. GrindtXX (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't the phrase God save the King originate from the Bible?

I heard that in the Old Testament, during at least of the coronations of kings, many people proclaimed "God save the King!" 19:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Origin of the music?

In his symphonic "Celebration" Weber concluded his last movement with the same musical phrases. Otherwise Thomas Arne 1710-1778 is credited as the composer.Macrocompassion (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Another version of god save the king

In-case someone wants to add this one. Robert Bremner put these lyrics in his treatise "The Rudiments of Music" in 1756. No idea if he made it up or they already existed. He used this song as an example how to decorate music. I also may have interpreted the spelling of a couple words wrong as "chain" doesn't make sense to me. If he made it up it's funny cause he's making fun of art from other countries. "Fame (maybe Same or France?) let thy Trumpet sound tell all the World around great George is king. Tell Roome and France and Spain Britannia Scorns their chain all their vile arts are vain great George is King." 65.255.181.151 (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Changing the countries on the infobox.

I would suggest changing the countries box on the infobox to the infobox shown on this section. It generally shows what exactly what countries that use God Save the Queen as their anthem and its specific use. -- Chxeese (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

God Save the King/Archive 2
National anthem of
I added this section to the infobox. --Aesthetic Writer (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Intro

The intro should begin with pointing out that it's the defacto national anthem of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Swedish royal anthem

Another addition to the list of ripoffs. The tune and words were also used for the first Swedish royal anthem, Bevare Gud vår kung. 101.112.157.94 (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Title change

I know this question is very theoretical, but:

What if England switches every day between leaders of each gender?? What could we do to this article's title?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:FORUM Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

French origins

This was apparently written in 1686:

Grand Dieu sauve le roi
Longs jours à notre roi
Vive le roi
À lui la victoire
Bonheur et gloire
qu’il ait un règne heureux
et l’appui des cieux

Please investigate. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The origins are already heavily covered in the article. Is that lyric mentioned? If not, do you have a reliable source of its origins? BilCat (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
This and this. The fr.wiki article says this is apocryphal, but apparently this exists. There is also some info in Victorian-era books here, here. There's also a passing mention here, from a Belgian historian. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

French-Canadian lyrics

The current French lyrics for use in Canada in the article are taken (accurately) from a Canadian government website, but are blatantly wrong. After calling on God to preserve the King, the 4th and 5th lines continue "Rends-la victorieuse, / Heureuse et glorieuse ...", i.e. "Send HER victorious ...". Or maybe we are witnessing the new non-binary monarchy suggested above ... GrindtXX (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The lyrics are already updated to reflect the monarch's change. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the first three lines have been updated; my point is that lines 4 and 5 still use the feminine form. GrindtXX (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
OK, I see the point. Yeah, in this case I think you should simply change it to "Rends-le victorieux, Heureux et glorieux..." as this is an obvious error. You can flag the error for now on the webpage. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Liechtenstein national anthem

The melody is also used for the Liechtensteiner national anthem. 84.236.124.64 (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Already done It's already mentioned. BilCat (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Move article from God Save the King / God Save the Queen to God Save the King

I would like to move the article from God Save the King / God Save the Queen to God Save the King since it's obvious that now the Queen has died. Please share your consensus on this. RayAdvait (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This would seem a trivial and ultimately unnecessary change. The current article presents the anthem from a neutral perspective, acknowledging its history, and the unknowable future. Obviously many people are very motivated to update our encyclopedia surrounding all aspects of the monarchy, but I would not agree this is actually beneficial or useful from a factual perspective. Afiaki (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
However, since writing this comment it seems the opening sentence of the article has been revised and now works in much better with the singular title. Afiaki (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I've requested to move God Save the King / God Save the Queen to God Save the King since this is an undiscussed move and also I've warned this user. HurricaneEdgar 11:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@HurricaneEdgar and @RayAdvait: moved back. Please continue with the RM that has been opened just above this thread/ ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
ok RayAdvait (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 10 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

God Save the King → ? – I see that the page has been moved again, this time to a more gender-neutral title. For once and for all, we should have an RM on record on what the best title should be. "God Save the King" is the original title and is likely to be used in the next couple of generations, but the article should still reference "God Save the Queen" when discussing specific events when Elizabeth II was still the monarch. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. What would we call it, "God Save the Monarch?" In the absence of a proposed new title, let's hold off on any moves. Tom Danson (talk)
Oppose, the title goes with the current monarch, who is now a male who identifies as King. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose The Queen has died, so why someone changed again the title, unless there are no ones takes the throne of the monarch. 180.241.208.87 (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I believe that the title of this article should match the official title of the anthem. Since the UK now has a king, I believe that the official title of this anthem is now "God Save the King". Therefore, the title of this article should be "God Save the King". RyanW1995 (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose What is being proposed here? The move has been reverted, the title is listed as "God Save the King", keep it as is, close this, get the ugly tag off the high-trafficked page, and stop wasting our time. Smartyllama (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"God Save the King / God Save the Queen" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect God Save the King / God Save the Queen and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 10#God Save the King / God Save the Queen until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the current version of the lyrics

There are so many historical versions of the lyrics in this page. Can the current version by highlighted as a separate section named "Current official UK version" I have gone through the page and still dont know what is the official version being used presently. Venkat TL (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The modern lyrics are:
Verse 1: God save our gracious king!
Long live our noble king!
God save the king!
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us;
God save the king!
Verse 2:
Thy choicest gifts in store
On him be pleased to pour;
Long may he reign!
May he defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the king! RayAdvait (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
@RayAdvait thank you. I have added this into the article. Please include a reliable source as reference. Venkat TL (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:God_Save_the_King/Archive_2&oldid=1149989053"