Why Singing the UK Nationl Anthem is the Opposite of ‘Patriotism’
- FUCT
- Feb 11
- 10 min read
Updated: Feb 28
National Anthems, they’re a funny old thing.
Clearly, I’m chatting about the UK National anthem today, although fun fact, did you know that US national anthem is in itself, British?
That’s right, as it turns out, America’s national anthem is as British as warm beer and bad dentistry and composed by John Stafford Smith well over 300 years ago. I wonder how patriotic my friends from across the pond will feel now… but that’s kinda the point here. And the big question is, when did singing a national anthem become the ultimate test of patriotism?
Let’s investigate the national anthem I hear the most - the one that makes me groan and almost regurgitate: God Save the King.
Well, it’s a ‘song’ so deeply entrenched in our national consciousness that we rarely stop to ask: What exactly are we singing for? And more importantly, why does it contradict everything Britain supposedly stands for? To me, it’s nothing more than a rousing hymn of loyalty, obedience, and deference to a fellow human being whose main accomplishment on earth has been coming out of the right person’s vagina – but is this the case, am I right, or just a grumpy old shit…?
Also, let’s look at the main bit that people actually know (the ‘chorus’), read the words and read them carefully.
Words to the UK/British National Anthem
“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.”
Notice anything special?
An Anthem at War with British Values?
Stay with me, ask yourself, what are British Values? The complete answer is likely as complicated as explaining to my grandson that I actually used to have to memorise phone numbers.
To simplify, it’s widely accepted that modern British values are largely made up of adherence and a ‘right’ to;
Democracy
The rule of law
Individual liberty
Mutual respect
Tolerance, and
Equal Opportunity
These are the cornerstones of our national identity - the principles that, theoretically, bind us together. We tell ourselves that anyone, regardless of background, can achieve success through hard work. We claim to be a fair, inclusive, and progressive society. We believe in accountability and justice, where no one is above the law.
These principles are championed in political speeches, school curriculums, and government policies. And yet, the national anthem - the very song meant to symbolise our unity - openly glorifies hereditary privilege, unearned power, and divine right. Alright, let’s get into this necessary dissection.
Sponsored Ad:
British Values and the National Anthem – A Glaring Contradiction
Democracy
The anthem’s lyrics aren’t exactly subtle: “Long to reign over us.” Notice that? “Reign”, not ‘govern’. “Reign”, not ‘serve’. This isn’t about a democratically elected leader carrying out the will of the people or about pride in one’s nation. No, this is a demand that we all cheer on the divine right of some bloke (currently) for no other reason than an accident of birth. We’re literally singing for a monarchy to endure—not because it’s competent, accountable, or needed, but because it exists. That’s not democracy. That’s a medieval fairytale with better PR.
And I AM being serious here. Britain prides itself on being a democracy. We cast votes, we debate policies, and we like to believe our voices matter. Yet, at the core of our national identity sits an institution that openly rejects this idea. The monarchy is not elected. It does not seek public approval. It exists because of bloodline and historical sluggishness. When we sing “Long to reign over us,” what are we celebrating?
It’s nothing more than a system where one family stays privileged indefinitely - regardless of public will or competence. If monarch were a job application, it would be the equivalent of hiring the CEO’s first-born son or daughter, generation after generation, without even bothering with an interview.
The Rule of Law (Unless You’re Royal)
The rule of law means that everyone is equal under it. But not if you’re Royal – and yes, you read that right. Look the next bits up. The monarchy has a history of negotiating exemptions from laws that apply to the rest of us. A notable example? The Equality Act of 2010, which specifically exempts the royal family from anti-discrimination laws, allowing them to lawfully refuse to hire people of colour for certain positions. Yes, you read that correctly. Britain’s highest-profile family has a legal right to discriminate based on race - by law. No wonder poor Meghan had problems when she joined the 'family'.
And let’s not forget Crown Immunity - the legal principle that shields the King from prosecution. He cannot be arrested, sued, or held accountable in the way an ordinary citizen can. So, when we sing about old Charlie Boy and;
“Send him victorious,” victorious over what, exactly?
Accountability? Transparency? The basic standards of a democratic society? Oh, victorious over not paying as much tax perhaps – do I have your attention now?
The Royal Family enjoys a ton of other legal exemptions too - look them up. But sure, tell me again how singing about their ‘glorious reign’ is a nod to British fairness and values?
Individual Liberty – Yet we’re all actually ‘Subjects’
Bit more of a grey area this one, as if the King really did try to overstep the mark then parliament has many way to slap him down, but it’s worth pointing out because we’re looking at the National Anthem here. Let’s go back to our King “Reigning over us”.
Sorry to tell you, but if you solely hold a British passport, you are not actually a citizen. You are in fact, a ‘subject’. A subject of the King. That means, on paper, you don’t belong to yourself - you belong to the Crown. Also, whilst ‘subjects’, as a term implies servitude rather than freedom when we sing “God save the King,” we’re essentially reinforcing the idea that we exist in an order BENEATH that of our Monarch – as if he is somehow ‘better’ than us by default. What the FUC?
Now, of course, this isn’t the 16th century, and old Charlie Boy isn’t personally rounding up peasants to work his land (though let’s be honest, if he could get away with it, maybe he would?). But the very notion that we’re subjects, not free citizens, makes me and hopefully anyone who values liberty deeply uncomfortable. Yet we’re only real patriots if we sing in deference to this system? Give me a break whilst I go and cough so hard I accidentally summon an exorcist.
Sponsored Ad:
Mutual Respect and Tolerance? Not If You’re Non-Religious
The anthem isn’t just an ode to a monarch; it’s an ode to a very specific deity. “God save the King.” But whose god, exactly? According to the 2021 Census, around 37% of the UK population identifies as non-religious (ONS, 2021). That’s millions of Britons being told that to be ‘patriotic’, they must sing a hymn to a god they likely don’t believe in. Furthermor;
there are millions more that all have different beliefs, in different deities or otherwise, so what about them?
Imagine if our national anthem referenced Allah. Or Krishna. Or even just a generic “May the universe bless our King.” You’d have a Daily Mail meltdown before breakfast. But because it’s God (the one the state prefers), it’s fine. So much for inclusivity. Should we all just hold their noses and sing along, or would we rather they fake devotion for the sake of ‘unity’? I think I’d rather step on a piece of my Grandson’s Lego barefoot in the dark.
Equal Opportunity – Ahem, ok.
Britain claims to be a nation of meritocracy (the idea that success comes from talent and hard work) and although most of us know that the idea of meritocracy is mostly bullshit anyway, let’s stick with it because we OPENLY glorify a system where the highest public office isn’t just inherited - it’s ring-fenced by bloodline, it’s that damn privileged vagina at work again. The King is unelected, yet has private audiences with world leaders, has behind-the-scenes influence in government (thanks to his access to ministers and Prime Ministers), and enjoys a level of status that no ordinary Brit could ever attain.
“Happy and glorious, long to reign over us,” yeah ok, we are literally endorsing a rigid social hierarchy - the very opposite of equal opportunity. Imagine if any other family in the UK wielded that level of unearned influence. We’d be screaming about corruption.
And yet, when it’s Charles and Co., we call it ‘tradition’ and leave it at that with a smug patriotic grin on our faces.
Alright, alright, I hear you, you have a “but” for me, right? I mean it’s not the Royal Families fault. Well, maybe not directly, but for the shits and giggles let’s move away from the National Anthem just for a little bit and look at some other glorious delusions, misunderstandings and outright hypocrisies.
But the Royal’s are good for the UK?
Well, maybe, or maybe not. I’m not here to say if they’ve been good or bad for us, just to point out the glaring contradictions in relation to modern British values. Everyone has their faults. I think most would agree that Queen Elizabeth II overall, was a good Queen. Henry VIII a good king? Perhaps at the beginning, but not so much (hah – understatement) towards the end (and how do we ‘define’ what makes for a good monarch anyway?). But in modern times, let’s talk about what’s relevant.
The Royal’s are good for Tourism!?!
Are they? Where are the hard number and projections? France axed its monarchy in 1792, turned their palaces into museums, and now earns more from ‘monarchy tourism’ than we do - without paying for an actual monarchy. Who’s really winning here? Versailles Palace still attracts over 8 million tourists a year and sorry fellow Brits, not to dent your national pride but that’s more than Buckingham Palace.
Tourists don’t flock to Britain to catch a glimpse of the King; they come for the history, the castles, the culture. If anything, opening up Buckingham Palace and the other royal estates full-time (rather than for limited tours) would likely increase tourism revenue, much like the palaces in France.
Sponsored Ad:
It’s Tradition, they should and deserve to be there!
Well, I’m not saying that being King or performing any other kind of full-time Royal duty is easy, in fact, it’s probably one of the most difficult ‘jobs’ in the world and the Royal’s have very little choice over the matter. I actually pity them a bit – I mean, they are literally born into a role that they are expected to fulfil for the rest of their lives and to boot, the amount of scrutiny, media exploitation and pressure they come under feels to me almost insurmountable. But again – hardly very British, to force someone to do something, is it?
And let’s be clear;
people love tradition because it feels safe - like a security blanket that’s mostly made of gold-plated nonsense.
However, think of it this way. There are two major things that underpin the legitimacy of the Royal Family;
(a) Divine Right
(b) Bloodline
Well, we’ve already dissected ‘divine right’ if we’re really going to accept that our head of state is given that right by and invisible man in the sky then so be it, but let’s address the elephant in the room: the legitimacy of the so-called ‘royal bloodline’.
There have been numerous historical accounts suggesting that various British monarchs may have been illegitimate due to affairs and hidden scandals. Yet, we still cling to the notion of a ‘pure’ bloodline as if it holds any real significance in a modern world.
Name Changes
And whilst we’re on bloodlines (nod to Roman Reigns apparently), let’s remember that our fabled royal Family “The Windsor’s” are in fact the “Saxe-Coburg-Gotha”. I hear you cry foul? Well, no… are Royal Family are of German descent and they changed their ‘official’ name from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the House of Windsor in 1917.
Recognise that date? Oh yeah, during the Great War – when we were fighting, oh! The Germans! So good old King Geroge V decided to make himself and his family sound less ‘German’ so as not to draw suspicion and scrutiny upon himself and hopefully start a new wave of British patriotism. Hmmm…
Prince Harry – The King’s Own Hypocrisy
This may be a ‘thorny’ subject for some, in which case you need to be here getting some FUCT.
Consider the case of Prince Harry. After having the audacity to choose to step back from royal duties, his state-funded security was revoked and yet though no fault of his own he remains a high-profile target for anyone wishing him ill will because of his ‘standing in the world’.
His decision to prioritise his family’s independence (and his own mental health) was met with the very sort of punitive measures you’d expect from an absolute monarchy punishing dissent. And yet, many Britons supported this move while simultaneously singing the anthem that glorifies hereditary privilege.
And whether you like him or not, the British press went from bootlicking the Royals to butchering Harry the second he stepped out of line. Funny, that. What’s happening to him and his family contradicts everything the monarchy claims to stand for — British values. And if you read the anthem’s lyrics, you can probably guess why."
Harry was born into this life, which makes him a high-profile target for threats - yet the moment he decided to leave royal duties, his security was revoked.
So much for loyalty - turns out the Royal Family demands it but doesn’t return the favour.
So, we’re expected to sing for the safety and prosperity of a King who will, at a whim, strip his own son of security because he had the audacity to marry a mixed-race American (yes, I’m sorry, that’s relevant too) and seek independence? That’s not leadership. That’s pettiness on an aristocratic scale.
Final Thought: No Apologies, but singing the UK National Anthem does not make you patriotic.
Don’t agree? Well you need to get FUCT. Think about it, next time someone tells you to ‘proudly’ belt out ‘God Save the King’, ask yourself this: Are you really singing for your country? Or are you just applauding a rigged game?
And perhaps a nation isn’t built on songs or symbols - it’s built on values. So if we really believe in British values, maybe it’s time we stopped singing for a system that contradicts them.
And if that makes you uncomfortable, maybe that’s the point. If patriotism is supposed to be about pride in our values, then surely the most patriotic thing we can do is question whether our traditions actually uphold them. Maybe real love for one’s country isn’t blind loyalty, but the courage to demand better.
See you soon,
FUCT
Sponsored Ad:
(And no further reading today, I'm too grumpy and annoyed).
Comments