|
A question about the British Anthem.
"Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never shall be slaves."
When were Britons slaves? Is this all about Romans?
|
|
|
It doesn't mean that Britons were ever slaves. It means that Britons will never become
slaves, that's all.
|
|
|
Weren't they? I thought they were invaded by various people like the Normans, Vikings
etc...
|
|
I'm sure that some Britons were slaves at various times throughout history, but I
don't think it was ever something that was widespread. When the Romans, Anglo-Saxons,
and then the Normans invaded, they either pushed the natives out or assimilated them
into their culture.
Anyway, that line from the Anthem is not referring to any time in history that Britons
were slaves, it just states that they will not be made slaves in the future.
|
|
The Normans (French speaking Danes) were the last foreigners to successfully invade
England (in 1066) . As Adam implies, they were eventually absorbed into the native
English population. Ergo, no foreigner has ever conquered or enslaved the English
people since then even though the Spanish and the Nazis might have if history had
taken a different course. I think this is what the anthem refers to.
Of course, things like indentured servitude, impressment of seamen, child labor
and the sale of kidnapped children for domestic labor were virtual forms of slavery
that lasted in the English speaking world right up until the early twentieth century
but that's a different story and not what the anthem is alluding to.
|
|
Dear Brennus,
According to logics it should have been the Spanish and the Germans. I gives me the
creeps to see the word Spanish next to the word Nazis, although we 've had a few
of the latter (under different names) in all Western civilisation countries.
The question should be more if the English (or others, including the Spanish, Germans
or New World offsprings) have enslaved other human beings. It's funny how everybody
else is Nationalistic except ourselves.
|
|
Jordi,
I thought about using "Germans" instead of "Nazis". The only problem is that the
Germans weren't trying to conquer England during World War I but during World War
II.
In the 16th century, Spain sought an alliance even a union with England against France
it's main enemy. It had already formed one about 70 years earlier with Austria (also
an enemy of France). This is why it married off Catherine of Aragon to Henry VIII
and Philip II to Mary Tudor. The Protestant Reformation through a monkey wrench into
their plans however, forcing the Spanish to seek a military solution. King Philip
II probably also wanted to protect Catholics in England (who were still a majority
then) from Protestant persecution and thought that by sending the Armada to invade
England he was actually doing something very noble and Godly.
|
|
|
(Whoops! "through" should read as "threw")
|
|
Dear Brennus,
Don't worry. Much later, in the 18th century, we had the War of Successionto the
Spanish throne. The old Crown of Aragon countries were helped by the English (and
others) while the old Crown of Castille was helped by the French. There were, obviously
two heirs, and one would make France much more powerful. Actually, Barcelona fell
in 1714 and the grand-son of Louis XIV became King of Spain under the name of Felipe
V. One of the first things he did was to ban the Catalan language and make Spanish
official all over present day Spain. You know how France has exported a centralistic
model all over the world. Thank God we're getting rid of that almost three centuries
later! That is a fact of history. As you can see, not all the Spaniards have always
been Spaniards in the sense you understand the term nowadays. Spanish is as "foreign"
a language to me as it is to most of you. With one difference, I've learnt the language
since early childhood and it is the official language of my country although it isn't
of my home.
|
|
|
Thanks for that little bit of information, Jordi. I have heard that Catalonia is
a region of Spain that is always revolting and that there is a lot of nationalsim
there. The Spanish have had the same problems with the Catalonians that the English
have had with the Scotch and the Welsh. I remember in the late 1970's David Wallachinsky
listed Catalonia as among the ten nations in the world most likely to secede in his
"Peoples Almanac". Some other candidates included were Quebec, Scotland, Tibet and
the Ukraine. Of course, even here in the United States the South is a different country
for all practical purposes. They would be an independent country today if the North
had not blugeoned them into submission during the Civil war of 1860 - 1865. When
you look at what is going on in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, however, you begin
to see that Catalonia, Galicia and the Basqueland actually could all become independent
some day.
|
|
|
I'm sure Catalonia is quite a pleasant region of Spain. How unkind of you to call
it revolting!
|
|
|
Well, you've simply hit upon an ambiguity in the English language, that's all. But
I think you know what I mean.
|
|
|
Of course, what I hit upon was a bad joke (caused of course by English's wonderful
ambiguity).
|
|
|
Rule Britannia sounds so jingoistic and seems to hark back to the old days of the
Empire..."When Britons first at Heaven's command, arose, arose, arose from out of
the azure main...." and all that guff. It "sounds" stirring on TV during the Last
Night of the Proms though, but even so it's preferable to the dirge we present day
Brtitons call the National Anthem.....asking some Deity to "save" one individual.
It doesn't actually say what it is she has to be "saved" from! Corgi bites maybe?
"Land of Hope and Glory" has more appeal and should replace the plea to save
Liz from some unimaginable fate. "Jerusalem" is all about England's "green and
pleasant" land so that can be discounted on acount of the existence of the rest of
us here in the Celtic fringes of the glorious Kingdom. ;-)
|
|
|
Sorry...I should have said "HAPPY and glorious". Well, that's what it says?
Anyway, I'm happy.
|
