Yes, it will.

autogun said:

Only the first verse is sung these days,

The original version of the German anthem als has three verses.
But since WW2 only the third is the official national anthem.

Do we see an trend? Are national enthems being shortened in modern times? Maybe because people can not properly sing anymore? Or because it would take to much air time if all verses would be sung befor a sports event?

schnuersi said:

Do we see an trend? Are national enthems being shortened in modern times? Maybe because people can not properly sing anymore? Or because it would take to much air time if all verses would be sung befor a sports event?

The German Anthem has been shortened for very obvious reasons. I do not see these reasons in the UK. In Ireland, where I live, I attended a performance where the President showed up and the Anthem was played as a fanfare.

Long to reign over us...

I find it somewhat humorous (and more than a bit odd) that there are modern, western countries which still have a queen or king.  After all, it's the 21st century, not medieval times.

The idea that a few individuals are entitled to national wealth, power, and prestige, not because they did anything to earn it, but due solely to who their parents were, is mindboggling.

The French and Russians knew how to properly treat "royal" families.  LOL.

stancrist said...

I find it somewhat humorous (and more than a bit odd) that there are modern, western countries which still have a queen or king.  After all, it's the 21st century, not medieval times.

Most countries have some behaviours that others find quaint. Personally I'm all for a bit of mild differences because it's always instructive to see what the roads you have not chosen look like.

stancrist said...

The idea that a few individuals are entitled to national wealth, power, and prestige, not because they did anything to earn it, but due solely to who their parents were, is mindboggling.

 Yet very common around the world, just in many places they no longer claim Divine right (openly at least) or Royal titles. Since the other option is confiscating wealth to ensure everyone has to work up from the same starting position sounds a little communist.

stancrist said...

The French and Russians knew how to properly treat "royal" families.  LOL.

Murdering women and children for no other crime than the family they were born into? Seems a bit regressive to me, but I have my views and others will differ, no doubt.

Interesting to note that those royal families that survive tend to be those that now present their position as one of service and duty, which is something that leaders who attain their position by other means might do well to emulate.

RovingPedant said:

       stancrist said...  The idea that a few individuals are entitled to national wealth, power, and prestige, not because they did anything to earn it, but due solely to who their parents were, is mindboggling.  

Yet very common around the world, just in many places they no longer claim Divine right (openly at least) or Royal titles.

If they don't have "royal" titles, then they're not what I'm talking about (i.e., queens, kings, and "royal families").

RovingPedant said:

Since the other option is confiscating wealth to ensure everyone has to work up from the same starting position sounds a little communist.

Eh, wot???  That's absurd.  There is no need to be communist. 

The other option to having a "royal" family is to not have one.

RovingPedant said:

       stancrist said...  The French and Russians knew how to properly treat "royal" families.  LOL.

Murdering women and children for no other crime than the family they were born into? Seems a bit regressive to me...

Perhaps.  But, it was certainly quite effective.  

RovingPedant said:

Interesting to note that those royal families that survive tend to be those that now present their position as one of service and duty

It's called "public relations" -- what else can they say to justify a lavish lifestyle and being paid many tens of millions of dollars every year, for no reason other than being members of one particular family.

\

It isn't the Middle Ages in Europe, true, but the current monarchs are also not Medieval monarchs.  We no longer have "off with their heads", local uprisings caused by the king bedding a duke's wife and, most importantly, no more bloody dynastic wars.

(And the English had already tried a "French-style solution" over a century before the French)

renatohm said:

since it's very likely that the Queen will be replaced by a King, will the anthem change to reflect that?

National Anthem of the British Empire (1901-1952) - "God Save the King"

stancrist said:

I find it somewhat humorous (and more than a bit odd) that there are modern, western countries which still have a queen or king.  After all, it's the 21st century, not medieval times. The idea that a few individuals are entitled to national wealth, power, and prestige, not because they did anything to earn it, but due solely to who their parents were, is mindboggling.

It is difficult to justify the hereditary principle, although it seems to be observed to some degree even in republican countries (the Kennedys, Bushes and so on). What gives me pause is that the countries I most admire, and which score very highly in life satisfaction surveys, mostly have monarchies: Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.

autogun said:

the countries I most admire, and which score very highly in life satisfaction surveys, mostly have monarchies: Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden

I do not think that it relates to being a monarchy, because Finland, IIRS, is also high on this list

In my opinion, it is mostly relevant to them being more concerned with their own well-being rather than playing in geopolitics. And being relatively small and more or less homogeneous nations also helps.