Jeremy - Why you must reconsider singing the Royal Anthem, from a Politically Correct Perspective

Dear Jeremy Corbyn

Well done.

Now you have put some panties into a right pandemonium by not singing the Royal Anthem.

May I explain that term, instead of the usual "national anthem".   What we sing is a prayer for the sovereign, not about the nation, so let's deal with it from that angle?

The anthem's origins are not that clear : see here : but it is in use by 1744, and may have some of its roots in promoting George I in the context of the Stuart claim.

That has to be a very interesting point, a German immigrant family coming here to seek a new life, looking for work, speaking no English so to speak, and probably a lot of suspicion and antipathy, coming over here and stealing all our monarch jobs and, what's more, getting lavish state benefits, more than one home.

You see, by the time that George III (grandson, still in homes and on benefits) gets to learn English, he loses (or probably makes sure we lose) a load of troublesome colonists we all wanted to leave anyway - you know, the Ukippers of their age etc.   So the the rascally rebels create a NATIONAL Anthem using the very same tune, 'My Country 'tis to Thee I Vow" etc which they keep for a long time until the Star-Spangled wotsit.

And BTW, you may not be aware that it was redesigned and exported as anthem 2.1 by Joseph Haydn (who greatly admired the tune) and who wrote 'God Save The Kaiser' which then became the basis of one of his String Quartets, and then the tune was used in various versions of the German national anthem including Uber Alles and now sans words.

I'd also like to point out that we have shown further tolerance by adopting a Middle Eastern religion whose deity is the one we see implored in the words of the Royal Prayer.  Remember we have given up a whole raft of British gods who did a lot things around the place.  Well might the inhabitants have said "coming over here, taking over our prayers" etc.

Now I do understand it needs changing.  We can't have her ruling over us, can we?   That isn't on and it's also a direct challenge to the Supremacy of Parliament, for sure.  No one minds "reigns" it hasn't any meaning, but the class-bias of 'over' has to be addressed.  Hmmm, what about "for" or even 'long to have a happy life'  or something nice, eh.

And those Choicest Gifts in store.  I do hope Comrade McConnell will remind the Chancellor that this is a time of austerity no tax-free handouts thank you, and remember this family is on benefits, so what about that cap?   I know you are unhappy about it, but you can see one's point.    Also, under current regs, surely they have enough in the bank so they don't qualify and even if they do, I think you might well look at their efforts to get into employment.   I work with young people, and we are enjoined all the time to seek out the NEETs and get them weaving.  (Or some sort of apprenticeship at least, though traditional weaving could well be an option in rural Scotland, so do have a word with the lady in charge up there.)

I do hope this gives perspective.