Talk:Rule, Britannia!

message: What was the verse sang in welsh by Bryn Terfel in 1994 (as on the recording at foot of the wikipedia page for Rule, Brittania!). Was it one of the other verses in translation, or some other varient lyrics. I can't find any reference detailing it on the entire interweb, and it was surely an interesting varient. Graldensblud 23:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1994 Welsh verse lyrics

message: Rule Britannia → Rule, Britannia! – Page should be under the song's actual title. Rule Britannia should exist as a redirect page.
===Survey===
:Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support ▫ UrbaneLegend talk 10:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support ▫ UrbaneLegend talk 10:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I've included a paragraph on the historical significance of the song as I am sure it evolved as a jest (it's written as a series of imperatives and in the future tense) and I think it was aimed at a continental power following an event of some importance... However, I cannot remember what the event was or which nation it was aimed at. Any clues anyone? Of course my memory could be faulty - it might not have been specific as it would annoy all Britain's imperial rivals at this time.  Wiki-Ed 21:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The date of composition (1740) suggests that the War of Jenkins' Ear (which later merged into the War of the Austrian Succession) may have been on the composers' minds. Gdr 21:41:53, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
I think this article could do with all the diffrent versiosn, anyone agree?
Wasn't the song used to celebrate the rise of the Navy in defending against pirates and associated slavery of their captives? Nbroxton1 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical significance of the song 

message: The article says that "Though the Netherlands, which in the 17th century presented a major challenge to English sea power, was obviously past its peak by 1745, Britain did not yet "rule the waves". The time was still to come when the Royal Navy would be an unchallenged dominant force on the oceans ...", however this doesn't swing with my historical take (you dig?), and indeed the Wikipedia article on the Royal Navy states unequivocally:  "From about 1692 until World War II, the Royal Navy was the largest and most powerful navy in the world." Maikel 19:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if this is what you're talking about.  It's a common misconception that the words say "Britannia rules the waves".  They don't.  They say "Britannia rule the waves".  It's not a statement of fact, but an invocation to always be the dominant sea power. JackofOz 01:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. And the Royal Navy article is wrong; I thought I corrected that a while ago but it looks like someone tinkered with it again. The claims could do with a "citation needed". Wiki-Ed 09:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In 1745, Britannia Did Already Rule The Waves 

message: Shouldn't this article be entitled Rule, Britannia!, as the first line of the chorus goes? ▫ UrbaneLegend talk 11:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe you're correct.  JackofOz 12:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't it be 'Rule Britannia!', as it's in the imperative? Postman curlywurly (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Rule Britannia" is a command to someone to Rule Britannia, the comma makes it a command addressed to Britannia to rule - the wave. Dmottram (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The comma 

message: Hello, in a Pink Floyd song you can hear the words Would you like to see Britannia rule again my friend (song: Waiting for the worms, The Wall). If someone agree that it is appropriate, we could add this in the trivia section.  Don't take it too seriously, bye.  ; ) B G 01:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pink Floyd song

message: I heard someone say this today.  It gave me a big laugh, so I thought others might enjoy it:
*Britannia may well rule the waves, but she will never waive the rules.   JackofOz 14:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Laugh

message: I've just been listening to a recording of the Last Night of the Proms (HMV Classics: HMV 586794 2) on which Rule, Britannia! is sung by Norma Proctor with the Royal Choral Society.  They sing "never will be slaves" not "never shall be slaves".  They also don't sing "Never, never, never" as mentioned in the article: there is only one "never" but it is drawn out: "Ne-e-e-e-ever". 
I've noticed this before whilst listening to the 'last night' on TV or radio and I've also seen it in printed lyrics.
PurplePenny 17:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would imagine there are different ways of singing it. A singer might be able to hold the "ne-e-e-ver", but I don't think many other people could do (hence "never, never, never"). The will/shall bit has always confused me... I think they're interchangeable depending upon who is singing it and where. Wiki-Ed 08:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a copy with "never" three times, and shall instead of will. I'll put it in as variable. --Quentin Smith 11:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard "Never, never, never" more than "neevverrr", but it is right to have both mentioned IMO.  Same with "shall/will".  Question:
Would the "Trivia" section not perhaps be better labelled "Popular culture references" since that is what it seems to be comprised of?Rlquall 13:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The way we sing it is "never, never, never, never" - four nevers. But then again, we also sing it as "England", not "Britons". I had always thought this inconsistent but just assumed it was part of the English "England = Britain" viewpoint. 46.208.140.43 (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics of chorus: wrong? 

message: The article needs to mention the year the poem was written. Right now, it only gives the year that the poem was set to music, and it is missing the year the poem was written. I don't know the year myself; can someone fill that information in? —Lowellian (reply) 05:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the wording might be deliverately weasely because the author doesn't know the answer - I belive this is because it is not known. I think it was written - from its wording - around the same time, but I don't recall ever having seen a date on the poem itself. Wiki-Ed 21:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Year written?

message: A previous contributor had inserted a template that didn't exist, so I changed it. The contradiction stands though - the article says that the Jacobites seized upon the song and wrote anti-Jacobite words to it, which seems like a strange thing to do. -- Mithent 23:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: I have heard this song my whole life as a leitmotif in American popular culture for all things U.K. I am surprised that this reasonable observation was deleted. If we want to get into citation issues, the whole article is uncited. Charles T. Betz 02:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct in that the article is largely unsourced at the moment. Until recently it did not have much more than the words, but people have been adding snippets here and there and now it looks a bit scruffy. I have no idea where their sources are, but they do link to other Wikipedia articles. I think your addition probably belongs in the "other uses" section. Wiki-Ed 09:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done so. Charles T. Betz 12:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  As leitmotif in American popular culture 

message: I added a couple of citataions from the OCM. I was going to add a citation for the lyrics and turned to my Palgrave's Golden Treasury...but find there are some differences: "Britons never will be slaves and "And manly hearts to guard the fair" (my bolding). Palgrave is publishing it as a poem, not a song so, for example, the chorus is "Rule, Britannia! rule the waves!" (without the repetition needed for the song). Any suggestions as to which source we quote as the definitive lyrics? Bluewave 14:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now also checked Oxford Dictionary of Quotations which agrees with "will be slaves" so maybe the article is wrong? Bluewave 14:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lyrics

message: I've always thought this would be a better anthem than God Save the Queen - boring, generic, no real mention of anything British and shared with other countries as a royal anthem (Australia etc), compared with this which is rousing and interesting. Is there a reason why it is not? It's about the same age, if not older, than the current one. Would it ever get changed? 212.108.17.165 09:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason I'm given to understand the Queen is quite fond of God Save the Queen, so she is unlikely to suggest changing it. However, the lyrics to God Save the Queen are actually linked to historical events (Marshal Wade etc), whereas Rule! Britannia doesn't actually mention anything specifically British. So I disagree with you there. However, in any case, it's not official (in legislative terms). As to a change in the future, well maybe, but who can say. I would be surprised if a national vote on the subject selected this one over Land of Hope and Glory though. Wiki-Ed 10:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthem? 

message: I wonder if it's a good idea to add the term "Cool Britannia" to the See also section. What do you think? Iakd87 00:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure the Queen will be most displeased by that...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.201.221 (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cool Britannia 

message: I am confused about the relation of the "imperial" and the "mermaid" versions. A google search yields conflicting results, presenting the "mermaid" lyrics either as "traditional", or as an alternation to Thomson's lyrics by Mallet. dab (𒁳) 10:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too am confused, and I'm not sure I believe the assertion in this article that the revisions made in 1751 produced a version known as "Married to a Mermaid". I'd like to understand the change in lyrics -- what were the three verses by Lord Bolingbroke, and what were the originals they replaced? I believe that the version known as "Married to a Mermaid" is a music-hall song composed in 1866 by Arthur Lloyd which certainly USES the chorus of "Rule Britannia" as a musical element but is really a comic song in its own right and not a version of "Rule, Britannia!" per se. Mooncow (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Mermaid

message: Maybe it's my hearing, but I've always heard the words "Britons never ... shall be slaves", not "never will be slaves".  Is it just me, or is this a recognised variant of the words?  --  JackofOz 04:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to "will" on the basis that this is the version of the words in the original masque and in Palgrave's Golden Treasury and the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. I agree that it sounds a bit odd, but these are all reliable citable sources and I suggest they should be the starting point for an encyclopedic article.Bluewave 09:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Bluewave.   There seems to be plenty of evidence on Google that "shall" is sung pretty commonly.  It may not be the words in the original poem, but it's what is actually sung these days.  I think this deserves some mention in the article.  --  JackofOz 09:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Each is correct in context, "never will" means "I don't think they will but I'm not too bothered.", "never shall" means "They never shall. I would go to war to prevent it." When we consider the possibility of us all being turned into slaves (which nearly happened in WWII and truly happened in the 1600s) I think the determined emphasis of "shall" makes more sense. Normal English would be will but the deviation to shall makes it emphatic, not wrong. user:Budhen 1 Sep 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Budhen (talk • contribs) 20:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

text: The last two lines go together in a construction more common in Latin. The meaning is "if you rule the waves, Britannia, Britons will never be slaves". It's like "brush your teeth, you won't get toothache". This means that "will" is right. "Shall" makes a different sense.   Esedowns (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Never will or never shall?

message: Christopher Hitchens says the song is connected with the attacks by the Barbary pirates on the Cornish coast - in which many Cornish folk were taken as slaves to Algiers in the 18th century. Can anyone verify this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.38.29 (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare When Britons were slaves in Africa, HistoryExtra (BBC History Magazine)  Lefschetz (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Attacks by the Barbary pirates on the Cornish coast?

message: Seems like someone had their way with this page. I undid some of the edits that made reference to Brazil, I can't seem to figure out how to change the flag picture to the union jack. 
Could someone take a look throught the article and correct the vandalised sections?
:I think I've successfully reverted the vandalism....but I'm really not sure whether that flag is a good idea. It kind of reinforces the idea of the song as a cliche for imperial Britain. Bluewave (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I reverted the change United Kindom back to Great Britain.  UK is not entirely incorrect as that is what the nation has  subsequently come to be called but it is misleading.  At the time of writing the song, pre 1801, it was written to praise a specific cultural concept of Great Britain and Great Britain has quite different cultural connotations to United Kingdom.  When Brits sing Rule Brittania they mostly still sing to a nostalgic image of the Britain of the past with all that went with that in terms of power, prestige and glory.  Singing this does not conjure up a concept of the political entity, the United Kingdom of today.  If people follow the link to Great Britain I think they will come away much better informed about why this song is so powerful and why it is sung.  Rule Britania is about Great Britain, it isn't about the United Kindom even though they occupy, more or less, the same piece of land.  Ex nihil (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom 

message: I suggest to add a reference to the `Urtext' version of Alfred (cf.  for a full citation).  The piano version shown in the article severely changes the harmonies (to the worse, of course). -- Lemzwerg (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urtext 

message: It's great to see music sheets (or song sheets, whatever your preference) on wikipedia.  Well done.  Anyone know of any other such sheets on wiki? BritsRule (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: An editor is trying to add a claim that the song is "is often called the unofficial national anthem" of the UK, which so far as I can tell is not based on a reliable source, and which has also been discussed (and rejected) at Talk:United Kingdom.  Comments from uninvolved editors welcome.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a patriotic song and it's not the national anthem. If someone claims it is "often called" the unofficial national anthem, they should be able to provide many examples of it being called that. I think the onus is on them to do so. Bluewave (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sources on that page fully support the editors' claim. They are not all reliable, in fact I would say only the first one is reliable. I have heard of this claim before, and since there is a reliable source to back it up then I think it could be included here. What do you think? MrTranscript (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unofficial national anthem" 

message: This alerted me to the Lyrics as Sung.   Does anyone actually think of plural Britains when they sing the song?  Surely it's plural Britons who will never be slaves.  No?  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See something odd -> check history -> see IP edit -> detect vandalism -> revert. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Britains vs. Britons; or How many Britains are there?

message: why can I not edit the page?--99.101.160.159 (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  locked? 

message: Hello.  There appears to be some duplication of content in at least two sections, "Independent history" and "In popular culture".  I'm tempted to remove it from the latter, but I wanted to get some more input first. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The "In Popular culture" section should be removed. It's just a horrible list of unimportant trivia. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it and placed it below this section. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication and overlap 

message: Am I right that in the song "Rule, Britannia!" the Britannia means a personified image of the Great Britain? I think it's obvious, but in the article about it does not say. Is there any authoritative sources stating this? Andrew M. Vachin (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right.   Esedowns (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The relationship with [[Britannia]]? 

message: No disrespect of the performance of the United States Army, but couldn't we get a British performance group to provide the audio sample? I'm sure there are several public domain or full permission recordings by native Britons that can be used that more reflects the actual country this song represents. Michaelopolis (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native audio example 

message: There has been recent controversy about playing it at the Last Night of the Proms.and similar Would having a section addressing this be appropriate?
Ta,cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 13:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There have always been people who like it and people who don't, like any song. I'd suggest waiting to see if it goes anywhere, otherwise I think we could put it down to a media organisation making news to publicise its own events and/or presenting a false balance. I think there's a WP policy for this sort of thing, but I can't remember what it's called - something to do with current events being blown out of proportion to their historical relevance (and in this case bear in mind the song will have provoked strong opinions for nearly 275 years... so there's actually quite a bit of history to account for). Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us add it. Zezen (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. If there are reliable sources covering the history of attitudes towards this particular song, then there might be something to draw upoon. I would guess, however, that there are not. If so, this is a non-starter. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: When I said "reliable sources covering the history", that's what I meant, not sensationalised self-promoting news stories.  Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Criticism or Controversy section? 

message: The James Thomson (poet) page includes "Thomson's words for "Rule Britannia", written as part of that masque and set to music by Thomas Arne..." indicate it was a 1740 poem, although the year was reverted on this page. What year was the poem written and published? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The existing citation, Scholes, doesn't support any date for the poem, only for Arne's setting. But ODNB is more specific, suggesting that the poem and the music were written pretty well at the same time. I'll add that information in, with the new citation. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Year of poem

message: Reading the lyrics as an exhortation seems fully appropriate; is there any connection between such an exhortation and the rise of the Royal Navy in the preceding century (from modest to mighty) to tackle the threat of Barbary Corsairs and their slaving raids on the British coast?
If there are rightly several interpretations and influences listed in the 'Cultural Significance' section, then it seems strange that the need to defend the coast by ruling the waves - in order that Britons never will be slaves - has not been picked up on by any other contributors:
"There are no records of how many men, women and children were enslaved, but it is possible to calculate roughly the number of fresh captives that would have been needed to keep populations steady and replace those slaves who died, escaped, were ransomed, or converted to Islam. On this basis it is thought that around 8,500 new slaves were needed annually to replenish numbers—about 850,000 captives over the century from 1580 to 1680. By extension, for the 250 years between 1530 and 1780, the figure could easily have been as high as 1,250,000." - (From the WP article on the Barbary slave trade, regarding depredations against European populations as a whole)
Indeed, Englishman Thomas Pellow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Pellow) had only gained his freedom from slavery in 1738 and had published his memoir in recent years. Surely this must have had some cultural bearing on the poem & song? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:39D5:271E:ED49:966A (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slaves