Index of this Section Front page of Site
Donate to Sovereignty Join e-mail List Subscribe to Printed Journal


Alistair McConnachie published Sovereignty from July 1999 to its 120th consecutive monthly issue in June 2009, and he continues to maintain this website.
Alistair McConnachie also publishes Prosperity - Freedom from Debt Slavery which educates about the nature of our debt-based money system and A Force For Good which advocates the maintenance of the United Kingdom.
To find out more go to the about who is Alistair McConnachie page.
You can buy the Complete 10-Year, 120 Back Issue Set of Sovereignty - worth £162.50 - for only £89 inc p+p, a 45% discount. Cheques payable to Sovereignty, at 268 Bath St, Glasgow, G2 4JR or go here and click "Buy Now".

Scottish Royal Arms
By Alistair McConnachie and first published in a Sovereignty Special Report distributed free with the May 2002 issue.

"The Queen is not the rightful Monarch of Scotland, and Prince Bertrand of Brazil, or the Duke of Bavaria, has a better claim to the Scottish throne than Prince Charles"
This attitude seeks legitimacy in the past rather than the present, and ignores the reality of the past 300 hundred years of history.

It is to live in nostalgia. How far into the past do you want to go to seek 'the legitimate line'?

If you go all the way back into the past, you will find that what you may term 'the legitimate line' was considered by others at the time to be illegitimate. The Stuarts, for example, were not recognised by all the Scottish population.

In any case, the Windsors are the legitimate Monarchs of Scotland by the terms of the Act of Settlement. George III was the first rightful King of Scots by the terms of this Act, which states that the ruling family had to live 3 generations in the country.

"The fifth verse of the National Anthem is anti-Scottish"
Some republicans like to try to embarrass Scottish Monarchists by claiming that "the fifth" verse of the National Anthem is "God grant that Marshal Wade ... Rebellious Scots to crush". Some very uninformed people even imagine it to be "the second verse". Of course, if this were really the case, it would be absurd.

The fact is that the anachronistic "Rebellious Scots to crush" verse is not, and never was, part of an official national anthem, because there has never been an official version. Presently, there are four commonly accepted verses.

There are literally scores of fifth verses, as a reading of God Save the Queen: The History and Romance of the Worlds First National Anthem by Percy A. Scholes (London: Oxford University Press, 1954) makes evident. There is even a verse about putting "Yankees in a fix".

The "Rebellious Scots" verse, therefore, is not "the fifth verse", rather it is "a" verse - one of many. Moreover, it is a verse last sung, if at all, in the eighteenth century. It was probably not written by the person who wrote the first verse, nor even the person who added the second and third.

In any case, the phrase "rebellious" Scots is a clear reference to the Jacobites. Thus the sentiment, if uttered, would have been approved by many Scots, including the entire Church of Scotland, who were likewise against what they considered to be the threatening Catholicism of the Stuarts.

There has never been an official version of the National Anthem, and Buckingham Palace has never approved any version, believing the words evolve by accepted tradition rather than official decree.

Anyone who imagines this was, or is, "the fifth verse", or an "official" verse, of today's National Anthem, and quotes, prints, or sings it as such, is just plain wrong.

Today, the anthem has four commonly accepted verses, the fourth of which was added by William Hickson in the nineteenth century and reads: Nor on this land alone/But, be Gods mercy's known/From shore to shore/Lord make the nations see/That men should brothers be/And form one family/The wide world o'er

King and Queen

Even these sentiments do not appeal to everyone. When sung at a ceremony for Birmingham's female Lord Mayor in May 1996, the fifth line was considered to marginalise women and was changed to "That all should united be".

In 1999 I issued a challenge, in the letters pages of The Herald for anybody to show me printed evidence in a programme from an official function anywhere in the world, in the last 250 years, which proved that this "rebellious Scots" verse had been sung. I'm still waiting, and I don't expect to be surprised anytime soon.

Footnote, added Thursday 26 April 2012:
An extraordinary letter appeared in The Scotsman newspaper on Friday 13 April 2012, from a person claiming that the "Rebellious Scots to crush" verse appeared in the official Church of Scotland "Church Hymnary" appended to the back of a King James Bible issued by the Boy's Brigade. This person claims that he was forced to sing the verse from this Hymnary in 1965. This is simply not credible.

After spending considerable time checking various sources and authorities, including speaking with people associated with the Church, we sent the following letter to The Scotsman on the evening of 14 April. Disappointingly, and quite extraordinarily, it was not published.

Dear Sir

Iain Lennox says that he was expected to sing a supposed "Rebellious Scots to crush" verse of the National Anthem at a church service in 1965, which he claims appeared in a Church of Scotland "Church Hymnary", appended in the back of a King James Bible issued by the Boys Brigade (Letters, 13 April).

The facts are that the Church of Scotland produced official Hymnarys in 1898, 1927 and 1973. Today I studied Church of Scotland Hymn Books containing the Hymnary and published in 1910, 1924, 1925, 1927, 1932, 1937, 1965 and 1978, all of which cover the time period of the three editions. The offending verse does not appear in any. Only the first two verses of the Anthem appear in all Hymnarys, as they appear today on the British Monarchy website.

Moreover, it is certainly not possible that the Boys Brigade would include any verses which were not authorised by the Church of Scotland and listed in its official Hymnary.

I have no reason to doubt Mr Lennox's claim that he was expected to sing the verse, but it would not be from the Hymnary. Perhaps he is mis-remembering things. Perhaps it was from a song sheet produced by some local over-zealous Protestant anti-Jacobite.

I challenge Mr Lennox to (as he says) "go ahead, make my day" and produce a copy of such a Boys Brigade Bible, with the verse included. I would be amazed and fascinated to be mistaken.

Does the Church of Scotland, or the Boys Brigade, have anything to say on this matter?

For consideration for publication.

Yours faithfully
Alistair McConnachie

Donate to Sovereignty Join e-mail List Subscribe to Printed Journal
Index of this Section Front page of Site