God Save the King: New work?

I came across edit #92615907 and I think we need a consensus on whether God Save the King and God Save the Queen should be separate works. Should arrangement of the works be linked to God Save the Queen/King depending on the date of arrangement (hence whether it was a King or Queen reigning)?

1 Like

I’d say same work if it’s just a change of the one word. But I can understand if a new work (wouldn’t it actually by the original?) was set up. I wouldn’t have changed the title on this since it was that way for so long.

1 Like
1 Like

I would probably consider this “the same work but with the possibility of adapting it”, myself. I think it’s fine to rename it to King since that’s the default, even though we’re used to the other because the last Queen lived a long time.

So should we make a new work “God Save the Queen” and link to it all recordings created during a queen’s reign and those intended to refer to Queen instead of King? (And also link the new work with the “adapted from” AR to the current work?)

Most of the recordings are for Queen so, if there should be two works, the new work should be for King and move the fewer recordings and relationships over there.

Or just rename the existing work to God Save the Queen (or King).

I’d just keep one work, and keep it as God Save the King since that seems to be the original title. The variation in the lyrics doesn’t seem like it makes it new lyrics, just adaptable, in the same way I wouldn’t say that a song with a line about eating burgers in the artist’s hometown would need a new work if the artist changes it when playing live to refer to the town where the concert is happening instead :smiley:


As a Brit, I agree with @reosarevok - the one work is flexible depending on the gender of the monarch.


But we all here know this sing as God Save the Queen, don’t we?
It sounds powerful and representative of the era of most linked recordings.
The new name (King) sounds so dull, flat and boring.