Too much has been said about this, but in "Rule, Britannia", "Britons never will be slaves" does not mean "Britons won't be transported across the Atlantic and forced to work in plantations" but "Britons won't be subjects of a despotic monarchy". Words have multiple meanings.

It was axiomatic to patriotic Brits in the 18th century that while they were "freeborn", roast-beef eating sturdy yeomen, almost everyone else - French, Spanish, Russians, Turks, Chinese, possibly not the Dutch but that's about it - had the misfortune to be slaves.

Trivial it may be, but the Rule, Britannia row is another example of that depressing modern tendency, the refusal to look at statements in their true context, but rather to insist that if words can have an objectionable meaning, that meaning is the only one they are allowed.

In most cases, so far as I can tell, this attitude is deliberate and malign, not honestly mistaken and well-intentioned.

Was it not hypocritical of the 18th century British to celebrate their own "freedom" while profiting from the slavery of others? Yes, of course it was. They had a moral blind-spot. And increasing numbers of people realised it and started campaigning against the slave trade.

Here's the thing. The same rhetoric of "freeborn Englishmen" celebrated in Rule, Britannia and used to differentiate themselves from (mainly) the French, later in the 18th century provided moral impetus in the fight against the slave trade.

None of this is to deny that Rule, Britannia! is absurd and hammy, especially as traditionally sung at Last Night of the Proms by a singer in a fatuous costume and a self-parodying if rather smug audience. But everyone knew that, didn't they?

One thing I'll really miss about this year's Last Night of the Proms is the row in the Mail about the number of audience members treacherously waving EU flags