Nitpick…
From Wikipedia: 1765: Ignorant of de Bougainville’s presence, John Byron (Great Britain) claims Saunders Island and other islands for Britain. Britain builds a settlement on Saunders Island the following year.
My grandmother still does, despite being born and bred in Canada (albeit, she will point out, from “proper British stock”, whatever the that is). Sad but true.
I also heard Murray Walker use it on a BBC Radio 5 interview when he was talking about Lewis Hamilton getting shafted by the F1 stewards last year: “This is a dark day in the British Empire!”
So yeah, it’s still out there.
(Possible sensitive subject, so I politely ask) Is Australia considered part of the British Empire? I’m a bit unclear as to if they have fully left the Empire or not. I can find at least opne reference to the UK Queen still being considered Australia’s Queen.
If Australia is part of the Empire, then Hong Kong’s departure would not make a good demarcation point, as parts of Western Austsralia are at the same longitude as Hong Kong.
I have no idea of the official answer, but my take is that if they have a queen on their bills, they are in.
The British Empire doesn’t exist any longer, so clearly Australia isn’t a part of it. Australia is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations.
Elizabeth II is the Queen of Australia. She is also Queen of the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica etc.
No, they are not considered part of the British Empire. Australia is a constitutional monarchy, with the Queen as the head of statein her capacity as the Queen of Australia. Her position as monarch is independent from that as Queen of the United Kingdom. The Governor General of Australia performs most head of state functions at the federal level as the representative of the Queen.
Just “a” queen? Good job the Netherlands and Denmark use the Euro for their banknotes these days!
I’ve always interpreted it in the literal sense, that the British Empire was so widespread that an aspect of it could be found in every time zone (or equivalent).
The metaphorical usage certainly would have been apt and a clever play on words that true British colonialists would have happily adopted. I just can’t think of a use when that sense was primary. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
The last major piece of the British Empire to go was India/Pakistan in 1947. My understanding is that 1947 is the usual date given for the demise of the British Empire.
Australia ceased to be a colony in 1901. That means (approximately) that Australia stopped being “owned” by Britain and started being “owned” by Australia. We’ve been independent since then. Having a Briton as titular head of state is not the same thing as being British.
Theoretically, if some catastrophe wiped the UK from the face of the earth, whoever inherited the monarchy could simply set up shop in any of the Commonwealth realms and the Commonwealth of Nations would continue as before. In 1940 (before the RAF defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain) when there was a real possibility that Britain might be invaded by the Nazis, there were plans to evacuate the Royal Family to Canada.
If the RAF hadn’t won, history could have turned out quite differently - it’s possible that if Britain had fallen the Queen would now be the Queen of the surviving Commonwealth Realms but not the Queen of Britain.
India was hardly the last major possession. Britain still retained most of its African, West Indian, and East Asian possessions after 1947. Personally, I consider Hong Kong the last big imperial possession. Hong Kong has a population of almost seven million people; the largest British possession since 1997 is Bermuda with a population of less than 65,000.
Another interesting “what-if”: During the English Civil War, when events were going against the royalist side, King Charles I was invited by the Virginia colony to leave England and relocate to Virginia. He declined to leave England and was subsequently arrested and executed.
But it would have been interesting if he had gone to America. It would have promoted the idea that the British throne was distinct from Britain itself. The British monarchy would not have been interrupted. And America would have been developed earlier. When the Commonwealth was overturned and the King returned to London, there would have been the idea that America was as much a part of Great Britain as Scotland or Wales were.
A rose by any other name…
No, an empire and a commonwealth are two quite different things.
An empire is when one country owns a bunch of other countries.
A commonwealth is a group of independent countries that choose to group themselves together. If you think that Britain dictates anything to Australia or Canada or any of the other members of the Commonwealth, then you need to do some reading.
Well, there are various arguments about when the Empire actually ceased to be. Certainly there were large well-populated countries that were still colonial possessions long after 1947, but once India was gone the Empire was clearly all over bar the shouting, even if not “officially” defunct.
You could say that 1947 was the beginning of the end and that 1997 was the final nail in the coffin, but there’s not really much point in arguing over which date was “the” date - it was a process, not a single event.
Very interesting point you make about King James and the Virginia colony, you’re right about that being a great “what-if” situation. That’d be a good candidate for one of those alt-hist books, if it hasn’t been done already.
More likely, I think, she would have maintained her claim to the throne of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, notwithstanding the pretender (quite possibly her uncle, the once and future Edward VIII) whom the Nazis placed there. The British monarchy maintained its claim to the throne of France long after the Hundred Years War, after all.
Orson Scott Card’s Alvin Maker series has the king relocated to one of the southern American colonies, although I forget where exactly he set up his throne (somewhere in the Carolinas, I think). He only reigns over the southern coastal colonies; the north and the interior are either independent or loyal to the Protector. But note that this is somewhat of a side issue in the series since the action mostly takes place outside his dominion. Also it’s a fantasy with magic rather than a pure alt-history.
In real life, this did happen with the Portuguese crown in 1808. The king boarded ship for Brazil about half a step ahead of Napoleon’s troops and ruled his empire from Rio de Janeiro for several years.