London Bridge is down - what happens when the Queen dies...

[Dave Davenport]

No chance of us being force fed fondue whilst enslaved in the cuckoo clock factory, you don't build an empire by committee.

 

[mudsticks]

No chance of us being force fed fondue whilst enslaved in the cuckoo clock factory, you don't build an empire by committee.

Oi point, of order..

You can't reel off Swiss clichés like that, without mentioning Toblerone, tisnt allowed

 

[marinyork]

No chance of us being force fed fondue whilst enslaved in the cuckoo clock factory, you don't build an empire by committee.

The Roman Empire followed the Republic, don't be so sure!

In that region of the world multiple heads of state or head of state-like sets of affairs happened several times in the past. It's not that uncommon. Arguments in the past about whether Deities or former dead leaders were head of state is another theme from the past.

I think the most practical one is really to have Larry the Cat as Head of State. Being a cat going around number 10 and other bits of Whitehall would fit the constitutional umpire aspects quite well for those that think we still need a head of state.

 

[MichaelW2]

That's the sort of weirdness that ensues when you've never had a empire!

Cuckoo clocks

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cydkTy6GmFA

 

[Fab Foodie]

Switzerland does not have a Head of State. They have a 7 person committee of canton presidents with one of them acting as chairman but the role of head of state is collective.

They’re very sensible those Swiss.....

 

[steveindenmark]

I have always liked Princess Anne. She works hard and keeps quiet. I have no interest in the rest of them. On the other hand, I am a fan of the Danish Royal Family who are approachable. The Queen is funny and talented and both Princes married commoners who appear more Royal than they are.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

I got tickets for a friend to see a show I was working on in the West End. To my surprise, she was "vetted" by some guys in suits. Turns out she was seated behind the Queen of Sweden and the security services needed to know.

She said the Queen of Sweden has a very spotty neck.

 

[Unkraut]

I read a tome not long ago on the history of the British Empire. It wasn't a hagiography, that's not what I wanted, but a critical assessment.

There was more than one stage of empire. Initially it was really only about trade. An entrepreneurial country. Also a way of preventing increasing influence of other, not always friendly European states. It later morphed into the jingoistic pride of the late Victorian era, which is what it is usually remembered for. It was at this point the monarchy went hyper-pompous as well.

At it's greatest extent and influence, up to about the time of The King's Speech just post WW1, it covered about a quarter of the world. This was for one generation, two at most. Pride went before a fall ...

The criticism of the left never seems to get beyond the categories of oppressed/oppressor, but this is too simplistic. Some elements were good, some bad, and varied from country to country. There is also the inconsistency of arguing the right of countries to be independent of imperial rule, but then wanting to interfere when former colonial countries still have legacy laws in place the left do not agree with. (I might agree with them, but this is still the West imposing its values in an imperialist way.)

The right has the myth of an immensely powerful Britain - cue Land of Hope and Glory. This was true when Britain led in industrial production, but ceased to be the case once other countries had caught up and overtaken Britain. (Those wretched Germans and Americans!) The empire's demise came about because a country the size of the UK couldn't defend such a empire, WW2 proving this and paving the way for its final demise.

Also worth pointing out is that Britain dissolved her empire more or less peacefully, there wasn't years of fighting to keep colonies that most other European colonial powers indulged in. That is very much to Britain's credit.

When the Queen dies, I think that would be a good time to scale-down the monarchy in accordance with a more realistic sense of Britain's place in the world in accordance with the history of the country over the last 100 years.

 

[MichaelW2]

I got tickets for a friend to see a show I was working on in the West End. To my surprise, she was "vetted" by some guys in suits. Turns out she was seated behind the Queen of Sweden and the security services needed to know.

She said the Queen of Sweden has a very spotty neck.

I think this is a cue for some Kingsmen related "Swedish princess: view from behind" jokes but I wont go there.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

I read a tome not long ago on the history of the British Empire. It wasn't a hagiography, that's not what I wanted, but a critical assessment.

There was more than one stage of empire. Initially it was really only about trade. An entrepreneurial country. Also a way of preventing increasing influence of other, not always friendly European states. It later morphed into the jingoistic pride of the late Victorian era, which is what it is usually remembered for. It was at this point the monarchy went hyper-pompous as well.

At it's greatest extent and influence, up to about the time of The King's Speech just post WW1, it covered about a quarter of the world. This was for one generation, two at most. Pride went before a fall ...

The criticism of the left never seems to get beyond the categories of oppressed/oppressor, but this is too simplistic. Some elements were good, some bad, and varied from country to country. There is also the inconsistency of arguing the right of countries to be independent of imperial rule, but then wanting to interfere when former colonial countries still have legacy laws in place the left do not agree with. (I might agree with them, but this is still the West imposing its values in an imperialist way.)

The right has the myth of an immensely powerful Britain - cue Land of Hope and Glory. This was true when Britain led in industrial production, but ceased to be the case once other countries had caught up and overtaken Britain. (Those wretched Germans and Americans!) The empire's demise came about because a country the size of the UK couldn't defend such a empire, WW2 proving this and paving the way for its final demise.

Also worth pointing out is that Britain dissolved her empire more or less peacefully, there wasn't years of fighting to keep colonies that most other European colonial powers indulged in. That is very much to Britain's credit.

When the Queen dies, I think that would be a good time to scale-down the monarchy in accordance with a more realistic sense of Britain's place in the world in accordance with the history of the country over the last 100 years.

Good post. In some ways it was an accidental empire. We wanted trade as opposed to France who wanted territory - look how many pieces of the world are still actually French - not dependancies or protectorates, French soil.

Something rarely mentioned is that Britain led a veritable crusade against slavery - not just British involvement in the trade, but actively stopping other countries doing it. At considerable expense and at no material benefit to Britain, a fleet of ships were maintained off the coast of Africa to stop and capture slave ships, freeing the slaves they found -

Between 1808 and 1860 the West Africa Squadron captured 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans.[1] It is considered the most costly international moral action in modern history [4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron

 

[stephec]

When the empire was being built were all the countries asked politely if they would like to join, and left alone if they said no?

 

[Rusty Nails]

I read a tome not long ago on the history of the British Empire. It wasn't a hagiography, that's not what I wanted, but a critical assessment.

There was more than one stage of empire. Initially it was really only about trade. An entrepreneurial country. Also a way of preventing increasing influence of other, not always friendly European states. It later morphed into the jingoistic pride of the late Victorian era, which is what it is usually remembered for. It was at this point the monarchy went hyper-pompous as well.

At it's greatest extent and influence, up to about the time of The King's Speech just post WW1, it covered about a quarter of the world. This was for one generation, two at most. Pride went before a fall ...

The criticism of the left never seems to get beyond the categories of oppressed/oppressor, but this is too simplistic. Some elements were good, some bad, and varied from country to country. There is also the inconsistency of arguing the right of countries to be independent of imperial rule, but then wanting to interfere when former colonial countries still have legacy laws in place the left do not agree with. (I might agree with them, but this is still the West imposing its values in an imperialist way.)

The right has the myth of an immensely powerful Britain - cue Land of Hope and Glory. This was true when Britain led in industrial production, but ceased to be the case once other countries had caught up and overtaken Britain. (Those wretched Germans and Americans!) The empire's demise came about because a country the size of the UK couldn't defend such a empire, WW2 proving this and paving the way for its final demise.

Also worth pointing out is that Britain dissolved her empire more or less peacefully, there wasn't years of fighting to keep colonies that most other European colonial powers indulged in. That is very much to Britain's credit.

When the Queen dies, I think that would be a good time to scale-down the monarchy in accordance with a more realistic sense of Britain's place in the world in accordance with the history of the country over the last 100 years.

^^^^^
I am sorry but this post is far too sensible and balanced for this thread.

 

[Pale Rider]

When the empire was being built were all the countries asked politely if they would like to join, and left alone if they said no?

There were some battles early doors, often with French and Dutch, who we were in competition with for world trade.

From 1815 to 1914 we have the period known as Pax Britannica - British peace - nearly 100 years of relative peace when Britain was the 'world's policeman'.

Not bad for a so-called evil empire.

 

[newfhouse]

Britain dissolved her empire more or less peacefully

I think this is only true if you ignore two hundred years or more, and only look at the situation post WW2 when Britain was weakened and unable to use its previous robust methods around the globe.

 

[newfhouse]

There were some battles early doors, often with French and Dutch, who we were in competition with for world trade.

From 1815 to 1914 we have the period known as Pax Britannica - British peace - nearly 100 years of relative peace when Britain was the 'world's policeman'.

Not bad for a so-called evil empire.

So Britain kept the world “safe” by being the strongest villain in a turf war with other villains. I wonder how the people of our empire felt about being caught up in a fight between different criminal parties.