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

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
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.
Except they weren't because we kept the peace.

All things are relative, but the world hardly did very well for the next 100 years without us - two world wars and close to countless smaller conflicts.
 
Location
London
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.
not sure how this thread got to empire after a thread on the queen's health/clearly eminent demise (predictable though it was) but I'd strongly question that pale rider.
The Brits as in so much else with their empire were seeking to inherit the mantle of Rome and gloss their empire in the same way - as in their pax romana - and it might be worth taking a look at what the Romans did to maintain their power.
Bloody savages in my book, even though Italian telly spends ages whaffllng on about them in its rare excursions into cultural programming.
This book covers a fair bit of the period you are referring to:

View: https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=inglorious+empire&adgrpid=52685314709&gclid=CjwKCAiAyc2BBhAaEiwA44-wW3JEEcXEwL-Gzx2ufZ_kVtOAboP62FgLgjduUm9mbB_b-qG7tKfNwxoCDtwQAvD_BwE&hvadid=259020282618&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=2826&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=8358616903477402520&hvtargid=kwd-350930484367&hydadcr=24403_1748879&tag=googhydr-21&ref=pd_sl_2bf3n2hcjn_e

I stress that I don't think the Brits are uniquely bad as some would try to claim.
Most countries would have done the same given half a chance.
Many did but because their empires were longer ago have been able to see and promote them as somehow nicer - see above on the Romans, supposedly dedicated to installing central heating in colder areas. Need a new boiler? Call your friendly Roman.

On the "world's policeman", that role was of course taken on by the americans after WW2 signalled the end of our empire. Plenty of post WW2 documented horrors on the american bobby on the beat.
 

stephec

Legendary Member
Location
Bolton
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.
That doesn't really answer my question though, once Britain had been the good guy and seen off those nasty bullies why didn't they let the little countries run themselves?
 

mudsticks

Obviously an Aubergine
That doesn't really answer my question though, once Britain had been the good guy and seen off those nasty bullies why didn't they let the little countries run themselves?
Umm well my hunch, is that those countries had some rather handy resources, and cheap labour sources, that we just fancied 'looking after' until such time as those countries 'civilised' themselves well enough to be allowed to look after it all 'properly' by themselves -

Or maybe until those resources were depleted to the point that the cost of 'looking after' them became greater than the return on investment in the 'care plan'perhaps..

I'm just guessing really .
 

stephec

Legendary Member
Location
Bolton
Umm well my hunch, is that those countries had some rather handy resources, and cheap labour sources, that we just fancied 'looking after' until such time as those countries 'civilised' themselves well enough to be allowed to look after it all 'properly' by themselves -

Or maybe until those resources were depleted to the point that the cost of 'looking after' them became greater than the return on investment in the 'care plan'perhaps..

I'm just guessing really .
That's very cynical. 😂
 

Dogtrousers

Kilometre nibbler
I was on holiday when the Queen Mother died. I was chatting to a fellow holidaymaker who happened to be in the army.

He was well pissed off because his unit had something ceremonial to do (gun salute or something like that, I forget) that they had rehearsed for when she popped off and he was going to miss the fun.
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
That doesn't really answer my question though, once Britain had been the good guy and seen off those nasty bullies why didn't they let the little countries run themselves?
That's the whole point, they did let the countries run themselves.
 
Umm well my hunch, is that those countries had some rather handy resources, and cheap labour sources, that we just fancied 'looking after' until such time as those countries 'civilised' themselves well enough to be allowed to look after it all 'properly' by themselves -

Or maybe until those resources were depleted to the point that the cost of 'looking after' them became greater than the return on investment in the 'care plan'perhaps..

I'm just guessing really .
Or, the World had changed after WW1, with its huge costs, and with the Treaty of Versailles, and then WW2, and Britain finally realised it just did not have the resources or the right to "defend" an Empire.

That's just a guess as well.
 
The bits accessible in the link you gave neither confirm nor contradict what you said, nor what @Pale Rider said. Each country's path to independence was different and far too complex to give a cover-all answer to the question you asked.

6. Why did the British empire decline?

There is no simple answer to this question. The empire changed throughout its history. In the 19th century, some parts of the empire became Dominions. These were states that were still part of the empire, but ruled themselves. In most cases this happened peacefully, although there was serious violence in Ireland.

The First and Second World Wars left Britain weakened and less interested in its empire. Also many parts of the empire contributed troops and resources to the war effort and took an increasingly independent view. This led to a steady decline of the empire after 1945. In the Asian and African colonies, nationalist movements used a range of methods to end British rule. By the late 1960s, most of Britain's territories had become independent countries.
 

stephec

Legendary Member
Location
Bolton
The bits accessible in the link you gave neither confirm nor contradict what you said, nor what @Pale Rider said. Each country's path to independence was different and far too complex to give a cover-all answer to the question you asked.

6. Why did the British empire decline?

There is no simple answer to this question. The empire changed throughout its history. In the 19th century, some parts of the empire became Dominions. These were states that were still part of the empire, but ruled themselves. In most cases this happened peacefully, although there was serious violence in Ireland.

The First and Second World Wars left Britain weakened and less interested in its empire. Also many parts of the empire contributed troops and resources to the war effort and took an increasingly independent view. This led to a steady decline of the empire after 1945. In the Asian and African colonies, nationalist movements used a range of methods to end British rule. By the late 1960s, most of Britain's territories had become independent countries.
These seem to suggest that Britain imposed itself on other nations, although the last sentence of part 5 probably sums it up.

575172


575173
 

BoldonLad

Veteran
Location
South Tyneside
In many ways she is a victim of the system too. Yes, it’s gilded, but it’s still a cage. Setting her free now and expecting her to thrive in the wide world may not be the kindest course of action, but we should make sure we don’t imprison anyone else in the same way for the whole of their lives.
Would agree, but, that decision would have to be taken well in advance. Certainly, IMHO, Charles is "imprisoned" so, too late for him, probably true for William too, maybe his eldest (George is it?) could be set free.
 
Location
London
That's the whole point, they did let the countries run themselves.
Not entirely.
British secret services did a fair bit of serious shoot stirring in various overseas areas post war.
Setting folks against each other.
Labour governments were in charge through some of this.
These days of course putin is up to the same sort of shoot, including here.
 
Top Bottom