Independance Day:- A Black Day for Brits?

[Radagast]

Speaking as a U.K. subject [or citizen, whatever floats your boat ] and a great patriot at that, I am forced to concede that the British Empire, in any way shape, form or fashion, no longer exists.

What we hav now, it may surprise you to learn is the Commonwealth. Which is not the same thing. It was founded by that common upstart Oliver Cromwell (whose Roundheads won the English Civil War and beheaded their rightful King, Charles I of the House of Stuart) and its purpose was benevolent.

Cromwell, after he had succeeded in turning the whole world upside down (modern day people cannot imagine how huge a thing it was to execute their monarch- appointed by God and ruler by divine right), appointed himself Lord Protector. He saw himself as a paragon of democracy and founded parliaments. He then dismissed them when he became drunk with power and ruled with an iron fist- becoming just as tyrannical as Charles had. He founded the 'Common- weal' which means literally 'Common Good' with the purpose of bringing nations into the fold.

The British Empire itself was vast- the largest and greatest the world has ever seen, spanning a fifth of the globe. At its peak, one in four people were a subect of HM George V. Britain was the smallest nation ever to have an empire.

The British Empire once embodied Africa, Malaysia, India, Burma, the West Indies, Iraq, Turkey, Transjordan, Palestine, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Increasing unrest, growth of nationalist movements, and the uncertainty of the white dominions as to what their status meant led to a number of significant events that reshaped the Empire and led to the formation of the Commonwealth.

Today, there are 54 members of the British Commonwealth. It consists of 33 republics, five countries with national monarchies of their own, and 16 constitutional monarchies that recognise Elizabeth II as their Head of State.

The History of the British Commonwealth Timeline

1867 – Canada is the first colony given self-governing Dominion status.

1900 – Australia becomes a Dominion.

1907 – New Zealand becomes a Dominion.

1910 – South Africa becomes a Dominion.

1922 - Southern Irish gain "Dominion" status and becomes known as the Irish Free State.

1926 - Imperial Conference held. For the first time, Britain is prepared to accept the dominions as free countries within the British Commonwealth of Nations.

1930 - First Empire or Commonwealth Games were held.

1931– Statute of Westminster - Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa become freely associated members of the British Commonwealth. This new status of the so-called "White Dominions" helped to ease tension and provided clarification for these countries on their position within the Commonwealth.

1932 - Iraq gains independence.

1932 - Imperial Economic Conference held. In this trade agreement, Britain agreed to give preferential treatment to certain goods from commonwealth nations, and the Commonwealth countries would increase tariffs on goods from non-commonwealth countries.

1936 - Egypt gains independence.

1937 - Imperial Conference held. Commonwealth Nations agreed to appease Hitler and work for peace as they did not want war.

1947 - India granted independence.

1949 – Membership in the Commonwealth widened to include republics such as India, as they were more willing to join this new idea of a Commonwealth of Nations. However, potential members did have to be prepared to accept the British monarch as Head of the Commonwealth though the commonwealth was renamed the Commonwealth of Nations and the use of British was dropped by way of the London Declaration.

1949 – The Republic of Ireland withdraws.

1961 – South Africa withdrew due to apartheid policy.

1965 - Commonwealth Secretariat established as an independent Commonwealth Civil Service.

1971 - Singapore Declaration of Commonwealth Principles. All Commonwealth Nations agree to support this loose set of principles, and as such agree to the idea of individual liberty, international peace and cooperation, opposition to all forms of racism, and a willingness to promote free and fair trade. This is the closest thing the commonwealth has to a proper constitution.

1972 – Pakistan withdrew in protest at the recognition of East Pakistan as Bangladesh, but rejoins some years later.

1973 – System of preferential tariffs was abandoned when Britain joined the European Community.

1991 - Harare Commonwealth Declaration made in which commonwealth countries agreed to promote democracy and human rights in developing countries as well as sustainable economic and social development.

1994 - South Africa rejoins the Commonwealth.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Please don't take this as an insult, BoP. I am being sincere.

How do you feel (and you can include public opinion also) about those laws being on the books?

How do I personally feel? I don't care really. I'd like for NZ to one day be a republic, but I'm not overly fussed. The truth of the matter is that the Queen has virtually nil prescence other than a few out-dated laws. And if it really came down to enforcement, then I would think that we would vote to go republic. We're already in the process of moving jurisdiction away from England; recently we changed it so that the high court of New Zealand (or something similar - I forget the details) was the highest authority, NOT England. But again: this was just a matter of updating the legislation - we didn't even USE England's courts. Hope this makes it clearer.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Admin Warning- The flaming and country bashing stops here. One more flame, one more bashing remark about the US, or any other country will result in this thread being closed. I realize that not everyone on this board speaks English as a first language, but it seems like everybody understands it, therefore this warning should be clear to everyone.

The posting policies are specific. All agreed to abide by them when you registered to this board. If you need to refresh your memories on the rules, then do so. If you can not post without flaming and bashing, then don't post. How many times does this have to be said people? As far as I am concerned, this will be the last time. Any further violations will result in more serious action being taken. Enough said..

[Falagar]

God, what have I done?!

[Radagast]

Originally posted by Sheeana
How do I personally feel? I don't care really. I'd like for NZ to one day be a republic, but I'm not overly fussed. The truth of the matter is that the Queen has virtually nil prescence other than a few out-dated laws. And if it really came down to enforcement, then I would think that we would vote to go republic. We're already in the process of moving jurisdiction away from England; recently we changed it so that the high court of New Zealand (or something similar - I forget the details) was the highest authority, NOT England. But again: this was just a matter of updating the legislation - we didn't even USE England's courts. Hope this makes it clearer.

*sob* it's all falling apart! Damn you Kiwis!

[Sheeana]

Yep. Thank Herakles for the good ol' apathetic kiwis.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
Speaking as a U.K. subject [or citizen, whatever floats your boat ] and a great patriot at that, I am forced to concede that the British Empire, in any way shape, form or fashion, no longer exists.

I know for all in intensive purposes - the British Empire no longer exists. But the commonwealth is a form of Empire too. You still have a very strong influential role to play in those countries. Canada even has the Queen on all their money.

People have repeatedly called the United States an empire and we don't rule over other countries - no one else has us in their Constitution, we play no direct role in their government as empirical power.

NOTE: I am not blind to the influence the US has on other countries - that does not make us an empire though. Many people have tried to claim that the situation in in Iraq is empire building - when it is NOT - nor will it be. We didn't keep control of Germany or Japan after WWII nor will we keep control of Iraq once it is back on it's feet.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Sheeana
How do I personally feel? I don't care really. I'd like for NZ to one day be a republic, but I'm not overly fussed. The truth of the matter is that the Queen has virtually nil prescence other than a few out-dated laws. And if it really came down to enforcement, then I would think that we would vote to go republic. We're already in the process of moving jurisdiction away from England; recently we changed it so that the high court of New Zealand (or something similar - I forget the details) was the highest authority, NOT England. But again: this was just a matter of updating the legislation - we didn't even USE England's courts. Hope this makes it clearer.

Yes, it does. Thank you. I think the impression, from an outsider that admittedly knows very little about NZ (though someday would like to backpack there), that England has much more power over NZ than it actually does (because of the wording in your constitution). I think, it is clearer to me now, though.

[Radagast]

The way Mr. Blair's going he'll give away it all- reduce the greatest empire the world has ever known to his flat in London...

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Radagast
The way Mr. Blair's going he'll give away it all- reduce the greatest empire the world has ever known to his flat in London...

Errr... give what away?

[Millane]

JD you can throw the constitution at me all day long yet what you said was thats you are glad you are not in Australia... British influence on us (like over in NZ which i think Sheeana was saying) is just formalities... i said you were ignorant because you dont know what it is like over in Australia and your knowledge of our constitution doesnt change that, you obviously have no idea what it is like to be an Australian just as i have no idea what its like to be American

Founded civily? You must know that Australia was founded as a island jail for Britain.

and yet still this mob of crims created a nation without war, and we have done very well for ourselves... and i think youll find i did say we started out as the dumping ground for crims in an earlier post, am i wrong or did britain intend to send there crims to America aswell?

How was my comment poor? I stated a FACT - you ARE part of the British Empire

well i think your comment was poor becuase you didnt say that we were part of the british empire, a mere fact. but you said you are glad you are not in Australia, judging us.

You know how much crap is said about how terrible America is and you get pissed over the fact that all I said was that I am glad we seperated from England and the Monarchy.

no because you judged us with your ignorance. i dont care if America seperated from the British Empire...

im sorry your referal to the Autralian Constitution was in vain..

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Millane
JD you can throw the constitution at me all day long yet what you said was thats you are glad you are not in Australia... British influence on us (like over in NZ which i think Sheeana was saying) is just formalities... i said you were ignorant because you dont know what it is like over in Australia and your knowledge of our constitution doesnt change that, you obviously have no idea what it is like to be an Australian just as i have no idea what its like to be American

For your information I did NOT say I didn't wish I was IN Australia - I said I was glad we're not LIKE Australia. There is BIG difference.

and yet still this mob of crims created a nation without war, and we have done very well for ourselves... and i think youll find i did say we started out as the dumping ground for crims in an earlier post, am i wrong or did britain intend to send there crims to America aswell?

No - Britain had no intention of sending criminals to America. America was mostly founded by religious people escaping persecution - such as the Pilgrims and Calvanists, Quakers, etc.

well i think your comment was poor becuase you didnt say that we were part of the british empire, a mere fact. but you said you are glad you are not in Australia, judging us.

Again - I did NOT say that I was glad I was not IN Australia - I said I was glad America was NOT LIKE Australia - as in being part of the British Empire. I am glad we left in 1776 - otherwise we would have just been serving the crown all these years and never be truly free of British influence.

Here is my quote....

I am very glad we are not like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc, etc, etc.

no because you judged us with your ignorance. i dont care if America seperated from the British Empire...

I didn't judge you at all. From your statements it is OBVIOUS YOU misread my statements and jumped to conclusions. And I AM glad we seperated and since this is a thread ABOUT AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE - I think it is very appopriate for me to state this fact here. You may not care - but then I question why you even bothered coming into this thread.

im sorry your referal to the Autralian Constitution was in vain..

Why was it in vain? It proves that you are still part of the British "empire".

Maybe the next time you jump to conclusions you will make sure first that what you read is really what was typed. As I said - contrary to your beliefs - I did not say "IN" I said "LIKE".

Also - for your information - I am watching a documentary on the Australian Constitution right now on the History International Channel. I wonder how much you expand your mind about other countries by watching documentaries or reading books on them.

[Millane]

Also - for your information - I am watching a documentary on the Australian Constitution right now on the History International Channel. I wonder how much you expand your mind about other countries by watching documentaries or reading books on them.

and why do you wonder that... i enjoy reading about other countries and i probably read equal amounts of World history along with Australian History...

Maybe the next time you jump to conclusions you will make sure first that what you read is really what was typed. As I said - contrary to your beliefs - I did not say "IN" I said "LIKE".

yes sorry that was my mistake yet it doesnt alter the point that i was trying to say... it came across to me as if you were judging australia and if that wasnt your intention im sorry...

Why was it in vain? It proves that you are still part of the British "empire".

yes but i knew that i never questioned that... did i once question that we were still part of the british empire, i questioned what effect that had... and i judged that it was not something to war about.

No - Britain had no intention of sending criminals to America. America was mostly founded by religious people escaping persecution - such as the Pilgrims and Calvanists, Quakers, etc.

im sure i heard something about that... ill go back and look it up.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Millane
and why do you wonder that... i enjoy reading about other countries and i probably read equal amounts of World history along with Australian History...

Because of the fact you went off - without any knowledge of America.

I do hope you include in your apology your various statements such as this...

and JD you have just shown why i find Americans intolerable

I have studied mostly British, Russian and American History - book wise. I watch many documentaries and talk to many people around the world and try to UNDERSTAND their countries. Based on yours and others comments on entmoot concerning America - I don't think many people bother to understand American history - or even the American government. The only thing people want to do is criticise or say things like how you "find Americans intolerable". Sorry you feel that way - but I don't think you have ever been here - so I seriously doubt YOU can judge us. Just like you got pissed when you erroneously thought I was judging you.

yes sorry that was my mistake yet it doesnt alter the point that i was trying to say... it came across to me as if you were judging australia and if that wasnt your intention im sorry...

Apology accepted. However it does invalidate what you were saying because everything you said was based on you misreading one word in my post.

yes but i knew that i never questioned that... did i once question that we were still part of the british empire, i questioned what effect that had...

You seemed to get into an uproar over the fact that I claimed you were part of the British "empire" this was before I realised that your whole rampage was because you thought I said "IN" instead of "LIKE".

and i judged that it was not something to war about.

For us it was something to go to war over - especially since Britain was the one who sent it's troops over here after MANY years of negotiations. Do you KNOW what went on before 1776?

im sure i heard something about that... ill go back and look it up.

If it was ever their intention - which I had never read anything about this - they never did it. America was PURELY a finacial, economic endeavour for Britain. We were to provide the British crown with wood, cotton, tobacco, etc. They then shipped finished products back to America.

Also - America was not a made up of purely British colonies initially. New Jersey itself had been settled by Swedes, Dutch and then ultimately taken over by the British. New York at one time - was known as New Amsterdam. Cities had already been established prior to complete British rule in much of the colonies.

[Radagast]

This was a letter, written by King George III, date unknown. I thought it would be of interest.

"America is lost! Must we fall beneath the blow? Or have we resources that may repair the mischief? What are those resources? Should they be sought in distant Regions held by precarious Tenure, or shall we seek them at home in the exertions of a new policy?

The situation of the Kingdom is novel, the policy that is to govern it must be novel likewise, or neither adapted to the real evils of the present moment, or the dreaded ones of the future.

For a Century past the Colonial Scheme has been the system that has guided the Administration of the British Government. It was thoroughly known that from every Country there always exists an active emigration of unsettled, discontented, or unfortunate People, who failing in their endeavours to live at home, hope to succeed better where there is more employment suitable to their poverty. The establishment of Colonies in America might probably increase the number of this class, but did not create it; in times anterior to that great speculation, Poland contained near 10,000 Scotch Pedlars; within the last thirty years not above 100, occasioned by America offering a more advantageous asylum for them.

A people spread over an immense tract of fertile land, industrious because free, and rich because industrious, presently became a market for the Manufactures and Commerce of the Mother Country. An importance was soon generated, which from its origin to the late conflict was mischievous to Britain, because it created an expense of blood and treasure worth more at this instant, if it could be at our command, than all we ever received from America. The wars of 1744, of 1756, and 1775, were all entered into from the encouragements given to the speculations of settling the wilds of North America.

It is to be hoped that by degrees it will be admitted that the Northern Colonies, that is those North of Tobacco, were in reality our very successful rivals in two Articles, the carrying freight trade, and the Newfoundland fishery. While the Sugar Colonies added above three millions a year to the wealth of Britain, the Rice Colonies near a million, and the Tobacco ones almost as much; those more to the north, so far from adding anything to our wealth as Colonies, were trading, fishing, farming Countries, that rivalled us in many branches of our industry, and had actually deprived us of no inconsiderable share of the wealth we reaped by means of the others. This compartative view of our former territories in America is not stated with any idea of lessening the consequence of a future friendship and connection with them; on the contrary it is to be hoped we shall reap more advantages from their trade as friends than ever we could derive from them as Colonies; for there is reason to suppose we actually gained more by them while in actual rebellion, and the common open connection cut off, than when they were in obedience to the Crown; the Newfoundland fishery taken into the Account, there is little doubt of it.

The East and West Indies are conceived to be the great commercial supports of the Empire; as to the Newfoundland fishery time must tell us what share we shall reserve of it. But there is one observation which is applicable to all three; they depend on very distant territorial possessions, which we have little or no hopes of retaining from their internal strength, we can keep them only by means of a superior Navy. If our marine force sinks, or if in consequence of wars, debts, and taxes, we should in future find ourselves so debilitated as to be involved in a new War, without the means of carrying it on with vigour, in these cases, all distant possessions must fall, let them be as valuable as their warmest panegyrists contend.

It evidently appears from this slight review of our most important dependencies, that on them we are not to exert that new policy which alone can be the preservation of the British power and consequence. The more important they are already, the less are they fit instruments in that work. No man can be hardy enough to deny that they are insecure; to add therefore to their value by exertions of policy which shall have the effect of directing any stream of capital, industry, or population into those channels, would be to add to a disproportion already an evil. The more we are convinced of the vast importance of those territories, the more we must feel the insecurity of our power; our view therefore ought not to be to increase but preserve them."

[Radagast]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Also - I agree with Ruinel on the "subject" vs "citizen" thing. Subject sounds like serfs - one step above slaves. Citizens have an ownership in the country.

And yet it is an honour to serve her.

[Baby-K]

(Your all so quick to judge us.... shame on you)

3 words come to mind - pot, kettle & black..............

Sheesh! You know it's true what GrayMouser said, that the American War for Independence played a big factor in whether colonies under British rule would have to shed blood or not, thereafter. It was a costly and bloody war for both sides. The deciding factor was the determination of the Americans to win their independence.

How exactly? Didn't do much for us - we still fought 2 bloody wars (ever heard of the Anglo-Boer wars?). Guess it's just all the mampoer all the old 'toppies' were drinking that made them wanna fight fight fight

[Millane]

How exactly? Didn't do much for us - we still fought 2 bloody wars (ever heard of the Anglo-Boer wars?).

my great grandpa fought in the Boer War...

JD i think its better if i pm you because this thread will just get closed otherwise....

[Baby-K]

my great grandpa fought in the Boer War...

Uh huh - prolly on the side of the English (as did the Canadians) ta to all the colonies for leaving us in sh*t

My great grandaddies also fought in the wars & my grandpa was in WWII - but he spent most of it in a Nazi concentration camp in Poland.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Radagast
I'm a U.K. subject but have found it hard to gauge the attitude of Brits toward Independance Day.

I've never met a Brit who cared one way or the other