The British Empire Thread

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, it tells you Britain is a nation that believes in worrying about things that need worrying about. I'll pass your concerns onto the Catholics of Britian, 99% of whom would probably say "Why the **** is an Irishman worried about that?".

And there was I wondering why the "English Team" [fill in the sport, football, cricket etc.] gets so much space in the British media. Cripes, even Obama was asked a question by a Brit reporter about the upcoming England game. As you say, things that need worrying about indeed.

So yeah - I can see they are a serious nation with "important" stuff on their minds. The royal succession is minor - especially when it's on a sticky wicket and can't be explained away as the "best" system in the world without raising questions.

As for the Irish - I guess we must have a broader world view that is hard for you to understand. Understandable, given your narrow exposure to the British media.

getz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, it tells you Britain is a nation that believes in worrying about things that need worrying about. I'll pass your concerns onto the Catholics of Britian, 99% of whom would probably say "Why the **** is an Irishman worried about that?".

irish bitterness against the british and protestants [lots of people in the republic think they are the same thing] is not new this is a extract from a newspaper a few weeks after the irish independence;;quote--if the campaign against protestants which have been carried on there since the end of last month,if it is continued in a similar intensity for a few more weeks more, there will not be a protestant left in the place. as i look around the west now i observe huge areas where there is not even a single protestant only roofless churches and overgrown graveyards [this was west galway-this wasent only a national newspaper saying this , three irish catholic bishops also wrote to the vatican about their concerns-i bet none of you have ever been told that side of the story

MarchDub

getz wrote: »

irish bitterness against the british and protestants [lots of people in the republic think they are the same thing] is not new this is a extract from a newspaper a few weeks after the irish independence;;quote--if the campaign against protestants which have been carried on there since the end of last month,if it is continued in a similar intensity for a few more weeks more, there will not be a protestant left in the place. as i look around the west now i observe huge areas where there is not even a single protestant only roofless churches and overgrown graveyards [this was west galway-this wasent only a national newspaper saying this , three irish catholic bishops also wrote to the vatican about their concerns-i bet none of you have ever been told that side of the story

Getz - God help you, of course it is NOT NEW - the conflict goes back to the twelfth century when the native Irish were first removed from their lands and Henry II egregiously broke the "agreement" of the Treaty of Windsor. WAY BEFORE THE REFORMATION there were issues and problems. The Statutes of Kilkeny in 1366 were a clear indication of how deep the issues were then.

You can't -and shouldn't - take one piece of information and not put it into context. That's called bad history.

Hookey

MarchDub wrote: »

And there was I wondering why the "English Team" [fill in the sport, football, cricket etc.] gets so much space in the British media. Cripes, even Obama was asked a question by a Brit reporter about the upcoming England game. As you say, things that need worrying about indeed.

Ah so we're not guilty of that at all now are we? As we talk to that local Offaly man in the White House.

MarchDub wrote: »

So yeah - I can see they are a serious nation with "important" stuff on their minds. The royal succession is minor - especially when it's on a sticky wicket and can't be explained away as the "best" system in the world without raising questions.

I'd suggest the worst banking crisis in centuries and rapid slide into a police state might be a little more on people's minds right now.

MarchDub wrote: »

As for the Irish - I guess we must have a broader world view that is hard for you to understand. Understandable, given your narrow exposure to the British media.

Well I certainly have a broad view. You, I'm not so sure about.

getz

MarchDub wrote: »

Getz - God help you, of course it is NOT NEW - the conflict goes back to the twelfth century when the native Irish were first removed from their lands and Henry II egregiously broke the "agreement" of the Treaty of Windsor. WAY BEFORE THE REFORMATION there were issues and problems. The Statutes of Kilkeny in 1366 were a clear indication of how deep the issues were then.

You can't -and shouldn't - take one piece of information and not put it into context. That's called bad history.

what i am trying to say this isent old history this is history of the irish republic and northern ireland-there are people alive today who can remember those times -this part of the republican history is very little told -when i went to school in donegal [be it for only a few months in the 1950s ]the brothers were very quick to let me know that all irelands troubles of the passed were because the english-me being english and only 12 just dident understand so i can now imagine any young lad growing up at that time in the republic would not know any different -i think in northern ireland at that time would be very much the same .remember there is always two sides of any story

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

And there was I wondering why the "English Team" [fill in the sport, football, cricket etc.] gets so much space in the British media. Cripes, even Obama was asked a question by a Brit reporter about the upcoming England game. As you say, things that need worrying about indeed.

So yeah - I can see they are a serious nation with "important" stuff on their minds. The royal succession is minor - especially when it's on a sticky wicket and can't be explained away as the "best" system in the world without raising questions.

As for the Irish - I guess we must have a broader world view that is hard for you to understand. Understandable, given your narrow exposure to the British media.

Your hatred of Britain is really bad isn't it? Tabloids following the England football team is an example of what? Discrimination against catholics in the UK? Get a grip.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Your hatred of Britain is really bad isn't it? Tabloids following the England football team is an example of what? Discrimination against catholics in the UK? Get a grip.

Why did I ever think that you could follow a cogent line of thought? Even a narrative that seeks to expose your quasi line of "reasoning" is too much for you? The ref is to a Brit reporter at a news conference at the G20 summit.

Please read my post once more and try again...and...you need to loosen your grip. Deep breath.

Fratton Fred

Oh no, believe me I understand your points. You have a very large chip on your shoulder and will post any old rubbish to help vent your anger. Your posts are just rambling ranting attacks on britain with a few big words thrown in. Now, what is your point, that British tabloids are an embarrassment? You'll not get an arguement from me on that, but please explain what that has to do with catholics and royal ascension, your example is a mile off course.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh no, believe me I understand your points. You have a very large chip on your shoulder and will post any old rubbish to help vent your anger. Your posts are just rambling ranting attacks on britain with a few big words thrown in. Now, what is our point, that British tabloids are an embarrassment? You'll not get an arguement from me on that, but please explain what that has to do with catholics and royal ascension, your example is a mile off course.

You know any time you lose an argument - or cannot make counter points - you resort to personal attacks. It is a pattern with you.

I have not mentioned the British tabloids - you did that. I do not read tabloids. Maybe you do. My reference to the amount of time that the main steam media in Britain devotes to Sport was IN RESPONSE to you saying that the British only worried about "important" issues and were not concerned about Catholics not being in succession to the throne. I was pointing out to you that they do not indeed worry about much that is important and your comment was invalid. Sorry that I had to actually spell this out because you could not follow along...

I do not hate Britain but I certainly do not respect it or its history. Not in any way. And I have studied enough of English history to have an informed opinion - But you, what are you doing on an Irish history board cutting the Irish at every turn??? Sounds like you have the chip laddie - or anger that just eats away at you. Why else are you even here? You really do need to chill out.

Balmed Out

No country has an unblemished history or one without moments to be proud off. One cant look at the history of the British empire and not condem its impearialist nature of conquest and the treatment of the people ot those countries. However one cant look at it and not applaud its stance against Nazi Germany when it for a while stood alone and steadfast against an enemy that had pretty much conquered europe and looked unbeatable. Before the nazis attacked the soviet union britain (and its empire) alone faced off agianst the nazis. The odds were very much against them but to their credit they didnt back down. We could be living in an altogether diffrent world if they had.

IIMII

getz wrote: »

many protestant commonwealth countrys would not like someone like the pope pulling the strings

What Protestant countries are you talking about? I don't think religion should come into it. Considering the Pope in your estimation probably 'pulls the strings' here, didn't we do well to avoid religious bars in this country? You can be President (an eminently more respectable title than Monarch) and be of any religion

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Planning on becoming King were you?

Well I couldn't under those rules. Not because I am a practicing Catholic (I am not) but because I was baptised when I was born. Now I reckon I reckon I qualify for a British passport if I want, but does the 'no right for Irish people to have an opinion on this issue' doctrine extend to citizens from the NOI?

IIMII

Balmed Out wrote: »

However one cant look at it and not applaud its stance against Nazi Germany when it for a while stood alone and steadfast against an enemy that had pretty much conquered europe and looked unbeatable.

Did they have a choice? I'd hardly call 'fighting for survival' a stance. They entered a war, fought hard to defend their cities (Hitler didn't invade), and then launched an offensive with the Allies to end the war. They didn't take a stance against the Nazis, they defended their country

Balmed Out

IIMII wrote: »

Did they have a choice? I'd hardly call 'fighting for survival' a stance. They entered a war, fought hard to defend their cities (Hitler didn't invade), and then launched an offensive with the Allies to end the war. They didn't take a stance against the Nazis, they defended their country

Yeah they did have a choice actually. They need not have declared war on Germany after it invaded Poland. Mein Kampf made it quite clear that It was to the east Nazi Germany wanted to expand. Hitler apparently never actually wanted to attack Britain or its commonwealth being happy to have a large land empire that was for Germany and to allow britain keep its naval based empire.
Anti fascism was rife among british public opinion who became more and more disillusioned after the spanish war and with chamberlains inaction.

getz

IIMII wrote: »

Did they have a choice? I'd hardly call 'fighting for survival' a stance. They entered a war, fought hard to defend their cities (Hitler didn't invade), and then launched an offensive with the Allies to end the war. They didn't take a stance against the Nazis, they defended their country

hitler invaded the british isles ie the channel islands

Hookey

IIMII wrote: »

Did they have a choice? I'd hardly call 'fighting for survival' a stance. They entered a war, fought hard to defend their cities (Hitler didn't invade), and then launched an offensive with the Allies to end the war. They didn't take a stance against the Nazis, they defended their country

As already said, they declared war because they had an obligation to Poland. They could easily have sat the war out while the Nazis rolled over Europe.

IIMII

No, they got involved in the war with Allies in the hope it could be kept off English soil, and that they could curb German power. Let's face it, you could hardly call the British Government selfless, and the were motivated by a combination of power politics and self preservation.

Hookey

IIMII wrote: »

No, they got involved in the war with Allies in the hope it could be kept off English soil, and that they could curb German power. Let's face it, you could hardly call the British Government selfless, and the were motivated by a combination of power politics and self preservation.

The Germans never had any designs on Britain; quite the reverse, Hitler considered the British natural allies (make of that what you will); so declaring war actually directed German aggression towards the UK. Were the British playing "power politics"? Of course, all powers do; doesn't alter the fact that they made the principled stand rather than the convienient one (after all British interests were far more threatened by the Soviets - e.g. India, than they were directly by the Nazis).

Fratton Fred

IIMII wrote: »

No, they got involved in the war with Allies in the hope it could be kept off English soil, and that they could curb German power. Let's face it, you could hardly call the British Government selfless, and the were motivated by a combination of power politics and self preservation.

So europe would be better off if Britain did not declare war on Germany?

IIMII

The point being made is not whether Hitler had any real intention or not of capturing England at that point, nor whether Europe would have been better or worse off, as these are moot points.

The reality is that England's actions were taken on the basis of power-politics and self-preservation. Their motivation can be dressed up as heroism (in any situation of adversary there are always heroes), but the motivation was not one of what was best for Europe but rather what was best for England. Idealogically, the English couldn't have cared less about a German Empire or it's trappings of Deutschland über alles (Britannia rule the waves, anyone?) as the English were in the Empire business themselves.

Their motivation was one of self-interest, and if the end result was one of a better Europe, that doesn't change the fact that it was selfish self-interest politically and an entirely understandable instinct of self-preservation that compelled them to fight the Nazis in the first place.

There is no point in retrospectively attributing their actions to a vision of a free Europe when the real vision was of saving their own Empire and country, and seeking a retuen to the age old strategy of maintaining a balance of power in Europe

Pollythene Pam

I love arm-chair republicans. They so turn me on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I bet all their grandads were in the G.P.O with Pearse or faught the Black and Tans with Collins.
Sexy.

IIMII

If you mean me, no I'm not being an armchair republican, just making a point about reality versus fiction when it comes to history. France and all of the other major European powers have all been as equally selfish and self serving in times like those being discussed. No point dressing it up as heroism etc

Fratton Fred

IIMII wrote: »

The point being made is not whether Hitler had any real intention or not of capturing England at that point, nor whether Europe would have been better or worse off, as these are moot points.

The reality is that England's actions were taken on the basis of power-politics and self-preservation. Their motivation can be dressed up as heroism (in any situation of adversary there are always heroes), but the motivation was not one of what was best for Europe but rather what was best for England. Idealogically, the English couldn't have cared less about a German Empire or it's trappings of Deutschland über alles (Britannia rule the waves, anyone?) as the English were in the Empire business themselves.

Their motivation was one of self-interest, and if the end result was one of a better Europe, that doesn't change the fact that it was selfish self-interest politically and an entirely understandable instinct of self-preservation that compelled them to fight the Nazis in the first place.

There is no point in retrospectively attributing their actions to a vision of a free Europe when the real vision was of saving their own Empire and country, and seeking a retuen to the age old strategy of maintaining a balance of power in Europe

Why are people so obsessed with the British Empire? the Balfour declaration of 1926, a mere 13 years before the start of WWII was the beginning of the end of the Empire, why would Britian want to protect something it was giving up?

Why would Britain and France declare war on Germany, when German interests were always east? it made no sense. You are right about keeping the balance of power, but how is that a bad thing?

Fratton Fred

IIMII wrote: »

Well I couldn't under those rules. Not because I am a practicing Catholic (I am not) but because I was baptised when I was born. Now I reckon I reckon I qualify for a British passport if I want, but does the 'no right for Irish people to have an opinion on this issue' doctrine extend to citizens from the NOI?

yes you could. You would just have to decide if being King (or marrying a Royal who wants to keep their right of ascension, you would never be able to become an actual King) is more important that being a Catholic.

IIMII

Irish Times, 17.04.2009


OPINION: Looking at the histories of these islands in isolation and according to grand national narratives can be misleading; often, events focused on in one country have had effects in the other that are less obvious but no less real, writes JULIAN ELLISON
PEOPLE TEND to remember the bits of their history that glorify their own country. The difference between the English and the Irish is that the English choose to remember the good bits of their history, while the Irish prefer to remember the bad bits of theirs. Both are validating their current constitution and politics.
The best historians, meanwhile, earn their keep challenging myths through their research. English historians unearth reminders of a darker past, earning a reputation as cynics and begrudgers, while Irish counterparts get brickbats as revisionists for pointing out that not everything colonial was bad, or unearthing stories about the persecution of Protestants in Co Cork during the 1920s.
Historical truth is elusive. Ultimately, we ask why does it matter to put this or that slant on the past?
To answer this, let’s take a different slant on the old chestnut of British-Irish relations during the 19th and 20th centuries. Let’s ask not what Ireland gained by independence, but what did Britain – and Ireland – lose with the advent of the 26-county Free State and subsequent Republic?
We can look for evidence of Britain’s reputational loss on the international scene, and particularly within its empire, hastening the gathering pace of independence for many other countries, including India. However, what is often overlooked is the impact on internal British – and Irish – politics.
Irish independence led to the demise of the British Liberal Party. This is rarely admitted in British narratives. The Liberals had finally pushed through the Home Rule Bill in 1911 after 60 years of effort. Once this was achieved, the Irish Parliamentary Party never had any further impact on British politics.
The devastation of the first World War and the election of 1919 saw to that for good. With the demise of the Irish Parliamentary Party in Westminster, so went the Liberals’ secure ally in the campaign for reform.
Irish MPs had voted with the Liberals on issues that touched ordinary people and their ability to vote, to practise their religion, to experience the rudiments of social welfare, to have a government that was elected, where the political privileges of the elite were curbed or removed.
Once the Liberal Party could not call upon this block support from the IPP, it could never achieve government again, or move Britain forward in a sedate, principled manner. An urgent, radical, and confrontational Labour party recast politics as a class conflict.
In Ireland, republican politics ran in parallel – another expression of the militant ethos of the day. Ultimately, reactionary forces would bite back through that scourge of the left, Margaret Thatcher. Irish republican grandfathers helped provoke the British nemesis of their grandsons.
Cause and effect? It could also be said that Victorian and Edwardian Conservatives were responsible for the IRA of the 1970s and 1980s.
Thatcher’s predecessor as Tory leader 100 years before, Lord Randolf Churchill, was the calculating midwife to Carson’s Protestant unionism and the separatist six counties.
He intervened forcefully in Ulster politics to undermine the Irish Parliamentary Party. He played up the economic challenge to Ulster from independence, and helped bond the “Home Rule is Rome Rule” equation into loyalist consciousness.
In the middle of all this, the Liberal Party, supported by the Irish Parliamentary Party, achieved its greatest success in the reform programme of 1911, slashing the powers of the Tory House of Lords, and defining the pre-eminence of the elected House of Commons.
The failure of the Irish Parliamentary Party, and the Liberal programme of reform, means repeated Tory governments can cash in a historic debt from Ulster unionism in the Commons at times of slender majority. This will be true again.
Britain, and England in particular, may have lost its Liberal Party, but recovered its liberalism sooner than Ireland. Ireland is still divided, while Britain is still a United Kingdom, despite what Martin McGuinness used to say. It has divested itself of an empire, helped defeat Nazism and communism, received millions of immigrants, continues to reform its constitution, and its political parties fight for the centre ground. Where is the battle for the centre ground being fought between Irish unionist and nationalist politicians?
So, should Ireland join the Commonwealth? English people think it’s quite nice. Irish people think it’s a nonsense. Many Irish people in the North who share an English take on history think they belong to it already. Many Irish elsewhere would get pikes out of the thatch if the English queen were head of anything Ireland belonged to – turning out in great numbers at an emergency republican ardfheis in the Royal Dublin Society.
No, Ireland will only rejoin the Commonwealth when many other changes have happened first, not least that the people of these islands have a common honesty about the past, holding fast neither to the good nor bad bits.
The English are a long way further down this track than the Irish – probably because they don’t remember enough about the past to bother with it.
Their historical amnesia may mean they couldn’t tell you when, if ever, Ireland had a famine, and make the mistake of fighting yet another war in Afghanistan (is this the fourth or the fifth time?), but it also means they supported Ireland when they were going for the Grand Slam.
We have a long way to go to bring our past up to date. The challenge to admit and create a common history for our island still confronts us all. A divided past means a divided future, in Ireland as everywhere else.
Julian Ellison (44) studied classics and history at Oxford, but is now a technology entrepreneur in Co Mayo. His English mother was raised a Catholic, while his father is Church of Ireland from several generations of Irish astronomers and priests. British, yet republican, Irish, but “West Brit”, he believes that accepting a Protestant voice back into Ireland’s political and social culture should be the next phase of the peace process – and a prerequisite for a united Ireland

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0417/1224244901708.html

IIMII

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yes you could. You would just have to decide if being King (or marrying a Royal who wants to keep their right of ascension, you would never be able to become an actual King) is more important that being a Catholic.

Never mind the religion bit (I could convert to Islam maybe, and be a non-practicing Muslim like I'm a non practicing Catholic), but if I were a British citizen why shouldn't I be able to be king?

IIMII

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why would Britian want to protect something it was giving up?

Because Britain (and all of the other powers) never gave up anything they didn't have to give up (take the north and 26 county situation for example)

IIMII

Julian Ellison wrote: »

Ireland will only rejoin the Commonwealth when many other changes have happened first

I don't think Ireland will ever rejoin any institution that basis lies in the remnants of an empire that invaded it

Bit like Poland, France, Finland, Italy et al joining the German Commonwealth

partyguinness

IIMII wrote: »

I don't think Ireland will ever rejoin any institution that basis lies in the remnants of an empire that invaded it

Bit like Poland, France, Finland, Italy et al joining the German Commonwealth

Proponents of Ireland joining the Commonwealth need to stop looking backwards and move into the 21st century.

Irelands present and future lies within the EU not some post colonial talking shop from a bye gone era.

partyguinness

that accepting a Protestant voice back into Ireland’s political and social culture should be the next phase of the peace process – and a prerequisite for a united Ireland



Are Protestants not actively engaged in all aspects Irish politcal, social and cultural life?

Are Catholics or Irish society generally holding them back? Keeping them down? Now thats ironic..lol

The implication being that Protestants dont have a voice and are somehow disenfranchised in Irish society is utter tripe. I am embarrassed for the author.

The author is talking absolute nonsense.

getz

IIMII wrote: »

I don't think Ireland will ever rejoin any institution that basis lies in the remnants of an empire that invaded it

Bit like Poland, France, Finland, Italy et al joining the German Commonwealth

ireland has joined the eu, as a independent state its days are numbered all its laws its constitution will go by the board within the next few years,brussels will soon dictate what you can drink, eat ,work ,you are already further down the road than the uk is,forget your nationality soon you will be just european-at least the uk with the commonwealth has a get out