Why Wasn't the British Empire Ruled by A British Emperor? Documentary
video description
Date: 2022-07-19
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 19
DavidB5501
Until the second half of the 19th century Britain didn't have any systematic imperial plan or method of rule. It acquired control of various territories for different reasons and in different ways. Much of what we call the British empire was a by-product of wars with other European powers: Spain, France and the Netherlands especially. (Not Portugal, because that was a traditional ally of Britain) Other territories were acquired by commercial interests like the East India Company and the Hudson's Bay Company, or by groups of colonists granted privileges by royal charters, like most of the colonies in north America. Britain did not have a large army to play with, and Parliament hated spending money on anything unnecessary,
The big change came after the Indian Rebellion of the late 1850s, when the East India Company was abolished and the British Crown took formal control of much of India. Then came the 'scramble for Africa', when all the European powers competed to acquire African colonies, and Britain didn't want to be left out. Even then there were mixed feelings about 'Empire', with Conservatives far more enthusiastic than the Liberal Party, let alone the emerging socialist movement.
reply
Until the second half of the 19th century Britain didn't have any systematic imperial plan or method of rule. It acquired control of various territories for different reasons and in different ways. Much of what we call the British empire was a by-product of wars with other European powers: Spain, France and the Netherlands especially. (Not Portugal, because that was a traditional ally of Britain) Other territories were acquired by commercial interests like the East India Company and the Hudson's Bay Company, or by groups of colonists granted privileges by royal charters, like most of the colonies in north America. Britain did not have a large army to play with, and Parliament hated spending money on anything unnecessary,
The big change came after the Indian Rebellion of the late 1850s, when the East India Company was abolished and the British Crown took formal control of much of India. Then came the 'scramble for Africa', when all the European powers competed to acquire African colonies, and Britain didn't want to be left out. Even then there were mixed feelings about 'Empire', with Conservatives far more enthusiastic than the Liberal Party, let alone the emerging socialist movement.
reply
AYCoded
Before watching:
I think it's more the attitude. Britain took colonies, they weren't really seen as an extension of Britain, but something owned or ruled by it.
I think, contrastingly, like with the Roman Empire, they would take land actually connected to what they began with, therefore allowing it to be seen as an actual extension of what they previously had, so it could become a part of Rome, one in the same.
If you were in the North, West, South or East of the Roman Empire, you're of Rome, but if you're in a completely disconnected colony that is on the other side of the world, you can differentiate it with the surrounding countries allowing you to see it's borders/ perimeter and still think of it as that country.
. Now onto the video where they actually explain the technicality of the term.
reply
Before watching:
I think it's more the attitude. Britain took colonies, they weren't really seen as an extension of Britain, but something owned or ruled by it.
I think, contrastingly, like with the Roman Empire, they would take land actually connected to what they began with, therefore allowing it to be seen as an actual extension of what they previously had, so it could become a part of Rome, one in the same.
If you were in the North, West, South or East of the Roman Empire, you're of Rome, but if you're in a completely disconnected colony that is on the other side of the world, you can differentiate it with the surrounding countries allowing you to see it's borders/ perimeter and still think of it as that country.
. Now onto the video where they actually explain the technicality of the term.
reply
Derek
the brits knew what they got when they chose the new european king as thier monarch, german/swiss and dutch blood brought some dna into the british upper class, which continues to suffer from the age old problem of inbreeding, making the hapsburgs look inviting, thats why british monarchs are so limited, cant have a bloody foriegner in charge now, can we. thats the view of the majority, even shaming the current monarch to change her name to Windsor, else she be labeled that bloody german and the current push for a new british empire is seen as embarassing, so much so a few overseas depencies have declared total independance and removed themselves from the commonwealth, aka british empire light v2. 0 looks in trouble.
reply
the brits knew what they got when they chose the new european king as thier monarch, german/swiss and dutch blood brought some dna into the british upper class, which continues to suffer from the age old problem of inbreeding, making the hapsburgs look inviting, thats why british monarchs are so limited, cant have a bloody foriegner in charge now, can we. thats the view of the majority, even shaming the current monarch to change her name to Windsor, else she be labeled that bloody german and the current push for a new british empire is seen as embarassing, so much so a few overseas depencies have declared total independance and removed themselves from the commonwealth, aka british empire light v2. 0 looks in trouble.
reply
Larry
I can't speak for anywhere else, but for the majority of Canadians now, we simply have zero interest in England's monarchy, and have no use for them. Not all of us, of course, but somewhere over 60%. That's why your queen is, on paper, our ruler - but on paper only. If she ever decided to throw her weight around and issue orders to us, we'd simply form our own republic. It's already on the fence, all she's got to do to give us that one little push is to pretend she's in charge here.
reply
I can't speak for anywhere else, but for the majority of Canadians now, we simply have zero interest in England's monarchy, and have no use for them. Not all of us, of course, but somewhere over 60%. That's why your queen is, on paper, our ruler - but on paper only. If she ever decided to throw her weight around and issue orders to us, we'd simply form our own republic. It's already on the fence, all she's got to do to give us that one little push is to pretend she's in charge here.
reply
education
Lovely little Doc. It's true that there has never been any legal definition of what the 'British Empire', merely 'the King's/Queen's realms and territories. In fact significant parts of the what we now refer to as the Commonwealth, ie Canada and Australia have the same constitutional status in relation to the UK as they did when Queen Victoria was on the throne (& NZ in 1917!
reply
Lovely little Doc. It's true that there has never been any legal definition of what the 'British Empire', merely 'the King's/Queen's realms and territories. In fact significant parts of the what we now refer to as the Commonwealth, ie Canada and Australia have the same constitutional status in relation to the UK as they did when Queen Victoria was on the throne (& NZ in 1917!
reply
Duane
Im going to upset many monarch loyalists, but Kings, Queens, Prince, Emperor etc. are all just old world pompous titles that have little to no relevance in modern times and our evolving civilization.
It is undeserved recognition of authority (even if symbolic) and privilege that is mostly bestowed through mundane nepotism.
reply
Im going to upset many monarch loyalists, but Kings, Queens, Prince, Emperor etc. are all just old world pompous titles that have little to no relevance in modern times and our evolving civilization.
It is undeserved recognition of authority (even if symbolic) and privilege that is mostly bestowed through mundane nepotism.
reply
Squeaks
British coins from the late 19th century to 1948 had the titles DEI GRA BRITT OMN REX FID DEF IND IMP on them. This stands for DEI GRATIA BRITANNIARUM OMNIUM REX FIDEI DEFENSOR INDIAE IMPERATOR. Translated from Latin it means By the Grace of God, King of all the Britains, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India.
reply
British coins from the late 19th century to 1948 had the titles DEI GRA BRITT OMN REX FID DEF IND IMP on them. This stands for DEI GRATIA BRITANNIARUM OMNIUM REX FIDEI DEFENSOR INDIAE IMPERATOR. Translated from Latin it means By the Grace of God, King of all the Britains, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India.
reply
Darragh
Your graphic in this and other videos shows Ireland as part of Britain, this is incorrect. Ireland was colonised and considered part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland - now UK of GB and Northern Ireland. Even the political term British isles is not recognised to this day in Ireland.
reply
Your graphic in this and other videos shows Ireland as part of Britain, this is incorrect. Ireland was colonised and considered part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland - now UK of GB and Northern Ireland. Even the political term British isles is not recognised to this day in Ireland.
reply
nunya
Victoria was empress, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI were all emperors. India was an empire. Britain never was even though it was called the British Empire due largely to multiple realms including Canada and Australia etc.
reply
Victoria was empress, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI were all emperors. India was an empire. Britain never was even though it was called the British Empire due largely to multiple realms including Canada and Australia etc.
reply
Victoralexander123
At the time of a war what it is about is winning the rules are only for the people the mandates the dominion belongs to an Olympian there are 13 nations that we will soon dominate together with the BRITISH EMPEROR
reply
At the time of a war what it is about is winning the rules are only for the people the mandates the dominion belongs to an Olympian there are 13 nations that we will soon dominate together with the BRITISH EMPEROR
reply
Ashley
Only India had an empress, the royal family were just ceremonial, the British empire was ruled by a handful of aristocrats and self made men who exploited working class Brits back home just as much as natives abroad.
reply
Only India had an empress, the royal family were just ceremonial, the British empire was ruled by a handful of aristocrats and self made men who exploited working class Brits back home just as much as natives abroad.
reply
john
We have an emperor of Britain. He goes by the name of Boris. In his and his acolytes imagination. Thankfully the wheel is turning full circle and then he will be known as the last prime minister of a United Kingdom
reply
We have an emperor of Britain. He goes by the name of Boris. In his and his acolytes imagination. Thankfully the wheel is turning full circle and then he will be known as the last prime minister of a United Kingdom
reply
philip
Great job. One thing, in south africa, until 1902, transvaal and the orange free state weren't part of their empire
Boer war 1899 to 1902 is when they genocided us into their empire
reply
Great job. One thing, in south africa, until 1902, transvaal and the orange free state weren't part of their empire
Boer war 1899 to 1902 is when they genocided us into their empire
reply
Matthew
Napoleon has the distinct honour of having one of, if not the most important Imperial title in history as the French Emperor, and the most insignificant as the Emperor of Elba
reply
Napoleon has the distinct honour of having one of, if not the most important Imperial title in history as the French Emperor, and the most insignificant as the Emperor of Elba
reply
Mad
Odd, when you think about how the UK is a union of at least 5 different ethnic and linguistic groups (maybe more, since Scotland itself is at least 3 linguistic groups.
reply
Odd, when you think about how the UK is a union of at least 5 different ethnic and linguistic groups (maybe more, since Scotland itself is at least 3 linguistic groups.
reply
Antonio
I would have never allowed that Sorcerer of Morgan to be prevailing.
Aaaah. Morgan.
If i smell Thoroughly my hairs i can still Smelling your Fragrance.
reply
I would have never allowed that Sorcerer of Morgan to be prevailing.
Aaaah. Morgan.
If i smell Thoroughly my hairs i can still Smelling your Fragrance.
reply
typograf62
There is a precedence for a British emperor. Emperor Carausius - a Roman commander turned emperor of Britain. He even had a successor (and murderer.
reply
There is a precedence for a British emperor. Emperor Carausius - a Roman commander turned emperor of Britain. He even had a successor (and murderer.
reply
Sinn0100
No, no, no you had Queen Elizabeth, Empress of India and nowhere else frolicking in a hallway. blasphemy. I demand flowers or it didn't happen! ;)
reply
No, no, no you had Queen Elizabeth, Empress of India and nowhere else frolicking in a hallway. blasphemy. I demand flowers or it didn't happen! ;)
reply
Jamal
I think the race aspect should be explicitly stated - the White nations were and have been treated differently to the nation's of people of colour.
reply
I think the race aspect should be explicitly stated - the White nations were and have been treated differently to the nation's of people of colour.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
