The Monarchy And The Empire / Commonwealth

I think there was a fair bit of private enterprise involved in shaping the British empire in the early days.

Naval power and greed.

I had an image of Queen Victoria looking at a map and saying “I want this country.”.

Broadly speaking British monarchs avoid having their opinions known - I forget who it was that tweeted recently "I'm going to miss not knowing what the Queen thinks about things" because one thing she was definitely very good at was not conveying any opinions. Whereas after just one week we're already aware of what our new king thinks about pens so he's not so good at that bit). I think across a 70 year career we can glean that she likes a certain breed of dog, horse racing, and theres a clue on the packet that she likes Wheatabix (although I think there are also cement mixers with the royal warrant on too).

But in broad terms the role really is being symbolic of the country. The king or queen doesn't make laws or wage wars but they'll be done in their name, but its just a way of saying 'in the national interest'.

In other news if you go to Macdonalds your dinner doesnt actually get cooked by a clown.

It was a mess. Some of it was greed, some of it was the idea of "either we take it or the French will get it", some of it was "White Man's Burden", etc. What their definitely wasn't was any kind of overall plan to build an Empire, it just sort of happened. If you're interested in the subject "Empireland" by Sathnam Sanghera is a good read about the subject and its influence on modern Britain.

With this in mind, was ‘the Empire’ a result of political rulers at the time? Or is the consensus that the Monarchy ‘suggested’ that Great Britain take over 1/4 of the land mass on the planet?

I would say a complex mix of private companies, monarchy and military.
Initially, starts with the success of privateers/pirates which the monarchy endorses.
Royal charter granted to the East India Company in 1600 makes it legal and respectable to rob other countries.
Then the wealth acquired helps to fund the industrial revolution - and the emergence of a military-industrial complex.
So monarchy plays a minimal but vital role - supporters and enablers rather than drivers.

Royal charter granted to the East India Company

A royal charter is made by the king / queen - but its done so "on the advice of the Privy Council" - which is largely made up of elected poliicians and members of the judiciary so its part democratic part technocratic  - so like most things the king or queen only really has the job of making the announcement. The privy council isnt especially select - there are more Privy Councillors than members of the House of Commons.

They do have ultimate power, it’s just not shown.
Who owns massive areas of the UK? Crown Estate.
Mineral rights? Crown Estate.
Foreshore? Crown Estate.
The monarchy are the pinnacle of a power hierarchy which began after Oliver Cromwell. Below them are the aristocracy, big business, judicary, middle class, then plebs at the bottom.

Regardless of that fact, any society will want to advance its own interests. I suppose technology helps. You build a load of ships; may as well explore. Bear in mind the UK has very little natural resources so diamonds and bauxite would’ve come in handy. Not to mention dabbling in a bit of slave-trading.

Who owns massive areas of the UK? Crown Estate.
Mineral rights? Crown Estate.
Foreshore? Crown Estate.

So what - I dont really understand what difference it makes who owns something that I dont own. Whats the difference between land that belongs to the crown and land that belongs to Tetrapak or Tim Rice or WHSmith. What power does it yield over me?  If we liquidated the assets of the crown estate and shared them all around in some sort of glorious peasant uprising we'd get about £200 each. But only if someone bought it all. So I'd still be a peasant but I I'd part of a generation that had once in a lifetime chance to spend £200 on something and all that land and the foreshore and the caviar and everything would still belong to someone else. What power would I now have that I didn't have before? I can see the sea just now and can report that its not fenced off or patrolled by beefeaters.

The monarchy are incredibly impartial and their actions are really quite heavily regulated by quite a large and politically balanced body. If we sold all that land off it would belong to who - and who would they sell it to and so on. What power is then exercised by private entities that really are quire opinionated.

You would or could have the right to use the land if it belonged to the people

You would or could have the right to use the land if it belonged to the people

Theres a chunk of land near me that 'belongs to the people' - its owned and managed by 'the community' of which I'm member of. I can walk around it - but not exclusively - anyone from anywhere can walk around it -, thats it. I can't live on it, or conduction business on it or dig it up or sell bits of it or rent any of it out I can't tell the difference between it and any other bit of land. It still belongs to 'someone else' oven though I'm fractionally a part of that 'someone else'

the Monarchy haven’t had any actual power for hundreds of years.

Apart from getting to veto any law that might impact their interests.

how Prince Charles pressured ministers to change law to benefit his estate

Queen’s sweeping immunity from more than 160 laws

Initially, starts with the success of privateers/pirates which the monarchy endorses.

Sort of, depends if your including the Angevin Empire into the mix.

I had an image of Queen Victoria looking at a map and saying “I want this country.”.

Yeah it's been hundreds of years since the days of absolute monarchy and certainly since Magna Carta monarchs have had to share power with first the noble class and post-industrial revolution the bourgeoisie.

My understanding is that even a monarch such as Henry VIII who is widely thought of as tyrannical one man dictatorship had to tread carefully as he ordered the murder of his former friends and set up his own religion - everything had to a decree be justified, he couldn't just act on a whim.

In the case of Queen Victoria I believe that she had considerable political influence, certainly compared to QE2, and that QV surrendered much of it under pressure from Prince Albert who had the foresight to recognise the dangers to the monarchy posed by an overbearing and interfering Queen.

I also believe that Queen Victoria was an exceptionally unpleasant woman who treated people who displeased her, including her own children, appallingly.

And that as she spoke mostly German with her tutors until the age of 12 Queen Victoria (she didn't learn English until she was about 3 years old) rather fittingly spoke English with a slight German accent throughout her life. Although some dispute this and claim that she was eventually managed to suppress it. She spoke to Albert in German although I don't think they did so when they were on public engagements!

Rule or be ruled.

The rest are just side shows.

There's a fairly new podcast called Empire with Anita Anand and William Dalrymple that's pretty good. I listen whilst working so have missed some of the details but it's very interesting.

I was just thinking we needed another royal thread.

I think there was a fair bit of private enterprise involved in shaping the British empire in the early days.

Not just the earliest days, it's pretty much how this country is run. Tories at the head of it naturally.

I was just thinking we needed another royal thread.

& It’ll go on forever, covering the same crap as the other two, by the same contributors.

Well it is unlikely to go on forever as the monarchy won't remain a topical news story for much longer.

As a fairly major contributor to royal threads esselgruntfuttock would you class what you post as 'the same crap'?

And what first attracted you to this thread?

Except the empire wasn't the product of military muscle. The technique used was to get the different tribes, religious groups to fight each other and then come along with a handful of your guys and "save the day" for one faction or the other for which they were then forever in your debt. Carry on receiving gifts of land until you own everything. Invented by the Romans and perfected by the British but it took little for the whole charade of military power to be seen by the native peoples for what it was.

Invented by the Romans and perfected by the British

And admired by the Nazis. Apparently Hitler was particularly impressed with how the British were able to control a huge country with such a vast population as India with so few men.

The Britian Raj was used as example of how the Third Reich could control occupied territories.

The technique used was to get the different tribes, religious groups to fight each other and then come along with a handful of your guys and “save the day” for one faction or the other for which they were then forever in your debt.

Divide and conquer.

Invented by the Romans and perfected by the British

And admired by the Nazis. Apparently Hitler was particularly impressed with how the British were able to control a huge country with such a vast population as India with so few men.

The Britian Raj was used as example of how the Third Reich could control occupied territories.

Now use by USA/NATO/EU ... but these lot are second rated.

Invented by the Romans

Somebody should tell Phillip of Macedon.

And it almost certainly pre-dates him as well, its just we dont have the written records.

Somebody should tell Phillip of Macedon.

He was mostly a military might person. I have thought it unfair his son gets the title when it was Phillip who did all the planning and setup.

And it almost certainly pre-dates him as well, its just we dont have the written records.

The Persians were pretty good at it. Their occasional support for Sparta to counter Athens for example.

The british empire wasnt the only colonial empire of the time. To an extent England was just keeping up with the Joneses. All the Old World countries were at it to a greater or lesser extent, Russian, France, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Belgium, Holland, Denmark all had colonial ambitions and most had a bit of head start on us really. You go back to the mid 1700s and the lions share of our former colony now called the USA was 'New France'.

Building empires is what these neighbouring and competing trading nations needed to do to survive. Countries that weren't so good at it, like Scotland, hit the buffers. The act of Union was a £100 Billion bail out (in todays money) to the backers of Scotland's failed colonial attempts.

The Persians were pretty good at it.

Id put a fiver on Sargon, if anyone has a time machine handy...

Sumer also gets the rather dubious honour as the probable birthplace of slavery, at least within societies organised enough to be called "civilisations"

Getting back to the OP's original question: was the Empire a result of political rulers at the time? Or is the consensus that the Monarchy ‘suggested’ that Great Britain take over 1/4 of the land mass on the planet?

I would say that the monarchs had little to do with the establishment of an empire, they simply benefited from the increased wealth and consolidated increased power that it created.

If you look at the French empire at its very peak just before World War 2 it was huge despite France having been a republic for a very long time - liberty, equality, and fraternity, didn't apply to foreigners.

The driving force behind the French empire at its peak was the shared interests of the ruling class, not a monarch. Without a king France was still perfectly capable of fighting colonial wars in Vietnam and Algeria.

There is no reason to assume that all other empires haven't been driven by the shared interests of whatever ruling class has been in power.

So the answer to the OP's question imo is 'political rulers'. I don't doubt Cecil Rhodes loyalty to the British crown but I also have no doubt that the greedy bastard's loyalty to himself came first. All histories of all societies is the history of class struggles.

My understanding is that even a monarch such as Henry VIII who is widely thought of as tyrannical one man dictatorship had to tread carefully as he ordered the murder of his former friends and set up his own religion – everything had to a decree be justified, he couldn’t just act on a whim.

There is no reason to assume that all other empires haven’t been driven by the shared interests of whatever ruling class has been in power.

So the answer to the OP’s question imo is ‘political rulers’. I don’t doubt Cecil Rhodes loyalty to the British crown but I also have no doubt that the greedy bastard’s loyalty to himself came first. All histories of all societies is the history of class struggles.

The two are really one and the same though... essentially a bit of a cold war of the ruling classes where the plebs/serfs are the ones paying and to use the war analogy fighting the wars, getting killed etc. BUT that analogy extends to every aspect of life.

The monarchy is what gives the legitimacy despite the fact they are appeasing the ruling class in doing this.

And admired by the Nazis. Apparently Hitler was particularly impressed with how the British were able to control a huge country with such a vast population as India with so few men.

The Britian Raj was used as example of how the Third Reich could control occupied territories.

Depending how you want to define "occupied territories".. the same could be said for the domestic situation in many ways.

To all practical extents the Monarchy represent a species to themselves that are superior (and appointed by a god) and the commoners are not regarded by them as "fully human" how they define it. Examples being Charles seems to self identify as the same species as the House of Saud...

I studied Empires as part of my degree, so did a fair bit of reading.

My thoughts are that Empires such as the British, French, Spanish, Portugese, had some connection to Royalty at their early stage, in the same way that they had a connection to the Church - claiming something in the Glory of God or the Crown.
More typically, they evolved from trading posts ( factories) and the overwhelming drive of the British Empire was always trade. Both a means to procure resources and obtaining markets to sell goods.
It's a myth that the British went around the world conquering and subjugating, we never had the resources for that. Look at the size of the British army at the out break of WW1 ( pretty much the height of Empire ) compared to the other combatants, it was tiny. The British method was always to buy the favour of local muscle wherever possible. We generally only used force when trade was either at risk or as a means of opening new trade.
There were other drivers, cultural mainly, white man's burden and all that, generally driven by the scientific beliefs of the age that there was something inherently superior in the European race.

We generally only used force when trade was either at risk or as a means of opening new trade.

So quite a lot then?

Just the occasional massacre to remind the natives of the consequences of getting all bolshie and rebellious.

So quite a lot then?

Yes but only when they really, really had to.
Most of the time, British colonialists were bloody nice fellas.
Rosy-cheeked chaps who loved nothing more than a game of cricket before cutting some trade deals with the natives.
Unfortunately, if they didn't play ball then large-scale slaughter was the only option. Damned shame.

Here's a list of some of their greatest hits: Wars involving the UK

What's notable about many of the C19th conflicts is the sheer numbers involved.
Long forgotten (in the UK) wars and battles in which hundreds of thousands are killed.
And often with minimal British casualties - guns versus spears.

Most of the time, British colonialists were bloody nice fellas.
Rosy-cheeked chaps who loved nothing more than a game of cricket before cutting some trade deals with the natives.
Unfortunately, if they didn’t play ball then large-scale slaughter was the only option. Damned shame.

As taught through the public school system which provided the moral backbone to the British Empire. On the one hand gentlemanly behaviour and politeness was drummed in but also was need for ritualistic and brutal rape after a damn good thrashing as an expression of power over your inferiors.

We generally only used force when trade was either at risk or as a means of opening new trade.

So quite a lot then?

Often enough to be recognised in far flung places.

“First comes the trader, then the missionary, then the red soldier.”
Cetshwayo: King of the Zulu, 1879

And often with minimal British casualties – guns versus spears.

Satirized in Blackadder.

And often with minimal British casualties – guns versus spears

Come tell us how you slew them poor Arabs two by two,
Like the Zulus they had spears and bows and arrows,
How you bravely faced each one with your 16-pounder gun,
And you frightened them poor natives to their marrow.

So from what I can gather, most people believe the monarchy has had no significant political influence in these matters?

You can add the role that Christianity played in all this. New Zealand for example, the British were not very interested (too far away, Empire already stretched) until the missionaries went out to convert the natives and preach against miscegenation, and met some unfortunate ends, they had to go in to protect them.

I've always blamed Mrs Windsor for the Iraq war.

Her and her royal prerogative. Who did think she was kidding by leaving it all to "her" prime minister?

So from what I can gather, most people believe the monarchy has had no significant political influence in these matters?

Where do whips fit into the democratic process that has led to such a brutal history?

https://twitter.com/tinastowell/status/1570866655483539456