Hacker News Reader

Comment by gregates | Hacker News Reader

Britain is not just an empire, it's one of the paradigmatic empires — an example you'd point to when trying to explain what an empire is. Or do you just mean that it's maybe not much of an empire any more, since, as wikipedia notes, "the handover of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997 symbolised for many the end of the British Empire"?

View on HN

Definitely was one of the paradigmatic empires.

Yeah, that's where I'd put the symbolic end date. Another candidate would be the US successfully preventing the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Suez in 1956.

My first passport (1970s, before that I traveled on my mum’s passport) was stamped “BRITISH SUBJECT”, though Australia was a supposedly sovereign nation. At least the UK had stopped nuking Australia by then.

'56 is too early, given how much of east Africa was under British colonial control into the 60s, and how much of S/E Asia was still looking for independence. It's likely the population of the empire was still above 100mn at the time. I'd say '56 is more like the start of the very rapid decline of the empire.

It highlighted both to the colonised and the colonisers that the empire was way over-extended.

Another "beginning of the end" moment might be the Ugandan Asians incident of 1972: the Empire had "free movement" of subjects, but only so long as very few of them used it to come to Britain.

Those who had (the right to) British passports were allowed in, right? So similar to the recent situation with regard to BN(O) people in HK.

There was a lot of free movement within the empire other than to the UK too. Many people left India, in particular, for west Africa, SE Asia. Some of my ancestors moved to Sri Lanka.

To add, free trade too.

You know, that's another interesting data point.

My grandfather was a "home child", basically a war orphan indentured, his contract sold to a farmer in Canada, while his brother went to Australia, never to be seen again.

But at the time, even for normal moves to Canada or other places, people were worried that their children would not be Subjects of The Empire.

So promises were made, that if subjects moved to a colony, their Grandchildren would be British". This was still a pledge in the 20s when my grandfather arrived in Canada, and thus I am eligible for a UK "Ancestry VISA".

This only works if your grandfather was born in the UK, amd went to a colony, and my point?

Well, eventually the last person capable of exercising this right will be gone. Maybe 30 years?

It is another point in the end of empire.

> while his brother went to Australia, never to be seen again.

There's a tale that likely ended in tears.

British war orphans sent to Australia largely fell into the clutches of the Christian Brothers . . .

* https://kelsolawyers.com/au/paedophile_offenders/brother-kea...

* https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/02/child-migran...

* https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39078652

Oh I know, sadly.

We've never been able to track him down, or their sister down (she was still at the orphanage, too young to ship off when they were broken up).

My grandfather was lucky in Canada. He worked dawn to dusk, but was fed well, sheltered from the elements, and learned how to manage a farm. He came out of it reasonably well.

People often say there is a history of treating Natives poorly in Canada, colonies. Yet we did it to ourselves, too.

Especially the churches.

Likewise in Australia, I am eligible for a UK passport since my father was born there, even though he emigrated in 1949 and I wasn't born until 1975. Was a lot of fun back in the 2000's when England was still part of the Eurozone since the passport allowed me to live/work anywhere in the EU.

> This only works if your grandfather was born in the UK, amd went to a colony

Anyone with any grandparent born in the UK is eligible, whether that grandparent went to a colony or not.

Good to know, thanks

I remember some documentary where they discussed the victory march at the end of WWII. They called it "The last march of The Empire".

Indian, Canadian, etc etc troops marching in step. Within a decade so many gone.

But I agree I think, that the 50s seem too soon.

Still, that last march is an important symbol.

OK, so how about "fall of empire" as taking place 1956-1984?

(3 decades sounds long to me, but it would allow a royal wedding and the recovery of Las islas Malvinas to be the last gasp of empire?)

I mean it is not an empire anymore. It does not claim to be an empire.

I would personally put it earlier than that, because HK was one small territory and seems to stretch the definition of empire for the same reasons.

The various ".. of the British Empire" awards are still being issued annually.

There's no "empire" in the Royal titles any more, but the King remains "head of state" for Commonwealth nations, including Canada and Australia! https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-kings-style-and-tit...

> The various ".. of the British Empire" awards are still being issued annually.

Yes, but that is just not changing the names of the awards because people know what they are.

> the King remains "head of state" for Commonwealth nations, including Canada and Australia

He is separately head of state of each of those Commonwealth nations. That shows that those nations are no longer in any sense part of the empire and it places them at the same level as the UK in terms of their relationship to their monarch.

Its a legacy of empire, but not evidence of empire - rather the opposite.

HK was never actually British to begin with. It was leased territory.

Maybe the independence of Brunei (1984) would be a better date to mark the end of the empire.

HK Island and a small part of the mainland was actually ceded in perpetuity, though the majority of the land area was leased.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com