It’s a ceremonial position. She doesn’t actually lead the countries mate
The British Empire
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
I know it is, but she's still head of state.
Complete bollocks.
It doesn’t say anything about the nation in question or their identity. The country can decide who their head of state is, and they have decide to move in this direction. If they decided differently, It doesn’t betray their identity. What you are saying here, is that for the time the Queen has been the head of state (in an ambassadorial capAcity) was they have no identity? Bollocks.
No...not no identity, but a lack of identity.
Or at least a lack of confidence in their identity.
We should do to Liz what we did to Charles I
I don’t think it’s pathetic. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are Anglophone countries. There has been and continues to be high levels of British immigration to these countries. In the case of Canada it was the country where many of the 25% of Americans that supported the British and the crown in the American civil war emigrated to after Britain lost. Part of their identity is still British, although that will fade more and more as generations pass.
The other countries that still have her as head of state are small nations. I’m not sure why they still do but I’d guess it helps in a diplomatic regard at least to have such a high profile head of state.
Last edited:
That's a funny link to make. In Canada, the Queen is just a fun thingy; nothing anyone really needs, but a lot of people like having a royal that there is some kind of link to. It's not like anybody chose to have her anyway; she's just a historical relic that has not been gotten rid of (yet). In the meantime, no-one thinks of the Queen as Canada's head of state. That's the PM for all intents and purposes. For that matter, the Queen doesn't even get to sign laws: that's the Governor General. And Canada has plenty of identity a royal that's uniquely its own; or at least, Canadians do perceive their country as such.
So could you maybe expand on this idea that not having your own royal head of state displays a 'fundamental lack of confidence and/or identity'? Cause based on what I wrote above, I just don't get that at all. It sounds more like you overrate your own royal or head of state. (Depending on where you live yourself.) Btw, I might add that I'm writing this as someone who grew up in the Netherlands, which does have its 'own' royal house; so I know the difference.
Tsk tsk tsk... Câlice!
'Chase Contestant Jailed for Treason'
It's not that simple in Canada. The Canadian system is the same as the Australian one as the Governor General is the representative of the Queen. Constitutionality the GG can dismiss the government as it was done in Australia before.
Furthermore, Treaties signed between various nations( First Nations, Metis etc) are signed between the Monarch and then and hence the Monarch is the guarantor of those treaties. Not the government of Canada. Hence one of the reasons why the courts in Canada respect the treaties and don't let the various governments of the day get away with abusing the treaties.
Plus the armed forces have RCAF, RCN and more well known the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Off with your head then.
Not sure what you mean by 'it's not that simple'. Yes, the royal bit is woven through things in the way you write, as that's how the constitution is set up and how things were historically. But right now, none of that is actual functional. It doesn't make a difference that the RCMP has 'royal' in its name or that treaties are with the monarch. I don't think I denied any of that; I just said that the monarchie plays no active role in Canadian politics or society. Or do you see that differently?
I am pretty sure the Queen being head of state still in some countries has alot to do with its tourism, particularly when I went to Canada, Australia and Jamerica, there a big economy around its history for tourists and its links to the Royal family, not sure about other countries.
Just thinking, for whatever reason there really haven‘t been many good movies about/set in the British Empire, considering its size and influence. Off the top of my head Gandhi and Lawrence of Arabia would probably be the two big ones. I’ve seen A Passage to India, Mountains of the Moon and The Man Who Would be King. Decent films (especially Passage) but nothing mind-blowing. Hopefully the recent wave of interest in the topic helps produce a few movies because there are so many potentially great stories to be told.
Any other good British Empire movies out there now?
Any other good British Empire movies out there now?
Charge of the Light Brigade
Zulu Dawn
Zulu
Khartoum
The Four Feathers
The Man Who Would Be King
The Secret Garden
A Passage To India
The Painted Veil
The Wind That Shakes The Barley
Michael Collins
Any of these any good? I’ve seen the last two in addition to the two I mentioned above, but never really considered them British Empire movies, although obviously I should.
Carry on up the Khyber?
(edit): never mind
Yes, that’s why I recommended them
Charge of the Light Brigade uses the Crimean War to make an anti-war message and to highlight the problems of the British military of the mid-19th century. It stars Trevor Howard and Venessa Redgrave.
Zulu Dawn stars Peter O’Toole and Burt Lancaster and is about the British defeat at Isandlwana and is a prequel to Zulu, which is about the defense of Rourke’s Drift and stars a young Michael Caine and an old Jack Hawkins.
Khartoum is about General Gordon and the Mahdi revolt and stars Lawrence Olivier and Charlton Heston. The Four Feathers is also about the Mahdist revolt, but the story is told from the perspective of a group of commoners rather than the leaders. There’s been 3 or 4 versions of this film made since the book came out in the 1900s.
The Man Who Would Be King is based on a Rudyard Kipling book about two British officers who attempt to set up a kingdom in Afghanistan. It stars Sean Connery, Michael Caine, and Christopher Plummer.
The Secret Garden is based on a book by Frances Burnett about a girl brought to the UK from India in the early 1900s. The 1993 version of the film was directed by Francis Ford Coppola. The girl is an orphan so is brought to the UK to live with her uncle and so the story is on how their lives are changed by it all.
A Passage to India is based on a book by EM Forster and stars Peggy Ashcroft and Alec Guinness. It’s set in the British Raj between the world wars. It takes a hard look at the social issues in India and the Empire at that time... also... It was directed by David Lean, the same guy that made Lawrence of Arabia.
The Painted Veil is set in London, Singapore, and China and is based on a book by W.S. Maugham and stars Liev Schreiber, Edward Norton and Naomi Watts. There’s also two older versions of this, one with Greta Garbo. The plot is about a couple’s troubled relationship but also about a cholera epidemic that broke out in 1930s China.
There's also Victoria & Abdul, also that isn't about the empire and doesn't do anything with it - although it does come up fairly often in different ways in conversations.
Thanks. Just realized I’ve seen The Painted Veil as well. Good movie.Yes, that’s why I recommended them
Charge of the Light Brigade uses the Crimean War to make an anti-war message and to highlight the problems of the British military of the mid-19th century. It stars Trevor Howard and Venessa Redgrave.
Charge of the Light Brigade uses the Crimean War to make an anti-war message and to highlight the problems of the British military of the mid-19th century. It stars Trevor Howard and Venessa Redgrave.
Zulu Dawn stars Peter O’Toole and Burt Lancaster and is about the British defeat at Isandlwana and is a prequel to Zulu, which is about the defense of Rourke’s Drift and stars a young Michael Caine and an old Jack Hawkins.
Khartoum is about General Gordon and the Mahdi revolt and stars Lawrence Olivier and Charlton Heston. The Four Feathers is also about the Mahdist revolt, but the story is told from the perspective of a group of commoners rather than the leaders. There’s been 3 or 4 versions of this film made since the book came out in the 1900s.
The Man Who Would Be King is based on a Rudyard Kipling book about two British officers who attempt to set up a kingdom in Afghanistan. It stars Sean Connery, Michael Caine, and Christopher Plummer.
The Secret Garden is based on a book by Frances Burnett about a girl brought to the UK from India in the early 1900s. The 1993 version of the film was directed by Francis Ford Coppola. The girl is an orphan so is brought to the UK to live with her uncle and so the story is on how their lives are changed by it all.
A Passage to India is based on a book by EM Forster and stars Peggy Ashcroft and Alec Guinness. It’s set in the British Raj between the world wars. It takes a hard look at the social issues in India and the Empire at that time... also... It was directed by David Lean, the same guy that made Lawrence of Arabia.
The Painted Veil is set in London, Singapore, and China and is based on a book by W.S. Maugham and stars Liev Schreiber, Edward Norton and Naomi Watts. There’s also two older versions of this, one with Greta Garbo. The plot is about a couple’s troubled relationship but also about a cholera epidemic that broke out in 1930s China.
Can’t believe Kipling’s Kim hasn’t been remade, although I wonder how it would be adapted to today’s sensibilities. A few years ago there was talk of William Dalrymple’s book White Mughals being adapted but nothing has come of it yet.
White Mughals sounds like it would make an great film if the right person did the adaptation. Kim could be an awesome film along the lines of 7 Years in Tibet (which is a film I love). I’d love to see that book adapted to film. There’s so many good storylines coming out of that era and that part of the British Empire that could make for amazing films, but instead we get the 9th sequel film of a superhero comic book.
Oh! And there’s also The Ghost And The Darkness - about the man-eating lions killing folks working on the railroad in Kenya in the 1890s. Val Kilmer & Michael Douglas star in it.
Just had a look, Ralph Fiennes was behind the White Mughals project but it looks like it’s fizzled out. Big shame.
Argh! He’d have done a good one, too. Love Fiennes work.
Netflix or BBC should produce a series telling the entire story of The East India Company finishing at the partition of India.
if they told the story neutrally enough, and using multi languages, it would appeal to British and Indian audiences and be a blockbuster. Would need an army of historians and scriptwriters though.
if they told the story neutrally enough, and using multi languages, it would appeal to British and Indian audiences and be a blockbuster. Would need an army of historians and scriptwriters though.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if William Dalrymple is currently engaged in something like this. His most recent book is on the EIC and he’s made a couple of documentaries in the past I think.
(edit): by the way, history of the EIC pretty much ends in 1858 when the Raj takes over.
He could follow in the footsteps of the American, Ken Burns, and become a legend of documentary filmmaking.
For those inclined, imperial enthusiast Niall Ferguson’s six-part documentary on the British Empire appears to be on YouTube:
@2cents Taboo staring Tom Hardy is a drama series that has the EIC as a central theme. He said himself it’s a strangely overlooked part of history in terms for good drama. I guess it’s the sensitivity of the topic. Too recent I guess. I always thought a drama series focusing on European privateers would be good fodder for television.
Thanks, I never heard of it, but I’m a bit of a Hardy fanboy. I’ll check it out, it’s definitely a really interesting period, before a lot of the themes and images we associate with the later British Empire became enshrined in our collective memories.
Thank you!
Thanks- will check this out.
although you’re right about EIC and The Raj, I think both need to be told in one story. Maybe it’s 2 series of the same title.
Dalrymple and any eminent Indian historian would be a great choice. I think you’d need both to get credibility from Indian audiences, especially in the current BJP/Modi guise.
Its a series he helped create. He plays a typically Hardian character. It has a good cast all round. I think the second series is out soon.
Paxman’s five-part BBC documentary is also up - I haven’t watched it so not sure what his angle might be:
The BBC made an eight-part drama series on Cecil Rhodes in the mid-90s. It cost a fortune and was a bit dull from what I remember. It’s on Youtube if anybody has 8 hours to spare.
I think these type of complex stories requiring lots of exposition are hard to reconcile with dramatic pacing and tension. “Zulu Dawn” suffers from the same problem. Maybe Tom Hardy’s weird and wonderful storytelling in “Taboo“ is a better way of approaching these themes in film and drama.
I think these type of complex stories requiring lots of exposition are hard to reconcile with dramatic pacing and tension. “Zulu Dawn” suffers from the same problem. Maybe Tom Hardy’s weird and wonderful storytelling in “Taboo“ is a better way of approaching these themes in film and drama.
Here’s a one hour Dalrymple documentary on the White Mughals on the BBC:
The monarch plays no active political role even in the UK.
But in Canada various governments have tried to sideline the first nations but based on their treaties with the monarch the SC reject them. At this moment in time The Monarch is the guarantor for these treaties. I don't know what would happen if Canada becomes a republic. Now the monarch is the guarantor because it's the same monarchy.
I know she isn't, but at least she's visible in the country. Canada barely even gets royal visits, and so their visibility outside gossip is virtually zero.
I imagine the state would simply take over anything. Surely ditching the monarch wouldn't suddenly invalidate all the treaties; and even if it did, the current environment is such that the new treaties to be developed in replacement would probably provide better terms than all those old treaties currently in place.
Totally agree. I can't believe Australia still doesn't have its own head of state.
I'm British and now also an Australian citizen and I think it is utterly pathetic. Culturally cringeworthy and fawning.
Last edited:
You must be joking if the new treaties are going to better. Even all current governments have a hard time respecting the old ones.