Should the English Empire be renamed the British Empire

[BlackSpy]

Scotland wasn't conquered it was political union.

The union of the crowns ended up being under the Scottish crown when Elizabeth died childless.

There hasn't been an English parliament since the union, it's been, and still is, a British parliament. There are devolved powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but that is about local concerns, national matters are still considered in the national parliment.

The argument you can't have Elizabeth and a British Civ makes as much sense as saying you can't have Washington leading an American Civ, as when Washington was president it didn't include the Republic of Texas.

 

[Kal'thzar]

You guys pretty much proved my point "Britain" barely exists as an empire any more. The game means the English of England, not it's colonies or incorperated countries. The sun used to never set on the English Empire, now it does.

Actually I'm fairly sure that the sun still doesn't set on Britian.

Lots of overseas territories....

 

[Jagatai]

You guys pretty much proved my point "Britain" barely exists as an empire any more. The game means the English of England, not it's colonies or incorperated countries. The sun used to never set on the English Empire, now it does.

The sun never set on the British Empire. There never was an "English Empire", unless you count the territories they conquered in the British isles (Wales & Ireland) or their largely inherited territory in France.

 

[BlackSpy]

ENGLISH civilization per se begins around the second half of the first millenia AD (so...1200, 1300 years ago). It lasts as an independent civilization all the way to 300 years ago, and in addition continue as one of the two important halves of the British empire (Scottish civilization being the other) all the way to today.

William the Conqueror wants a word with you outside.

 

[Evie]

The argument you can't have Elizabeth and a British Civ makes as much sense as saying you can't have Washington leading an American Civ, as when Washington was president it didn't include the Republic of Texas.

Hmmm, no?

Washington was an American leader. This is not a controversial position, it's a fact. Texas (and plenty of other places )were not part of America back then, but America (well, the United States of, but I think it'S commonly agreed that's what "Americans" means) DID exist back then, and Washington was its leader.

Elizabeth, on the other hand, was never a British leader, because Great Britain did not exist back when she was a leader of anything. Not "did not exist in its present form"; just plain "did not exist. Great Britain came into being in 1707 based on a political union that began (precisely!) when Elizabeth died.

Having Elizabeth as British leader would be like having Charles V as leader of the Austro-Hungarian Empire: nonsense (and even worse nonsense, because Charles V, while he was never leader of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was at least leader to both Austrian and Hungarian civilization, whereas Elizabeth never led the Scots).

 

[mjs0]

The sun never set on the British Empire. There never was an "English Empire", unless you count the territories they conquered in the British isles (Wales & Ireland) or their largely inherited territory in France.

Most historians talk of two British Empires, and the first centered on the colonies in North America is more properly an English Empire as the first English settlement in North America predates the union with Scotland by around a hundred years and the colonies were well established by 1707.

In addition, much of the groundwork for the second empire in Africa and Asia was done during those 100 years preceding the Act of Union, with the English state sponsored trading companies establishing an extensive trade network that would later grow to become the second British Empire.

During that same period disastrous attempts by the Scots to establish their own overseas presence and the burdens they caused were a major cause of the financially driven union with the more successful colonial power 'south of the border'.

Of course afterwards and to this day the importance of the Scottish contribution to the Union and to the second Empire was undeniable.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Of course the English conquered Scotland. Anything else is just delusional. They conquered Ireland too; and Wales. There were "treaties" formalising this on all occasions, but these treaties merely mark the conquests, they do not themselves constitute the conquests.

But it doesn't really matter, conquered or not, English and British are interchangeable concepts for most of the world. As far as most of the world is concerned: If you ain't English, you ain't really British OR if you are British, then you are in reality English.

 

[e350tb]

Of course the English conquered Scotland. Anything else is just delusional. They conquered Ireland too; and Wales. There were "treaties" formalising this on all occasions, but these treaties merely mark the conquests, they do not themselves constitute the conquests.

It was a personal union, the English did not invade Scotland. The king in question, by the way, was Scottish. Read more on British history.

But it doesn't really matter, conquered or not, English and British are interchangeable concepts for most of the world. As far as most of the world is concerned: If you ain't English, you ain't really British OR if you are British, then you are in reality English.

So most of the world are dullards?

 

[Lord Khorak]

It was a personal union, the English did not invade Scotland. The king in question, by the way, was Scottish. Read more on British history.

The kings and queens have been quite a lot of nationalities, so much so you end up looking at one rather rotten and overgrown family tree when dealing with absolutely any of them in Europe. What's your point?

And perhaps you should read more about British history, you seem to have entirely missed that despite both Parliaments being officially dissolved, the reality is that Scottish independence disappeared in return for a pittance of seats in the 'new' parliament....which was actually the English parliament with a new label and some very lonely, very powerless Scots sitting about the place. When you implode your economy to such an extent that you end up signing a treaty with your traditional enemy for a powerless minority in a parliament that maintains the location, traditions, positions, organisation and standing orders of said enemy, the idea that you haven't been annexed is nothing but a hollow joke to keep you warm at night while they govern your lands.

Again, for all the undeniable achievements it had as part of the United Kingdom, there is simply no getting around the fact that they were a subservient state of England. They wouldn't be quite so angry about it all otherwise, would they.

 

[Arakhor]

There were a few English colonies, but the British Empire didn't really kick into high gear until long after the Act of Union in 1707. The two countries were definitely united under the Scottish crown and the line of descent is still determined from the line of James VI & I, but by the time of Union, the Stuarts were completely English.

 

[Pangur Bán]

It was a personal union, the English did not invade Scotland. The king in question, by the way, was Scottish.

Read more on British history.

You're confusing the "union" of the crowns, with the takeover of 1707.

 

[Arakhor]

James VI & I as the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, had the greatest claim to the Tudor throne and assumed the English throne in 1603. He was the first Stuart to allow his children to become adults before dying and his grandson Charles II was the first Stuart monarch to be born in England.

 

[BlackSpy]

Hmmm, no?

Washington was an American leader. This is not a controversial position, it's a fact. Texas (and plenty of other places )were not part of America back then, but America (well, the United States of, but I think it'S commonly agreed that's what "Americans" means) DID exist back then, and Washington was its leader.

Elizabeth, on the other hand, was never a British leader, because Great Britain did not exist back when she was a leader of anything. Not "did not exist in its present form"; just plain "did not exist. Great Britain came into being in 1707 based on a political union that began (precisely!) when Elizabeth died.

Having Elizabeth as British leader would be like having Charles V as leader of the Austro-Hungarian Empire: nonsense (and even worse nonsense, because Charles V, while he was never leader of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was at least leader to both Austrian and Hungarian civilization, whereas Elizabeth never led the Scots).

This is exactly the point. Both America and Britain are geographical and political entities. Elizabeth was a British leader who only led the English just as Washington was an American leader who only led the eastern states.

 

[BlackSpy]

The kings and queens have been quite a lot of nationalities, so much so you end up looking at one rather rotten and overgrown family tree when dealing with absolutely any of them in Europe. What's your point?

And perhaps you should read more about British history, you seem to have entirely missed that despite both Parliaments being officially dissolved, the reality is that Scottish independence disappeared in return for a pittance of seats in the 'new' parliament....which was actually the English parliament with a new label and some very lonely, very powerless Scots sitting about the place. When you implode your economy to such an extent that you end up signing a treaty with your traditional enemy for a powerless minority in a parliament that maintains the location, traditions, positions, organisation and standing orders of said enemy, the idea that you haven't been annexed is nothing but a hollow joke to keep you warm at night while they govern your lands.

Again, for all the undeniable achievements it had as part of the United Kingdom, there is simply no getting around the fact that they were a subservient state of England. They wouldn't be quite so angry about it all otherwise, would they.

There are plenty of errors here, for example there wasn't a single Scot in the British parliament for years after the Union.

You also say the traditions, positions and organisations went. They didn't. Scotland did and still has its own entirely distinct legal system and education systems, from primary to university.

The idea that Scottish tradition went is incredible, it would have to mean that Scottish culture vanished. but when that culture is so strong and so universally recognised that you can have a quick caricature (groundskeeper Willie in the Simpsons or the SNL if it's not Scottish it's Crap guy) of the characteristics pop up in popular cultures the world over and be recognised you realise that the traditions went nowhere and were in fact reinforced.

The land wasn't annexed, it was still owned by its historical landowners.

Scotland is the smaller of the two nations, a tenth the population. It's not surprising that London is the seat of power and it's not surprising that England is more visible politically but that doesn't mean that one should infer Scotland was therefore annexed, it's an entirely unsupported conclusion.

 

[Evie]

This is exactly the point. Both America and Britain are geographical and political entities. Elizabeth was a British leader who only led the English just as Washington was an American leader who only led the eastern states.

The "Geography" argument holds very little water - if the civilization "America" represented a geographic area, then it would have to include natives, which it never has, and likely never will. From start to finish, it's always been about the US of A. And if the civilization "England" represented a geographic area, then it would have to include the Celts. Which I don't seem to remember it doing - in fact I'm quite sure in both cases they were clearly included as separate civilizations, times and times again.

As for the rest, it's blatantly false (and very Western-States-centric) to say that Washington "led only the eastern States".

He didn't. Much as the Western States might not like it, they simply were not part of America until annexed, conquered or purchased by the United States. That was after Washington's presidency, and so, during his presidency, Washington led all of America - that is, what was then the entire territory of the United States of America.

You simply cannot say the same of Elizabeth. She did not lead "what was then the territory of Great Britain", because she died 104 years before Great Britain came into existence.

 

[Pangur Bán]

This is exactly the point. Both America and Britain are geographical and political entities. Elizabeth was a British leader who only led the English just as Washington was an American leader who only led the eastern states.

No parallel at all. Scotland was not a land of savages waiting to be colonised by English settlers. It had its own government and leaders, which had no more connection to England than Denmark or France.

 

[MethanalCHO]

Since it has been confirmed that Elizabeth I will be the leader of the English/British Empire, I'll say to keep it at English Empire. If Victoria was the leader, I would say British for accuracy, but since it is Elizabeth, it should remain at English.

 

[BlackSpy]

So to make sure I understand, which England is it we're talking about? Does it include Normandy, Ulster, Meath, Cornwall, Denmark, Northumberland, Wessex, Virginia or what?

I don't follow. It seems like you're picking up a pretty arbitrary period in the late middle ages and saying "that's England" when it's actually a very fluid area of land and people that has changed frequently, like any European country. That's why I think Britain is a useful geographical tag to apply as it wraps up most of those changes at a larger level.

It's the same reason for dealing with Scandinavia rather than Denmark. There haven't been many kings of Scandinavia, but there have been lots of Scandinavian kings.

 

[Evie]

I'm not picking an "arbitrary period in the late middle age".

I'm picking the commonly understood definition of "England", which existed from the 10th century AD to the 18th century AD, and which is still a clearly defined region of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland, bordered to the north by Scotland, to the west by Wales, and in all other directions by the Sea. It does include Northumberland, Wessex and Cornwall (all of which were, a few revolts aside, part of England from the 10th or 11th century all the way to the 21st).

It does not include Normandy (or Aquitaine, for that matter), which was only briefly part of England at two points during the Hundred Years War; as opposed to being a French duchy whose owner was also King of England.

It does not include any province of Ireland, because Ireland, until the union of 1801, was recognized as a distinct realm, with its own parliament and its own crown.

It does not include the American colonies, which existed in a rather less than well defined political status, and in any event were only ruled for England for 43 (Georgia) to 169 (Virginia) years, depending).

It does not include Denmark, which conquered the territory of modern England and held it briefly.

Scandinavia being "a geographic area" is a pretty bad case to make, seeing as Firaxis' policy has always been to include the Vikings instead...

 

[deanjack]

Scotland and England entered a UNION. Scotland was not conquered. This is not a nationalistic point of view. It is FACT.

Since Elizabeth is the announced leader, England does indeed make more sense, however the long-lasting legacy of the British empire should not go ignored like this and in my opinion England should be replaced by Britain.

Type "English Empire" in to google and you will struggle to find a relevant result. You will automatically be re-directed to "British Empire" articles.

As on the matter of Britain being synomonous with England, this is simlpy due to lack of knowledge. Being British doesn't make you English.