Two British Empires?

Hmm, I guess that could work, but the whole revolution thing would kind of throw it off. What would have been interesting is if Britain had managed to reconcile the thirteen colonies and somehow established a Western British Empire with America ruling/controlling all the British territories in the Americas.


I assumed your original post (regarding transferring other colonies to Canada) was post-ARW. So I don't see why the revolution would matter in this case.
 
I'm not certain what you mean by the "Western Empire's legitimacy". In any case, I'd hardly consider it a comparison. Granted, America was certainly the new big kid in the playground, but there were still millions of people living in the Americas that were loyal to the Crown; that cannot be ignored.

My idea is that given a scenario of say, Justinian I successfully reconquering the territories of the former Western Empire, if a general revolts and proclaims himself Western Emperor, what territories would he need to gain before the title becomes legitimate, at least to historians? If he holds nothing but Britain, then his claim is something of a joke, but if he takes everything except Africa and the Med islands, then I would say he has a good case. Africa and the Med islands are wealthy territories with large populations, but they do not form the core of the Western Empire. Canada and the Carib islands, I would argue, would be much like Africa and the Med islands in the above example.
 
South Africa likely would.

Not necessarily.

South Africa was pro-Britain in both World Wars, and had (and still has) a large population of British origin.

It is intellectually lazy to assume that SA will side with the Nazis.
 
NZ and Australia both managed to accumulate little collections of islands as their own possessions during their association with the Empire. For some reason this has always amused me
 
Top