WI No British Empire?

There's a widespread view in Britain that British imperialism was on the whole a good thing, bringing civilisation where there was hitherto darkness etc. Well I'm Southern Irish and we certainly do not view it in that way at all! What would the implications be if Britain had kept to itself, ie as a union of England, Scotland, Wales and the small islands of its coast, No empire and no Ireland?
Where would Britain be today? How wealthy? What would the status of the great English language be? Would it still be a United Kingdom? What population? Would it have become a colony? And the implications for the world at large?
 
That's not a widespread view in the UK, hasn't been since the 50s or so.
The result of the posited scenario would be a lot worse than the British empire could ever be. British businessmen would feel free to establish personal empires for themselves around the world without having to worry about the government interfering.

And no Ireland?
Ireland wasn't the British empire. That is a totally different and unrelated area of history. How do you mean no Ireland? Ireland never joins the UK?- again things would be much worse for Ireland as an Anglican dictatorship ruthlessly keeps the catholics in their place; they'd prefer it if the catholics had no place of course but then who would work for them?
 
The English language would probably be seen as about as important as, say, Dutch or Greek are today, ie, not very. Regarding the rest of the world, you'll see other colonial empires rise, without doubt. What these will look like is open to question- they could be high minded states that at least attempt to improve the lives of the natives, or they could be repressive nasty things.

I'd guess without a British Empire, history will look on balance in terms of things we in 2011 would view as "good things" and "bad things" somewhere between marginally better and far worse.
 

Thande

Donor
A common logical flaw among people positing this WI (usually ideological anglophobes, though sometimes in good faith) is to assume that no British Empire = Nativewank. I.e. America run by the native American Indians, India run by the, er, other Indians, Australia run by the Aborigines, and so forth.

In reality of course, no British Empire = an equally successful one by another western power, most probably France, to fill the gap.
 
1) Is there still a lot of out-migration from the UK? If so, are they going to be like Germany, which had a lot of immigrants to other peoples former colonies? (US and Latin America?)

2) I imagine that the Dutch and the French get the top of North America, the Spanish still have most of the rest, but what happens to the modern Caribbean and SE USA?
 
TYR,
I thought my point re no Ireland was clear i.e. Ireland is never part of the Union/Empire at all. However, Guernsey, The Isle of Man, Jersey, The Orkneys and The Shetlands et al are part of the UK under the No Empire scenario. Of course, I suppose Rockall wouldn't be though!
 
TYR,
I thought my point re no Ireland was clear i.e. Ireland is never part of the Union/Empire at all.

Considering Ireland's geographic position, the only way for it to not be dominated by a Great Britain power is for England to never become a power at all. This is entirely possible, of course, although it may require a POD before 1066.
 
That's not a widespread view in the UK, hasn't been since the 50s or so.
The result of the posited scenario would be a lot worse than the British empire could ever be. British businessmen would feel free to establish personal empires for themselves around the world without having to worry about the government interfering.

And no Ireland?
Ireland wasn't the British empire. That is a totally different and unrelated area of history. How do you mean no Ireland? Ireland never joins the UK?- again things would be much worse for Ireland as an Anglican dictatorship ruthlessly keeps the catholics in their place; they'd prefer it if the catholics had no place of course but then who would work for them?

Presumably he means no settlement of the New English in Ireland. Presumably that would leave Ireland with a very Catholic, feudal-like society under the Anglo-Normans, up until very late in the day. So we're looking at a POD in Tudor times, with no settlement either in Ireland or America.

It's quite hard to prevent a successful trading nation with an effective centralised state NOT get an empire during this era, so you'd probably have to knock out the English with the Spanish Armada. Increased Spanish power in Northern Europe would probably stomp on the new Dutch Republic too. You'd likely get the Spanish dominating the Americas for a lot longer, with France getting much of Asia (and later Africa).

In Europe, absolutism would last longer, with the two main constitutionalist states thwarted. North America would largely be feudal , but I think white settlers would chafe at a French absolutist King much more than an English constitutionalist one. The French East India Company would probably end up being semi-autonomous for a long time in Asia too.
 
British businessmen would feel free to establish personal empires for themselves around the world without having to worry about the government interfering.

I'm not sure I agree with your hypothesis. If you mean that personal empires would be established in the "Cortes actually wanted to go rogue from Madrid and make himself a King" route then I disagree. I don't think many people seriously thought like that and any who did try it would simply be conquered instantly by the dominant empire of the region (i.e., probably France or Spain). If you meant the private enterprise like the HEIC was a "personal empire" I think it's inevitable that GB would somehow exert a control over it, and that in any case I think it probably goes against the terms of the OP.

I think the likely outcome of a world where GB literally achieves no colonies of any significance is likely to see GB entirely cut out of continental affairs by the French, and consequently may well turn to Scandinavian affairs as much as anything. It wouldn't be a rich GB which emerged, though it wouldn't be a wasteland by any stretch. A power to rival Sweden is entirely possible to my mind, though I'm not sure it's likely that GB would even have a golden period of military strength like Sweden had during the 30YW.
 
Britain exported a huge amount of people during Empire days to the empire or the US, those people would need to go somewhere, maybe as an ATL German immigrant analogue?
 
When do we classify the start of the British Empire? Jamestown in Virginia? By that point you've already had the battle of Kinsale, a couple of plantations in Leinster and Munster, and immigration of Scots into Antrim and Down.

So I can't see how Ireland doesn't end up part of the UK in this scenario. Kinsale already proved English paranoia in leaving Ireland open as a back door to Spanish or French invasion.
 
So I can't see how Ireland doesn't end up part of the UK in this scenario. Kinsale already proved English paranoia in leaving Ireland open as a back door to Spanish or French invasion.

but why would England need to guard against France in a situation where they are no threat, and consequently France has no interest in them. I can't bring myself to believe that the French would automatically consider England prime annexation territory without England first being a.major antagonist. I can't see France finding England, with its lack of land border and its lack of French language, willing to integrate into a Greater France either.
 
TYR,
I thought my point re no Ireland was clear i.e. Ireland is never part of the Union/Empire at all. However, Guernsey, The Isle of Man, Jersey, The Orkneys and The Shetlands et al are part of the UK under the No Empire scenario. Of course, I suppose Rockall wouldn't be though!
Not really, as England had been interfering (and screwing with) Ireland since the time of Strongbow. Ireland was always the main target of the English state as it was both closer and more fertile than Scotland.

From Tudor times, Ireland was effectively an English colony.
 
In reality of course, no British Empire = an equally successful one by another western power, most probably France, to fill the gap.


Why is that? A weaker Britain doesn't mean no Britain. It might well be that the Indian princes can play teh balance of power game and modernize a bit better, for instance.
 
Why is that? A weaker Britain doesn't mean no Britain. It might well be that the Indian princes can play teh balance of power game and modernize a bit better, for instance.

Weak Britain means that France will have a powerful position in India, equal to that of Britain. France might go off to establish a Raj and have Princley states like the British.
 
The temptation is rising to ask whether a Plantangent England-France and what it does counts as "not British", since it would be so French a state.

If England gets to absorb Wales, and Scotland the result (if one wants to put it that way), I think the chances of the British Isles not spawning an empire - maybe not the one of OTL, but certainly something like what the Netherlands did (that level of empire) and probably more so...well, I think it would be better to find a way to cripple England as a power (bluntly, OTL Scotland was in little position on its own to be one).
 
but why would England need to guard against France in a situation where they are no threat, and consequently France has no interest in them. I can't bring myself to believe that the French would automatically consider England prime annexation territory without England first being a.major antagonist. I can't see France finding England, with its lack of land border and its lack of French language, willing to integrate into a Greater France either.

France may not have wanted to annex England into itself, but it did want to interfere in English affairs. Louis XIV supported James II in 1688 against Parliament after all, and that was before any major friction between the French and British Empires.

Although I agree, Spain was the main issue at the time I said. I should probably have said English paranoia against any European state that was a threat :p
 

Laurentia

Banned
France may not have wanted to annex England into itself, but it did want to interfere in English affairs. Louis XIV supported James II in 1688 against Parliament after all, and that was before any major friction between the French and British Empires.

Although I agree, Spain was the main issue at the time I said. I should probably have said English paranoia against any European state that was a threat :p

That's because France in the 1600's was trolling.
 
Top