Sun never sets on British Empire
Bruce Tindall
ObIL (Imperial Legend): The sun never sets on the British Empire,
according to Captain John Smith, of Pocahontas fame) -- at least
not in the year 1631. In other words, Britain occupies territory
at so many different longitudes that there is never a moment when at
least some British colony (etc.) is not in the sunlit part of the globe.
But the recent discussion of "the first light of the new century"
made me wonder:
1. Does the sun ever set on the British Empire nowadays? and
2. Will the turnover of Hong Kong change this situation, and if so,
at what spot of land will the sun first set on the British Empire?
B "to celebrate, bartender, make me a Crown Royal and Royal Crown" T
--
The GUI's too much with us; late and soon, | "A Word'sworth One
Pointing and clicking, we lay waste our powers. | Thousand Pictures"
Little we see in icons that is ours. | Bruce Tindall
We have sold our souls to Gates (that sordid hoon!) | tin...@panix.com
DaveHatunen
In article <5lfbai$r...@panix3.panix.com>,
Bruce Tindall <tin...@panix.com> wrote:
>ObIL (Imperial Legend): The sun never sets on the British Empire,
>according to Captain John Smith, of Pocahontas fame) -- at least
>not in the year 1631. In other words, Britain occupies territory
>at so many different longitudes that there is never a moment when at
>least some British colony (etc.) is not in the sunlit part of the globe.
>
>But the recent discussion of "the first light of the new century"
>made me wonder:
>
>1. Does the sun ever set on the British Empire nowadays? and
What British Empire?
>2. Will the turnover of Hong Kong change this situation, and if so,
>at what spot of land will the sun first set on the British Empire?
>
>B "to celebrate, bartender, make me a Crown Royal and Royal Crown" T
And dump the Crown Colony, please..
--
*********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) ***********
* In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king... *
* Until they find out he can see, then they kill him *
*********************************************************
Cheng-Jih Chen
In article <5lfbai$r...@panix3.panix.com>,
Bruce Tindall <tin...@panix.com> wrote:
>ObIL (Imperial Legend): The sun never sets on the British Empire,
>according to Captain John Smith, of Pocahontas fame) -- at least
>not in the year 1631.
Hmm. 19th Century would be more appropriate, as that's when Britain
acquired holdings in Asia (Hong Kong, bits of China, etc.)
>But the recent discussion of "the first light of the new century"
>made me wonder:
>
>1. Does the sun ever set on the British Empire nowadays? and
>
>2. Will the turnover of Hong Kong change this situation, and if so,
>at what spot of land will the sun first set on the British Empire?
There was a recent Granta about the end of the Empire. Britian should
still have holdings in little bitty islands in various places, and the
population of the Empire has shrunk from around 800 million at the end
of World War 2 to around 80,000 (excepting Hong Kong), mostly in the
Carribean.
Looking at the CIA World Fact Book on the UK
(http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/nsolo/factbook/uk.htm), it still
administers: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Indian Ocean Territory,
British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar,
Guernsey, Hong Kong (scheduled to become a Special Administrative
Region of China on 1 July 1997), Jersey, Isle of Man, Montserrat,
Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, South Georgia and the South Sandwich
Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands.
I believe the Pitcairn Islands are in the Pacific, and are still a
British dependency, so it's possible the sun still won't set on
"The Empire."
Near Buckingham Palace is this memorial circle dedicated to the
Empire. It was built around 1900, and you can see all the major
territories on there: India, South Africa, etc.
--
"Yeah man, I tell ya what, man...That dang ol' Internet, man...You just go
on there and point and click...Talk about W-W-dot-W-com...An' lotsa nekkid
chicks on there, man... Click. Click. Click. Click. Click.... It's real
easy man." -- Boomhauer on the Internet, _King of the Hill_
Miche
In article <337B62...@PSS.Boeing.com>
Steve Burns <Stephe...@PSS.Boeing.com> writes:
> If the sun never sets on the British Empire, then it must follow that
> the sun never rises on it either...
>
> I worked out the logic of that by age seven....
I have been told it's because God doesn't trust the British in the
dark...
Miche
--------------------
Miche Campbell
Remove <no-ads> in address before emailing me.
My opinions are mine alone, not those of the University of Otago
BREAKFAST.COM Halted...Cereal Port Not Responding
Steve Caskey
In Article <5lfbai$r...@panix3.panix.com>
tin...@panix.com (Bruce Tindall) writes:
>But the recent discussion of "the first light of the new century"
>made me wonder:
>
>1. Does the sun ever set on the British Empire nowadays? and
>
>2. Will the turnover of Hong Kong change this situation, and if so,
>at what spot of land will the sun first set on the British Empire?
According to a _Times_ feature reproduced in the Wellington newspaper
_The Dominion_ on Wednesday May 14, with the departure of Hong Kong
there are 13 dependencies remaining of the British Empire, all with
populations under 200,000.
Here's the list of pink bits, with some extra detail courtesy of MS
Bookshelf and my Collins Atlas. Who needs high-powered references?
Anguilla; Bermuda; British Virgin Islands; Montserrat; Cayman
Islands; Turks and Caicos Islands - all in and about the Carribean.
British Antarctic Territory; Falkland Islands (disputed with
Argentina); South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands. Antartic
Territory extends from about 20 deg west to 80 deg west.
St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. Located about 6 or 7 deg
west longitude, 16 or 17 deg south latitude.
Gibraltar (disputed, currently civilly, with Spain).
British Indian Ocean Territories (also claimed by Mauritius) aka the
Chagos Archipelago. These islands are uninhabited apart from the US
naval base at Diego Garcia (yes, you Merkins have rented it from the
Poms since 1970.) Located about 72 deg east, 5 deg south.
Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands. In the South Pacific,
spanning about 124 to 131 deg west, 23 to 25 deg south.
To work out whether the sun never sets on the British Empire, then, we
first need to know the time difference between the two most separated of
these territories. These would appear to be the Indian Ocean
Territories and the Pitcairn group.
I make them about 157 degrees apart, which equates to just under 10.5
hours. Both are in low to modest southern latitudes, but the Pitcairn
group sits near the Tropic of Capricorn.
Surely someone out there has some way of calculating sunrise and sunset
for these locations at the southern winter solstice. I suspect it's
going to be tight!
Steve "damned inconsiderate of those Chinese chappies,
spoiling a perfectly good proverb like that, what!" Caskey
--
Just another mindless public servant at the Ministry of Education
"SIR, Please would it be possible to shift the adverts for prostitutes
and sexual fantasies to the sports section as they are putting me off
the cryptic crossword." - Letter to the Editor, Wellington Evening Post
DaveHatunen
In article <HjtjKHAgn$ezE...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk>,
Clive D.W. Feather <cl...@demon.net> wrote:
>In article <5lfbai$r...@panix3.panix.com>, Bruce Tindall
>>ObIL (Imperial Legend): The sun never sets on the British Empire,
>>according to Captain John Smith, of Pocahontas fame) -- at least
>>at so many different longitudes that there is never a moment when at
>>least some British colony (etc.) is not in the sunlit part of the globe.
>
>of, going westwards around the globe:
>
> Gibraltar 36 N 5 W
> St Helena group 7-37 S 5-14 W
> Falklands 52 S 60 W
> Bermuda 32 N 64 W
> Assorted Carribean islands 16-21 N 63-80 W
> Pitcairn 25 S 130 W
> Hong Kong 22 N 114 E
> Diego Garcia 6 S 72 E
That is, uh, um, certainly, well, quite an empire...
You reckon that's more area than Rhode Island? Not counting water area?
If so, how about Long Island?
Cheng-Jih Chen
In article <5lfbai$r...@panix3.panix.com>,
Bruce Tindall <tin...@panix.com> wrote:
>ObIL (Imperial Legend): The sun never sets on the British Empire,
>according to Captain John Smith, of Pocahontas fame) -- at least
>not in the year 1631.
Actually, another comment/correction on this. Besides the fact that
the Empire was not quite as extensive before the American Revolution,
it's unclear how well they could have figured out longitude for all
those little islands out in the Pacific. Neither an accurate maritime
clock nor star charts had been developed yet -- this would be in the
late 18th C. -- so you can't actually say that such-and-such island
would necessarily be sunlight just as this-and-that island was going
into darkness, etc. You don't even really _know_ where the islands
were.
Gregory R. Travis
"Clive D.W. Feather" <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <5lfbai$r...@panix3.panix.com>, Bruce Tindall
><tin...@panix.com> writes
>>ObIL (Imperial Legend): The sun never sets on the British Empire,
>>according to Captain John Smith, of Pocahontas fame) -- at least
>>not in the year 1631. In other words, Britain occupies territory
>>at so many different longitudes that there is never a moment when at
>>least some British colony (etc.) is not in the sunlit part of the globe.
>Checking Whitaker's Almanac, I find that the British Empire now consists
>of, going westwards around the globe:
> Gibraltar 36 N 5 W
> St Helena group 7-37 S 5-14 W
> Falklands 52 S 60 W
> Bermuda 32 N 64 W
> Assorted Carribean islands 16-21 N 63-80 W
> Pitcairn 25 S 130 W
> Hong Kong 22 N 114 E
> Diego Garcia 6 S 72 E
Can someone explain why Canada, Australia, and New Zealand aren't still
considered part of the British Empire?
AFAIK, Queen Elisabeth is still the head of state in each of the above and
appoints each of their Governor generals who, in turn, appoint their prime
ministers.
greg "and her picture is on their money too" travis
--
DaveHatunen
In article <5lif8l$n...@gtravis.ucs.indiana.edu>,
Gregory R. Travis <gr...@gtravis.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
[...]
>Can someone explain why Canada, Australia, and New Zealand aren't still
>considered part of the British Empire?
>
>AFAIK, Queen Elisabeth is still the head of state in each of the above and
>appoints each of their Governor generals who, in turn, appoint their prime
>ministers.
One could equally well assert that England is part of the Canadian
Empire.
You answered your own question. Elizabeth is the Queen of Canada and
she is the Queen of England. She holds both crowns, but this does not
make Canada a "possession" of England. At best, Canada and England are
both part of Elizabeth's empire, sort of.
And I still think she's Elizabeth I of Canada, but I certainly wouldn't
want to start THAT thread again.
Don Erickson
c...@interport.net (Cheng-Jih Chen) sez:
>
>Actually, another comment/correction on this. Besides the fact that
>the Empire was not quite as extensive before the American Revolution,
>it's unclear how well they could have figured out longitude for all
>those little islands out in the Pacific. Neither an accurate maritime
>clock nor star charts had been developed yet -- this would be in the
>late 18th C. -- so you can't actually say that such-and-such island
>would necessarily be sunlight just as this-and-that island was going
>into darkness, etc. You don't even really _know_ where the islands
>were.
Maybe not, but if they were on this planet then they get a annual mean of
twelve hours of sunlight per day. Near the equator this wouldn't be
subject to significant seasonal differentiation.
So the exact longitude wouldn't matter that much.
-Don 'in fact, Oz and the UK might just cover the "sun never sets" bases
all by themselves' Erickson
--
.sig is shining a flashlight on a tilted basketball. Why not a chicken?
James Linn
Gregory R. Travis <gr...@gtravis.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
<5lif8l$n...@gtravis.ucs.indiana.edu>...
> Can someone explain why Canada, Australia, and New Zealand aren't still
> considered part of the British Empire?
Because they (we) are not ruled by Britain. No taxation. No legal ties. No
ability to pass legislation that effects us. Just a shared monarchy. And
that is pretty tenuous.
>
> AFAIK, Queen Elisabeth is still the head of state in each of the above
and
> appoints each of their Governor generals who, in turn, appoint their
prime
> ministers.
Queen Elizabeth(note the spelling) is the Queen of Canada (and of other
countries as well including Britain). That doesn't mean any actual power,
perhaps some moral sausion but not much else. The Prime Minister is the
leader of the party that wins the general election. While the Governor
General acts as the Queen's representative, its a nice cushy job with just
about zero power (Australian rules GGs and King-Byng not withstanding). The
Queen makes a speech every Christmas (which fewer people listen to every
year) and has the odd holiday here (once every 4 or 5 years or so). The
other members of the royal family visit more often. Prince Andrew went to
High School here (private school naturally).
The Prime Minister nominates a Governor General and the Queen assents to
the choice(never refused). I'm not sure when this became the case rather
than the other way around. Normally in Canada its a former politician, and
usually someone quite unknown to the Queen. We've even had a socialist as
GG. Shake a few hands, open a fair or a hospital - very similar to the VP
in the states, except a VP can sit as a cabinet member. The GG is supposed
to be above partisan politics, and after accepting the appointment will not
ever participate in partisan politics again.
The difference is that the GG swears in the government, rubber stamps bills
(never refused to sign or even delay a bill), and reads the speach that
opens parliament. So they are busy after an election, and after that they
are professional hosts for visiting dignitaries. Still not a bad job.
> greg "and her picture is on their money too" travis
Not unless you've got old money or coins. The good stuff has dead men's
faces on it. Since we have discountinued paper bills of $1 and $2
denominations, there is no more Queen on paper money. Just coins.
James Linn
My opinions are MINE,MINE,MINE!!!
Cambias
In article <hatunenE...@netcom.com>, hat...@netcom.com
(DaveHatunen) wrote:
> In article <HjtjKHAgn$ezE...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk>,
> Clive D.W. Feather <cl...@demon.net> wrote:
> >In article <5lfbai$r...@panix3.panix.com>, Bruce Tindall
> ><tin...@panix.com> writes
> >>ObIL (Imperial Legend): The sun never sets on the British Empire,
> >>according to Captain John Smith, of Pocahontas fame) -- at least
> >>not in the year 1631. In other words, Britain occupies territory
> >>at so many different longitudes that there is never a moment when at
> >>least some British colony (etc.) is not in the sunlit part of the globe.
> >
> >Checking Whitaker's Almanac, I find that the British Empire now consists
> >of, going westwards around the globe:
> >
> > Gibraltar 36 N 5 W
> > St Helena group 7-37 S 5-14 W
> > Falklands 52 S 60 W
> > Bermuda 32 N 64 W
> > Assorted Carribean islands 16-21 N 63-80 W
> > Pitcairn 25 S 130 W
> > Hong Kong 22 N 114 E
> > Diego Garcia 6 S 72 E
>
> That is, uh, um, certainly, well, quite an empire...
>
> You reckon that's more area than Rhode Island? Not counting water area?
>
> If so, how about Long Island?
>
Kind of ironic that now France appears to be the final winner in the
overseas empire contest, still holding the relatively gigantic French
Guiana as an overseas departement. And there's Denmark to consider -- do
they or don't they own Greenland? It's one of those murky
Commonwealth-type arrangements...
Cambias
M.A. Blanche
In article <HjtjKHAgn$ezE...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk>,
Clive D.W. Feather <cl...@demon.net> wrote:
> Gibraltar 36 N 5 W
> St Helena group 7-37 S 5-14 W
> Falklands 52 S 60 W
> Bermuda 32 N 64 W
> Assorted Carribean islands 16-21 N 63-80 W
> Pitcairn 25 S 130 W
> Hong Kong 22 N 114 E
> Diego Garcia 6 S 72 E
Using a handy sunrise/sunset calculator on the above values:
(all times UTC, computed for 23rd June 1997, nearasdammit the shortest day
in the southern hemisphere)
Diego Garcia 6S 72E Pitcairn 25S 130W
Dawn Dusk Dawn Dusk
Astronomical 0006 1422 A 1403 0321
Nautical 0032 1356 N 1431 0253
Civil 0058 1330 C 1500 0223
Sunrise/Sunset 0121 1307 S 1525 0200
Sooo.. if this is right (which it might well not be, it's late... :) the
answer is no, because sunset in the Pitcairns is later than sunrise in
Diego Garcia throughout the year.
Rule Britannia!
Lee Rudolph
cam...@heliograph.dontspamme.com (Cambias) writes:
>Kind of ironic that now France appears to be the final winner in the
>overseas empire contest, still holding the relatively gigantic French
>Guiana as an overseas departement.
But overseas departements are actually parts of France itself, not
part of an "empire"; administratively (and, I believe, unless things
have changed very recently, telephonically) an overseas departement
is more a part of France than Alaska was a part of the United States
at any time before it became a state.
Lee "vive Miquelon, a bas St. Pierre" Rudolph
Bruce Tindall
DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> wrote:
>I think the spice trade was largely controlled by the Dutch...
>But then, so was the tulip trade...
The Dutch controlled the tulip trade? I thought it was vice versa.
B "tulipobipolaria" T
--
Bruce Tindall tin...@panix.com
Bruce Tindall
and Elizabeth I-and-I of Jamaica.
--
Bruce Tindall tin...@panix.com
Roy Dent
In message <5lfi66$h...@interport.net>c...@interport.net,
>> ObIL (Imperial Legend): The sun never sets on the British Empire,
>> according to Captain John Smith, of Pocahontas fame) -- at least not in
>> the year 1631.
>
> acquired holdings in Asia (Hong Kong, bits of China, etc.)
>
>> me wonder:
>>
>> 1. Does the sun ever set on the British Empire nowadays? and
>>
>> 2. Will the turnover of Hong Kong change this situation, and if so, at
>> what spot of land will the sun first set on the British Empire?
>
> still have holdings in little bitty islands in various places, and the
> population of the Empire has shrunk from around 800 million at the end of
> World War 2 to around 80,000 (excepting Hong Kong), mostly in the
> Carribean.
>
> Looking at the CIA World Fact Book on the UK
> (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/nsolo/factbook/uk.htm), it still
> administers: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Indian Ocean Territory, British
> Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Guernsey,
> Hong Kong (scheduled to become a Special Administrative Region of China
> on 1 July 1997), Jersey, Isle of Man, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint
> Helena, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Turks and Caicos
> Islands.
>
> I believe the Pitcairn Islands are in the Pacific, and are still a
> British dependency, so it's possible the sun still won't set on "The
> Empire."
>
There seems to be a bit of confusion here, not surprising when anything
British is being discussed, most of _us_ don't know these things either!
[g]
First of all, there has been _no_ British Empire, officially at least,
since The Commonwealth of Nations was established by the Statute of
Westminster in 1931. Nevertheless, the term British Empire continued in
popular usage fo many years after that, and 'Empire Day' (May 24th, Queen
Victoria's birthday) was celebrated at my school well after 1945.
The poor old CIA, if their 'World Fact Book' is to be believed, have as
usual got themselves into a state of confusion. *British Dependent
Territories* currently consist of:
Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean
Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands,
Falkland Islands Dependencies, Gibraltar, Hong Kong (soon to leave),
Montserrat, Pitcairn Group of Islands, St Helena, St Helena Dependencies,
and Turks and Caicos Islands.
Constitutional responsibilty for these rests with the Foreign &
Commonwealth Office.
I imagine that neither the worthy folk of the Isle of Man, nor the
Channel Islands - Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Brechou, Great Sark, Little
Sark, Hern, Jethou, and Lithou, would welcome being part of an Empire.
They are, in fact *Crown Dependencies* and self-governing with the
British Government responsible only for defence and international
relations. Very proud they are too of their independence and difference
from the UK. The Channel Islands are the only portions of the Dukedom of
Normandy belonging to the Crown. The present Queen is effectively (in
theory) the present Duke of Normandy - 1066 and all that.
I can see no way that the CIA could understand any of that! [vbg]
Cheers,
Roy
James gard
To the best of my knowledge, Queen Elizabeth II is a queen only and no
longer an empress. All of the countries are in the commonwealth not
the empire.
Emily
Gard
Clive D.W. Feather
In article <EACM...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, Roy Dent
<ard...@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes
>First of all, there has been _no_ British Empire, officially at least,
Agreed. However, the term can reasonably be used to describe the British
Dependent Territories, which are governed remotely from London.
>*British Dependent
>Territories* currently consist of:
>
>Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory,
[...]
I excluded the Antarctic Territory, because all such claims are supposed
to be in abeyance at present.
Clive "will conquer empires for food" Feather
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Director of Software Development | Home email:
Tel: +44 181 371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | <cl...@davros.org>
Fax: +44 181 371 1037 | <cl...@demon.net> | Abuse:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address | <cl...@bofh.org>
Clive D.W. Feather
In article <5lk8er$m...@panix.com>, Lee Rudolph <lrud...@panix.com>
writes
>But overseas departements are actually parts of France itself, not
>part of an "empire"; administratively (and, I believe, unless things
>have changed very recently, telephonically)
The overseas departments have, as I understand it, the same status to
France that (say) Hawaii has to the USA - they are legally an integral
part, elect representatives to the same parliament, and you can travel
to or from them without a passport.
Telephonically they have only just become part of France. They used to
be dialled from Metropolitan France as any other foreign country, but
the French used the recent renumbering exercise to merge them into the
national system.
Clive "regrettably, rumours of plans to merge the UK and French
numbering systems are not unfounded" Feather
Bill Kinkaid
"James Linn" <james...@nortel.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Not unless you've got old money or coins. The good stuff has dead men's
>faces on it. Since we have discountinued paper bills of $1 and $2
>denominations, there is no more Queen on paper money. Just coins.
>
>James Linn
>My opinions are MINE,MINE,MINE!!!
James, twenty dollar bills are by far the most common in circulation these
days, thanks to bank machines. Have a look at one? While the one and two
are indeed no longer with us, last time i looked she still appears on the
front of the twenty.
$5 - Sir Wilfrid Laurier (kingfisher on back)
$10 - Sir John A. Macdonald
$20 - Elizabeth II (loon on back)
$50 - William Lyon Mackenzie King (snowy owl, should have been the loon)
$100 - Sir Robert Borden (can't remember which bird, don't get to see too
many of those)
(the $2 from the final 1993 series, discontinued last year, had a robin on
the back)
Bill in Vancouver
(delete EAT.SPAM.AND.DIE
from e-mail address to respond)
Ray Depew
Bill Kinkaid (ckinkaid.EAT...@pinc.com) wrote about Canadollars:
: $20 - Elizabeth II (loon on back)
After the USA's negative experience with the Suzie B., the Department of
the Treasury decided in the late 1980's that they'd try again. They were
going to copy Canada's pattern for a one dollar coin, but instead of
putting royalty on it, they were going to put Ronald Reagan. The plan
was dumped. Know why?
1. Nobody would want a coin with loons on both sides.
2. Only dead presidents appear on Amer-- wait a minute, the guy was
dead for 8 years on office and nobody even knew it, so this one
doesn't count.
3. The proof came back with Nancy, not Ronnie, on it. Too easily confused
with the Canadian coin.
R
R
Alvin Plummer
DaveHatunen wrote:
>
> In article <5lif8l$n...@gtravis.ucs.indiana.edu>,
> Gregory R. Travis <gr...@gtravis.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Can someone explain why Canada, Australia, and New Zealand aren't still
> >considered part of the British Empire?
> Empire.
Or England and Canada are part of the Jamacian Empire...
> You answered your own question. Elizabeth is the Queen of Canada and
> she is the Queen of England. She holds both crowns, but this does not
> make Canada a "possession" of England. At best, Canada and England are
> both part of Elizabeth's empire, sort of.
And a pretty weird empire it is... and what about Elizabeth's position
as
"Head of the Commonwealth"? Or "Defender of the Faith"? Or "Head of
the
Anglican Church"? If unused power was real power, she would be a very
formadible
women to deal with... as it is, we get Charles & Di and the gang for
entertainment, instead.
>
> And I still think she's Elizabeth I of Canada, but I certainly wouldn't
> want to start THAT thread again.
--
Alvin Plummer
This post in no way reflects the views of Northern Telecom.
"The statement that all dogma must be questioned
is itself a dogma that must be questioned."
- Lesslie Newbigin, _Truth to Tell_
Alvin Plummer
True: George VI was the Last Emperor India, which ended in 1947.
He ceased being King of India in 1950, when it became a republic.
As for Emperors, onmly Emperor Akiko (sp?) of Japan remains:
and no one has refered to "The Japanese Empire" since 1945....
Ed T
Wrong!
Some guy in Africa is an emperor. Of what, I don't know, but he is an
emperor. He runs some country where the per capita income is about $.47
per year, but he had some big coronation that cost the country about a
billion dollars or so about 10 years ago. It was in all the papers.
Thomas Scharle
In article <338363...@sevtech.com>, Ed T <e...@sevtech.com> writes:
|> Alvin Plummer wrote:
...
|> > As for Emperors, onmly Emperor Akiko (sp?) of Japan remains:
|> > and no one has refered to "The Japanese Empire" since 1945....
|> Wrong!
|>
|> Some guy in Africa is an emperor. Of what, I don't know, but he is an
|> emperor. He runs some country where the per capita income is about $.47
|> per year, but he had some big coronation that cost the country about a
|> billion dollars or so about 10 years ago. It was in all the papers.
There was Bokassa of the Central African Empire, now renamed back
to the Central African Republic, probably the one you're thinking of,
and Haile Selassie, of Ethiopia.
And the Emperor of Japan is Akihito.
By the way, is there some reason why the monarch of Japan is
called an emperor rather than king?
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
DaveHatunen
In article <338363...@sevtech.com>, Ed T <e...@mail.sevtech.com> wrote:
>Alvin Plummer wrote:
>> True: George VI was the Last Emperor India, which ended in 1947.
>> He ceased being King of India in 1950, when it became a republic.
>>
>> and no one has refered to "The Japanese Empire" since 1945....
>Some guy in Africa is an emperor. Of what, I don't know, but he is an
>emperor. He runs some country where the per capita income is about $.47
>per year, but he had some big coronation that cost the country about a
>billion dollars or so about 10 years ago. It was in all the papers.
Are you sure you don't mean "was an emperor"? It's not wise to cite ten
year old papers when dealing with Africa.
Dave "Someone call Rand McNally --- again" Hatunen
Bruce Tindall
James gard <jag...@cobweb.on.net> wrote:
>To the best of my knowledge, Queen Elizabeth II is a queen only and no
>longer an empress.
But I don't think the monarch's title had any bearing on whether
a "British Empire" existed during that monarch's reign. Victoria
was the first "Empress" -- and Empress only of India, for that
matter -- yet several of her predecessors unquestionably presided
over a "British Empire", even though they were styled only "King".
--
Bruce Tindall tin...@panix.com
Clive D.W. Feather
In article <3382FF...@nt.com>, Alvin Plummer <Alvin_...@nt.com>
writes
>And a pretty weird empire it is... and what about Elizabeth's position
>as
>"Head of the Commonwealth"? Or "Defender of the Faith"? Or "Head of
>the
>Anglican Church"?
"Defender of the Faith" is one of the monarch's titles.
"Head of the Anglican Church" is one of the monarch's roles.
"Head of the Commonwealth" is a position that Elizabeth II holds; it is
not hereditary in the UK Crown.
Bruce Tindall
>1926 then doesn't that make this entire thread rather moot?
Not really, if we use the term "British Empire" in a loose, colloquial
sense (as I was doing when my question started this thread), to refer to
"the bits that the UK still has some kind of direct control over".
And the whole point of the popular saying, "The sun never sets on
the British Empire," wasn't legalistic pedantry; it was that British
power rules a whole lot of territory in a whole lot of time zones
all over the world. The point of this astronomical sunsetting
exercise is to demonstrate how flimsy, but still extant, are the
remnants of that power. As well as to have a litle fun.
Besides, as was pointed out in a book review in The New Republic [1]
recently, there's still a lot of Empire mindset prevalant in the UK
even today. "Its institutions of government are still predominantly
modeled on imperial ones. It is of some cultural significance that
the Queen hands out awards . . . called 'The Order of the British
Empire' and 'Commander of the British Empire.'"
So whether or not there is anything technically or legally referred
to as "The British Empire GmbH plc S.A." any more, there are far-flung
pieces of rock and desert that are, "[if not] forever [then at least
for now] England"; and there is a part of the British brain that
hasn't yet registered the fact that the Empiah is no more. So in
that cultural, metaphysical, dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin sense,
there still is a "British Empire" (note use of quotation marks).
B "condescending lectures pointing out the differences among 'England',
'Britain', 'UK', and 'perfide Albion', of which I am well aware, thank
you, should be directed to /dev/null" T
[1] Anthony Padgen, "Misrule Britannia" (review of _The Rise and
Fall of the British Empire_ by Lawrence James) in TNR, May 26, 1997.
--
Bruce Tindall tin...@panix.com
Henry Norman
Isn't that also the reason why cricket matches has to be finished
before sundown? The sun never sets on a British Umpire...
Couldn't resist... please do not punish...
Henry Norman
Clive D.W. Feather
In article <5m1t4t$f...@panix3.panix.com>, Bruce Tindall
<tin...@panix.com> writes
>Besides, as was pointed out in a book review in The New Republic [1]
>recently, there's still a lot of Empire mindset prevalant in the UK
>even today.
"The Telegraph is read by people who think the country ought to be run
the way it used to be. And the Express is read by those who think it
still is."
Clive "reads anything he finds lying around, except the *bserver" Feather
Bruce Tindall
Thomas Scharle <sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu> wrote:
> By the way, is there some reason why the monarch of Japan is
>called an emperor rather than king?
Believe it or not, there is eventually some obUL material near
the bottom of this post.
Here's a little preliminary information, which doesn't really
answer the question, but may be somewhat helpful; I'll try to
find out more in the next couple of days.
The Japanese call him and/or his predecessors "tenno" (heavenly ruler),
"mikado" (august gate), and probably several other epithets
that someone else may know about and post. My slightly educated
guess is that "mikado" literally refers to the doorway to the
palace or throne room, and is similar to the kind of synecdochic
euphemisms that have long been used in Chinese to refer to the
Chinese emperor, such as "wan sui" (10,000 years, Japanese "banzai")
or "bi xia [?]" (bottom of the stairs -- i.e. the stairs to the
throne dais, "top of the stairs" being considered too close to
the Emperor's physical presence to be spoken by a mere subject.)
The title "tenno" apparently came into use at or soon after the
time of unification, very roughly A.D. 500 (there are varying
theories on exactly what that event was and when it happened).
When European, and specifically English-language, texts began
describing Japan in (very roughly) the 17th century, the OED
says, they described the government has having two "emperors",
the shogun (in full, sei-i tai shogun, or barbarian-subduing
great general) or secular emperor, and the mikado or
spiritual/religious emperor.
As to why the term emperor was used for these positions -- or
why it was similarly used to translate Chinese "huang di", the
title of Chinese emperors since circa 200 B.C. -- I don't know.
In the Chinese case, I guess (on very little evidence) that it
expressed the fact that the "huang di" was superior to lesser
rulers called "wang" and "gong" (which are translated "king"
[sometimes "prince"] and "duke", respectively); if you want to
say that "this guy is more important than a King", then "Emperor"
is one of the few options available in English.
It may also have something to do with European orientalist views of
East Asia, mythical [obUL!!!] empires (e.g. Prester John's vast Asian
Christian realm) and real ones (e.g. Genghis Khan), etc. Such
"exotic" lands could hardly be ruled by mere "kings", you see.
No doubt there is some recent metascholarly work on this topic;
I'll see if I can find some.
B "how about: 'Mr. Akihito, Chairman and CEO, The Greater Pacific Rim
Co-Prosperity Sphere, Inc.'?" T
--
Bruce Tindall tin...@panix.com
Ulo Melton
Spy wrote:
>The Daily Mail is read by the wives of those who run the country and The
>Sun is read by those who don't care who runs the country as long as they
>have big t*ts XXX
^^^
[pornographic, line-noise-induced punctuation error censored]
What does the size of their preschool children have to do with anything?
Ulo "t*t for t*t" Melton
Barbara Mikkelson
Spy (spym...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
> The Daily Mail is read by the wives of those who run the country and The
> Sun is read by those who don't care who runs the country as long as they
> have big t*ts :-)
Infidel! To quote Saint Bernard the Humble only to debase his holy words
with an asterisk and a smiley. My shattered nerves!
What are you, a refugee from AOL? Smileys in AFU? I suppose you also
want the right to sing loud and off key in the shower.
Here's the short 'n sweet of it: No emoticons in AFU. No shower singing.
Not unless you're fully prepared to pay the (Vincent) price. Got it?
Barbara "what the hell; you can hum free" Mikkelson
--
Barbara Mikkelson | That's one of the least plausible things
bmik...@fas.harvard.edu | I've heard this week. - Phil Edwards
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
View a random urban legend --> http://www.snopes.com/cgi/randomul.cgi
David Lesher
"Clive D.W. Feather" <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <5lk8er$m...@panix.com>, Lee Rudolph <lrud...@panix.com>
>>But overseas departements are actually parts of France itself, not
>>part of an "empire"; administratively (and, I believe, unless things
>>have changed very recently, telephonically)
{..}
>Telephonically they have only just become part of France. They used to
>be dialled from Metropolitan France as any other foreign country, but
>the French used the recent renumbering exercise to merge them into the
>national system.
Indeed. I can attest that a leased data line from Martinique to
Washington DC goes via Paris. No, it makes no sense, but we are
talking FRANCE after all....
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Simon Slavin
In article <33922400...@news.prestel.co.uk>,
spym...@bigfoot.com (Spy) wrote:
> On 23 May 1997 08:37:00 GMT, bmik...@best.com (Barbara Mikkelson)
> wrote:
>
> >No emoticons in AFU. No shower singing.
> >Not unless you're fully prepared to pay the (Vincent) price. Got it?
>
> Got it! Jeeze, you're a hard lot on afu!
>
> Er, how do you feel about pseudo-html -- as in <g> or even <gd&r>?
I believe that would be covered by the Ban On Acronyms. See the
parts of <http://www.urbanlegends.com> about this group.
Simon.
--
Simon Slavin -- Computer Contractor. | "Do you really want to use the word
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | 'braindead' in your mail to 'boss'?"
Check email address for spam-guard. | -- warning proposed by David Fetrow
Junk email not welcome at this site. | <fet...@biostat.washington.edu.NJ>
Roger Douglas
On Fri, 23 May 1997 10:19:32 +0100, Dave Blake
<da...@zevon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Clive D.W. Feather" <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> treats us to the
>following...
>>"The Telegraph is read by people who think the country ought to be run
>>the way it used to be.
>
>...or, indeed, those people who like a damn good crossword.
A damn good crossword? The Telegraph has never had a damn good
crossword! At best it is no more than a crude exercise for beginners.
Even the Grauniad crossword is better than the Telegraph.
Real men do The Times crossword, at least.
--R.
Ray Depew
Spy (spym...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: Er, how do you feel about pseudo-html -- as in <g> or even <gd&r>?
Well, it's better to let the reader supply his/her own grins, based
on the strength of your prose. But if you absolutely must grin in your
posting, just remember to turn it off (as in </g>) when you're done.
Regards
Ray
Just Me
Roger Douglas wrote:
> A damn good crossword? The Telegraph has never had a damn good
> crossword! At best it is no more than a crude exercise for beginners.
> Even the Grauniad crossword is better than the Telegraph.
>
> Real men do The Times crossword, at least.
<g>
And in ink no less.
</g>
Dave Blake
Roger Douglas <Roger.Douglas@remove_this.tafensw.edu.au> took time off
from shag^H^H^H^Hshearing sheep, put down his tinnie of VB and treated
us to the following...
>A damn good crossword? The Telegraph has never had a damn good
>crossword! At best it is no more than a crude exercise for beginners.
>Even the Grauniad crossword is better than the Telegraph.
>
>Real men do The Times crossword, at least.
>
--
Dave Blake
London Mitcham Southminster
SEWERGATOR for AFUOA! You know it makes sense.
Chernobyl Red
Chernobyl Red (a...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu) wrote:
: Spy (spym...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
Oh dear. Sorry about reposting that...I was just browsing through and
through some dreadful mis-keying found myself in EMACS. I hit ctrl-c
under the false assumption that it would cancel the message. I soon
realized that ctrl-c sent the post.
Oops. Sorry, sorry.
--
_________________________________________________________________________
Lydia Ash / I don't want the world.
la...@ukans.edu / I just want your half.
http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~ash /
University of Kansas___________/______________________TMBG______________