10 ms·

When the sun will literally set on what's left of the British Empire

233 points by bediger4000 1y ago

ozim 1y ago
As an outsider I consider Canada and Australia - British Empire. Hard to think otherwise as they have the same king.
- bee_rider 1y ago
  Does their king have any more hard powers in Canada or Australia than, say, Taylor Swift or some other rich celebrity?
  - wk_end 1y ago
    Technically. The king here has as much power as he has in the UK. And, likewise, if ever exercised it’d probably lead to the end of the monarchy. In practice Taylor Swift might have more.
    - School-Cotton 1y ago
      > if ever exercised it’d probably lead to the end of the monarchy. If he does something that is openly obviously defying the will of the democratic majority, sure. But there are a lot of ways he can put his thumb on the scale in more subtle situations where the legal course of action is unclear. For example, if the Queen had refused Boris Johnson's request to prorogue parliament in 2019 -- which was later ruled illegal anyway -- I doubt it would have led to the end of the monarchy.
  - Waterluvian 1y ago
    Kind of! There's nothing on paper that says the King can't just decide that democracy is over and dissolve Parliament. Another example is that the King's representation in Canada, the Governor General, unilaterally gets to decide whether or not to give any passed legislation "royal assent." However in practice, they always do and they otherwise never put their thumb on the scale. Doing so would be a constitutional crisis that would likely end our relationship with the Monarchy more formally and put pen to paper that no, you don't actually have any real kingly powers. The Governor General has in recent times prorogued Parliament when the Prime Minister asked them to. Ie. "This is politically nasty. Let's hit the pause button and come back when things are better and we're not about to be ejected from power..." And that has been politically controversial. Historically the Governor General just says yes because they want to avoid playing a political role at all (ie. preserving this convention that the Monarchy is really just a decoration of our government).
  - sjducb 1y ago
    In 1975 the British Queen instructed her representative the governor general to dismiss the Australian prime minister, dissolving the Australian parliament. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitution... In principle this power still exists. Whether Charles could pull off the same trick depends on the political situation on the ground.
    - ztetranz 1y ago
      I don't think the Queen instructed the Governor General to do that. He made the decision. I'm old enough to remember it and remember a statement from the palace saying something like "The Queen is watching events in Australia with interest" but I don't think she took an active part. I quick search reveals this. I don't know this site but if true then some letters seem to confirm the above. She told the GG to obey the Australian Constitution. https://constitution-unit.com/2020/07/16/palace-letters-show-the-queen-did-not-advise-or-encourage-kerr-to-sack-whitlam-government/ https://constitution-unit.com/2020/07/16/palace-letters-show...
      - aspenmayer 1y ago
        This is also relevant, if only to illustrate that the incident had more going on than it appeared on the surface: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the_Whitlam_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the...
    - nl 1y ago
      The claim that the Queen actually _instructed_ the Govenor General to dismiss the PM isn't widely supported. It's true that the palace was involved in discussions with the GG to a greater extent than most Australians though was acceptable though. However this was before the 1986 Australia Act which cleared up the ambiguity around that.
  - toast0 1y ago
    If by 'their king', you mean 'the king of England'. No, the king of England holds no power in Canada or Australia. However, the king of Canada holds limited power in Canada, and happens to be the same person as the king of England, and it's expected that that will continue as all countries that share that monarch have agreed to the same rules of succession. Constitutionally, the king of Canada is the commander in chief of its armed forces, provides consent or assent to all laws passed by Parliament, has some immunity from prosecution, and has a pardon power. In actual practice, most of those powers are performed perfunctorily by delegates based on either action by Parliament or by recommendation of ministers determined by the Prime Minister.
    - Podrod 1y ago
      [dead]
- Waterluvian 1y ago
  To be satisfyingly pedantic, my King isn’t the same King. Mine is the King of Canada. It just happens to be the same person as the King of England and the King of Australia ;)
  - KoolKat23 1y ago
    If it walks like King Charles, and quacks like King Charles, then it must be...
    - Waterluvian 1y ago
      assert(king_of_canada === king_of_england); They are the same by identity!
      - ozim 1y ago
        Dude lives in Buckingham Palace In UK … that’s kind of a dead giveaway :)
        Symbiote 1y ago
        He actually lives in Clarence House (when in London), Buckingham Palace is currently only used for official business, parties etc. Arguably, Buckingham Palace should be turned into a museum (like several other former royal residences, e.g. Tower of London, Kew Palace).
        ozim 1y ago
        Well I guess so but Buckingham Palace is not so far away from Clearance House. So I brush it off as a technicality. Once I was in London I saw Harry and William being ferried to the Clearance House while I was walking The Mall.
      - moomin 1y ago
        Depends if you’re comparing the people or the office holders. The office holder is a tuple.
- bobsmooth 1y ago
  We do not have the same king. The King of Great Brittan is not the King of Canada, they just happen to be the same person. Is the US also part of the British Empire?
  - ozim 1y ago
    Obviously not as US does not have king in their legal system at all.
    - bobsmooth 1y ago
      And the UK has no influence on Canadian governance.
      - tonymet 1y ago
        the king can call you to war right?
        robotresearcher 1y ago
        No, only parliament can declare war. And the King of Canada is a different role than the King of the UK, as explained many times in the thread.
        tonymet 1y ago
        but he's commander in chief. and he confirms / dissolves parliament. so when it matters, as in war time, he can . I don't appreciate the condescension in either case. It's not like his powers are easy to understand. They exist, though not commonly exercised.
        robotresearcher 1y ago
        > so when it matters, as in war time, he can I looked it up, and you are kinda right in the theory of it, and I was wrong in the practice of it. The practical power lies with the Cabinet. From Wikipedia: "A declaration of war by Canada [...] is an exercise of the royal prerogative on the constitutional advice of the ministers of the Crown in Cabinet and does not require the direct approval of the Parliament of Canada, though such can be sought by the government." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_Canada
- SECProto 1y ago
  the last time the British tried to have anything to do with the governing of Canada was a century ago, and it went poorly (and led to the statute of Westminster, removing that as an option). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair
- bigfatkitten 1y ago
  The Australia Acts put an end to that in any practical sense for Australia in 1986. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act_1986 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act_1986
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  That makes approximately as much sense as considering Hawaii part of the British empire because they have the British flag as part of their own flag.
- dotancohen 1y ago
  I'll give you another reason to consider Canada as part of the British empire. It's actually called Canada. The local Indians have two words for settlements - one word for their own settlements, and another word for the settlements of other peoples who have come to their lands. Canada is the latter - it actually means "foreigner's settlement on our land" or "invader's settlement". Interestingly, I just tried to Google it and the only two websites I looked at - Wikipedia and some official Canada site - both conveniently leave out the part about it being a foreign settlement. Both simply translate the word as settlement, without the nuance.
  - capitainenemo 1y ago
    I feel a citation is needed for that, since it seems in direct conflict with the given history of the word which was that Cartier heard the local indian youths at the village of Stadacona call their village "kanata" (village) and believed that it was the word for the entire area. There was no "invader's village" to even refer to at the time.
    - dotancohen 1y ago
      Looking into it online now, yes I agree that wherever I heard that from contradicts the established histories. It's too late for me to delete my comment, so if we could just start downvoting it so it disappears that would be great.
      - capitainenemo 1y ago
        Thinking about this, perhaps you were thrown off by rhetorical flourish in a speech, perhaps by an Iroquois, perhaps reacting to the use of "Canada" as a unifying term for everyone living in the northern americas now - "our village." "Our word for village is kanata, "canada" is a totally different word for the 'village of the invaders'" Something like that.
        dotancohen 1y ago
        It was an explanation by a Native American Indian who I think was a non-Iroquois as this was in Florida. We were discussing Indian (he used that term) names, specifically the fact they nobody living remembers the meaning of the name Miami (for the river).
- zenmac 1y ago
  The pictures of Queen/King is on the money, and not to mention this little fiasco in the 70's [1] is when the rub meets the road, and we figure out who is really wearing the pants in this geopolitical relationship. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/queen-s-secret-letters-related-firing-australian-leader-be-revealed-n1217626 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/queen-s-secret-letters-re...
  - stephen_g 1y ago
    The legal landscape is very different now, that triggered a constitutional crisis that basically ensured it will never happen again. A lot of things were also formalised after that by Acts of Parliament like the Australia Act 1986 which cut off basically all legal ties (like any remaining ability of the UK Parliament to make laws in Australia)
- protocolture 1y ago
  Australia could fork the monarchy and make the irwins the royal family if they felt strongly enough about it.
ksec 1y ago
-Your access to this site has been limited by the site owner Am I the only one getting this ?
- pure_ambition 1y ago
  Nah I have it too
dcminter 1y ago
I've long enjoyed the blooper from Richard Lederer's collection that asserted "The sun never sets on the British Empire because the British Empire is in the east and the sun sets in the west." I think I saw it in the fortune file first.
merelysounds 1y ago
https://archive.is/lCNgp https://archive.is/lCNgp (original url sometimes times out)
dang 1y ago
[stub for offtopicness / genericness]
- FridayoLeary 1y ago
  It's sadly symbolic of the current political direction of the UK. It's probably not too important either way, but the chagos island deal is one of the most one sided I have ever seen. On a darker note the UK was unable to protect the people of Hong Kong when it mattered in another symbol of it's decline. At least they had enough courage and strength to support Ukraine in the early days of the war when nobody else would. Boris Johnson for all his other faults deserves full credit for that
  - lazide 1y ago
    ‘Protect the people of hong Kong’? You mean follow the treaty they signed ages ago?
    - lostlogin 1y ago
      Who was the treaty signed with? It wasn’t the CCP.
      - lazide 1y ago
        And you think it would be ‘protecting’ the people of Hong Kong to argue with the CCP about it? Lulz Or that it’s ever been about ‘protecting’ anyone when the British Crown fights anyone over territory? As compared to asserting ownership? Not to mention the UK nearly lost it’s fight with Argentina - it wouldn’t even be pissing in the wind to go to war with China over Hong Kong.
        mc32 1y ago
        How did Argentina “almost win” the Falklands war? I thought it was over almost before it started? Only thing that worked were some French missiles.
dang 1y ago
Related. Others? On Friday 21st March 2025, the sun will set on the British "Empire" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41957938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41957938 - Oct 2024 (23 comments) When (if ever) did the Sun set on the British Empire? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40631309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40631309 - June 2024 (41 comments)
capitainenemo 1y ago
Hm. I feel like the french republic can still make the claim though, at least according to this wikipedia map. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Mapadefrancia.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Mapadefr...
- wolvesechoes 1y ago
  It is always funny to ask people what country has the longest land border with France.
  - fakedang 1y ago
    For those wondering, it's Brazil.
    - crazygringo 1y ago
      > The Franco-Spanish border runs for 685.42 kilometres (425.90 mi) between southwestern France and northeastern Spain. [1] > The Brazil–France border is the line, located in the Amazon Rainforest, that limits the territories of Brazil and France. The border is located between the Brazilian state of Amapá and French Guiana. It is 730 kilometres (450 mi) in length. [2] I'll be damned! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France–Spain_border https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France–Spain_border [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil–France_border https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil–France_border
      - schoen 1y ago
        Is there a standard for measuring borders for these purposes, in light of the coastline paradox? I don't mean to suggest that there's no sensible way to do it; I just wonder if people might be using inconsistent methods sometimes, leading to not-very-comparable estimates.
        crazygringo 1y ago
        It's an excellent question. The Wikipedia citations don't actually lead to much, and there's no indication they use the same methodology. Best I can find is the CIA World Factbook [1] which lists France's border with Spain at 646 km (under "France" and "Spain", same value), and Brazil's border with French Guiana at 649 km (under "Brazil"). So, already a radical difference -- from a 45km difference to a 3km difference (just 0.5%). But there's more: > When available, official lengths published by national statistical agencies are used. Because surveying methods may differ, country border lengths reported by contiguous countries may differ. But there's no indication whether these particular measurements are made by the CIA using the same technique with maps of the same resolution... or, being so close to begin with, whether different resolutions would change the asnwer... or if these are official lengths derived using totally different and ultimately incomparable procedures. So maybe it's not so cut-and-dried that France's longest border is with Brazil...? [1] https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/about/archives/2022/field/land-boundaries/ https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/about/archives/2022/f...
mapontosevenths 1y ago
The sun shall never set upon the British empire, because God does not trust the bastards in the dark.
hmartin 1y ago
But the real question... what will happen with .io TLD? (British Indian Ocean Territory's)
- noirscape 1y ago
  It should eventually get removed by ICANN, since the country code TLDs are managed by ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 (it's however not an exact match), and the transfer will mean the British Indian Ocean Territories will no longer exist. ISO is going to be the entity in charge of removing the io country code, which it probably will do since ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 isn't just used for domain names. There's a standardized process for this; from the top of my head, you'll have 3-5 years before the TLD fully vanishes and for current domains to expire. (Also, because it's a country code, certain protections you're supposed to have as a domain owner won't apply to you; ICANN basically gives up underlying management of the ccTLD space to the countries that own them, meaning anything you're given is at the grace of the country owning them - this applies for all ccTLDs, which is why some UK domain owners suddenly lost control over their .eu domains when Brexit happened.) It's not the first time a TLD has been removed; a couple of TLDs have been scrapped in the past when countries split up or got merged (chiefly in the aftermath of the cold war)[0]. For the most part, those domain names weren't in heavy use. There's also a few high-profile failures of removal: .uk was used instead of .gb in the early days of the internet before 2-letter codes were standardized to ISO, which is why the UK uses .uk instead of .gb (an attempt to scrap .uk was attempted, but failed almost immediately). .su also should have been scrapped ages ago, but because the Russian entity that manages it refuses to cooperate with ICANN, the TLD is still in use, from what I can tell just because they don't want to risk breaking the internet. The .su TLD is the one with the closest amount of use as the .io TLD has today. That said, it's unlikely that the entity currently managing .io (a hedge fund if I'm not mistaken) has the legal muscle to force ICANN to keep it in the list, the way the Russian domain name registrar has been able to. [0]: See a more detailed explanation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_code_top-level_domain#Historical_ccTLDs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_code_top-level_domain#...
  - rschiavone 1y ago
    There is a lot of money to be made from the .io domain. My guess is that it will continue to exist as some kind of gTLD. Google already treats it like that.
PicassoCTs 1y ago
Ah, the british empire- the modern atlantis- as in its gone with no relevance for aeons, but still on the frontpage.
tonymet 1y ago
Though empires are out of fashion , British colonies universally benefited from the British empire. The ones who are thriving today owe a huge debt of gratitude, and the languishing ones are that way because they decided not to continue the British tradition. The 20th century decline of the British empire is one of civilization's worst failures, on par with the decline of the Roman Empire.
- lcvw 1y ago
  I don’t think that is at all accurate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_genocide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_genocide
  - ludicity 1y ago
    Yeah. I'm from Malaysia, and while we definitely benefited in many ways, to state that we do not still have massive and pervasive social issues as a result of colonization is insane. I'm glad you posted the link above and spoke up. I didn't even know where to start, but was worried someone might take the original comment seriously.
    - jeromegv 1y ago
      This viewpoint is still way too popular and was also used to genocide millions of indigenous people, we definitely need to keep speaking up against that.
  - tonymet 1y ago
    what point are you making?
- sys_64738 1y ago
  I remember asking this question to a work colleague from India almost 30 years ago. I asked something like if he hated the Brits for invading his land. He said on the contrary. They advanced their people so rapidly and efficiently through education and technical advances that would have taken hundreds of years by themselves. He said this allowed them to kick the British out once they had outlived their usefulness. Or something like that. It's been along time since I thought about it.
ebonnafoux 1y ago
The sun does not set on the French Empire is still alive with french Guyanna in South America, Mayotte and la Réunion in Africa and New Caledonia and French Polynesia in Pacific Ocean.
- awesome_dude 1y ago
  The indigenous people of New Caledonia are currently in a deep battle (politically) with the French colonialists for the governance of the lands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_New_Caledonia_unrest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_New_Caledonia_unrest
  - StopDisinfo910 1y ago
    Over simplification. By that argument, Americans can leave the US right now and give it back to the original inhabitants of the country. Various parties want more autonomy in New Caledonia which France is more than ready to give. The process is somewhat sabotaged by a tiny group of Marxist but it is moving in the right direction.
    - awesome_dude 1y ago
      Take a better look at Fiji - the indigenous people there have been outnumbered by the people bought into the country from India (by the English) The Fijians have had multiple coup, and changes to their constitution to ensure that only indigenous people can run the country Whether I agree with that or not is beside the point, the point is that what you claim is false, what can happen has happened elsewhere, and where things end up is very much determined by whether or not the "sun is setting on the French empire"
      - StopDisinfo910 1y ago
        Wether you agree or not is the entire point. This is not a theoretical question about what could be done. The question is why should it happen in the first place? Why do you think people who have been there for 150 years and ask nothing more than cohabitation should be forcefully removed from a place? As I said, it is not that simple. It has absolutely nothing to do with "the sun setting on the French empire".
holyshitsss 1y ago
[dead]
ineedaj0b 1y ago
I’ve been really sad getting older and having so much more context on Britain. My family weirdly had access to all of British TV in US growing up and they had fantastic programs. Now, I feel they are a joke. They seem like a strong example of what absolutely not to do. Their cultural exports have sunk. The arrested citizens for social media posts seems draconian. The economy barely hanging on. I understand the Media has a bias and they been hitting the UK hard since Brexit (liberals think it ended the world) and now even conservative/alternative media hates UK for the pro-immigration stances. With all that said even trying very hard to find things to like about the UK in a neutral way (I am a fan of PG, who I assume makes very smart decisions) I think the country is completely toast. Worse off than SPAIN! I never had a high opinion of Spain but it looks more likely to outgrow its troubles than the UK. Prince Andrew and Kate seem nice. The British countryside seems nice. But what else will these people ever be capable of again? When I read or interact with Britains irl I lump them in one of the lowest buckets for intellectual conversation. Does anyone have any hope for Britain to share or at least data to tell me I’m wrong about the UK?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  I assume you mean William, not Andrew.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - ineedaj0b 1y ago
    Yes. Sorry. Get them mixed up.
- tupac_speedrap 1y ago
  You seem to be prejudice and cherry picking to backup your opinion judging from the way your post reads and the random unhinged comments on Spain for some reason, HN is attracting more pseudo-intellectuals these days unfortunately. I don't think anyone can help you apart from maybe a therapist but getting laid and interacting with people outside in a non-transactional may help
Rakshith 1y ago
[flagged]
tehjoker 1y ago
This is great! It’s high time a brutal empire that starved Ireland and India and created the situation that resulted in the genocide in Palestine loses its literal shine. Honestly it is crazy that this country still exists as a monarchy in the 21st century.
- cutler 1y ago
  Unfortunately in the case of Palestine Britain merely handed over the baton to an even more hideous imperialist monster - the U.S.A. - which has reverted to Napoleonic levels of barbarity. Imperialism is alive and well in 2025.
  - tehjoker 1y ago
    That's right, though I don't want to undersell the massive levels of suffering and trickery played by the British. Their stock in trade was to sow ethnic division and steal whatever they could. For example, the million+ that died in the partition of India was a result of their sowing of tensions between Hindus and Muslims. They also did a lot of looting in Africa. Going back in time, if you read about the Duchess of Sutherland, the UK created their own internal Nakba where they internally displaced peasants to make way to "Sheepe Walks" and forced them to the sea to benefit the textile industry. Then they later wanted that land and attacked them again. The West is very familiar with creating Gaza-like situations.
    - t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
      Ah yes, the killing was the fault of someone other than those killing people. Why didn't I think of that.
      - tehjoker 1y ago
        If you fail to see how divide and conquer strategies are employed by the imperial west both externally and internally, much of politics will become mystifying to you.
phantomathkg 1y ago
Side note: some people may not be able access it outside of specific area.
movedx 1y ago
Very cool article. Really well researched. That being said, I don't think the sun can ever set on the British Empire, because the empire shifted to a financial once as opposed to one based on the idea of controlling physical land. You'd have to take out its entire financial/banking network spread out across the world for the sun to "set" on it.

233 points by bediger4000 1y ago

ozim 1y ago

As an outsider I consider Canada and Australia - British Empire. Hard to think otherwise as they have the same king.

bee_rider 1y ago
Does their king have any more hard powers in Canada or Australia than, say, Taylor Swift or some other rich celebrity?
- wk_end 1y ago
  Technically. The king here has as much power as he has in the UK. And, likewise, if ever exercised it’d probably lead to the end of the monarchy. In practice Taylor Swift might have more.
  - School-Cotton 1y ago
    > if ever exercised it’d probably lead to the end of the monarchy. If he does something that is openly obviously defying the will of the democratic majority, sure. But there are a lot of ways he can put his thumb on the scale in more subtle situations where the legal course of action is unclear. For example, if the Queen had refused Boris Johnson's request to prorogue parliament in 2019 -- which was later ruled illegal anyway -- I doubt it would have led to the end of the monarchy.
- Waterluvian 1y ago
  Kind of! There's nothing on paper that says the King can't just decide that democracy is over and dissolve Parliament. Another example is that the King's representation in Canada, the Governor General, unilaterally gets to decide whether or not to give any passed legislation "royal assent." However in practice, they always do and they otherwise never put their thumb on the scale. Doing so would be a constitutional crisis that would likely end our relationship with the Monarchy more formally and put pen to paper that no, you don't actually have any real kingly powers. The Governor General has in recent times prorogued Parliament when the Prime Minister asked them to. Ie. "This is politically nasty. Let's hit the pause button and come back when things are better and we're not about to be ejected from power..." And that has been politically controversial. Historically the Governor General just says yes because they want to avoid playing a political role at all (ie. preserving this convention that the Monarchy is really just a decoration of our government).
- sjducb 1y ago
  In 1975 the British Queen instructed her representative the governor general to dismiss the Australian prime minister, dissolving the Australian parliament. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitution... In principle this power still exists. Whether Charles could pull off the same trick depends on the political situation on the ground.
  - ztetranz 1y ago
    I don't think the Queen instructed the Governor General to do that. He made the decision. I'm old enough to remember it and remember a statement from the palace saying something like "The Queen is watching events in Australia with interest" but I don't think she took an active part. I quick search reveals this. I don't know this site but if true then some letters seem to confirm the above. She told the GG to obey the Australian Constitution. https://constitution-unit.com/2020/07/16/palace-letters-show-the-queen-did-not-advise-or-encourage-kerr-to-sack-whitlam-government/ https://constitution-unit.com/2020/07/16/palace-letters-show...
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      This is also relevant, if only to illustrate that the incident had more going on than it appeared on the surface: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the_Whitlam_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the...
  - nl 1y ago
    The claim that the Queen actually _instructed_ the Govenor General to dismiss the PM isn't widely supported. It's true that the palace was involved in discussions with the GG to a greater extent than most Australians though was acceptable though. However this was before the 1986 Australia Act which cleared up the ambiguity around that.
- toast0 1y ago
  If by 'their king', you mean 'the king of England'. No, the king of England holds no power in Canada or Australia. However, the king of Canada holds limited power in Canada, and happens to be the same person as the king of England, and it's expected that that will continue as all countries that share that monarch have agreed to the same rules of succession. Constitutionally, the king of Canada is the commander in chief of its armed forces, provides consent or assent to all laws passed by Parliament, has some immunity from prosecution, and has a pardon power. In actual practice, most of those powers are performed perfunctorily by delegates based on either action by Parliament or by recommendation of ministers determined by the Prime Minister.
  - Podrod 1y ago
    [dead]
Waterluvian 1y ago
To be satisfyingly pedantic, my King isn’t the same King. Mine is the King of Canada. It just happens to be the same person as the King of England and the King of Australia ;)
- KoolKat23 1y ago
  If it walks like King Charles, and quacks like King Charles, then it must be...
  - Waterluvian 1y ago
    assert(king_of_canada === king_of_england); They are the same by identity!
    - ozim 1y ago
      Dude lives in Buckingham Palace In UK … that’s kind of a dead giveaway :)
      - Symbiote 1y ago
        He actually lives in Clarence House (when in London), Buckingham Palace is currently only used for official business, parties etc. Arguably, Buckingham Palace should be turned into a museum (like several other former royal residences, e.g. Tower of London, Kew Palace).
        ozim 1y ago
        Well I guess so but Buckingham Palace is not so far away from Clearance House. So I brush it off as a technicality. Once I was in London I saw Harry and William being ferried to the Clearance House while I was walking The Mall.
    - moomin 1y ago
      Depends if you’re comparing the people or the office holders. The office holder is a tuple.
bobsmooth 1y ago
We do not have the same king. The King of Great Brittan is not the King of Canada, they just happen to be the same person. Is the US also part of the British Empire?
- ozim 1y ago
  Obviously not as US does not have king in their legal system at all.
  - bobsmooth 1y ago
    And the UK has no influence on Canadian governance.
    - tonymet 1y ago
      the king can call you to war right?
      - robotresearcher 1y ago
        No, only parliament can declare war. And the King of Canada is a different role than the King of the UK, as explained many times in the thread.
        tonymet 1y ago
        but he's commander in chief. and he confirms / dissolves parliament. so when it matters, as in war time, he can . I don't appreciate the condescension in either case. It's not like his powers are easy to understand. They exist, though not commonly exercised.
        robotresearcher 1y ago
        > so when it matters, as in war time, he can I looked it up, and you are kinda right in the theory of it, and I was wrong in the practice of it. The practical power lies with the Cabinet. From Wikipedia: "A declaration of war by Canada [...] is an exercise of the royal prerogative on the constitutional advice of the ministers of the Crown in Cabinet and does not require the direct approval of the Parliament of Canada, though such can be sought by the government." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_Canada
SECProto 1y ago
the last time the British tried to have anything to do with the governing of Canada was a century ago, and it went poorly (and led to the statute of Westminster, removing that as an option). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair
bigfatkitten 1y ago
The Australia Acts put an end to that in any practical sense for Australia in 1986. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act_1986 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act_1986
School-Cotton 1y ago
That makes approximately as much sense as considering Hawaii part of the British empire because they have the British flag as part of their own flag.
dotancohen 1y ago
I'll give you another reason to consider Canada as part of the British empire. It's actually called Canada. The local Indians have two words for settlements - one word for their own settlements, and another word for the settlements of other peoples who have come to their lands. Canada is the latter - it actually means "foreigner's settlement on our land" or "invader's settlement". Interestingly, I just tried to Google it and the only two websites I looked at - Wikipedia and some official Canada site - both conveniently leave out the part about it being a foreign settlement. Both simply translate the word as settlement, without the nuance.
- capitainenemo 1y ago
  I feel a citation is needed for that, since it seems in direct conflict with the given history of the word which was that Cartier heard the local indian youths at the village of Stadacona call their village "kanata" (village) and believed that it was the word for the entire area. There was no "invader's village" to even refer to at the time.
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    Looking into it online now, yes I agree that wherever I heard that from contradicts the established histories. It's too late for me to delete my comment, so if we could just start downvoting it so it disappears that would be great.
    - capitainenemo 1y ago
      Thinking about this, perhaps you were thrown off by rhetorical flourish in a speech, perhaps by an Iroquois, perhaps reacting to the use of "Canada" as a unifying term for everyone living in the northern americas now - "our village." "Our word for village is kanata, "canada" is a totally different word for the 'village of the invaders'" Something like that.
      - dotancohen 1y ago
        It was an explanation by a Native American Indian who I think was a non-Iroquois as this was in Florida. We were discussing Indian (he used that term) names, specifically the fact they nobody living remembers the meaning of the name Miami (for the river).
zenmac 1y ago
The pictures of Queen/King is on the money, and not to mention this little fiasco in the 70's [1] is when the rub meets the road, and we figure out who is really wearing the pants in this geopolitical relationship. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/queen-s-secret-letters-related-firing-australian-leader-be-revealed-n1217626 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/queen-s-secret-letters-re...
- stephen_g 1y ago
  The legal landscape is very different now, that triggered a constitutional crisis that basically ensured it will never happen again. A lot of things were also formalised after that by Acts of Parliament like the Australia Act 1986 which cut off basically all legal ties (like any remaining ability of the UK Parliament to make laws in Australia)
protocolture 1y ago
Australia could fork the monarchy and make the irwins the royal family if they felt strongly enough about it.

ksec 1y ago

-Your access to this site has been limited by the site owner Am I the only one getting this ?

pure_ambition 1y ago
Nah I have it too

dcminter 1y ago

I've long enjoyed the blooper from Richard Lederer's collection that asserted "The sun never sets on the British Empire because the British Empire is in the east and the sun sets in the west." I think I saw it in the fortune file first.

merelysounds 1y ago

https://archive.is/lCNgp https://archive.is/lCNgp (original url sometimes times out)

dang 1y ago

[stub for offtopicness / genericness]

FridayoLeary 1y ago
It's sadly symbolic of the current political direction of the UK. It's probably not too important either way, but the chagos island deal is one of the most one sided I have ever seen. On a darker note the UK was unable to protect the people of Hong Kong when it mattered in another symbol of it's decline. At least they had enough courage and strength to support Ukraine in the early days of the war when nobody else would. Boris Johnson for all his other faults deserves full credit for that
- lazide 1y ago
  ‘Protect the people of hong Kong’? You mean follow the treaty they signed ages ago?
  - lostlogin 1y ago
    Who was the treaty signed with? It wasn’t the CCP.
    - lazide 1y ago
      And you think it would be ‘protecting’ the people of Hong Kong to argue with the CCP about it? Lulz Or that it’s ever been about ‘protecting’ anyone when the British Crown fights anyone over territory? As compared to asserting ownership? Not to mention the UK nearly lost it’s fight with Argentina - it wouldn’t even be pissing in the wind to go to war with China over Hong Kong.
      - mc32 1y ago
        How did Argentina “almost win” the Falklands war? I thought it was over almost before it started? Only thing that worked were some French missiles.

dang 1y ago

Related. Others? On Friday 21st March 2025, the sun will set on the British "Empire" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41957938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41957938 - Oct 2024 (23 comments) When (if ever) did the Sun set on the British Empire? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40631309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40631309 - June 2024 (41 comments)

capitainenemo 1y ago

Hm. I feel like the french republic can still make the claim though, at least according to this wikipedia map. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Mapadefrancia.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Mapadefr...

wolvesechoes 1y ago
It is always funny to ask people what country has the longest land border with France.
- fakedang 1y ago
  For those wondering, it's Brazil.
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    > The Franco-Spanish border runs for 685.42 kilometres (425.90 mi) between southwestern France and northeastern Spain. [1] > The Brazil–France border is the line, located in the Amazon Rainforest, that limits the territories of Brazil and France. The border is located between the Brazilian state of Amapá and French Guiana. It is 730 kilometres (450 mi) in length. [2] I'll be damned! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France–Spain_border https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France–Spain_border [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil–France_border https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil–France_border
    - schoen 1y ago
      Is there a standard for measuring borders for these purposes, in light of the coastline paradox? I don't mean to suggest that there's no sensible way to do it; I just wonder if people might be using inconsistent methods sometimes, leading to not-very-comparable estimates.
      - crazygringo 1y ago
        It's an excellent question. The Wikipedia citations don't actually lead to much, and there's no indication they use the same methodology. Best I can find is the CIA World Factbook [1] which lists France's border with Spain at 646 km (under "France" and "Spain", same value), and Brazil's border with French Guiana at 649 km (under "Brazil"). So, already a radical difference -- from a 45km difference to a 3km difference (just 0.5%). But there's more: > When available, official lengths published by national statistical agencies are used. Because surveying methods may differ, country border lengths reported by contiguous countries may differ. But there's no indication whether these particular measurements are made by the CIA using the same technique with maps of the same resolution... or, being so close to begin with, whether different resolutions would change the asnwer... or if these are official lengths derived using totally different and ultimately incomparable procedures. So maybe it's not so cut-and-dried that France's longest border is with Brazil...? [1] https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/about/archives/2022/field/land-boundaries/ https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/about/archives/2022/f...

mapontosevenths 1y ago

The sun shall never set upon the British empire, because God does not trust the bastards in the dark.

hmartin 1y ago

But the real question... what will happen with .io TLD? (British Indian Ocean Territory's)

noirscape 1y ago
It should eventually get removed by ICANN, since the country code TLDs are managed by ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 (it's however not an exact match), and the transfer will mean the British Indian Ocean Territories will no longer exist. ISO is going to be the entity in charge of removing the io country code, which it probably will do since ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 isn't just used for domain names. There's a standardized process for this; from the top of my head, you'll have 3-5 years before the TLD fully vanishes and for current domains to expire. (Also, because it's a country code, certain protections you're supposed to have as a domain owner won't apply to you; ICANN basically gives up underlying management of the ccTLD space to the countries that own them, meaning anything you're given is at the grace of the country owning them - this applies for all ccTLDs, which is why some UK domain owners suddenly lost control over their .eu domains when Brexit happened.) It's not the first time a TLD has been removed; a couple of TLDs have been scrapped in the past when countries split up or got merged (chiefly in the aftermath of the cold war)[0]. For the most part, those domain names weren't in heavy use. There's also a few high-profile failures of removal: .uk was used instead of .gb in the early days of the internet before 2-letter codes were standardized to ISO, which is why the UK uses .uk instead of .gb (an attempt to scrap .uk was attempted, but failed almost immediately). .su also should have been scrapped ages ago, but because the Russian entity that manages it refuses to cooperate with ICANN, the TLD is still in use, from what I can tell just because they don't want to risk breaking the internet. The .su TLD is the one with the closest amount of use as the .io TLD has today. That said, it's unlikely that the entity currently managing .io (a hedge fund if I'm not mistaken) has the legal muscle to force ICANN to keep it in the list, the way the Russian domain name registrar has been able to. [0]: See a more detailed explanation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_code_top-level_domain#Historical_ccTLDs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_code_top-level_domain#...
- rschiavone 1y ago
  There is a lot of money to be made from the .io domain. My guess is that it will continue to exist as some kind of gTLD. Google already treats it like that.

PicassoCTs 1y ago

Ah, the british empire- the modern atlantis- as in its gone with no relevance for aeons, but still on the frontpage.

tonymet 1y ago

Though empires are out of fashion , British colonies universally benefited from the British empire. The ones who are thriving today owe a huge debt of gratitude, and the languishing ones are that way because they decided not to continue the British tradition. The 20th century decline of the British empire is one of civilization's worst failures, on par with the decline of the Roman Empire.

lcvw 1y ago
I don’t think that is at all accurate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_genocide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_genocide
- ludicity 1y ago
  Yeah. I'm from Malaysia, and while we definitely benefited in many ways, to state that we do not still have massive and pervasive social issues as a result of colonization is insane. I'm glad you posted the link above and spoke up. I didn't even know where to start, but was worried someone might take the original comment seriously.
  - jeromegv 1y ago
    This viewpoint is still way too popular and was also used to genocide millions of indigenous people, we definitely need to keep speaking up against that.
- tonymet 1y ago
  what point are you making?
sys_64738 1y ago
I remember asking this question to a work colleague from India almost 30 years ago. I asked something like if he hated the Brits for invading his land. He said on the contrary. They advanced their people so rapidly and efficiently through education and technical advances that would have taken hundreds of years by themselves. He said this allowed them to kick the British out once they had outlived their usefulness. Or something like that. It's been along time since I thought about it.

ebonnafoux 1y ago

The sun does not set on the French Empire is still alive with french Guyanna in South America, Mayotte and la Réunion in Africa and New Caledonia and French Polynesia in Pacific Ocean.

awesome_dude 1y ago
The indigenous people of New Caledonia are currently in a deep battle (politically) with the French colonialists for the governance of the lands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_New_Caledonia_unrest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_New_Caledonia_unrest
- StopDisinfo910 1y ago
  Over simplification. By that argument, Americans can leave the US right now and give it back to the original inhabitants of the country. Various parties want more autonomy in New Caledonia which France is more than ready to give. The process is somewhat sabotaged by a tiny group of Marxist but it is moving in the right direction.
  - awesome_dude 1y ago
    Take a better look at Fiji - the indigenous people there have been outnumbered by the people bought into the country from India (by the English) The Fijians have had multiple coup, and changes to their constitution to ensure that only indigenous people can run the country Whether I agree with that or not is beside the point, the point is that what you claim is false, what can happen has happened elsewhere, and where things end up is very much determined by whether or not the "sun is setting on the French empire"
    - StopDisinfo910 1y ago
      Wether you agree or not is the entire point. This is not a theoretical question about what could be done. The question is why should it happen in the first place? Why do you think people who have been there for 150 years and ask nothing more than cohabitation should be forcefully removed from a place? As I said, it is not that simple. It has absolutely nothing to do with "the sun setting on the French empire".

holyshitsss 1y ago

[dead]

ineedaj0b 1y ago

I’ve been really sad getting older and having so much more context on Britain. My family weirdly had access to all of British TV in US growing up and they had fantastic programs. Now, I feel they are a joke. They seem like a strong example of what absolutely not to do. Their cultural exports have sunk. The arrested citizens for social media posts seems draconian. The economy barely hanging on. I understand the Media has a bias and they been hitting the UK hard since Brexit (liberals think it ended the world) and now even conservative/alternative media hates UK for the pro-immigration stances. With all that said even trying very hard to find things to like about the UK in a neutral way (I am a fan of PG, who I assume makes very smart decisions) I think the country is completely toast. Worse off than SPAIN! I never had a high opinion of Spain but it looks more likely to outgrow its troubles than the UK. Prince Andrew and Kate seem nice. The British countryside seems nice. But what else will these people ever be capable of again? When I read or interact with Britains irl I lump them in one of the lowest buckets for intellectual conversation. Does anyone have any hope for Britain to share or at least data to tell me I’m wrong about the UK?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
School-Cotton 1y ago
I assume you mean William, not Andrew.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- ineedaj0b 1y ago
  Yes. Sorry. Get them mixed up.
tupac_speedrap 1y ago
You seem to be prejudice and cherry picking to backup your opinion judging from the way your post reads and the random unhinged comments on Spain for some reason, HN is attracting more pseudo-intellectuals these days unfortunately. I don't think anyone can help you apart from maybe a therapist but getting laid and interacting with people outside in a non-transactional may help

Rakshith 1y ago

[flagged]

tehjoker 1y ago

This is great! It’s high time a brutal empire that starved Ireland and India and created the situation that resulted in the genocide in Palestine loses its literal shine. Honestly it is crazy that this country still exists as a monarchy in the 21st century.

cutler 1y ago
Unfortunately in the case of Palestine Britain merely handed over the baton to an even more hideous imperialist monster - the U.S.A. - which has reverted to Napoleonic levels of barbarity. Imperialism is alive and well in 2025.
- tehjoker 1y ago
  That's right, though I don't want to undersell the massive levels of suffering and trickery played by the British. Their stock in trade was to sow ethnic division and steal whatever they could. For example, the million+ that died in the partition of India was a result of their sowing of tensions between Hindus and Muslims. They also did a lot of looting in Africa. Going back in time, if you read about the Duchess of Sutherland, the UK created their own internal Nakba where they internally displaced peasants to make way to "Sheepe Walks" and forced them to the sea to benefit the textile industry. Then they later wanted that land and attacked them again. The West is very familiar with creating Gaza-like situations.
  - t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
    Ah yes, the killing was the fault of someone other than those killing people. Why didn't I think of that.
    - tehjoker 1y ago
      If you fail to see how divide and conquer strategies are employed by the imperial west both externally and internally, much of politics will become mystifying to you.

phantomathkg 1y ago

Side note: some people may not be able access it outside of specific area.

movedx 1y ago

Very cool article. Really well researched. That being said, I don't think the sun can ever set on the British Empire, because the empire shifted to a financial once as opposed to one based on the idea of controlling physical land. You'd have to take out its entire financial/banking network spread out across the world for the sun to "set" on it.