#THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS

[presidentofthefa]

Square Rank Insignia See Aircraft Carriers On Earth To Investigate Power Sources + Galaxies (Local Earth Is In Milky Way) + See Red White Blue Insignia Banners Here Locations

[vox-anglosphere]

Happy Victoria Day to all my friends & followers in the Anglosphere!

[elkkiel]

pls canadian eeps I need one of u to come through on the toronto rituals and get them into some cheesy ass canadacore headwear or accessory .. pls do it for us sad westerners .. i'll even accept a scrap of buffalo plaid or a little maple leaf or anything pls ... thx xoxo

[blackswaneuroparedux]

We are guardians of a precious flame, and it is our duty not only to keep it burning brightly but to keep it replenished for the decades ahead.

- Queen Elizabeth II, Commonwealth Day Speech

Happy Commonwealth Day

[paxvictoriana]

National Status of the Former (and Ongoing) British Empire

I've been doing research on the nationalities of all the former territories occupied, colonized, settled, controlled, or otherwise claimed by the British Empire. Short story: it's a mess.

But it also occurred to me in doing that that I couldn't find a good list of former colonies and territories that noted their status today (in Jan. 2024). So... here we are! I bet there are errors and I bet there are omissions, because – again – it's a MESS to get a clear picture of. And according to many legal historians and cultural studies scholars, that was and is on purpose.

Snapshots of those lists below -- but the full, and better-formatted version on my wordpress [because Tumblr didn't support the table I tried to make].

[* Denotes countries now in the Commonwealth of Nations.]

Again, I am sure there are issues here, as there have been contestations, debates, and challenges to the statuses of people born on land around the world that was once touched by British imperial boots.

For more on the CHAOS of those struggles, including the fundamental problem with establishing what “British nationality” even means, I highly recommend:

Ann Dummett and Andrew Nicol, Subjects, Citizens, Aliens and Others: Nationality and Immigration Law (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1990).

[arthurdrakoni]

Flag of the Commonwealth of California

This is the flag of The Commonwealth of California.  It comes from a world where the Constitution was never ratified, and the Articles of Confederation remained the primary governing document for the United States.  Unfortunately, this meant that the federal government remained weak and ineffectual.  The states soon began to question why they needed to take orders from Washington, and regionalist movements began to spring up.  By the early 19th century the United States had completely collapsed.  Each state became its own nation, with smaller states joining bigger ones either willingly or by force.  Though the United States had failed as a nation, the idea of the United States inspired other colonies to rebel against their mother nations and seek independence.

The ideal of Manifest Destiny never really became a thing, but there was a general westward movement among the peoples of North America.  However, how they got westward was considerably different than in our world.  That brings us to California.  It was primarily settled by British colonist from the Oregon Territory.  This had multiple effects on California's development.  For example, California is governed by a parliament, led by a prime minister, and the Queen's Birthday is a national holiday.  California is also a proud member of the Commonwealth of Nations.  Just as in our world, California has a significant Mexican minority, and most Californians are bilingual. 

California is one of the most prosperous nations in North America. It has a booming tech sector, and it's farms help feed people across North America. In the past, California had a history in intervening in wars, but it has backed off from that in more recent times.  The big focus now is space exploration.  California has launched multiple missions to the Moon and now there's talk of a possible Mars mission.

California's British heritage is very much reflected on its flag with the blue background and St. George's canton.  The seal hearkens back to the early days of British settlement, all under the watchful eye of Britannia herself. The tree in the canton is a California Redwood. 

Link to the original flag on my blog: https://drakoniandgriffalco.blogspot.com/2017/04/flag-of-commonwealth-of-california.html?m=1

[ef-1]

For those not tapped into Australian politics, King Charles is in Australia to conduct his "historic first tour to the commonwealth realm" i.e visting countries that King Charles is supposedly a monarch to.

Indigenous senator Lidia Thorpe had requested an audience with King Charles for weeks prior to this visit, she wrote countless letters to speak to him. Unlike other commonwealth nations and other former Brisitish colonies, a treaty with Indigenous peoples in Australia was never formed. Their land was never ceded to the British Crown. After being denied and ignored, Lidia Thorpe, draped in a traditional possum skin cloak, stormed in the Great Hall during the reception for Charles at Parliament House in the capital shouting the following:

I literally can't even look at these photos without getting goosebumps.

[tmarshconnors]

The 'Rivers of Blood' Speech by Enoch Powell

Birmingham, England April 20, 1968

"The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred. At each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they are present or not. People are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles. “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.” Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical. At all events, this is a dangerous fallacy. It is supremely dangerous in the case of a nation or a whole community. To see and not to speak would be the great betrayal.

The commonest error in politics is sticking to the carcass of dead policies. When the evidence of the eyes and ears stands in opposition to the conventional wisdom of the day, it is the latter which will be disregarded, in almost every case with dismaying results. A respectable person in England almost dreads to disagree with a profession so unworldly as the academic. At the same time he never doubts the education, training, and equipment of an Army which within our memories was raised to defend, under God, these great and Christian realms. How ready he will be to fall back upon the judgment of those he most despises!

It is one of the many contrasts between England and America that whereas in this country political debate and action proceeds upon the assumption that good intentions will always suffice to make everything turn out for the best, in the United States a much more cautious view prevails. In this country, if people believe that something would be nice if it were so, they are all for assuming that it will be so. In the United States the predilection is to make sure that it is so. In this country the argument is about intention and desirability; in the United States it is about effect and practicability.

One reason for this difference is perhaps that in this country politics and government are conducted as a kind of game, almost as a sport, against a backdrop of an ordered and secure society. In the United States government and politics are conducted in the very presence of risks and dangers and difficulties which are a real and ever-present part of the national experience. But what is a kind of luxury for us is a necessity for them, and we shall find ourselves paying a heavy price for our apathy and complacency.

In fifteen or twenty years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to Parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office. There is no comparable official estimate of the increase in the indigenous population during the same period. In fifteen or twenty years the present immigrant population of Great Britain, which is estimated at between one and two million, will have grown to five million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, this would be a rapid and unprecedented transformation of a country which in 1948 was still almost homogeneously white. So great a number of immigrant people simply cannot be absorbed without such profound changes in the culture, social fabric, and nature of the population as to render the resulting society unrecognizable.

The great majority of immigrants are here for the long haul, with every intention of making a permanent home for themselves and their families, and with every right so to do. The existing population is already growing alarmed and agitated. Here I quote the words of a letter addressed to me by a constituent in North London: "The black man will have the whip hand over the white man." This is a reflection not only of the sense of helplessness and confusion, but also of resentment and hostility, which are increasingly felt and voiced. When the United States becomes concerned about a "racial problem," it calls in the National Guard, and their government knows that the call can be justified. Here, the “moderate and responsible” members of society as often as not are more apprehensive of the consequences of defending order than of the disorder itself.

Many of them, like the writer of this letter, regard the prospect with horror and foreboding. One of my constituents wrote to me in desperation. In a fortnight, she said, she would have to vacate her small house, where she and her husband have lived for 15 years, because a “crowd of Negroes” was moving into the street and had already made her life unbearable. She went on: “Mr. Powell, it is difficult to describe what the consequences are for us, with the constant noise, the constant threat of violence, and the dirt. We dare not go out of the house, because when we do we are followed by gangs of Negroes, who pelt us with stones and jeer at us. I am not a racialist, but I have never experienced the like in all my life. These people are not our people and our home is now not ours. Please do something about it.” (The words "Negro" and "racialist" are verbatim.)

It is, indeed, difficult to describe the consequences of the natural reaction of the original population to the remorseless transformation to which it is being subjected. To quote another constituent: “I have three children, all of whom are in school. In two of the three classrooms of my children there are, and there have been, Negro children. Each of my children has been assaulted by them, and each time they have tried to fight back. This morning I had to see a Negro teacher because my son had been whipped by one of these boys, but the teacher was not interested.”

It is not true that the immigrant population is consistently law-abiding. In the most serious of all crimes—murder—there is an increasing incidence of crime by coloured immigrants. In one case this year a coloured man was convicted of the murder of a white girl with whom he had been living, and in another, also in London, two coloured men were sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of a police constable. There has been an increase in attacks upon women, and here too there are constant reports of racial aspects.

For these and other reasons there is a rapidly increasing danger that this country will be the subject of the kind of inter-communal violence which is endemic in parts of the United States, and now for the same reasons is spreading to England. If I am right, and even if I am only partially right, if there is any element of truth in what I am saying, I am sure that the people of this country will listen to a voice warning of danger before it is too late.

Of course, the most strident voices will be raised to say that this is all a figment of the imagination; that there is nothing whatever to worry about. They will also say that I am pandering to the worst instincts of human nature. But when the official figures show that the immigrant and immigrant-descended population of this country will approach five million within twenty years, it is no good at the same time denying that the consequences of that are going to be serious and grave.

Yet I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and incite hatred? I am simply being prudent and responsible, and to give a warning before it is too late.

The sense of urgency will have to be felt. This country is not going to be easily forgiven for throwing away its future. The vision of the nation is being blinded by sentimentality and the unwillingness to face the facts.

I say to you that in my lifetime this country will look and feel like a different country. Even now, in parts of our cities, the transformation is evident. They found that 15 per cent of the population of Wolverhampton is now non-white. The people are questioning and alarmed. They have cause to be alarmed. If only the House of Commons would reflect the views of the people in its legislation, there would be no cause for alarm. But they do not, and I believe it is a great betrayal.

We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. I simply cannot believe that any rational person can look on in this way without some sense of impending disaster.

But that is what is happening. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. Indeed, I am astonished at the sanity of those who make the decisions. They simply cannot be mad, literally mad, in their actions and attitudes. And yet they are.

For these reasons, among many others, I believe that immigration is the issue which will determine the future of this country. The House of Commons must be brought to understand that it is an issue of survival. If not, we shall have handed over to our children a legacy of the most monstrous growth of all time. This is not fantasy. This is not invention. This is not cynicism. It is reality.

In this country, in fifteen or twenty years’ time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man. For these reasons, among many others, I believe that immigration is the issue which will determine the future of this country. We must be mad, literally mad, to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

I simply do not have the stomach to go on with this, though it is not yet finished. There is a danger, a clear danger, that we will be overwhelmed. Indeed, it is not only a danger, it is a certainty.

I do not believe there is a single person in this country who does not believe it. They are all sensible people. They all know what is happening, though they are afraid to speak out.

For these reasons, among many others, I believe that immigration is the issue which will determine the future of this country. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

I have left this country in despair. But I do not despair of our country. I believe in the British people. The significance of this cannot be overlooked. There is a danger, a clear danger, that we will be overwhelmed. Indeed, it is not only a danger, it is a certainty.

In fifteen or twenty years’ time, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to Parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office. There is no comparable official estimate of the increase in the indigenous population during the same period. In fifteen or twenty years the present immigrant population of Great Britain, which is estimated at between one and two million, will have grown to five million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, this would be a rapid and unprecedented transformation of a country which in 1948 was still almost homogeneously white. So great a number of immigrant people simply cannot be absorbed without such profound changes in the culture, social fabric, and nature of the population as to render the resulting society unrecognizable.

The great majority of immigrants are here for the long haul, with every intention of making a permanent home for themselves and their families, and with every right so to do. The existing population is already growing alarmed and agitated. Here I quote the words of a letter addressed to me by a constituent in North London: "The black man will have the whip hand over the white man." This is a reflection not only of the sense of helplessness and confusion, but also of resentment and hostility, which are increasingly felt and voiced. When the United States becomes concerned about a "racial problem," it calls in the National Guard, and their government knows that the call can be justified. Here, the “moderate and responsible” members of society as often as not are more apprehensive of the consequences of defending order than of the disorder itself.

Many of them, like the writer of this letter, regard the prospect with horror and foreboding. One of my constituents wrote to me in desperation. In a fortnight, she said, she would have to vacate her small house, where she and her husband have lived for 15 years, because a “crowd of Negroes” was moving into the street and had already made her life unbearable. She went on: “Mr. Powell, it is difficult to describe what the consequences are for us, with the constant noise, the constant threat of violence, and the dirt. We dare not go out of the house, because when we do we are followed by gangs of Negroes, who pelt us with stones and jeer at us. I am not a racialist, but I have never experienced the like in all my life. These people are not our people and our home is now not ours. Please do something about it.” (The words "Negro" and "racialist" are verbatim.)

It is, indeed, difficult to describe the consequences of the natural reaction of the original population to the remorseless transformation to which it is being subjected. To quote another constituent: “I have three children, all of whom are in school. In two of the three classrooms of my children there are, and there have been, Negro children. Each of my children has been assaulted by them, and each time they have tried to fight back. This morning I had to see a Negro teacher because my son had been whipped by one of these boys, but the teacher was not interested.”

It is not true that the immigrant population is consistently law-abiding. In the most serious of all crimes—murder—there is an increasing incidence of crime by coloured immigrants. In one case this year a coloured man was convicted of the murder of a white girl with whom he had been living, and in another, also in London, two coloured men were sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of a police constable. There has been an increase in attacks upon women, and here too there are constant reports of racial aspects.

For these and other reasons there is a rapidly increasing danger that this country will be the subject of the kind of inter-communal violence which is endemic in parts of the United States, and now for the same reasons is spreading to England. If I am right, and even if I am only partially right, if there is any element of truth in what I am saying, I am sure that the people of this country will listen to a voice warning of danger before it is too late.

Of course, the most strident voices will be raised to say that this is all a figment of the imagination; that there is nothing whatever to worry about. They will also say that I am pandering to the worst instincts of human nature. But when the official figures show that the immigrant and immigrant-descended population of this country will approach five million within twenty years, it is no good at the same time denying that the consequences of that are going to be serious and grave.

Yet I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and incite hatred? I am simply being prudent and responsible, and to give a warning before it is too late.

The sense of urgency will have to be felt. This country is not going to be easily forgiven for throwing away its future. The vision of the nation is being blinded by sentimentality and the unwillingness to face the facts.

I say to you that in my lifetime this country will look and feel like a different country. Even now, in parts of our cities, the transformation is evident. They found that 15 per cent of the population of Wolverhampton is now non-white. The people are questioning and alarmed. They have cause to be alarmed. If only the House of Commons would reflect the views of the people in its legislation, there would be no cause for alarm. But they do not, and I believe it is a great betrayal.

We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. I simply cannot believe that any rational person can look on in this way without some sense of impending disaster.

But that is what is happening. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. Indeed, I am astonished at the sanity of those who make the decisions. They simply cannot be mad, literally mad, in their actions and attitudes. And yet they are.

For these reasons, among many others, I believe that immigration is the issue which will determine the future of this country. The House of Commons must be brought to understand that it is an issue of survival. If not, we shall have handed over to our children a legacy of the most monstrous growth of all time. This is not fantasy. This is not invention. This is not cynicism. It is reality.

In this country, in fifteen or twenty years’ time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man. For these reasons, among many others, I believe that immigration is the issue which will determine the future of this country. We must be mad, literally mad, to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

I simply do not have the stomach to go on with this, though it is not yet finished. There is a danger, a clear danger, that we will be overwhelmed. Indeed, it is not only a danger, it is a certainty.

I do not believe there is a single person in this country who does not believe it. They are all sensible people. They all know what is happening, though they are afraid to speak out.

For these reasons, among many others, I believe that immigration is the issue which will determine the future of this country. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

I have left this country in despair. But I do not despair of our country. I believe in the British people. The significance of this cannot be overlooked. There is a danger, a clear danger, that we will be overwhelmed. Indeed, it is not only a danger, it is a certainty."

John Enoch Powell MBE was a British politician and statesman. He served as a Conservative Member of Parliament and was Minister of Health then Ulster Unionist Party MP. Before entering politics, Powell was a classical scholar.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"BRITISH COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS CONFERENCE GETS UNDER WAY HERE," Toronto Globe. September 12, 1933. Page 11. --- A scene at the sessions of the British Commonwealth Relations Conference, which opened at Hart House yesterday, is shown above. Many prominent citizens of the Empire are in attendance at this gathering. In the group are, left to rights Right Hon. Sir Herbert Samuel, Hon. Newton Rowell, and Hon. Vincent Massey,

[vox-anglosphere]

Prince Philip relaxes on a wildlife tour in Tanganyika, now Tanzania

Prince Philip in Serengeti National Park.

Photo from the book Wildlife Crisis.

[findher-ogg]

I think Piper Wright Fallout 4 is one of those characters who's good in theory but not in practice. I was thinking about her as a character in relation to her setting and I genuinely think her archetype would be better suited to the NCR than it is to the Commonwealth.

Which I think comes down to how Bethesda handles their games, environment and attitude wise, as opposed to Black Isle and Obsidian. The West coast has basically recovered. New Vegas is a tourist attraction. The NCR are on a rapid tirade of imperialist expansion that's only achievable because they, as a nation, have recovered from the war and grown from it. If you compare Shady Sands in Fallout 1 to Diamond City in Fallout 4, its kind of funny. Shady Sands started out with decent houses made from dirt, with solid foundation and some of them having actual windows. The average settlement in Bethesda Fallout (like Diamond City or Megaton), meanwhile, are just shanty towns made from tin.

In the Commonwealth's case this is made even more insane by the fact that Fenway Park (where Diamond City is located) is surrounded by mostly intact houses that, with a bit of fixer-uppering, could be lived in relatively normally compared to the tin shacks of Diamond City. I think Megaton gets more of a pass because the Capital Wasteland got nuked to shit, but you get me.

Returning to Piper for a second, let's take a look at her character: she's a spunky, somewhat annoying character who's very invested in the freedom of the press and so forth. She's got a working printing press and everything, which is super impressive considering how run-down the rest of Diamond City is aside from the Valentine Detective Agency signs (seriously, where did they find the materials for those). She runs Publick Occurences solo with her sister, and it's all well and good. Ignoring the witch hunts she sends people on about synths.

And I get it. I think this specific gripe with Piper as a character comes from having played this game for the first time in 2024. The synths don't really hold up as an allegory for anything, and the entire story surrounding them is very "trying to be progressive in 2014". Which is fine, I think it is just a symptom of the era the game came out in, but still.

Piper's character, as a spunky yet annoying journalist who believes the people deserve to know what's going on, would be far better suited in a more developed location on the West coast -- specifically, Freeside or somewhere within the NCR.

I think Piper would suit the Followers of the Apocalypse, for example, serving as an informant to keep them in the know about what's going on between the Strip, the NCR and the regular Freesiders. Plus, having a funny, anarchist-themed newspaper you can receive in-game where she touts her hatred for the Securitron police force is a funny mental image. Equally, I think she'd suit living in Shady Sands -- right at the heart of the NCR's seediest political manouvres as the decisions are made. Imagine her as a journalist who frequently pushes back against the Mojave expansion, for example, and how the NCR is putting too many resources into a lost cause instead of more important things like healthcare or housing. That way, you could still keep her extreme hatred for the upper class in The Stands while making it make more sense within the setting.

Leading on from this, this made me realise how Bethesda also just aren't very deliberate with how they utilise history in their games. Which makes sense, to a certain extent, given how destroyed absolutely everything on the East coast is. But still. It's a little stupid.

The core conflict of New Vegas -- the Legion vs the NCR -- is actually a really deep-cut history reference at its core. The NCR is the Bear, the Legion is the Bull. In mid-19th century California, people watched bears and bulls fight for fun.

There are other, better examples, I'm sure. But I'm British and this is my personal favourite example, so this is what I'm using. History plays such an important part of New Vegas' themes and messaging -- it's a story about how, when, and why humanity needs to move on from the past and look towards the future.

Bethesda Fallout, by comparison, will frequently and shallowly tout "nukes bad" while letting Liberty Prime lob them at Super Mutants, or encouraging players to nuke each other's houses in Fallout 76.

Piper exists partially as a nod to the Boston Herald, and how it's one of the longest-running/most influential newspapers in America. A lot of publishing has its roots within Boston, and I think it's an interesting reference to take.

And I think this is a part of Fallout that Bethesda does get -- a lot of what people do in the post-war world is inspired by what came before. Caesar's Legion and its ideologies come from Edward Sallow not understanding basic Roman history properly and using it to fuel his agenda because it looks cool. The Minutemen are exactly that. The New California Republic are the new US government, right down to the borderline facist intentions and ideologies. I could go on.

And this comes from Fallout being a series about the cyclical nature of violence. "War never changes, but men do through the roads they walk" is the story here. War cannot change if men do not change, because war exists in an endless cycle of violence that can only be broken if man chooses to break it. And they've failed at it so far, right?

And this is where I go back to Piper. Her nod to history isn't as intentional as anything in New Vegas, and I feel like she would have been better served as a character if she was in New Vegas instead. Because her entire character would make more sense if she was living in the more developed and rebuilt towns of the West coast as opposed to a dilapidated shanty town on the East.

I have more thoughts about this but tl;dr Bethesda should really put more effort into making sure their history references and homages make sense to the setting contextually, in the same way that New Vegas does. That game was developed in 18 months and still has far more care put into its historical references than Fallout 4 does. And I love Fallout 4.

[vox-anglosphere]

Happy Canada Day! and for those who remember, Dominion Day too.

[fatehbaz]

Originally I had attached these tags about British imperial forestry to a post about United States treatment of forests, Indigenous peoples, and land administration from 1900-ish to 1935-ish, during a transition period when clear-cutting logging was threatening profit so the US turned to a German- and British-influenced "sustained yield" forestry paradigm:

And in response, someone added:

In the midst of the first Empire Forestry Conference of scientists, academics, and administrators in 1920, the chairman of the Forestry Commission of Britain, Lord Lovat, said that forests were "grown for use and not for mere ornament ... Forests are national assets only so far as they supply the raw material for industrial development."

Rajan (in Modernizing Nature) directly quotes professor of forestry at Oxford, R.S. Troup, who had been influential in the Indian forest service; at the same forestry conference in 1920, Troup promoted sustained yield like this: "Conservation was a 'wise and necessary measure' but it was 'only a stage towards the problem of how best to utilise the forest resources of the empire'. The ultimate ideal was economic management [...], which regarded forests as capital assets, fixed annual yields in such a manner as to exploit 'to the full interest on this capital [...]' and aimed for equal annual yields so as to sustain the market and provide regular supplies of timber to industry."

One of the big - and easily accessible/readable - summaries of the shift to sustained yield and rise of US and British administrators embracing "economic management" of forests:

Modernizing Nature: Forestry and Imperial Economic Development, 1800-1950. S. Ravi Rajan. 2006.

Concise look at the trajectory from East India Company and Royal Navy timber reserves; to British foresters training in Germany and/or in German traditions (including sustained yield) before joining as officers in the powerful British-Indian land administration bureaucracy; to US scientists being trained by those British administrators; to 1920s/1930s Empire Forestry Conferences promoting industry while identifying forests as essential to power.

---

This has also been covered by:

Vinita Damodaran, Richard Grove, Jeyamalar Kathirithamby-Wells, Jonathan Saha, Gregory Barton, Rohan D'Souza.

More summaries of the situation (shorter length, accessible):

"Imperial Environmentalism or Environmental Imperialism? European Forestry, Colonial Forests and the Agenda of Forest Management in the British Empire, 1800-1900". S. Ravi Rajan, In: Nature and Orient: Essays on Environmental History of South and South East Asia, 1998.

"'Dominion over palm and pine': the British Empire forestry conferences, 1920-1947". J.M. Powell, Journal of Historical Geography, Volume 33, Issue 4, October 2007.

Elsewhere, Elizabeth DeLoughrey and George Handley described it like this: 'These forest reserves [...] did not necessarily represent "an atavistic interest in preserving the 'natural' [...]" but rather "a more manipulative and power-conscious interest in constructing new landscapes [...]."' While Sharae Deckard adds: '[T]he subversive potential of the "green" critique [...] was defused by the extent to which growing environmental sensibilities enabled imperialism to function more efficiently by appropriating botanical knowledge and indigenous conservation methods [...].'

---

And the book:

Commonwealth Forestry and Environmental History: Empire, Forests and Colonial Environments in Africa, the Caribbean, South Asia and New Zealand.

Edited by Damodaran and D'Souza, with work from conferences hosted by Grove, in 19 chapters including:

"Worlds Apart? The Scottish Forestry Tradition and the Development of Forestry in India" (K. Jan Ootheok); "Redeeming Wood by Destroying the Forest: Shola, Plantations and Colonial Conservancy on the Nilgiris in the Nineteenth Century" (Deborah Sutton); "Nature's Tea Bounty: Plant Colonialism and 'Garden' Capitalism in the British Empire" (Jayeeta Sharma); "Industrialized Rainforests: The Ecological Transformation of the Sri Lankan Highlands, 1815-1900"; "Forestry and Social Engineering in the Miombo Woodlands of South-Eastern Tanganyika" (Thaddeus Sunseri)

---

Rajan also points out (again in Modernizing Nature):

"[An] extremely important aspect to the repackaging [of forestry science and management] [...] [and] a critical principle that stands out here is that of sustained yield, or sustainability (Nachhaltigekeit). This concept was fundamental [...]. By the turn of the [twentieth] century a large pan-colonial [British-United States] scientific community was in existence, trained in the German and French tradition of forestry [...]. Following the revolt of 1857, the government of [British] India sought to pursue active interventionist policies [...]. Experts were deployed as 'scientific soldiers' [...]. Dietrich Brandis [...], considered the founder of Indian forestry [...] married Rachel Marshman, who was [...] also the sister of the wife of General Havelock, a close friend of Lord Dalhouse, the then governor-general of India. On Havelock's recommendation, Brandis was put in charge of the forests of [...] Burma [...] and was subsequently appointed inspector-general of forests of India. [...] He also trained prospective foresters of the forest department of the USA, including Gifford Pinchot. [...] Chancellor Bismarck gave the visiting British Prime Minister Gladstone an oak sapling [...]. Prussia prided itself on helping devise [...] modern forest management. [...] [T]he Forestry Commision [...], [or] [t]he Imperial Visionaries, as they became known, believed that an increase in primary production in the tropical dependent empire would result in the growth of the British economy. [...] They deemed their own job to be serving the imperial economy."

---

And also:

Empire Forestry and the Origins of Environmentalism. GA Barton, 2002.

"Colonialism and Green Science: History of Colonial Scientific Forestry in South India, 1820-1920". VM Ravikumar Vejendala, Indian Journal of History of Science, 47:2, pages 241-259, 2012.

"Imperialism, Intellectual Networks, and Environmental Change: Unearthing the Origins and Evolution of Global Environmental History." Vinitia Damodaran and Richard Grove, in Nature's End: History and the Environment, 2009.

"The Reconfiguration of Scientific Career Networks in the Late Colonial Period: The Case of Food and Agriculture Organization and the British Colonial Forestry Service" by Jennifer Gold, and "A Network Approach to the Origins of Forestry Education in India, 1855-1885" by Brett M. Bennett. Both chapters are form Science and Empire, 2011.

Triumph of the Expert: Agrarian Doctrines of Development and the Legacies of British Colonialism. Joseph Morgan Hidge, in Series in Ecology and History, 2007.

Nature and Nation: Forests and Development in Peninsular Malaysia. Jeyamalar Kathirithamby-Wells, 2005. And also: "Peninsular Malaysia in the context of natural history and colonial science." Jeyamalar Kathirithamby-Wells, New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies, Volume 11, Number 1, 2009.

"Empires of Forestry: Professional Forestry and State Power in Southeast Asia, Part 1". Peter Vandergeest and Nancy Lee Peluso, Environment and History 12, no. 1, pages 31-64, February 2006.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

Could you elaborate a bit on what the "half in-half out" deal that the Sussexes wanted (and were denied) actually involved? It comes up pretty frequently and I'm personally pretty unsure about what they actually were asking to receive and why the royals shot it down leading to total megxit.

Half-in: They wanted to be part-time official working royals to represent The Queen and the BRF but no longer cooperate with the royal rota for coverage of their activities and control how the public interacted/engaged with them.

Half-out: When they weren’t on official duty for The Queen/BRF, they wanted to make their own money through commercial deals for content, products, speaking gigs, and paid appearances, and all interactions with the press would be invite-only (aka no invite, no press access).

Why The Queen refused: It would have made the BRF pay-for-play, when their greatest asset is being “accessible” to all kinds of people from all walks of life. A pay-for-play system benefits only the wealthy and those who can afford it, drastically reducing the kind of reach, impact, and recognition the BRF has.

Why it led to Megxit: The Queen said “either you’re in or you’re out, full stop.” Meaning that if Harry and Meghan wanted to be official working royals and represent her/the BRF, they could not make their own money, control media/press access to their events, and limit the public commentary (aka censorship). But if they chose to make their own money, control access, and restrict the public, then they could not be official working members of the royal family. The Sussexes didn’t like that so they said “fine, we quit” and moved to California instead.

Here is Harry and Meghan’s first official statement about leaving the BRF and yes - it was first released on Instagram (vs the usual palace authorities):

This statement came after some leaks and scoops from Dan Wooten in The Sun. You can easily see what they envisioned for half in/half out:

Modernize the "spare" role in the royal family

No longer be senior members of the family, but continue representing the monarchy as needed

Being financially independent

Live part of the year in North America pursuing their own interests while living the rest of the year in the UK doing royal work

Raise Archie with appreciation for tradition

Launch their own charity

Collaborate with The Queen, Charles, William, and staff.

Still remain your beloved Duke and Duchess of Sussex

(My interpretation: They wanted to travel on the BRF's dime; attend signature BRF events; raise Archie as a fully-blooded Prince of the Realms; monetize their titles and social media; fund their personal charity work on the back of The Queen's, Charles's, and William's own works and efforts; and spend the glamorous British social season in the UK being royal, spend the shoulder seasons in Canada representing The Queen, and spend the brutal Canadian winter attending the glamorous Hollywood awards season and traveling the Caribbean Commonwealth nations. YMMV.)

When this statement was published, two things happened:

Everyone went to the Sussex Royal website to read their plan and immediately began laughing/rolling their eyes about how tone-deaf and ridiculous some of their demands were.

The BRF reacted with the royal equivalent of "wait a fucking minute."

Neither reaction was what the Sussexes expected. They expected total praise and support from the press and they expected the BRF to totally roll over and beg them to stay (and we know that because of the stories that Sussex-friendly press were writing). So immediately the Sussexes began clapping back - both at the public and at the BRF. For example, see this cflapback to claims that they blindsided the BRF with their "resignation" as senior royals by none other than Omid Scobie.

Also while they were clapping back via the press and social media associates, the content on their Sussex Royal website began getting changed and updated in real-time based on the critical commentary from the press (and likely alo the initial reactions from the BRF) in an attempt to show that the Sussexes still remained fully in control of their "Spring 2020 transition", like so:

As a result, the original manifesto angry-posted on January 8, 2020, is no longer easily available - most of the blogs that I’d consult for the original manifesto are no longer available (like Cat's original blog, which Sussex Squad forced down in 2021) and the ones that remain, their archives are enormous that it's like searching for a needle in a haystack. You can still find it, but it will require a LOT of patience because this was like a powder keg exploding - everyone came crawling out of the woodwork with commentary and criticism.

[theroyalsandi]

British Royal Family - King Charles III views the Pyroton fire demonstration during a visit to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) at the National Bushfire Behaviour Research Laboratory, to learn about burn over protection systems, and bushfire behaviour research. (Photo by Aaron Chown) | October 21, 2024

[ameliafuckinjones]

The Anglospheres big 3 signs

England (based on coronation of William the Conqueror):

Capricorn sun

Pisces Moon

Aries rising

America (based on Declaration of Independence):

Cancer sun

Aquarius moon

Sagittarius rising

Canada (based on Dominion of Canada creation):

Cancer sun

Gemini moon

Aries rising

Australia (based on commonwealth of Australia creation) :

Capricorn sun

Taurus moon

Aries rising

New Zealand (based off of Treaty of Waitangi):

Aquarius sun

Aries moon

Taurus rising

Canada shares an Aries rising sign with England. Australia shares a Capricorn sun and Aries rising with England. New Zealand has one of Englands big 3 with the Aries moon. So it's official. America is the only nation within the Anglosphere who doesn't share a big 3 sign with England, but does have similarities with Canada (both have Cancer sun and Air moons) and New Zealand (America's Aquarius moon matches New Zealands Aquarius sun). You'll note, though, that Capricorn and Cancer are highly compatible sister signs, with Capricorn being the father of the zodiac and Cancer the mother! They sort of act as a balance to each other, similar to yin and yang, opposites attract etc. Irl, it's no wonder that the Capricorn-Cancer nations keep gravitating toward each other throughout history. Canadas near unshakable loyalty to the British crown aka England, AUKUS (alliance between America, a Cancer sign and two Capricorns Australia and an England led UK), Canadian-Australian relations in general, the Special Relationship alliance (and before that the Great Rapprochement) between America and Britian (ahem England), and Five Eyes as a whole. Cute. I also love how Australia and New Zealands moon and rising combos are just reversed versions of each other lol also cute