Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #3 - Loppytaffy (10/21/2013) [-]
"Officer of the British Empire"
We still have an Empire?
I'm not going to argue.
User avatar #61 to #3 - foxxywithpaws (10/21/2013) [-]
>"I'm not going to argue"
>argues
User avatar #27 to #3 - tylosaurus (10/21/2013) [-]
Thought you weren't going to argue.
#12 to #3 - eddymolly (10/21/2013) [-]
We still have pretty much all of this in some shape or form.
<--- about 2.2 billion people or so.

We don't necessarily own all of them, but were all a big group, like britain runs a foster home and the commonwealth are the kids

More info, try en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations
User avatar #13 to #12 - Loppytaffy (10/21/2013) [-]
Can people stop telling me about the commonwealth?
A common wealth is not an Empire.
Nor is the EU,
Nor was the USSR.
User avatar #14 to #13 - eddymolly (10/21/2013) [-]
No, but the Queen is the symbolic leader of it, and its pretty much formed of countries we did own, so its more of a symbolic empire.

She is also the monarch of 16 of the countries, so thats technically an empire I suppose.
User avatar #15 to #14 - Loppytaffy (10/21/2013) [-]
Britain does not have an empire.
The breakdown of it began with America's revolution, bcause it took place around a time when England was low on military due to wars with France and other European countries.

If we had an empire, we'd use those countries to pull us out of the recession.
#81 to #15 - jakeattack ONLINE (10/21/2013) [-]
dat moment when many major countries are in a recession. ****
User avatar #63 to #15 - rieskimo (10/21/2013) [-]
"England was low on military"

I love that sentence for the visual it gives me.

Just some ornately dressed Englishman asking some scout "Would you mind terribly to pop out and grab us a smidgen of military? We appear to be running low" and then a goofy gaffaw.
User avatar #50 to #15 - Gandalfthewhite (10/21/2013) [-]
actually out empire expanded further after the American revolution, we was at out peak sometime in Victoria's reign
User avatar #18 to #15 - eddymolly (10/21/2013) [-]
Not really. Pretty much the counties we still rule are because they need us, not we need them. Most of them are part of the Empire in some degree due to them being protected by Britain or for foreign relations.

Most of them are partially governed, much like you could say the UK is. Its ran by the Government and Prime Minister, but ruled by the queen. Much like the 15 or so countries we still kinda own.
User avatar #20 to #18 - Loppytaffy (10/21/2013) [-]
The second British Empire came to a close in 1997. Hong Kong was handed back, and colonies given independance.
Many chose to join a commonwealth, but it still remains that Britain does not have an empire.
#25 to #20 - bigfoote (10/21/2013) [-]
The Queen is still the head of state of a number of countries so, although not an empire in the traditional "smash, destroy and conquer" way we are still technically a type of empire with our monarch ruling over many different nationalities and regions

Also the OBE that he received is named as such as it originated back somewhere in the Victorian times when we did have a big Empire (Queen Victoria was "Empress of India" and the breakdown of the British Empire started much after the American Revolution!) and so the title's name is the same... mostly due to tradition (in much the same way there are Sirs and Dames and an unelected House of Lords hopefully that clears stuff up
User avatar #26 to #25 - Loppytaffy (10/21/2013) [-]
The Prince of Wales lead the British Empire Ending Ceremony, bringing the Empire to a close.
We have good relations, not power. If we asked, would could get a commonwealth country to do something for us through goodwill, but no country is obligated to do anything for us anymore.

If the queen is anything, she is a safety net, stopping political heads of states doing as they please, because they need her go ahead. Again, Commonwealth states can go to war if they want without the queen's permission, but screwing up the relationship is not something they want to do.
#65 to #26 - verby ONLINE (10/21/2013) [-]
After reading your conversation, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that you are wrong because Britain has hat fits the definition of "empire"
#28 to #26 - bigfoote (10/21/2013) [-]
agreed, and in our country she is nothing but a symbol to sign documents into laws and greet heads of other countries. But she is still a symbol of the empire as she technically governs the other countries.

The idea of Britain having an empire still is more of a tradition thing, the titles are just a memento of the once big empire Britain had... but still, Great Britain is called GREAT thats pretty cool, can't say i've seen a Great France or Great Brazil
User avatar #21 to #20 - eddymolly (10/21/2013) [-]
No, not in the same way, but we still technically rule a few, even though they have independent leadership, they still have the Queen as a monarch.

There aren't really any actual empires nowadays, but were probably the closest you can get.
#4 to #3 - restfullwicked ONLINE (10/21/2013) [-]
technically yes. we own 4 US states, canada, australia, some african nations, parts of india. and the some random islands about the place. they have their own governments but they are loyal to her majesty.
#32 to #4 - yodawgiheard ONLINE (10/21/2013) [-]
No, you don't "technically own" 4 U.S states, in any sense of the word. The states decided to set themselves up as "commonwealths", but distinct from the English derivation. They're legally the exact same as a state, they just decided to label themselves differently. A quick wikipedia search confirms this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_(U.S._state)

"The word commonwealth in this context refers to the common "wealth", or welfare, of the public[6] and is derived from a loose translation of the Latin term res publica..."

Why you so silly?
#35 to #32 - restfullwicked ONLINE (10/21/2013) [-]
ok. first i would like to address that issue that you think that it is more absurd that we own 4 Us states than it is we own CANADA and AUSTRALIA.
second i have already explained, if we were to look at things from a technical standpoint, i was talking about owning an empire. if we still had an empire, her majesty queen Elizabeth the second would be empress, and under her authority would be all nations that swear loyalty. The four founding colonies of the british empire happen to be the commonwealths that im talking about as they are the only ones, all of whom by technicality are loyal to the monarch of great britain.

i would also address that i said it was void anyway, since our queen has no real power anymore, and even if she did, she cant act on it while the Union exists between the states. making both your comment and mine a waste of time.
#36 to #35 - yodawgiheard ONLINE (10/21/2013) [-]
I took no issue with your "technical ownership" of Canada because it is still connected to the current monarchy de jure, even if de facto Canada is independent. You think that GB "technically owns 4 US states". I'm pointing out that you're incorrect. As I said, the word "commonwealth" was used with a different definition in the State constitutions, than the word "commonwealth" as applied to places like Canada and Australia.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada
"Canada is a federal parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy, with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state."
User avatar #16 to #4 - meganinja ONLINE (10/21/2013) [-]
I didn't know the American Commonwealths held any ties to the queen? I live in the Commonwealth of Virginia and I've enver heard about it.
#19 to #16 - restfullwicked ONLINE (10/21/2013) [-]
yep. virginia more than any other too since it was the first place the british landed. like i said its all fairly null and void. though if the USA were to disband, we would in theory have the four commonwealths back.
User avatar #22 to #19 - meganinja ONLINE (10/21/2013) [-]
I know that in theory those 4 states are the only ones that can legally seccede (and I think maybe Texas too).

However I don't think Virginia wants to try to do it again, bad **** happened last time.
#23 to #22 - restfullwicked ONLINE (10/21/2013) [-]
i think any state can choose to leave if they want. its the same as the united nations in theory. if we all decided to be re branded as one country under the UN, all the countries would basically become states. you have the same thing in reverse. i think california gave it a go in the past. the only thing that makes the commonwealths special i think is that the queen needs to give her permission for them to be recognised as countries.
#34 to #23 - yodawgiheard ONLINE (10/21/2013) [-]
No, a state can't actually leave the Union unless the Federal Government allows it (it would probably need to be an amendment to the Constitution, not a one-off law). You know, we had a civil war about all of that stuff. We have a Federal system of government, which means that there are separate levels of government with overlapping powers... but in our Constitution, we also have the Federal Supremacy Clause.
#7 to #4 - xxxsonic fanxxx (10/21/2013) [-]
what do you think OBE and MBE stand for when people have titles?
User avatar #5 to #4 - Loppytaffy (10/21/2013) [-]
We don't own Canada; they're part of the commonwealth.
#6 to #5 - restfullwicked ONLINE (10/21/2013) [-]
and all commonwealth nations that were once british colonies technically belong to our queen. thats why i said technically. if deer queen lizzy wanted, she can demand any land in canada for her to build a palace on, but it doesn't work that way in practice. its sort of how when we have elections, the winner asks the queen for permission to form a government on her behalf. she cant really say no, its just something that needs toing out of old laws.
User avatar #8 to #6 - Loppytaffy (10/21/2013) [-]
We still have Niue; the world's first wifi nation.
User avatar #11 to #9 - Loppytaffy (10/21/2013) [-]
I don't need a video to tell me about my nation's power, thank you.
"Owning" a country is like Russia owning the baltics, and Sweden owning Finland (back in the day); deciding what a country can and cannot do.
Any country that has gone through independance cannot be "owned" by another.
User avatar #17 to #11 - huehuehuepster (10/21/2013) [-]
woa there grumpy face, just left it here if anyone wanted to see it, if you don't just don't watch it
 Friends (0)