Good question, Walter . . . but i'll let it slide.
Well, here goes, i'm gonna dive back in, with the longest post i've ever done, which is saying a lot.
In 1314, King Phillip IV of France died. He left as his heir a minor child, his son John. When John died in 1316, his uncle, who had been regent, proclaimed himself king. Phillip V was not a bad kings as kings go, and as it also seem that things go, he didn't live long, dying in 1322. He was succeeded by his brother, Charles IV, whose sister Isabella (known to the English as "the she-wolf of France") had married Edward II of England. Charles helped Isabella to engineer the invasion of England which resulted in the abdication of (and eventually, the murder of) Edward, and his succession by Edward III. When Charles IV died in 1328, the last male in a direct line of descent from Hugh Capet died. Both Phillip V and Charles had claimed their right to the throne based upon a fiction known as the Salic Law (a non-existent law of the Salian Franks prohibiting the rule of a woman-with an eye to the close familial relationship of the English kings, it was also stated that descent through a female line was disqualified), since the death of John had left only female heirs, as had the death of Phillip V. The nearest cousin in relation to Charles was Phillip de Valois, who became king Phillip VI.
The reason I've given this confusing description of relationships is because we are concerned here with motives, and the earliest motives of both France and England were feudal. The Kings of England had once held feudal claim to more than half of what is today France. They still held Gascony with the important wine producing region around Bordeaux. Edward III did not react immediately to the coronation of Phillip VI, but neither did he relinquish his claim to the French throne. This was the basis for the first expansion of England in an imperial manner-Edward called upon, and received the support of his people, the baronage and the peerage, based upon his claim (which, if one accepts descent in the female line, was better than that of Phillip VI-and the English well knew the "Salic Law" was a fiction). The English responded much as do the people of a modern nation to the call of respected leadership. The resultant Hundred years war, last more than a century, helped to create a sense of nation in France, as well, especially after the appearance of La Pucelle, Jeanne d'Arc. The result for both France and England was to put them on the road to nationalism, even though the concept of feudalism lived on, and many civil wars would be fought in both nations.
England eventually lost that war, and all of her French possessions-i won't go into the insanely complicated dynastic struggles, but suffice it to say that the naked power grab of Henry IV in 1399 had left a legacy of bitterness between the houses of York and Lancaster, which exploded into protracted civil war in 1452, just two years after the Duke of Bedford had been definitively defeated in France. I will again skip ahead, to 1485-Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, descended from the French royal line by virtue of the morganatic marriage of Catherine of France to Owen Tudor, and from the English royal line through his mother, daughter of John of Gaunt, and therefore granddaughter of Edward III, landed in England to unseat Richard III. He succeeded, and marrying the late King's niece, Elizabeth of York, established the Tudor line. This period is the crucial period in English history for it's birth as a nation. Edward I had established a parliament to acquire revenues without being obliged to depend upon the baronage and the peerage. Parliament was at first little more than a rubber stamp for Edward's tax schemes, and the members of the Commons were well enough flattered by their access to royal counsels to approve Edward's plans, which he was wise enough not to make too onerous. The peerage in the House of Lords were given a veto, but, significantly, all revenue acts were to originate in the Commons-and, once again, Edward careful enough to assure that the Lords would not veto revenue bills by assuring that their own lands were not subject. But when Henry IV, son of John of Gaunt, deposed his cousin Richard II in 1399, he had used Parliament as a tool for his usurpation, when they elected him king. (Please, don't come back at me with justifications for Henry Bollingbroke, that's not in the scope of this thread.) Although both Henry VII and his second son, Henry VIII were willful and powerful men, the Commons began to wax in power, and a conception of it's own power, as both Henrys remained obsessed with the power of "overmighty lords," and brought commoners such as Thomas Cromwell into positions of power in the royal administration. Henry VII also built the first royal dockyards in England, and his son established the Royal Navy. A special tax was also instituted, ship money, which the merchants of the City willingly paid, to protect their commercial interests on the seas.
Henry VII had married his son, Arthur, the Prince of Wales, to Catherine of Aragon. When Arthur died a year later, a papal dispensation was obtained for his son Henry to marry Catherine, six years his senior. I'm sure all here are well enough educated not to need a tedious repetition of the marital imbroglios of Henry VIII, and his eventual break with the papacy. He was succeeded by his son Edward, largely a non-entity as a monarch. When he died young, he was succeeded by his elder sister, Mary, a devout Catholic who attempted to reverse her father's reformation of the church in England, with similar bloody results, and hence her cognomen, Bloody Mary. She was married to Phillip II of Spain by proxy, but died before anything could be accomplished by either of them in their plan to reclaim England for Catholicism. Phillip's father, Carlos I, had, as the HRE Charles V, attempted to have Martin Luther arrested, and, failing that, had fought the Wars of the Reformation, largely by laying waste to much of Germany with his dreaded tercios; but Spanish infantry could not bring back the Lutherans to the papal fold. When Carlos abdicated in favor of his son Phillip, and his Catholic zeal lead the people of the Netherlands to fear the imposition of the Inquisition in their neighborhood, a rebellion began, which turned into an 80+ year war of rebellion by the seven United Provinces, which are today Holland. The "Sea Beggars," as they proudly called themselves, used a radical new ship design (the frigate) and their blue water expertise to defeat the Spanish Navy repeatedly. (The Spaniard continued to view ships as infantry fighting platforms, as in the Med, and never really understood why they fared so poorly against the Dutch, who were building purpose-built naval gunnery platforms.) When Elizabeth was chosen as the new Queen, by a Parliament who feared the return of Catholicism, and wanted to protect the new-found power and influence of the Commons, Phillip considered that his property as a widower had been stolen (feudalism was dead, but still on its feet). He attempted a "compromise," offering to marry Elizabeth. When he was turned down, he decided to add the English to the growing list of Spanish enemies. The famous defeat of the Armada was at the hands of English blue-water sailors who used the latest Dutch ship designs and naval guns designed for shipboard use. In 1584, a colony had been established on Roanoke island, off the coast of what is today North Carolina, by the Virginia Company. The company had been granted a royal charter in true feudal style, but for what were then modern commercial reasons. The colony had disappeared when a ship was sent back for them after the defeat of the Armada (they may have survived, but i won't go into that here, either). In 1600, Elizabeth granted a charter for The Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies-known to us as the East India Company, and providing England's first entré to Indian subcontinent.
With the death of the last Tudor, Elizabeth, in 1603, the throne passed to the Stuarts-Henry VII's daughter Margaret Tudor, had married King James of Scotland, and her descendant, James VI of Scotland, now came to London to become King James I. During his reign, the Virginia Company attempted another colony, the one at Jamestown, in 1607. Women were brought over in 1609, and slavery was introduced as well. This was also a commercial failure, but the colonist hadn't the decency to disappear, so the company was declared bankrupt, and the colony taken over by the crown. This is the first in a long line of examples of the plutocratic tendencies of the Commons encouraging commercial adventurism, which the royal government was eventually obliged to cure by taking on yet another colony. At about this time, various individuals began to settle on the coast of what would become New England.
James knew the Scot well, probably too well for his own liking, but this knowledge prevented any controversy with that kingdom, which he ruled in capacity of Scottish King. His son, Charles, however, was raised a thorough Englishman, and hadn't that savy in dealing with the Scot. In 1629, he prorogued Parliament (sent them home without dismissing them, thereby avoiding a new election), because he wanted money, they didn't want to give it to him, but would rather discuss religion and reform, which he did not intend to have questioned. Charles' favorite prelate was Bishop Laud, and Bishop Laud was just as pigheaded and willful as Charles. Between them, they hatched a scheme to impose the Book of Common Prayer upon the Scots (when pigs fly!), and Charles was badly routed in 1638. He was broke. So, in casting about for some money to raise another army for an invasion of Scotland (pigheaded, like i noted before), he decided to take ship money. One of the stalwarts of the City, John Hampden, thereupon refused to pay ship money. Many others followed suit, and Charles was obliged to recall Parliament. So many members had died or emigarted in the 11 year hiatus, that they immediately dissolved themselves and called for new elections. The Parliament which sat in 1640 would be known as the Long Parliament, and it immediately took up the "vexed question of religion." It was not long before a civil war was on, which Charles had the misfortune to lose, along with his head. The "vexed question of religion" and the failure of the dissenters in Parliaments army to secure a written constitution are not within our purview here-however, the colonies are.
With the prorogation of Parliament, many Puritan leaders cast about for a means to establish the sort of "godly republic" in which they believed, and for which they had Calvin and Zwingli's Geneva as a model. A lawyer in the Court of Wards and Liveries was chosen to be the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Winthrop. This chartered company had been recently established, and, curiously, the provision in all such royal charters which required the governor and selectmen to meet in London had been omitted. Therefore, Winthrop and the selectmen were sent in 1630, with the charter itself, to Massachusetts. This is also not about the history of the United States, so I'll go no further into this. In 1650, the Major Generals took over the government of England, and Oliver Cromwell was able to make himself Lord Protector. Parliament fought the Dutch to a standstill in a naval war (quite an accomplishment at that time), and sent an expedition which succeeded in taking Jamaica from the Spaniard. In 1660, the monarchy was restored in the person of Charles II. The tension between Parliament and the King was nothing lessened, and Charles turned to his cousin, Louis XIV for secret subsidies, so that he could avoid going crown in hand to the Commons. The English also acquired Tangier at this time, as a part of the dowery of Catherine of Braganza, Charles' wife. Although they were to one day lose that colony, they obtained a habit of keeping a Royal Navy force in the Mediterranean, which they were able to satisfy by taking and keeping Gibralter in 1704, and maintaining naval stations on various large islands, such as Majorca.
During Charles' reign, his brother James fought, with great courage, if not great skill, two naval wars with the Dutch (actually one war, with a very long breather between rounds). They managed to lose every battle, but to win the war by exhausting the Dutch resources. For this, they got New Amsterdam, which was re-named New York in honor of James, Duke of York, he who had so valiantly lost every battle and won the war. Charles also gave away large tracts of land as the only means of repaying those to whom he felt indebted as a result of their support for his father. The most famous example is that of Admiral Charles Penn, who lent money to the crown, and fought well for them until it was obvious they were defeated. He served Parliament just as well, but in those times, military men were not faulted for such things. Charles gave his son William Penn a large tract which became Pennsylvania. In Russia, the "time of troubles" had resulted in the election of a reluctant Mikhail Romanov as Tsar in 1613. His son Alexei Mikhailovitch was he who introduced western reforms and merchants into Russian, although Peter Alexeevitch, Peter the Great, usually gets the credit. A new chartered company was formed in London, the Muscovy Company, because Russia was a source for very coarse flax (used to make the linen canvas used in ships' sails) and very tall, very straight pine trees (perfect for masts and spars), as well as being a minor conduit for goods from the exotic east. Charles also repaid General George Monck-a royalist officer who turned his coat to serve Cromwell, and who then marched slowly south from Coldstream in Scotland in 1660, and overawed a Parliament which eventually agreed to restore the monarchy. He did this by granting a charter to Monck, and to Charles' cousin, Prince Rupert of Bohemia (them there European monarchy types is just a bunch of inbreeds!), as well as many of their cronies, for "The Company of Gentleman Adventurers into Hudson's Bay," in 1670. This was the most liberal charter by far, granting the company the power to treat with foreign potentates, to levy taxes within the territory of the grant, and the power to levy war. Our Canadian correspondents here will know well enough the results of the Hudson's Bay Company charter in action. This company was an anomaly in the history of British expansion. They wanted furs, for which they wanted happy Indians, so they prevented any colonization of their territory by white folks. Charles died in 1685, and was succeeded by his brother James, who was, if it were possible, even more pigheaded than their father. He was suspected of intending to re-introduce Catholicism into England (he did), and, when his wife produced a male heir, the country was soon up in arms. When James finally turned to John Churchill, and was rebuffed, he knew the game was up, and fled the country. Parliament had already invited James' son-in-law, William III of Orange (who was also James' nephew, by his sister Mary, and who was married to James' daughter, Mary-see my note above about inbreeds) to take the throne, and with no army to oppose his landing in 1688, he quickly established himself. For this the plutocratic interests in the Commons, now known as the Whigs, extracted a good deal of power, and this is now known as the Glorious Revolution. Churchill was rewarded with a new peerage as the Earl of Marlborough (upgraded to Duke by William's sister-in law, Queen Anne). The subsequent war in Ireland between William and James lead to new waves of immigration, which largely landed in America. Seeing the great wealth the Portugese had amassed by trading with the Arabs, in about 1700, London merchants petitioned for a charter to trade in the Persian Gulf, but William became involved in the run up to the War of the Spanish Succession, and then inconveniently died on the eve of war. Later, in about 1703, or 1704, Queen Anne recognized the Emirate of Kuwait (had she seen it before?), and yet another Company was formed.
In 1562, French Huguenots had established a colony at Hilton Head. The colonist got rather lonely, though, and built a small ship and sailed home. The Huguenots tried again at Cape Canaveral in 1564, but were eventually slaughtered or captured by a Spanish expedition-the Spanish didn't really see this as the French poaching on their territory, they were out to get the heretics. The leader of the expedition, Nunez, makes this quite clear in his report, in which he brags about tricking the French with false promises, and then binding their hands and feet before executing them-another nail in the coffin of the premise that history is inaccurate because it is written by the victors. Subsequent French efforts turned north, and in 1608 Champlain eventually established a colony which "took," at the site of Quebec. This is pertinent because of the constant border warfare which eventually arose between New England and New France. Finally, in 1754, war broke out in earnest, once again; but, coinciding with the Seven Years War in Europe, the stakes proved to be much higher. In 1759, James Wolfe committed suicide by tactical combat before the walls of Quebec-but as his opponent, the Maquis de Montcalm, was mortally wounded less than an hour later, while trying to rally his troops, no effective resistance was put up, and the the following morning, the English marched into the city. They held on by the skin of their teeth, and when the ice in the St. Lawrence broke up in the spring of 1760, the English had a new colony, Canada (the loss was airily dismissed by Voltaire as "so many acres of snow"). Those who remained loyal to the crown during the American Revolution were packed off to the Maratimes for their own protection, where many starved for the years it took them to find their feet. Many more left in the lull between Yorktown and the Treaty of Paris, and these people settled near Fort Frontenac, which became Kingston, Ontario (the place is rife with signs for loyalist this and loyalist that). During the earlier war of the Austrian Succession, Robert Clive had lead a ridiculously small force against the French west of Madras in 1744, and captured Arcot. The French took a small force of regulars, and a mass of native troops, and beseiged Clive in Arcot with 10,000 troops. After 11 weeks, as the French native levies melted away, and the regulars were dying of disease, and everyone was starving, Clive was magnanimous enough to accept a French surrender, and feed their troops. I suppose there is something to be said for "stiff upper lip." Although Suffren gave the English fits in the Indian ocean during the American revolution, India was now firmly in English hands (the most of what counted for commercial purposes), and the French were out. The mismanagement of the East India Company lead to the appointment in 1773 of Warren Hastings as Governor. Although he got nothing but obstruction from his council, his successful defense of the colony against native rulers allied with and supplied by the French from 1778 to 1782 gave him the authority he needed to reform the civil administration of the company. This is significant because this begins the era in which Parliament began reluctantly to take up the responsibility of their empire, acquired almost solely as the result of chartered companies, eventually mismanaged (Hudson's Bay Company being the notable exception which proved the rule), and then taken over by government. Hastings was none of your "white man's burden" type, and his reforms were aimed at providing the Indians with the same tools of local self-government and jurisprudence in place in the England of his day. Although he did not succeed as he would have wished, the precedent was crucial, as it colored government policy toward their colonial subjects in the years that followed.
During our French and Indian War, the Royal Governor of Massachusetts (responsible for all of New England), Shirley, demonstrated great enthusiasm and equally stunning incompetence in command of the colonial response to war with French Canada. He was replaced by Pownall, and Royal Governors were no longer allowed to assume the position of commander of the royal forces in a colony, without prior approval. Early in 1758, Pownall wrote to the government that Massachusetts had had, prior to the war, an annual budget of about 45,000 pounds. He then pointed out that since the war began in earnest for New England, a period of about two years, the colony had acquired a debt amounting to more than 350,000 pounds. He then stated that the legislature had levied taxes designed to "sink" the debt within two years, but that the population had not objected, because they had elected the legislators who had passed the plan. The lesson was totally lost on the government at the time, but it must have been taken out and dusted off at some time after the American Revolution, because subsequent governments moved quickly to establish local self-government within the limits of government policy, in every colony in which they felt this would be viable.
The Dutch had established a colony at what became Capetown, in southern Africa in 1652. Allying themselves with the French and the Spanish during the American Revolution, French troops were brought in to defend the colony. When war with Revolutionary France began, the English took that colony in 1795. After Napoleon's invasion of Egypt in 1799, the English came to retake the Turkish colony, but Napoleon had gotten out of Dodge in good time. Thereafter, the English made it their business to see that no other European power held Egypt, to pose a threat to their very lucrative colonies in India and the East Indies. As someone has posted a link for the Opium Wars, i won't go into the English presence in China. When republican France, Italy and Germany began to look about them for colonies, and "a place in the sun" in the 19th century, England did not remain with the hindmost, and Africa was pretty quickly divvied up between European nations. I'm sure I've left out many smaller colonies, such as those in the West Indies and Central and South America-oh well. This is as thorough as i can be at this time of day, working from memory (and faults in specific dates are attributable to this-i won't argue the points with anyone).
During the 17th and 18th centuries, public opinion in England was little concerned with how the overseas colonies were managed, except when large portions of the public took a financial bath as charter companies folded up, such as the notorious case of the South Seas Company. This is what usually lead to the take over of colonies by the government. However, the lack of public interest meant that the government were rarely called to account for the style of their administration of the colonies. In the 19th century, this all changed. Evangelicalism had yet another rebirth in England. Unlike America, in which the suppression of "new light" preachers and congregations in the 1700's had had a large part in the desire for religious freedom and separation of church and state-the evangelical movement in England engendered a feeling among the members of the established church that they must not be behind hand in showing their zeal for the spiritual welfare of those subject to the crown. Agitation against slavery began in earnest, and quickly acquired great momentum and powerful support. The abolition of slavery was much delayed by the powerful interest of the West Indian sugar lobby, but they were eventually bought out by a Parliament reeling from the public beating they were taking on an almost daily basis. This new evangelicalism also lead to a great surge in overseas missionary work. Just as the arrival of English wives and daughters in Indian had ended the casual, friendly relations between company men and soldiers with the native population, so the arrival of missionaries in colonial climes meant an end to the old abusive, or lazy ways of doing business. Now all of the "little brown babies" must be brought to a knowledge of Jesus and salvation, and this could only be accomplished by educating them, and covering their nakedness. It also meant they would now have to be fed when starving, and protected from the impositions of local grandees or banditti. This, of course, necessitated a projection of British military power which had heretofore not been necessary, when only ports and trading posts had to be protected. This entailed greater expenditure, with concomitant bureaucracy-in the end, it meant that Parliament suddenly found on its collective hands a full-blown empire of immense proportions, of the like of which the Patres of Rome had only dreamed. The English deserve every bit of credit for rising to the occasion. Certainly they could not solve the problem of centuries of hatred and warfare between Muslim and Hindu in the subcontinent, nor any other such local rivalries. But they made their best effort, and they intended to accomplish that by giving an educational system, a court system, good roads and canals, railways-all of which brought the money men right back into the picture. I would here add the caveat that throughout her imperial history, England has had men of good will and purpose in Parliament and in the administration of her colonies-it was not until the public took a close interest, however, that efforts such as theirs could be successful. In the end, her empire cost England dearly, and she has probably not reaped the harvest of goodwill which is her due. Nonetheless, the present day British Commonwealth stands head and shoulders over any other imperial solution seen in the past. Perfection is not possible of attainment, in my opinion, but that does not mean that the effort should not be made. In striving for perfection, we can often hope to do our best. Let us hope that America will live up to her cherished beliefs, and her responsibilities, in a manner to equal that of the English in most their colonial history.
(As an Irish-American, i have carefully avoided discussing the thoroughly scurrilous manner in which the English too often dealt with their Celtic neighbors-i don't want to open that particular can of worms.)
c.i.
