What do you think?
Rate this book
Untied Kingdom: A Global History of the End of Britain
How did Britain cease to be global? In Untied Kingdom, Stuart Ward tells the panoramic history of the end of Britain, tracing the ways in which Britishness was imagined, experienced, disputed and ultimately discarded across the globe since the end of the Second World War. From Indian Independence, West Indian immigration and African decolonisation to the Suez Crisis and the Falklands War, he uncovers the demise of Britishness as a global civic idea and its impact on communities across the globe. He also shows the consequences of this diminished 'global reach' in Britain itself from the Troubles in Northern Ireland to resurgent Englishness and the startling success of separatist political agendas in Scotland and Wales. Untied Kingdom puts the contemporary travails of the Union for the first time in their full global perspective as part of the much larger story of the progressive rollback of Britain's imaginative frontiers.
- GenresHistory
550 pages, Hardcover
First published April 20, 2023
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 4, 2023
an amazing and eye-opening work on the history of imperialistic ambitions of the UK, their shortcomings, visual loss of power, but in reality, the transformation of soft power in the world slowly started rejecting obvious colonialistic moves.
The government of the UK has always had its ways of influence and this book is a perfect representation of it.
I am so thankful to the author for capturing the story.
The government of the UK has always had its ways of influence and this book is a perfect representation of it.
I am so thankful to the author for capturing the story.
September 3, 2025
This book presents a very comprehensive discussion of how perceptions of Britishness vary depending on geography, and how they evolve over time, particularly as the empire declines.
The hypocrisy of politicians and those in power is very telling throughout the book. “Britishness” is embraced by the English only when it serves to mobilise their subjects, for example during war efforts; it is discarded as soon as it becomes inconvenient. Over time, Britishness was even reduced to Englishness to justify border controls. Similarly, the Welsh and Scottish were comfortable being part of the British world as long as they could participate in ruling the empire and enjoy its benefits—but once those benefits disappeared, they began exploring their own identities and claiming they were being colonised. The Irish description of themselves as “the black in the Europe” is quite insensitive and insulting to those who were actually being Enslaved.
Of course none of the above is unique to Britain. During the Tsarist empire, serfs were also bound to the land and had no rights equal to their masters. During the Qing dynasty, the emperors attempted to restrict Han Chinese migration to Manchuria to preserve “pure” Manchu culture— and of course they failed. Even in today's China, many restrictions apply to those who are born in small towns and try to settle in the big cities - they are the second class citizens in their own country and have nowhere to appeal.
One particularly interesting point Ward makes is that the British took more blame than deserved for the Suez Crisis compared to their French counterparts. The perception was that the French were naturally arrogant and less concerned with morality, whereas the English, who claimed to uphold moral standards and equality among British subjects, were expected to bear responsibility. It is also notable that, although France and Spain also colonised many parts of the world, they did not manage to create an identity equivalent to “Britishness.”
While I agree that colonialism is evil, I also recognise that some colonisers can be worse than others, and that being ruled by the same race is not necessarily better. It is an extremely complex topic, and perhaps the most one can do is observe rather than draw conclusive judgments.
As a side note, I recently noticed that the UK government mandates the use of Welsh in public communications accessible to Welsh people — and I’m surprised that Irish and Scottish Gaelic have not achieved the same status. I am against radical reform that encourages separatism, but I do think it is important to preserve linguistic diversity. Taiwan, in particular, has done a much better job. In public spaces like bus and train stations, announcements are made in Mandarin, Hakka, and Taiwanese Hokkien. There are also many popular songs and dramas available in Hakka and Hokkien. The fact that indigenous peoples in Taiwan are highly assimilated into society also gives me much hope in humanity.
The hypocrisy of politicians and those in power is very telling throughout the book. “Britishness” is embraced by the English only when it serves to mobilise their subjects, for example during war efforts; it is discarded as soon as it becomes inconvenient. Over time, Britishness was even reduced to Englishness to justify border controls. Similarly, the Welsh and Scottish were comfortable being part of the British world as long as they could participate in ruling the empire and enjoy its benefits—but once those benefits disappeared, they began exploring their own identities and claiming they were being colonised. The Irish description of themselves as “the black in the Europe” is quite insensitive and insulting to those who were actually being Enslaved.
Of course none of the above is unique to Britain. During the Tsarist empire, serfs were also bound to the land and had no rights equal to their masters. During the Qing dynasty, the emperors attempted to restrict Han Chinese migration to Manchuria to preserve “pure” Manchu culture— and of course they failed. Even in today's China, many restrictions apply to those who are born in small towns and try to settle in the big cities - they are the second class citizens in their own country and have nowhere to appeal.
One particularly interesting point Ward makes is that the British took more blame than deserved for the Suez Crisis compared to their French counterparts. The perception was that the French were naturally arrogant and less concerned with morality, whereas the English, who claimed to uphold moral standards and equality among British subjects, were expected to bear responsibility. It is also notable that, although France and Spain also colonised many parts of the world, they did not manage to create an identity equivalent to “Britishness.”
While I agree that colonialism is evil, I also recognise that some colonisers can be worse than others, and that being ruled by the same race is not necessarily better. It is an extremely complex topic, and perhaps the most one can do is observe rather than draw conclusive judgments.
As a side note, I recently noticed that the UK government mandates the use of Welsh in public communications accessible to Welsh people — and I’m surprised that Irish and Scottish Gaelic have not achieved the same status. I am against radical reform that encourages separatism, but I do think it is important to preserve linguistic diversity. Taiwan, in particular, has done a much better job. In public spaces like bus and train stations, announcements are made in Mandarin, Hakka, and Taiwanese Hokkien. There are also many popular songs and dramas available in Hakka and Hokkien. The fact that indigenous peoples in Taiwan are highly assimilated into society also gives me much hope in humanity.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews