Status Updates From Ornamentalism: How the Brit...

Author actually uses the term "imagined community" but fails to recognize that all communities are "imagined" when he attempts to describe past as less real than reading news in the present and feeling a certain way about the empire.

"In the mid 1950s the Commonwealth had still been primarily British and white" this is a fair bit of editorializing. Why not say "Commonwealth leadership", or such. Unless literally no images of non-white Commonwealth members truly never came to England.

Extremely odd framing to pretend that "official terminology" devolved from historians [previously] and not political framing. I don't know any country where the former have more influence in newspapers than the latter.

Finally differentiating areas "not settled and created by the British"... in the last 9 pages.

Still no discrimination of the ways that hierarchy, though sharing titles top down, was being fitted in to vastly different experiences: colonized, populated by another European nation, or simply wholly run extractively via "indirect rule", etc.
Also, there is just no context of what additional resources were given to governors etc. vs just titles and parades?

Again, author claims that supplanting imperial British rule with local based, democratically (or in hopes of doing so) elected officials as not being based in "history".
Maybe the British rule was historical in England, but for every other country and peoples it is foreign and new... excepting Ireland in which case it was not a hierarchy entered into willingly. But the author positions empire as default instead.

I find it very very odd to lump the white,
Dutch Afrikaners with the actual native peoples of India, the Irish of Australia, the British and French of Canada, etc when it comes to “nationalism”