I am always up for some good revisionism, but the new book "The Absent Minded Imperialist" by Bernard Porter looks like it may go to far in downplaying the centrality of empire in late Victorian life. Link: Telegraph | Arts | Empire? What empire?.
Most importantly, the expansion of the franchise created an uncomfortable new reality for those members of the old political class who knew and cared about the Empire: the future of that Empire was now in the hands of millions of ordinary voters whose interest in it was worryingly slight. And so, from the 1880s onwards, an active minority of "imperialists" tried hard to raise the profile of the Empire in the public consciousness, forming movements such as the "British Empire League", campaigning for the adoption of "Empire Day" as a national holiday, and organising exhibitions, lectures and publications. As Porter shows, there were few victories in this campaign. Empire Day was cold-shouldered for a long time by the political establishment, and a parallel effort to introduce a daily flag-raising ceremony in state schools met with fierce hostility. Perhaps the most famous publication produced by this movement, Fletcher and Kipling's A School History of England, was described by the Educational Times as "crude and irresponsible", and was later banned in at least two British colonies for its "gross libels on the King's coloured subjects".
That support and consiousness of empire was not universal, does not show it was not central. Victoria certainly seem to enjoy becoming "Empress of India" and what is one to make of that Cecil Rhodes chap?
