The question of how widely the British Empire is studied in British educational institutions sparks constant debate. This discourse is often intensified by disagreements over whether the UK's education system provides students with sufficient awareness of the imperial past.
}, {The writer born in India, Rudyard Kipling, in his 1891 poem 'The English Flag', celebrated the vast reach and influence of the British Empire, criticizing people in England who, in his view, knew little about this phenomenon. For the author of works such as 'Kim' and 'The Jungle Book', British identity was inextricably imperial, as was England itself.
As Tanjil Rashid stated in the publication New Statesman, Britishness was originally a complex identity formed after the union of England and Scotland. This identity could include not only both nations but also the Welsh, Irish, and numerous nationalities absorbed (and invented) by the British Empire, including Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, and, most importantly, Indians.
A debate reignited recently in the British media following comments by Zac Polanski, leader of the left-wing Green Party. He stated that 'most Britons are completely unaware of what is, for better or worse, Britain's most important achievement.'
Discussing this on his podcast, Polanski noted that in school he primarily studied the Tudors, the Romans, and part of the Second World War, and does not recall lessons on the empire or colonization. His interviewee, historian William Dalrymple, agreed that while modules on the British Empire are available at A Level, they are not part of the core curriculum, and very few teachers feel prepared to teach them, making the topic marginal for most.
Dalrymple also pointed to the public's lack of knowledge regarding the British Mandate in Palestine and Britain's role in the events preceding the creation of Israel and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, which, according to him, is absent from the British curriculum. He emphasized that people seeing the horrific situation in Gaza on the news often do not understand how it arose, claiming that 'ninety-nine percent of people in Britain simply have no idea.'
Michael Howe, a former Conservative education minister and current editor of The Spectator, intervened in the discussion on X, noting that it was interesting to listen to two private school pupils discuss their school years. He stated that regardless of what they were taught at Ampleforth (Dalrymple's old school) and Stockport Grammar (Polanski's school), the national curriculum in state schools now covers the British Empire and other topics in detail.
The Spectator subsequently published an article by Max Jeffrey, who criticized Dalrymple and Polanski. Jeffrey wrote that Dalrymple would need only a few seconds of research to realize his mistake. He clarified that in schools following the national curriculum, lessons on the Empire are mandated by the government, and in years 7, 8, and 9, the curriculum requires the study of Britain's 'ideas, political power, industry, and Empire' over the last 13 years.
This defense of the education system was supported by an article by Samuel Rubinstein in UnHerd, who argued that the British Empire is indeed taught in schools and is part of the national history curriculum since its inception, and that Polanski's and Dalrymple's claims are a 'national exercise in self-flagellation.'
However, an analysis of available data demonstrates that the British Empire is not taught widely, much less in detail. Although Howe, Jeffrey, and Rubinstein refer to the national curriculum, this applies only to a minority of schools under local authority control. Academies and private schools, which constitute 85 percent of all secondary schools in England, as well as private institutions, do not follow this curriculum.
In the national history curriculum at key stages 1, 2, and 3, the topic of the empire appears in the category of 'non-statutory examples,' meaning it is optional. The only mandatory topic is the Holocaust. Jeffrey added that the compulsory history lessons in years 7, 8, and 9 for many are merely the beginning of a comprehensive study of the chronology and realities of the British Empire.
He also noted that all major examination boards—AQA, Edexcel, and OCR—allow the teaching of Imperial history at GCSE and A-level. Nevertheless, only a small fraction of students study history for GCSE. Of teachers teaching British Empire history, only 36 percent do so at GCSE level, and an even smaller percentage—23 percent—at A Level. Furthermore, only 9.6 percent of GCSE history entries include a module dedicated to migration or the empire. The three main examination boards offer optional, rather than mandatory, sub-sections on the topic of the empire.
Gurminder Bhambra from the University of Sussex stated that 'the history of Britain as a modern nation cannot be understood separately from its history of colonization—from the wealth that fueled its development and the peoples who inhabit it.'
The module offered by Edexcel is called 'Migrants in Britain' and examines the consequences of the British Empire, not the imperial project itself.
Nevertheless, a large national study conducted earlier this year by researchers from Oxford University and University College London showed that only 16 percent of teachers believe that Britain's imperial past is taught sufficiently well in schools. This occurred despite 94 percent of respondents, as well as 79 percent of students, stating that all young people should know about this topic.
During the podcast discussion, Polanski and Dalrymple touched upon the role of the British Empire in the creation of Israel and its relevance today. In 1917, British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur Balfour announced support for the 'creation of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.' Subsequently, under the British Mandate, Jewish communities heavily persecuted in Europe immigrated massively to Palestine.
Britain ultimately believed that the land should be divided between the two peoples, but Dalrymple noted that instead of monitoring this and preventing a catastrophe, 'the British literally walked away.' This paved the way for the establishment of the State of Israel and the Palestinian Nakba, or 'catastrophe,' in 1948, when over 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes.
Last July, at a UN conference, then Foreign Secretary David Lammy stated that '108 years ago my predecessor, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour, signed a Declaration bearing his name. It helped lay the foundations for the homeland of the Jewish people.' He added that 'the Balfour Declaration was accompanied by a solemn promise that 'nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the Palestinian people.' Colleagues, this was not upheld, and this is an ongoing historical injustice.'
Lammy announced that 'under the guidance of history His Majesty's Government intends to recognize the State of Palestine.' However, few in Britain felt this 'hand of history.' According to a 2020 report, less than 2 percent of GCSE history students in England studied a module on the Middle East. 2023 data showed that only 44 schools in the UK taught the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at GCSE level. Edexcel, the only examination board offering such a module, reported that in 2023, only 0.5 percent of GCSE entries were dedicated to this module.
Howe himself, as a former education minister, claimed that the teaching of history was driven by 'post-colonial guilt.' But he faced widespread criticism after his Department for Education changed the national curriculum in 2013, which discussed the 'Windrush generation, broader immigration from the Commonwealth, and the arrival of East Africans,' replacing it with 'the impact of human migration over time to, from, and within the British Isles.'
According to a 2025 survey, 78 percent of the public believes that 'education should contain a mix of positive and negative aspects of the British Empire to give students a comprehensive balanced view.' Dalrymple told Polanski that the legacy of the British Empire lies in 'the great country houses built in the 18th century,' which 'have some connection either to the slave trade or the East India Company.'
In conclusion, the data shows that this central aspect of British history and the formation of national identity remains poorly studied, despite high demand for change in this area.
Today, Buckingham Palace is a symbol of the British monarchy, but its history was different. In the past, the condition of the palace was so poor that Queen Victoria and Prince Albert disliked it. They had to make significant efforts to transform it into the prestigious royal home it is today. According to the podcast HistoryExtra, the palace initially did not even have the status of a full-fledged palace.
As we know Buckingham Palace today, it only appeared in the 20th century. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert became the first pair of monarchs to use it as their main residence. After their arrival, extensive work was required to convert it into a livable dwelling for the queen. Before Victoria, Buckingham Palace was not an official residence; it was previously called Buckingham House and first came into the possession of the royal family in 1761. It was originally built as a retreat for Victoria's grandmother, Queen Charlotte, who loved the building very much and raised 14 of her 15 children there, including Victoria's father.
From the 1790s, it began to be officially referred to as a palace, but the primary royal home remained St. James's Palace. The royal family gradually started spending more time at Buckingham Palace, although it never became the official residence of Victoria's uncle, George IV, or William IV. William IV considered it a kind of 'white elephant'. When Westminster Palace burned down in 1834, he suggested using Buckingham House as the new parliament, but the deputies rejected the idea, deeming it too dilapidated. Nevertheless, expansion and restoration work slowly continued, with the main phase completed in May 1837.
By this time, the appeal of St. James's Palace was diminishing: the area around the main house was developing, which reduced privacy for the royal family, and its Tudor architecture and fire damage made it unsuitable for comfortable living. Therefore, after the coronation in 1837, Queen Victoria began living in the renovated Buckingham Palace as her main residence. Initially, the palace did not meet this goal. Even when the monarch moved in, Buckingham Palace was not considered a suitable place for emperors. At the time, the palace resembled a labyrinth with many dark rooms and undefined corridors, indicating a weak security system and facilitating entry by determined intruders. It is no surprise that one of Victoria's admirers, known as 'Boy Jones', was able to stay in the palace for a long time, subsisting on bread and alcohol until he was discovered by the princess nurse under the queen's chair.
In addition to poor security, Buckingham Palace was notoriously cold, especially in winter, as smoke from the chimneys hindered proper fire burning. The sewage system was also faulty, and the ventilation in the building was extremely poor, leading to unpleasant odors. Commissioners who inspected the palace immediately after Victoria's arrival found that the rooms were not regularly cleaned, and the windows were kept closed, causing a foul smell of rotting food and garden waste. The overall management of the house was also chaotic: the staff did not work cohesively, and discipline was lacking. For example, in large houses, domestic chores usually finished by 10 am, whereas at Buckingham Palace, workers could not finish their tasks until noon. One team washed the exterior of the windows, while another washed the interior, so the windows were never perfectly clean.
Prince Albert undertook the renovation of Buckingham Palace to make it habitable for the queen. It was clear that much was needed to bring the palace up to a standard suitable for the queen. Upon arriving in England, Albert began assessing the palace's functionality, using his renowned German meticulousness, and was extremely disappointed. It was a complete disaster, so he thought about ways to improve the palace's management efficiency. Previously, various aspects of household duties were overseen by different people; for instance, different people were responsible for lighting fires, and minor repairs, such as fixing a broken window, required the signatures of six different people. Prince Albert made changes by assigning most of the palace's maintenance to one person. To achieve this, he created the position of Head of the Palace, who was required to live permanently in the building. Gradually, as deficiencies in the building were identified, its condition began to improve, although the royal couple was still not entirely satisfied.
The royal couple continued working on improving the palace. Victoria and Albert moved the marble arch from its original location outside Buckingham Palace to its current location in Hyde Park. Rumor had it that they did this because the arch was not wide enough for Victoria's crown to pass through, but this proved to be untrue. The arch was moved to free up space for the expansion of Buckingham Palace, as by 1847, it was considered too small to comfortably accommodate their courtiers and growing family. The expansion work was carried out by architect Edward Blore, who had previously worked on Westminster Abbey and Lambeth Palace. He built the east wing, which includes the famous central balcony used today for important royal events. This balcony was proposed by Prince Albert. Even after the construction of the east wing, the palace was not perfect. Victoria complained about the lack of space compared to her current residence. Therefore, the construction of a new ballroom began, which was completed in May 1856, approximately a century after Buckingham Palace became the property of the royal family.
