The The once sang about Great Britain being the ’51st State of the USA’ – a comment on the culture and foreign policy of the United Kingdom, which were then as now dominated by those of the United States. This fact in and of itself is not unexpected or inexplicable, as both countries do share historical, linguistic and cultural ties, and one is much bigger (size- and population-wise) and more influential than the other.
But whereas The The didn’t mean the epithet ’51st State’ as a compliment, some circles in the UK would like nothing more for their country than to join the USA. They generally see Britain’s involvement in the European Union as a bad strategic choice, and would prefer to be an eastern outpost of an American Empire that dominates the planet than to be a western extremity of a European Megastate that competes with America for dominance.
In spite of widespread anti-EU feelings in the UK, plans for accession to the USA have never been very popular or mainstream. One Briton by the name of George J. Carty did devise a plan for a British absorption by the US – but one that would give the UK a bit more weight than that of just one state. His plan would make Britain not just the 51st, but the 51st through 57th State of the USA.
Not only would this be more in line with the relatively large population of the UK (about 55 million, more than 1/6th of the US), it would also leave the country that once ruled the largest empire in the world (and ‘fathered’ the US) with a shred of dignity.
Some notes about Mr Carty’s proposal:
- Ulster would not be part of one of the six British US states; apparently, it would be incorporated into a united Ireland, which would form a seventh US state in the eastern Atlantic.
- The rest of the UK (the island of Great Britain) would be divided thus: the ancient nations of Scotland and Wales each would become a separate US state, and England in her turn would be chopped up in four US states. The problem is that England doesn’t historically divide into four regions. The only division that springs to mind is the ‘Heptarchy’, the early mediaeval period after the Roman Empire but before the establishment of a unified England during which the country was divided into seven kingdoms.
- Carty does name 3 of the 4 English states after some of these early pre-English kingdoms, the problem obviously being that they can’t correspond exactly to the ancient boundaries. These states would be Northumbria in the north of England, Mercia in the middle and Wessex in the southwest. The fourth state in the southeast would simply be called Londonia, as it essentially exists only of the UK capital and its hinterland.
- In the map he provides, Carty also re-arranges the present-day county boundaries within the states. For example, the London Metropolitan Area expands to coincide with the M25, the orbital road surrounding the capital. And Yorkshire is re-divided into its three traditional ‘Ridings’.
- Proposed state capitals for the new US states would be: Edinburgh (Scotland), Newcastle (Northumbria), Leicester (Mercia), Bristol (Wessex), Cardiff (Wales) and obviously London (Londonia).
- The author of this plan even calculated how many seats in the US House of Representatives would have if they joined the US. In the Senate, each state would have 2 Senators (like every other current US state). The House seats would be: Scotland (9), Northumbria (25), Mercia (20), Wales (5), Wessex (8) and Londonia (30).
This map, plus a few others and more information, can be found on this website, associated with the Expansionist Party of the US – which proposes to do what its name suggests.

As usual a really interesting map; however, your comments on the United State’s domintation of the culture and foreign policy of the UK are a little unseemly, and largely untrue. The UK does currently have an administration that is heavily in the shadow of the US foreign policy wise, but culturally I don’t think the UK is any more dominated by the US than France, or Spain, or Algeria, or Brazil, or Japan is; all contain many cultural references to America, particularly as a part of youth culture, but all still maintain their own. Because we share (or are divided by) a common language, and because several hundred years ago we, as you say, fathered the United States, it is easy to mistake our similarities as cultural imprinting; however, it’s no more correct to say that US culture is merely a modified version of that of the UK; both are fiercely independent. As a case in point; there is the same antipathy towards joining the United States as there is to Europe (perhaps even more so, as we’ve done one but not the other). This antipathy is borne of a virulent cultural independence (for better or worse), not apathy.
PS the US is not that much bigger, or culturally influential, than the UK. It has five times the population, and different values; the UK doesn’t get to set the UN and WTO agenda; it also doesn’t need to appeal for aid from other countries for its poorest citizens.
Comment by dan — November 14, 2006 @ 6:38 pm
Fantastic. As with all your maps this is fascinating. The English divisions of the map roughly match how the English would divide their country into South East, South West, Midlands and The North.
As to being the 51st state? Well, as long as Tony lets George tell him what to do we are, although I agree with Dan that the British tend to see ourselves as separate, not quite European, geography notwithstanding. ‘We’ wouldn’t want the dollar any more than the euro as currency!
Comment by saturn5 — November 14, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
I learned recently, while reading Blood Class and Empire by Christopher Hitchens that during and after WWII, Churchill lobbied the US government quite hard behind the scenes for a political union.
Wow.
Comment by TJIC — November 15, 2006 @ 3:05 am
[...] Britain, USA Some circles in the UK would like nothing more for their country than to join the USA. They generally see Britain’s involvement in the European Union as a bad strategic choice, and would prefer to be an eastern outpost of an American Empi (tags: USA GB england map EU strategy inclusion accession) [...]
Pingback by Michael’s Remarks » links for 2006-11-15 — November 15, 2006 @ 10:23 am
it is true, there are some quislings in this country who would have britain abandon its birthright and inheritance as a member of the great european union. but in any nation there are always traitors.
yankophilia should be dealt with very harshly.
Comment by Steve Dobbs — November 16, 2006 @ 2:17 am
I find it a little bizarre that the economic and cultural and back-waters of Newcastle and Leicester should be preferred as state capitals to the current UK’s second and third cities of Manchester and Birmingham, but I suppose I’d find an explanation in the accompanying notes if I read them.
Comment by Darren Turpin — November 17, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
[...] This is the answer, everyone must fight back. You can help the survival of the human race by building your own army. Go to http://www.evilmadscientist.com for your simple step by step instructions! The battle is not over. Let humans unite from the darkness of cyber-dalek tyranny. Be proud to be human and save our planet Earth. [...]
Pingback by Humans fight back against cyber dalk invasion « Cye’s Eye — November 18, 2006 @ 11:40 pm
DT: If the political capital is in the biggest city, the rest of the territory is more likely to be ignored than if there is some tension between political, financial and other “capitals”.
TJIC: I’ve also heard that Churchill suggested a union with France.
Comment by Anton Sherwood — November 19, 2006 @ 10:30 pm
What is more likely to succeed is a US absorption by the United Kingdom not the other way around. I would be suprised if any Briton, other than George Carty, would see any cultural or financial benefits from this devised plan.
Comment by A-Brit — November 21, 2006 @ 12:37 am
Churchill’s mom was American, I think. No wonder he didn’t mind joining.
In this political environment, unification would be like adding three moderately left-wing (relatively) states to America, likely tipping the balance to the Democrats for the forseeable future. And this is why it will never happen; you would need a constitutional amendment that the Republicans would block in an instant. Canada is the same, but we are also pretty attached to our identity of being “not the US” (that’s our entire cultural identity, btw, plus we like hockey), so that is why we will never join. (We’ve already been economically absorbed, as Ben Franklin predicted.) I still wish we could have a tiny bit more influence with the old elephant, though, even if it meant joining up and letting Quebec go. We could change the world for the better.
Btw, I was wondering if England was as big as Ontario, so I superimposed a map of Europe onto one of North America with Photoshop to get a comparison. I lined the latitude lines up to get the scale right, so that is why it is so far north and west. Airstrip One is pretty small.
[IMG]http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n51/steerpike90/north_americabig.jpg[/IMG]
Comment by Ben P — November 21, 2006 @ 7:37 am
Comment by Ben P — November 21, 2006 @ 7:40 am
[URL]http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n51/steerpike90/north_americabig.jpg[/URL]
Comment by Ben P — November 21, 2006 @ 7:41 am
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n51/steerpike90/north_americabig.jpg
Comment by Ben P — November 21, 2006 @ 7:42 am
” … some circles in the UK would like nothing more for their country than to join the USA”.
I’m unclear to which circles you refer, unless they are fictional circles somewhere within the defectively crazed imaginations of the White House or Downing Street.
It’s abundantly clear there would be less than zero popular support within the UK for the idea. And I’m not that sure you’d have us, either. We’re much too bolshy for such a reverse takeover ever to succeed. And we relate to our European Union partners much more than you suggest.
Comment by redrun7 — November 21, 2006 @ 10:31 am
Ben P: admission of a new member state requires only an ordinary Act of Congress, not a Constitutional amendment.
Comment by Anton Sherwood — November 24, 2006 @ 6:46 am
If nothing else, we’d get the ESRB, which would be nice. NTSC as opposed to PAL would be a godsend too. Forward the State of Londonia!
Comment by Tomas — November 27, 2006 @ 8:15 pm
redrun7: I’m not so sure. I know lots of people that, when given the choice of only the two evils, would much rather be involved in the USA than in the EU.
Comment by linxeh — November 29, 2006 @ 10:19 am
I wouldn’t read too much into Churchill’s lobbying for union with the US, TJIC. He also proposed an Anglo-Franco union with France in the spring of 1940, in a desperate attempt to forestall a French surrender to Germany.
Comment by Yorick — November 29, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
I’d echo Darren Turpin’s comments: Leicester’s a third the size of the UK’s second city, Birmingham, and Birmingham additionally lies at the heart of a conurbation at least as big again, whereas Leicester dominates its conurbation. Similarly, Manchester, the capital of the north, sits amid a far larger conurbation than Newcastle does, though the difference in size between the two cities (as opposed to conurbations) is less marked than that between Birmingham and Leicester.
Anton Sherwood: your explanation for the choices of Leicester and Newcastle doesn’t sit too well with the selections of London, Bristol, and Cardiff for three of the other areas, and Edinburgh, while not the largest city in Scotland, is already its capital.
Comment by Matthew — December 4, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
I would love for this country to become part of the USA.We are pretty much the unofficial 51st state of the USA but it ain’t ever gon 2 happen. Oh well.
Comment by Cameron — December 12, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
I find it disgraceful that a Briton could ever think like this.
Has Mr. Carty not heard of national pride?
Britain has a rich history spanning over two millenia, far more than the USA can even dream of having.
Wht’s more, Britain, as is mentioned in the article, ‘fathered’ America, and it would be terrible for America to turn around and stab us in the back.
I would rather be part of the EU than the USA – there needs to be a force somewhere in the world to stop America from becoming too big for its boots.
Comment by Kieran — January 15, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
I’m not british or America, and so this is indiferent to me. But I think Churchill was not stupid… he knew that if Britain became the 51 state of the US, it would be – by far – the largest, the most rich and the most powerfull state of the Union (with a 2,2 trillion dollars economy and 60 million people, much more than New York or California, for example). In Europe, Britain is the second major power (after Germany). In a new transatlantic United States, it would be the most important state. Basically, it would return to it’s pre-1776 condition.
Comment by Filipe Alves — February 22, 2007 @ 12:57 am
I think the State of Northumbria is misnamed. Clearly it should be Old York.
Comment by Joel — March 3, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
Wessex and Londonia (which is a really terrible name) should be merged to give three states of North, Mid and South England.
I’m disappointed that no one has suggested changing the name of the states to England, Britain, the UK and Albion.
Comment by Frank — March 13, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
very nice blog
Comment by Masha — March 22, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
Blog of directtv
Comment by directtv — March 27, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Good blog, a wonderful idea, I prefer the USA to Europe anyday.
Comment by wayland85 — March 29, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
Britain really would deserve ten states, not six.
Unifying Ireland as a single US state would be asking for trouble, too; bring in Ireland and the North as a pair.
Drag in the six states of Australia, add New Zealand, and have English-speaking Canada folded in (the provinces coming in directly as states, and Quebec becoming an independent country as the legal successor state to Canada). Drop “of America” from the name of the country.
The tempting thing then might be to add the English-speaking Caribbean, which would work out to, say, two states — one on a core of Jamaica-Belize, the other on a core of Guyana-Trinidad.
That would bring the U.S. up to 80 states with a population of ~420 million, a land area larger than Russia, and an initial GDP of $18 trillion or so (about 10 times that of France, and half-again larger than the remainder of the EU).
Comment by Warmongering Lunatic — June 19, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
As I recall, the minimum required population for a state, dating from frontier times, is 50,000 with a capital city of at least 10,000. We could probably squeeze a few hundred “states” out of the UK.
However, this political situation is terribly unlikely. Although I am English, I feel the American Revolution is the Enlightenment democratization that England needed, especially to provide greater checks and balances against the executive in these troubled times. However, Augustus Bush and his predecessors have been doing their best to circumvent that anyway. :(
Comment by Chadders — August 9, 2007 @ 9:27 am
I see that there’s still some REALLY strong XTC in the UK. We already have a transoceanic state that’s culturally different from us. It’s called Hawaii. Hawaii really has no benefit being a US state other than welfare. The culture is different, the people are different and even the climate is different from the general US.
There are even talks of letting Hawaii secede because it’s just too much of a burden to have a state that’s that far away.
As much as the US claims to be different and diverse, there is a common cultural identity that this country has that the UK will never have.
We already have problems absorbing a large amount of people into the American culture with illegal immigration. Allowing a country that has the population of the entire northeastern seaboard would be insane.
Also, can you imagine how many disappointed Brits there would be when they try to tune into Monday Night Football and they see meatheads in helmets and armor, not skinny guys running about a field?
Comment by Lee Lucas — September 26, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
As a lifelong resident of Hampshire and a student of Anglo-Saxon history, I think there’s a solid historical and cultural basis for the county to be incorporated into Wessex rather than ‘Londonia’. It was after all the base of operations for Alfred the Great, Wessex’s most famous king. In fact I think people here would resent being lumped with London.
It’s all academic anyway, i’m a europhile myself!
Comment by Stiggy — December 7, 2007 @ 12:17 am
The States of the US have so many privileges not abandoned to the union.
Would a new state necessarily have to accept the dollar? ;-)
Comment by duch — December 10, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Churchill’s idea to ‘re-unify’ the USA and UK was probably based on the idea that the entire British Empire would join the USA in a single super-state. In such an entity, the United States would not be the dominant influence–far from it. The very large and populous British colonies/dominions of India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and possibly even South Africa would have been part of the new state. In an amalgamation like that, the Commonwealth Realms would have been the dominant partner, not the USA.
PS…Hawaii would never be voluntarily given up by the United States. It has a huge strategic value. As long as the USA controls it, they control the Pacific. Ask Admiral Yamamoto.
Comment by John — January 24, 2008 @ 4:07 am
Who needs America or Europe we have done quite well on our own for the last couple of thousand years, except twice when a Roman and a Gaul decided to visit
Comment by Dobbs — June 18, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
of course, you are american, and therefore naive in thinking you hold ingluence over us, and, infact, the world, for you are not the most influential nation. if britain joined the usa, we would be owned y those who britain used to colonise america in the first place, very humiliating. also, the eu is far more econoically stronger then USA, a fact, but one unknown by many mainstream yanks.
usa, your two deacades of doination are over, yes, if we joined with you, they would continue, but we could never have a duel relationship, for if we did, you yanks would complain we own you again, though you are hypacrits, for you do not mind wanting to own us. No, we are european, and so we are a member of the eu, and the eu had taken your place, so we are the most influential nation, and have no desire to join with you, you who 200 years ago, rebeled, well, you chose independence, so keep it.
Comment by dan — July 15, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
If Britan joins the USA there will not be long before the name “Oceania” apears
Comment by Herman von Salza — February 14, 2009 @ 9:27 am
thanks alot
Comment by Tony — May 4, 2009 @ 2:20 am
thanks for this map
good
luck
Comment by Solomon — May 11, 2009 @ 7:08 am
merci
Comment by aspicco . — May 17, 2009 @ 4:50 am
teşekkür ederim
Comment by yory — June 12, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
People need to look at history, firstly to people who think that the names of the states on the map are wrong, well they are all right and thats what they where called in the 8th century (I think it was then)
Secondly the UK has one of the richest historys in the world, if it was suddenly to become American, it’s entire culture, Laws, Economy and leave it in total turmoil, destroying hundreds of years of work.
Comment by Alex — July 1, 2009 @ 2:25 am
Vielen Dank
Comment by moon — July 3, 2009 @ 3:49 am
Muchas gracias
Comment by sun — July 4, 2009 @ 6:39 am