British cuisine was highly respected internationally . . .
. . until the reign of Victoria - then it went all to hell. Some younger chefs in England are attempting to restore past glories.
I think there were a number of reasons. One was probably the queen herself - in her permanent state of mourning, she felt people should not enjoy anything except subjugating "lesser peoples" and stealing their resources.
Flavorful foods were considered typical of "lesser peoples", and the "refined" cuisine of France, which emphasized bland ingredients that would not interfere with the taste of their refined sauces, was probably exaggerated by the British.
Bland foods were also thought best due to the prevalence of digestive upset during those days. Fortunes were made with products such as Beecham's Pills.
Also there was a fad for "purity", and industrial foods. This "white and pure" thing also prevailed in the United States, which made Crisco (pure trans fats) a highly favored product.
Industrial foods were designed to be bland so as not to offend anyone - and then came rationing, but at least during WWII they had SPAM.
During the Eisenhower administration here in the US, the era of jello and canned peas, it was expected that soon all foods would be industrialized and packaged.
In England, there was some appreciation of more flavor in foods, particularly by diplomatic and military folks returning from India, They invented Curry Powder so they could enjoy some of the flavors of India at home.
This was not universal. One diplomat in India wrote to Escoffier thanking him for his canned asparagus and other canned goods so "we can have real food even in India".
My 1909 copy of Escoffier's "A Guide to Modern Cookery" (2973 recipes) had in it a catalog of Escoffier's products, not all of which were totally bland, and some of them show influence from India, but most are described as "delicate".
Incidentally, the French High Cuisine is fading rapidly in France, considered fuddy duddy. Chefs there are getting quite tired of being upstaged by Spain, Scandinavia, and California.
I think there were a number of reasons. One was probably the queen herself - in her permanent state of mourning, she felt people should not enjoy anything except subjugating "lesser peoples" and stealing their resources.
Flavorful foods were considered typical of "lesser peoples", and the "refined" cuisine of France, which emphasized bland ingredients that would not interfere with the taste of their refined sauces, was probably exaggerated by the British.
Bland foods were also thought best due to the prevalence of digestive upset during those days. Fortunes were made with products such as Beecham's Pills.
Also there was a fad for "purity", and industrial foods. This "white and pure" thing also prevailed in the United States, which made Crisco (pure trans fats) a highly favored product.
Industrial foods were designed to be bland so as not to offend anyone - and then came rationing, but at least during WWII they had SPAM.
During the Eisenhower administration here in the US, the era of jello and canned peas, it was expected that soon all foods would be industrialized and packaged.
In England, there was some appreciation of more flavor in foods, particularly by diplomatic and military folks returning from India, They invented Curry Powder so they could enjoy some of the flavors of India at home.
This was not universal. One diplomat in India wrote to Escoffier thanking him for his canned asparagus and other canned goods so "we can have real food even in India".
My 1909 copy of Escoffier's "A Guide to Modern Cookery" (2973 recipes) had in it a catalog of Escoffier's products, not all of which were totally bland, and some of them show influence from India, but most are described as "delicate".
Incidentally, the French High Cuisine is fading rapidly in France, considered fuddy duddy. Chefs there are getting quite tired of being upstaged by Spain, Scandinavia, and California.
