Reparations, Representation and the Abolition of the British Monarchy.

After days of the country being in mourning, Queen Elizabeth II has finally been laid to rest. Now the British public are reflecting on her impact, her role within our society and the future of the Monarchy. 

The passing of Queen Elizabeth has resulted in an outpouring of emotion from the public. Interviews have taken place with major news outlets on the emotive responses to the passing of the Head of State. But what does it all really mean? But just what are they mourning? And should the British public be mourning in such a way?

Those with religious backgrounds would recognise the lavish funeral full of pomp and ceremony reminiscent of the idea of worship. The past few days of her funeral ritual may seem appropriate to some, after all, traditionally, the Monarch is God’s representative on Earth and being the oldest form of government in the United Kingdom, it is seen as a historical event. 

In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament. Although The Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role, he or she continues to play an important part in the life of the nation. As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service. This is the role the Queen has committed herself to, and the role that now falls to King Charles III.

King Charles III is now the sovereign of 14 Commonwealth countries, in addition to the United Kingdom. He is also Head of the Commonwealth itself (a voluntary association of 56 independent countries) – all a legacy of Slavery, Colonialism and Empire.

Britain’s representing Monarch is surrounded by controversy and the question as to whether Britain should abolish the monarchy and apologise for slavery and colonialism, has risen again in the wake of the death of Queen Elizabeth. And although there are many people that do not understand the atrocities taken place under the Monarch and Empire (for this is not taught in the British Education system) many do. One such example is the Mau Mau rebellion.

The Mau Mau Rebellion of 1952-1964 was a particularly brutal period of British colonial history. Fed by decades of anger over the British annexation of Kenyan land, the Kikuyu people conducted a series of attacks against British settlers and African colonial ‘loyalists’. The attacks triggered a violent retaliation that saw a ‘pipeline’ of detention camps set up to interrogate, ‘re-educate’ and torture the rebels known as Mau Mau.' (Global History. 2020)

Britain has also been accused of covering up atrocities. This, coupled with the incorrect teaching at secondary level, (Britain role in the global story is often seen as positive and anything negative is not mentioned) becomes a plausible explanation for the British public not fully understanding the Queen’s role as Head of State, as well as the role Britain played within a shared Empirical history. Anything deemed shameful, has been omitted from the British history books. This includes the covering up of British concentration camps during the Boer War where thousands of women and children died. 

An archive of letters and photographs owned by Major Sir Hamilton Goold-Adams, a colonial official in South Africa, has come to light.  The documents contain hitherto unknown confidential letters from Lord Milner, the man charged with sorting out the disastrous South African camps after news of their conditions had been exposed in Britain. (British Hid Horror Conditions -Rense.com)

The letters reveal levels of manipulation that is not inherent to a modern political age. In the letter, Milner seems to suggest ways of playing down the horror of such camps. 

The British Army created the concentration camps as part of a campaign against Boer guerrillas fighting against the takeover of their independent republic. Civilians were herded into the camps from their farms, but the insanitary conditions cost many their lives as hunger and disease ran rampant. Between June 1901 and May 1902, of the 115,000 people in the camps, almost 28,000 died, about 22,000 of them children. The death toll represented about 10 per cent of the Boer population. About 20,000 black people also died in other camps.

It is an episode that British people very clearly want to forget and brush under the carpet. It was grim and reprehensible,' said Roger Westwood-Brookes, a documents expert at Dominic Winter Book Auctions, the firm that is selling the archive. (Paul Harris -2001)

Britain’s shame is compounded as being the nation that invented Concentration Camps. Britain is a nation famed for its ‘firsts’, but to our shame this includes the world’s first concentration camps, utilised by the British Army at the turn of the 20th century during the Boer War (How Britain Invented Concentration Camps)

At its height, Britain’s Empire spanned over a third of the world. This legacy of the Empire is tainted in blood and shame. And despite many calls that Britain has moved on from these days, there are some that have seen Britain and Empire through rose tinted glasses.

Politicians of all persuasions still feel called upon to remember our imperial past with respect. Yet few pause to notice that the descendants of the empire-builders and of their formerly subject peoples now share the small island whose inhabitants once sailed away to change the face of the world. (End Myths about Britain's Empirical Past)

David Cameron was one such political.  He looked back at Britain and the Empire with nostalgia. "Britannia didn't rule the waves with armbands on," he pointed out, suggesting that the shadow of health and safety did not hover over Britain's imperial operations when the British were building "a great nation". He urged the nation to revive the spirit that had once allowed Britain to find a new role after the empire's collapse. (End Myths about Britain's Imperial Past)

 And again, with the Labour Party Leader: Tony Blair.

 "I value and honour our history enormously," he said in a speech in 1997, but he thought that Britain's empire should be the cause of "neither apology nor hand-wringing"; it should be used to further the country's global influence. (End Myths about Britain's Imperial Past)

And so, with the death of the Head of State, and a change in government, one questions what changes may be possible. Lizz Truss, Britain’s third female prime minister, with her new cabinet are aware at least of representation and for the first time, none of the great offices of state are held by a white man. Suella Braverman is home secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng is chancellor and James Cleverly is foreign secretary. When considering the full members of the cabinet and not ‘those who will attend’ 30% of the posts have been filled with people of colour. This compares to a national estimate of 13.7%. 

Liz Truss (who called for the abolition of the Monarchy  in 1994) and her cabinet are tasked many troublesome isses but, with a cabinet so ethnically diverse, as well as her previously outspoken comments on the abolition of the monarchy, one can only wait to see the effect this cabinet has on improving the lives of black Britons in this country. However, her rise to the top job has been overshadowed by the Queen’s death and so as the official period of mourning comes to an end, the British public’s eye turns not only to Liz Truss and changes she will make to the country, but also to King Charles III and possible changes he may make. 

As Head of State, one begins to question how much of Queen Elizabeth’s rule will King Charles follow, and how much will he seek to make changes in an attempt to make the role his own.

It was only March 2022 that the British family faced embarrassment on an international stage as protests disrupted Prince William and Kate Middleton’s visit to the Caribbean. They had a week long tour visiting Belize, Jamaica and the Bahamas. It was suggested that the trip was intended as a celebration of the Queen’s jubilee, however many suspected that it was designed to persuade countries not to follow Barbados’s example, and keep the Queen as Head of State. There are growing calls for countries that have formal ties with Britain to cut them, as campaigns for reparations have ignited a reckoning with Britain’s colonial past.

On the second day of Prince William and Kate Middleton’s visit to Jamaica, it was reported that the Jamaican government began the process of transitioning the island nation. The day before the couple’s arrival one hundred Jamaican academics, politicians and cultural figures signed an open letter calling for the royal family and the British government to apologize and pay reparations for colonial rule and slavery. The letter stated:

“We are of the view an apology for British crimes against humanity, including but not limited to the exploitation of the indigenous people of Jamaica, the transatlantic trafficking of Africans, the enslavement of Africans, indentureship and colonialization is necessary to begin a process of healing, forgiveness, reconciliation and compensation.” 

The letter’s cosignatories describe Prince William and Kate as “direct beneficiaries of the wealth accumulated by the royal family…from the trafficking and enslavement of Africans”. In reference to the Queen’s Jubilee, the letter reads: “We see no reason to celebrate 70 years of the ascension of your grandmother to the British throne because her leadership, and that of her predecessors, has perpetuated the greatest human rights tragedy in the history of humankind.” (Open Letter)

Prince William did not apologise. Instead, he expressed a ‘profound sorrow’ for the “appalling atrocity of slavery” in an address to Jamaica’s Prime Minister. The Advocates Network issued a statement calling the Prince’s words ‘unacceptable’ and that “there was no responsibility taken! No call out of centuries of British bloody conquest and plunder.” (Vincentian 2022)

And it is not just the Caribbean that has issues with Britain and the Monarchy. India has made fresh requests for Britain to return the Kohinoor Diamond which rests in the Queen's Crown, a call that India has repeatedly requested from Britain but has grown louder at the death of Queen Elizabeth II.

Founder and Managing Partner of investment company Monta Vista Capital, Venktesh Shukla began the petition. Shukla said:

“The British should return the Kohinoor diamond to India now. Every time the crown appears with Kohinoor as the jewel of the crown, it reminds the world of Britain's colonial past and the shameful way they got a five year old prince to "gift" it to Britain. UK is an honorable country and let us remind it that the  honorable thing to do is to return such "loot" to its rightful owner.” (Return Kohinoor to India.)

The petition explains the journey of the famous Kohinoor diamond from its mining to being in the hands of the Royals. After the Kohinoor changed hands among various monarchs, it found its way to Maharaja Ranjit Singh, ruling Punjab. “The British conquered Punjab Kingdom after his death in 1849 and put his five year old son, Daleep Singh as the King under the Regency of the British. Later they got this child to "gift" this diamond to the  British. They also moved Daleep Singh to England, converted him to Christianity and did not allow him to meet his mother or any other Indian so he won't be aware of his heritage.” (Return Kohinoor to India.)

With King Charles as Head of State, will things be any different? Just a few days ago (Monday 19th September) King Charles was surrounded by controversy and was called racist. 

While he was greeting those who were in attendance at the Queen’s funeral, at one point it was the turn of a black citizen to hold out his hand to be shaken by King Charles III. However, King Charles turned his head, looked at the man again and did not shake his hand. This was caught on camera and tweeted and has resulted in the new king being described as racist. The tweet has gone on to gain 182,000 ‘likes’ and more than 52,000 retweets. (Obakeng Ramabodu's tweet)

The controversy has already divided the public into two groups: those who believe it was a coincidence that he simply did not see him, and those who believe that it was deliberate. That the monarch turned his head on purpose to avoid the black man. Others have responded to the tweet with other photos and video’s where King Charles appears to greet black people as warmly as he greets white. 

However, with the monarchy’s difficult past associations with black people during slavery, colonialsm and its repucussions, speculations on Harry and Megan being ‘driven from the royal family because of racism.' (Time - 2021) and his engagements with the black British public, one has concerns that calls for apologies on behalf of Britain, repucussions for slavery and even possibly the dissolving of the troublesome institution that is the monarchy, may yet be some time away.

It seems that at the moment, again the Royal family (according to Prof Corinne Fowler) “has an opportunity to show leadership by acknowledging its involvement, making a formal apology and asking openly and humbly what the family can do to begin to repair the damage”, and a first step to moving on “might be to decide that the Queen should no longer be ceremonial head of state.” (Corrine Fowler 2022)

In a tumultuous time, where change is afoot in the government and in the monarchy, the British people can but sit, watch, and wait to see what changes the new rulers will bring to the table. The black community has been marginalised in this country for centuries. With Liz Truss’s multicultural cabinet and growing pressure on King Charles III to respond to the growing voices that demand reparations for slavery and colonialism, one wonders if he will act, or if he will continue as his mother before him, to ignore these voices, and still benefit from the vast spoils of The British Empire.