Buckingham Palace recently announced that it will allow research looking into the British monarchy’s historical involvement and investment with the transatlantic slave trade.
Cue the expected conniption (that) fits across the right-leaning media. One commentator wrote of ‘quavers of anticipatory delights’ on the left. Another screeched about when the ‘super woke’ will be satisfied in getting everyone to atone for the past, whether or not they had anything to do with that period.
Then, of course, the less-than-helpful comments on slavery not being the foundation on which Britain amassed its significant wealth, but rather our lack of understanding of capitalism, and how that works on our part. More on this later.
On closer inspection, the move that must’ve been sanctioned at the very highest levels of the monarchy to allow Dr Brooke Newman, a historian at the Virginia Commonwealth University, access to palace archives is pretty entry-level stuff. On a scale of zero being slight inconvenience to full-on apology and reparations at 10, this is sitting at around two.
In a sense, Buckingham Palace had to give this research the greenlight. Documents making the links between the slave trade and the Crown’s profiteering from it are already in the public domain, but the recent discovery of a 1689 document showing the transfer of £1,000 of shares in the slave trading Royal African Company to King William III by Edward Colston made that link crystal clear.
And, if the name Edward Colston, who at the time of the transfer was the deputy governor of the Royal African Company, rings a bell, it may be because the statue of said slave trader was toppled by BlackLives Matter (BLM) supporters in Bristol in 2020. Such was the furore around the issue at the time that the leaders of the toppling actually stood trial for their actions.
Dr Newman’s book, The Queen’s Silence, looking at the monarchy’s role in the slave trade and its modern lack of atonement, sees a clear path between the profits from the business of dealing in enslaved Africans and today. “ There is no doubt that the centuries of investment in African slavery, and the slave trade, contributed hugely to building the status, prestige and fortune of today’s royal family. The profits from the slave trade, and from the industries built on the labours of enslaved people, in turn funded the expansion of the empire, which generated vast further wealth for Britain and its royal families.”
Yet, for some reason, even that most basic of acknowledgement, leaves certain sectors of British society in a right royal tiz. The expectation that historians - and the rest of us - can simply rewrite history and pretend there wasn’t a massive profiteering off the blood, sweat and tears of enslaved people, is laughable if it wasn’t so insulting.
One of the other major arguments put forward to whitewash this period is that wise and benevolent capitalism is the real reason Britain flourished economically, forgetting that at the very base of capitalism is an underpaid, exploited working force. Now, multiply that exponentially, when labour is extracted through subjugation, violence and exploitation of the highest order, of course you can afford to build your wealth.
There is also a reminder of Britain’s role in the abolition of the slave trade. The 1807 Act of Parliament that abolished the trade of enslaved Africans across the British empire still did not take into account the fate of those in the colonies until 1838, and even then it was slave owners who were compensated to the tune of billions in modern fiscal terms. Patting Britain on the back for its role in trying to rid the globe of slavery is akin to praising the arsonist who picks up a hose to help put out the fire he started.
The palace has thrown the right words around, saying in part, “This is an issue that His Majesty takes profoundly seriously. As His Majesty told the Commonwealth heads of government reception in Rwanda last year: ‘I cannot describe the depths of my personal sorrow at the suffering of so many, as I continue to deepen my own understanding of slavery’s enduring impact’.”
King Charles is not a woke monarch. He’s a man who understands that this is decent PR at a time when, let’s be honest, the royal family’s reputation has taken a bit of a global battering. From the ill-fated royal tour of William and Catherine to the Caribbean that almost singlehandedly underscored the pluses of republicanism in the region, add the optics to the Meghan and Harry racism controversy, right through to the uncomfortable links between Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein, and King Charles had his hands full with rebranding The Firm as fit for purpose.
It would be fanciful to imagine this research will lead to a complete overhaul of the way the monarchy operates. You don’t remain at the head of the class beast by offering systemic change and reparations. This is still a household exempt from the Race Relations Act, so any change or utterances to that effect constitutes lip service at best and, from the outcry over the most basic of manoeuvres, this is just how their ardent supporters like it.
Amina Taylor is a journalist and broadcaster. She is the former editor of Pride magazine and works as producer, presenter and correspondent with Press TV in London.