Is Anti-Racism a Possibility for King Charles and the Royal Family?
Trigger warning (TW): racism, slavery
Racism in the royal family is not a thing of the past. This has been made abundantly clear from the treatment of Meghan by the royal family, the British media and a particular contingent of anglophiles worldwide.
The monarchy symbolises imperialism, colonialism and capitalism to many people and communities. These are all aspects which contribute to institutional racism. The foundation of racism revolves around upholding systems of oppression based on a racial hierarchy. In this piece, we explore the Monarchy’s role in maintaining this particular system of oppression.
Official support from Buckingham Palace for research into the monarchy’s links with the transatlantic slave trade
In an unprecedented move, King Charles III has signalled his official support for research into the royal family’s historical links with transatlantic slavery, as reported by the Guardian.
Buckingham Palace released a statement after the Guardian had reached out to the royal family following the publication of a previously unseen document showing the 1689 transfer of £1,000 of shares in the slave-trading Royal African Company to King William III, from Edward Colston, the company’s deputy governor.
In their statement, Buckingham Palace did not comment on the document but did express support for the research project, co-sponsored by Historic Royal Palaces (HRP), which manages several palaces, into the monarchy’s involvement in the slave trade.
This month, in an interview with CBC, Princess Anne shared her views on the research into the monarchy’s links with the transatlantic slave trade “the historical perspective just goes back a lot further and the modern context are very different. Slavery hasn’t gone away, no come on, don’t be too focused on timescales and periods, history isn’t like that.”
Princess Anne fails to understand that Black people worldwide are still negatively impacted by the transatlantic slave trade and its legacy. The effects of slavery are not confined to a specific period or place but rather have shaped the social, economic and political realities of millions of people for centuries. To dismiss the importance of historical context is to ignore the root causes of systemic racism and its ongoing manifestations.
Countries like Nigeria and Kenya are experiencing a colonial hangover; this is reflected in their deeply unequal class systems imposed during colonial rule. Apartheid in South Africa was a direct consequence of colonialism. The murder of Socialist African leaders like Patrice Lumumba and Thomas Sankara resulted from colonial interests taking over.
More recently, it’s been reported that the direct ancestors of King Charles owned slave plantations and were involved in buying at least 200 enslaved Africans.
A royal legacy of slavery
When investigating the royal family’s ties to the transatlantic slave trade, we must recognise that the British Empire was built on the backs of enslaved Black people.
Transatlantic slavery began as early as 1497 when King Henry VII sent John Cabot on an expedition to discover a route to Asia via the Atlantic. Cabot managed to reach the coast of Newfoundland and believed he had made it as far as Asia.
Between 1500 and 1900, Europeans kidnapped millions of people throughout West Africa and West Central Africa. They shipped them across the Atlantic, putting them in enforced labour to help support the formation of the British Empire.
The enslavement of Black people played a central role in providing British industry with raw materials, which contributed to the increased production of manufactured goods, thus enabling the development of British industries.
After the murder of George Floyd by racist police in America, Afua Hirsch discussed in an article how the racism that killed George Floyd was invented in Britain. She writes:
“...It could have discussed how Britain helped invent anti-black racism, how today’s US traces its racist heritage to British colonies in America, and how it was Britain that industrialised [B]lack enslavement in the Caribbean, initiated systems of apartheid all over the African continent, using the appropriation of [B]lack land, resources and labour to fight both world wars and using it again to reconstruct the peace.”
Can royals ever be considered practising anti-racists?
Some people have labelled King Charles III an anti-racist, whilst the media, including left-wing papers, have said that it ushers in a new era in which the monarchy is committed to acknowledging and taking action to address the harm of its historical past.
However, we must question whether this research will have any impact considering how it’s common knowledge that the royal family controlled the rule of law when the British Empire was formed and, thus, instigated the inception of the transatlantic slave trade through the colonisation of African countries and North America.
We know this because it wasn’t until 1649, 152 years after King Henry VII sent John Cabot on his expedition, that the House of Commons decided to abolish the monarchy and declare England a commonwealth.
We’re past the point of doing research for the sake of research. If the royal family were practising anti-racists, they must look beyond what we already know and actively listen to Black communities impacted by the legacy of the transatlantic slave trade.
Anti-racism isn’t about doing what’s easy but doing what must be done for an equitable society, and for white people, that means relinquishing power.
However, the research provides cause for hope, as King Charles III has not ruled out the possibility of paying reparations.
It may be hard to imagine a world where the royal family could be considered anti-racist. In recent years and since his marriage to Meghan Markle, some people believe Prince Harry has emerged as an ally to racialised people and communities.
He has been outspoken about the racist treatment Meghan has been subjected to by the British press and has shed light on the lack of acceptance Meghan has received from the royal family concerning the differential treatment she has experienced compared to Kate Middleton.
However, Harry is only beginning his journey. Although he has relinquished his titles, he hasn’t gone as far as to say “the royal family are racist”. He has also shown us that he fundamentally misunderstands unconscious bias.
In his book, Spare, he expresses the belief that racism is different to unconscious bias. This is simply not true. Unconscious bias is a symptom of racism and pertains to people who are unaware of their racist behaviour because society has normalised this behaviour.
However, if one is aware that these behaviours exist, as in, if you are part of an institution which is recognised as being and having been harmful to racialised communities and you’re choosing not to listen to said racialised communities, whatever behaviour you exhibit is no longer unconscious because you have made the conscious decision not to educate yourself or take action against racism.
Anti-racism is more than just not being racist. It is a process of actively identifying and opposing racism in all its forms. Anti-racism aims to challenge racism and actively change the policies, behaviours, and beliefs perpetuating racist ideas and actions. Anti-racism is rooted in action. It is about eliminating racism at the individual, institutional and structural levels.
Being anti-racist requires acknowledging one's privileges and biases, confronting acts and systems of racial discrimination and working to change one's racial attitudes. It also involves educating oneself and others about the history and impact of racism, supporting and amplifying the voices of racialised people and advocating for social justice and equality.
Harry may have acknowledged his privileges and some of his biases, and he has confronted the racist treatment Meghan Markle has been subjected to by the royal family and the British press. He has also helped to amplify the voices of racialised people and does advocate for social justice and equality.
However, anti-racism demands that we confront issues head-on, which means recognising that the monarchy may be institutionally racist by default.
The upholding of colonialism
Over 8000 people in South Africa have recently signed a petition calling for King Charles to return the Cullinan Diamonds, the world's largest diamond, before his coronation.
According to Time Magazine, “The diamond was discovered in 1905, while South Africa was still under colonial occupation by the British, leading some historians to argue that those who gifted the gemstone to King Edward VII in 1907 were never its rightful owners.”
The Cullinan Diamonds replaced the Kohinoor diamond Camilla was to be crowned with during King Charles III’s coronation. Time Magazine shares that “many historians have pointed out that the 105-carat oval treasure was obtained via coercion of the 11-year-old emperor of the Sikhs, Maharaja Duleep Singh, in the 19th century.”
The replacement of the diamonds was seen as a diplomatic gesture, however, the replacement of one colonial exploit over another demonstrates that the royal family are still celebrating their days of colonialism in modern times.
The royal record of racism
Earlier this year, Ngozi Fulani, founder of the Hackney-based charity Sistah Space recalled the racism Lady Hussey subjected them to following a visit to Buckingham Palace. Fulani had been invited to an event marking the annual 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence campaign, where she met Lady Hussey.
Fulani decided to tell her story on a Twitter thread where she recounted that Hussey had asked repeatedly, “Where are you from?”
Unsatisfied with the answer Fulani provided - “Hackney [London].”
- Hussey continued by asking, “No, what part of Africa are you from?”
Hussey’s line of questioning continued for several minutes, alleged Fulani, with Hussey unable to accept that the Black woman standing before her was a British national by birth. The Women’s Equality Party leader, Mandu Reid, witnessed the incident and told the media it was “an interrogation.”
After Fulani shared her story on social media, the British press quickly reported on the incident. The royal family responded swiftly, with Prince William stating, “I was disappointed to hear about the guests’ experience at Buckingham Palace last night; obviously, I wasn’t there, but racism has no place in our society.”
It’s rare to see a royal family member acknowledge and take responsibility for racist behaviour, especially considering its track record of racist remarks and actions.
During Queen Elizabeth II’s reign, Buckingham Palace banned racialised people from office roles until at least the late 60s. The Guardian also reported that “Buckingham Palace negotiated controversial clauses - that remain in place to this day - exempting the Queen and her household from laws that prevent race and sex discrimination.”
Prince Phillip, King Charles III’s father, was routinely accused of racism. Perhaps his most notorious comment was made in 1986 during his first and only state visit to China. Philip met with British university students studying Mandarin in Xi’an, telling one of them: “By the time you go back home, you’ll have slitty eyes.”
The student, Simon Kirby, explained that the UK students didn’t live with their Chinese counterparts. Philip continued: “So [the Chinese] don’t want to mix with the barbarians.”
Whilst in Australia in 2002, Prince Phillip made another racist comment to an Indigenous Australian entrepreneur when he asked, “Do you still throw spears at each other?”
In 2018, following one of many commonwealth events, Anita Sethi shared that King Charles III had joked that she did not look like she was from her hometown of Manchester. This comment left her feeling shocked, humiliated and angry.
In 2021, Meghan Markle revealed that a royal family member was concerned about the skin colour of Archie before he was born.
The same year, Prince William suggested that population growth was responsible for endangering African wildlife.
In 2022, William and Kate, during the tour of the Caribbean, revealed that they were at complete odds with modern perceptions of the royal family. Photos of William and Kate shaking hands with Jamaican children through wire fences were published across international media outlets, which many saw as “out of touch.”
Following Meghan Markle’s and Prince Harry’s interview with Oprah in March of 2021, Buckingham Palace released a statement on behalf of Queen Elizabeth II, saying that the whole family was "saddened to learn" how challenging things had been, adding: "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately."
Prince William responded to the interview by completely disregarding Meghan’s and Prince Harry’s experience by stating, “We’re very much not a racist family.”
However, King Charles III is going one step further than his predecessor, who never acknowledged the monarchy's historic role in supporting the transatlantic slave trade. But should this garner praise?
The divine right of kings
The monarchy benefits from the “divine right of kings.” The divine right of kings or the divine-right theory of kingship is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. The principle is based on the idea that a monarch does not need to answer to anyone but God.
This theory may seem like a thing of the past, but the monarchy still has a very close relationship with the Church of England.
On May 6th 2023, King Charles will be anointed with holy oil by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This act upholds the theory that the monarch, i.e. King Charles III, has been chosen by divine powers to rule. In more modern terms, it’s understood to mean that the king only answers to the church and the pope and is not subject to the will of the people.
Another example of this doctrine being upheld is the arresting of republicans, supporters of the abolition of the monarchy who had protested against King Charles III’s coronation.
Article 10 of the Human Rights Act stipulates that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”
However, it is also “subject to a range of restrictions in UK law, including the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003, which criminalises “indecent or grossly offensive” messages and threats.”
Legislation and the divine right of kings theory are crucial to understanding how the monarchy can justify its actions towards republicans and the general public, who may question their position and speak out against it.
The monarchy and the government can define people's objection to the king's coronation as “indecent or grossly offensive”, even if it’s generally recognised that the messages aren’t indecent or grossly offensive and merely an opinion holding no offence to protected characteristics. This is because the divine-right theory of kingship implies that any opposition to the king is tantamount to a sacrilegious act.
How the divine right theory and the establishment of the monarchy are at odds with modern society
Whether King Charles can be, an anti-racist monarch requires a nuanced answer. On the one hand, he has shown some willingness to address the issue of racism within his own family and institution by supporting research into their historical ties to slavery. He has also spoken out against racism and intolerance on various occasions, such as his speech at Yad Vashem in 2017 or his message for Windrush Day in 2020.
Moreover, some might argue that being an anti-racist monarch is somewhat oxymoronic, given that the monarchy itself symbolises inequality and privilege that benefits from a system that marginalises and exploits racialised people. As long as King Charles remains at the head of an institution representing imperialism, colonialism and capitalism, he cannot honestly claim to be an ally of anti-racism movements.
Under our constitutional system, King Charles, once crowned, will become the head of state. His position is inherited from Queen Elizabeth II, and only the descendants of the Windsor family are eligible to be king or queen; only their firstborn can be the British head of state. So far, everyone in the line of succession is white.
The mere existence of the monarchy centres on the idea that its members have been given a divine right to power and that they are the ideal. The ideal being of blue blood, i.e. racial purity of white skin. This was exemplified when Meghan shared her experiences of racism at the hands of the royal family.
The divine right of kings reveals that the monarchy is at odds with modern democratic society as the theory states that the King is not subject to the will of the people. In a society heavily steeped in systemic racism, we must question the existence of the monarchy and ask ourselves whether it is in our interests to have a King as our head of state, especially if that head of state is unelected.
Glossary:
Anglophile: a person who is fond of or greatly admires England or Britain
Contingent: occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on
Sacrilegious: violation or misuse of what is considered sacred
This article was written by our Brand and Engagement Lead, Zoe Daniels (They/Them).