Imperial Party forum

thomas davison

Why is King Charles wasting time discussing reparations? asks ESTHER KRAKUE
The King has said he will consider the matter of reparations after the transatlantic slave trade.

King Charles is right to support a study into Royal Family slavery links. This week, Buckingham Palace published a statement that highlighted the King’s approval of independent research into the monarchy’s association with the transatlantic slave trade.
The trigger was 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. That’s right, 1689. The King is being asked to “take some responsibility”And yet... he is right to back the inquiry. Moreover, he must engage with all levels of British society, from the staunchest Republicans to advocates for slavery reparations. To avoid doing so would render the monarchy an out-of-touch, privileged, and antiquated institution which runs away from uncomfortable realities, rather than faces them.

You might think that, with the Coronation looming, the last thing the monarch needs is another “scandal”. Palace staff have already been waiting with bated breath until this week to know whether the Sussexes would finally grace us with
their presence, after months of tawdry gossip, mud-slinging exposés, and Netflix cameras. for atrocities committed by distant relatives some 334 years ago.
But King Charles has the opportunity to be a calm, wise, and measured voice in the midst of the incendiary slavery debate. He can educate, commiserate with and commemorate victims of that horrid period in history while moving the discussion on from hysterical screeching to nuanced debate.

He can question what true “justice” would look like, be it retributive or restorative, when both the slaves and slavers in question are all dead. Unlike many in our privileged classes, who cower in fear when faced with this awkward subject, the King now has a golden opportunity to draw a line in the sand.

Let me be clear. Calls for slavery reparations are preposterous. And they will never happen. Just as Ted Bundy’s daughter is not expected to pay reparations to her murderous father’s victims, members of society will simply not pay to atone for the sins of generations before them.

To imply otherwise would be a recipe for chaos and confusion. A scenario that would, quite frankly, make us all worse off. Misled activists often cite justice to support their demands. But what justice are they referring to? And why do they get to decide what justice looks like?

King Charles is right to support a study into Royal Family slavery links. This week, Buckingham Palace published a statement that highlighted the King’s approval of independent research into the monarchy’s association with the transatlantic slave trade.

King Charles' Coronation: A guide to the BBC's two weeks of coverage
The trigger was 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. That’s right, 1689. The King is being asked to “take some responsibility” for atrocities committed by distant relatives some 334 years ago
And yet... he is right to back the inquiry. Moreover, he must engage with all levels of British society, from the staunchest Republicans to advocates for slavery reparations. To avoid doing so would render the monarchy an out-of-touch, privileged, and antiquated institution which runs away from uncomfortable realities, rather than faces them.

You might think that, with the Coronation looming, the last thing the monarch needs is another “scandal”. Palace staff have already been waiting with bated breath until this week to know whether the Sussexes would finally grace us with
their presence, after months of tawdry gossip, mud-slinging exposés, and Netflix cameras.
But King Charles has the opportunity to be a calm, wise, and measured voice in the midst of the incendiary slavery debate. He can educate, commiserate with and commemorate victims of that horrid period in history while moving the discussion on from hysterical screeching to nuanced debate.

He can question what true “justice” would look like, be it retributive or restorative, when both the slaves and slavers in question are all dead. Unlike many in our privileged classes, who cower in fear when faced with this awkward subject, the King now has a golden opportunity to draw a line in the sand.

Let me be clear. Calls for slavery reparations are preposterous. And they will never happen. Just as Ted Bundy’s daughter is not expected to pay reparations to her murderous father’s victims, members of society will simply not pay to atone for the sins of generations before them.

To imply otherwise would be a recipe for chaos and confusion. A scenario that would, quite frankly, make us all worse off. Misled activists often cite justice to support their demands. But what justice are they referring to? And why do they get to decide what justice looks like?

The uncomfortable truth is that the descendants of those involved in the transatlantic slave trade are infinitely better off than their ancestors.

They are safer, healthier, better educated, and enjoy a quality of life anyone in the 18th century could have only ever dreamed of. And what is the evidence of this? The curious lack of descendants of the transatlantic slave trade who have formed an orderly queue to trade in their powerful American, British, and French passports for an African one.

In a sane world, anyone could speak such obvious truths bluntly. But to do so now would have people wrongfully accused of racism, heresy, or gross callousness.

No one is denying that slavery was awful. Indeed, it seems the Royal Family cannot apologise enough for that abhorrent institution. But so far, the discussion has been ahistorical and unhelpful.

Slavery for one was never unique to the British Empire. It was practised by the Mayans, the Turks, the Arabs, and even the Africans themselves. It has always existed in the human condition. And to conveniently ignore the role of the British in ending the practice is both disingenuous and impractical.
Moreover, why are the people seem so concerned with enslaved black Africans in the past not dedicating their resources to free the 660,000 African slaves that still exist today? Who does it really help to harangue a 74-year-old man about an atrocity with no living victims?

Lastly, the practical implications of slavery reparations need to be addressed head-on. Do mixed-race people pay or receive reparations? Do Britons of Ashanti heritage pay reparations for their ancestors’ role in profiting from and perpetuating the slave trade? And if so, who do people pay it to? A young Jamaican boy in Golders Green? Or an Irish entrepreneur in Leeds to atone for his ancestors’ awful ordeal during the Irish potato famine?
Or even the families who lost houses , businesses and family members during the second world war------they have a greater claim than any African