As a Black American living in London…..the British monarchy’s close historical ties to the slave trade and colonialisation. Modern royals still hold enormous wealth, much of which was first acquired through the profits of slavery.
Well, no, not really. Liz I certainly invested in some slaving voyages. Chas II equally so. But the Royal African Company never really did throw off vast profits. That assiento and the South Sea Company didn’t quite work out.
The British royal family isn’t, in fact, all that rich by the standards of the aristocracy. And what wealth there is near all comes from holdings of British land. Not really something created by slavery really.
I pray such a dialogue would also lead the monarchy to finally issue a formal apology for institutional racism, and to start seriously exploring how it can pay reparations to the descendants of the victims of slavery and exploitation at home and in the former British colonies.
Idiocy. Those descendants – whether in the US, Caribbean, or Britain – are better off than the descendants of those not enslaved in Africa. What damn reparations?
No, not saying that the slaves were better off, but their descendants are.
reparations to the descendants of the victims of slavery
Surely, the septics have already spent trillions in reparations via welfare, affirmative action and, more recently, ignoring crime? Yet ‘Black America’ remains a failed state.
The late HMQ ( and I assume Chas3 now does) owned large swathes of Manhattan. I am waiting for the New York DAs to come after the Windsors like they do Trump.
Reparations were made in blood and treasure in the 19thC by the Royal Navy suppressing the slave trade and supporting the economies of the Caribbean islands.
If this black American living in London had learned a little bit of history, he would have realised that it was black Africans who initially enslaved other black Africans and sold them on.
Slightly off topic, researching my family history, I discovered one of my ancestors was killed whilst in the East Africa Squadron of the Royal Navy, fighting slavers, so reparations should go both ways. I will be delighted to receive a suitable sum from this black American for the death of a family member, in cash, or cheque, and will even accept a postal order.
If my ancestors were such pathetic losers they got sold into slavery by their own people, I probably wouldn’t boast about that fact 300 years later, lol.
“And what wealth there is near all comes from holdings of British land. Not really something created by slavery really.”
Some descendants from the Anglo-Saxons would like to have a word with you re 1066 and the aftermath.. 😛
I do find it extremely funny that all those Black-Americans studiously ignore the whole Arabic Trade, allegedly still ongoing, in the whole matter.
“The late HMQ owned large swathes of Manhattan” Did she indeed? How is that known?
No, not saying that the slaves were better off, but their descendants are.
In some cases the slaves themselves were better off, given that they were already slaves of black W African owners. Would you rather be sold to an Arab (and castrated); or shipped off to the New World, where you might have an outside chance at becoming a house n****r? Neither option is particularly attractive, admittedly, but remember they were starting from the position of already being a slave, and the people responsible for that condition were other Africans.
@Grikath
“Some descendants from the Anglo-Saxons would like to have a word with you re 1066 and the aftermath.. ”
The Anglo-Saxon economy had a lot of slaves and it’s the Normans who abolished it in England. Dublin was the slave-trading capital of Western Europe about this time – the Norse rulers there were more keen on the whole slavery thing.
Obviously the Normans did a major land-grab on England…and then on Wales and Ireland. But unlike the Norse, their wealth didn’t come from selling English peasants into slavery.
The crown didn’t restart until the restoration, all wealth before that was presumably forfeit. And as far as ancestry goes there was a break post-Stuart and post-Hanover, so no persistent historical link there. Nothing devolves onto the current royals except signing the bill for abolition.
Oh, and IYDLIFO.
It’s probably worse than that, Chris. Before slavery was invented, if one people came across another people & saw no benefit in them they’d generally kill them so removing a potential threat. Humans aren’t particularly pleasant in the wild.
Dearieme
Sorry I missed your question yesterday. I read it in several newspapers about 40 years ago and in fact it used to get mentioned on the news. It was to do with calculating the Civil List.
There were also comparisons with the wealth of various royal heads and there were in fact accounts available ( does the Royal Household still publish them ?)
Queens Juliana & Beatrix came out on top with their shares in Royal Dutch Shell ( clue is in the name ), with Elizabeth a way behind, but with most of her wealth in lucrative property. This of course was before the days of Internet billionaires.
If it’s to do with calculation of the civil list it may well be bollocks – the Manhattan real estate probably belonged to the Crown Estate not the Queen.
Dearieme, yup.. Manhattan was sold by the dutch State to the english Crown, not the King.
As far as I can tell the island of Manhattan as a whole has never been private property of anyone in the usual sense.