The Crown’s Silence, a book by the historian Brooke Newman, follows the Guardian’s 2023 Cost of the crown report, which explored the British monarchy’s hidden ties to transatlantic slavery.
The book reveals that by 1807, when Britain abolished the slave trade in its empire, the British crown had become the world’s largest buyer of enslaved people, buying 13,000 men for the army for £900,000.
Of course, we’ve the obvious difference between “The Crown” and “The Monarchy” to deal with here which an American doesn’t seem to get.
But there’s also this:
Prior to the abolition of the slave trade within the British Empire in 1807, there was much debate about the legal status of the West India Regiments’ soldiers, and whether they were subject to slave laws or not. But on discharge from the regiments the men were free and in some cases awarded pensions and other support.
In 1807, all serving black soldiers who had been recruited as slaves were freed under the Mutiny Act of that year. The act established that the black soldiers were freemen and should be treated like any other soldiers.
It’s probably more accurate to say they were “bought out of slavery” than that they were bought as slaves. Wonder if our American lassie has made that distinction…..
Still, we know what’s going to happen here. “Crown” “Monarch” slavery, soldiers, so pay reparations REEEEEE!
.
But the brown people still practice it.
Sadly, so do the whites:
https://archive.ph/mM4ZM
WTF is it about Gloucestershire?
Have you been there? There’s some civilised bits like Cheltenham, Gloucester. Then there’s nice small market towns not far from Oxford and Swindon that got gentrified like Cirencester, Fairford, Stow and Burford. Most of the rest of it is dualling banjos/fuck your cousins.
It’s covered in the book The Black Redcoats and you can listen to the author talk about it on The History Rage podcast. A fascinating story.
Is it worth paper or Kindle? I generally prefer Kindle, but if there’s maps, illustrations, I go for paper.
The fruitbattery is everywhere.
Ive fairly recently seen Murkans advocating for Albertan secession from Canada because King Sausage fingers still kwns 90% of Canada.
There have been plenty of Albertans discussing secession from Canada…..
Indeed, lots of Canadians are somewhat fed up with the Trudeau / Carney trajectory, however if they are doing so because King Sausage Fingers still owns Canada- hmmm.
It was the Boomers wot fucked Canada. Those loveable coffin-dodgers decided to turbofuck younger Canadians by handing over their country to infini-Jeets. Canada is now India 2.0, including the designated shitting beaches, and young white people have been cheated out of opportunities to earn a decent living, afford a house or start a family because Jeets keep wages low and ruthlessly nepotise in favour of other Jeets.
Canadia is done. Only question for the future is whether they’ll be owned by India, China or the USA
Indeed, there have been Albertans stood for election on a leave Canada for association with the US platform. Canada is heavily dependent on tax revenues from Alberta & Albertans feel they get little in return.
I know someone’s been living there. They’re about 50 miles from the US border where taxes are far lower & they wouldn’t suffer from.niggling Canadian restrictions on how they live their lives.
It will soon become impolite, then rude and then offensive to even use the word ‘slave’. The term ‘enslaved person’ is available and you better use it.
Historic example: you can’t use shortened versions of pakistani or person with spasticitis, although in the case of slave the longer term came later
Slavs to be renamed “people of tracksuits”
If they keep banging on about “enslaved” people, they need to be reminded that the people who did the enslaving of Africans were Africans.
Not long ago I saw a review of a book by an American historian on our civil war. She had persuaded herself that it was a Protestants vs Roman Catholics religious war. How could anyone be so dim?
Ever since, and not entirely irrationally, I have avoided American historians writing about our history – or indeed, that of other countries. They seem, sometimes, to be unable to grasp that other places in other times were different from the modern USA. Bit of a handicap for a historian, you might think.
We don’t hate stupidity enough.
They seem to have enough trouble with their own history.
I had a protracted argument with some dim Yank on who wrote their Declaration of Independence. He couldn’t accept that they weren’t Americans. And that was the point of the ef-ing war. And they couln’t have “renounced” their “oaths of loyalty” to the King, (in the unlikely event they’d made them) because by definition oaths can’t be unilaterally renounced. Again, that’s the ef-ing point of them. The colonists don’t actually become legally Americans until the Paris Treaty. Until then they’re under British legal jurisdiction, whether the Brits had the capability to enforce it or not
“in the unlikely event they’d made them” Those who’d served in the army had e.g. Geo. Washington.
We’re now 200 years away from it. Can we just fucking drop it?
The monarchy are just irrelevant cosplay now. Not actual power. Even if they made money from slaves back then, it ain’t there now. The Duchy of Cornwall is worth about a billion quid. James Dyson is worth more than that. In 1926, Prince Harry would have had babes queueing up to be married to a prince, even if he was a fucking loon. But he got an ageing C list actress.
I’ve met one of his ex’s, and she was hot hot hot. I think she also realised what marriage would entail, and that she could do better.
I’ll bet a lot of girls thought “prince… money” then spent a load of time with him and thought he was a bit thick and a bit mental.
Like a mate of mine who dumped his hot girlfriend. Turned out she also came with far too much crazy to go with it.
Often the way.
The Rhodesian bint always looked like a sensible lass who probably goes like a Duracell bunny.
But didn’t he also go out with several other mad actresses/entertainers? Seem to remember one of his exes whacking her boyfriend with a frying pan, and another one topping herself (long after).
Seemed to be a long-running problem with the type he usually goes for, not just the one who actually snagged him.
As his granddad (allegedly) explained to him: “Actresses are for stepping out with, not marrying.”
shouldn’t the “allegedly” come before the “granddad”?
No! You should be thrashed.
He couldn’t get rid of the massive chip on his shoulder, so all the eligible hot babes could see it & go ‘no thanks!’. La Markle saw a good grift and it’s worked well for her so far even if the is devastated by what the DM says about her.
Be careful what you wish for! Abolish the Monarchy and you’ll open a can of worms. Demands for a written constitution would be overwhelming, and the negotiations would be protracted. Any referendum could be rigged. And the left-liberal establishment would include all sorts of undesirable items in the new Constitution – such as restrictions on free speech, a right to abortion on demand, protections for muslims, trannies etc….
Meanwhile, the cosplay element will transfer to the President and her family…
I don’t care how many darkies the monarchy owned.
Ms Newman, if you find history disgusting, perhaps you should find a new trade.
Presentism. That’s the problem. It’s fatal to a historian. Shouts incompetence.
Here’s my guess about slavery: people generally didn’t hate it so much to leave the plantation. The alternative was… going and picking cotton someplace else.
And my second guess is that the slaves that left the plantations were people being treated badly. There were slave owners that forced themselves on women and were unnecessarily violent with slaves, but a lot of them looked after their slaves, treated them as a working asset.
My theory is: if your ancestors were slaves, they were pathetic losers who should have fought harder.
I like winners and freedom.
More often it was because their leader surrendered while *they* were still fighting – the pathetic losers were dead by then.
Good of you to join us here, Mr. President!
It did sound familiar.
Buying slaves out of slavery had been the standard method of freeing slaves for millennia. It’s mentioned in the Bible, it’s mentioned in Roman writings. The later 1833 Act just did that through mass compulsary purchase.
AND, that’s exactly where the US ran into trouble. An error in our founding.
Compensated emancipation was discussed in US. Problem – insurmountable problem – was that the US was paid for by tariffs. Tariffs paid mostly on British goods. Paid by Southerners. Read: slave owners. So compensated emancipation of slaves would have to be paid for by . . . slave owners.