A Monarchy Based on Slavery

An institution that became immeasurably wealthy through the slave trade now proves itself irreformable as it profits from contemporary racism. It’s beyond time to ditch the monarchy and create a republic.

As the coronation looms it soaks up media attention and generates an ink-truck of press moronism and deference. As most of us struggle with bills and rent and food it’s revealed that Elizabeth II and Charles III extracted cash payments worth more than £1.2bn from two hereditary estates that pay no tax at all, in addition to the millions they receive in public funding for their official duties. In 2022, they received £21m each from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall respectively. New research now shows that Charles, who receives about £86m a year in public money, is technically in line for an extra £250m a year in taxpayer money, according to the generous terms of a funding settlement introduced by David Cameron as prime minister in 2011. The tabloids are in an orgy of sycophancy and outrage simultaneously boosting Kate and savaging Meghan. Here in some bittersweet hagiography they manage to discover that Kate’s ancestors played a part in abolishing slavery.

As the fawning/outrage builds in momentum we realise that some people are furious at Meghan for not coming to the Coronation because they wanted Meghan to come to the Coronation so they could be furious at her for coming to the Coronation.

Displacement-rage options are being discussed but will probably settle on Meghan Markel even though she’s not here given that a) one of our newspapers published an article fantasising about dragging her through the streets and pelting her with excrement, and b) their sister TV channel joked about hanging Archie off a balcony.

This industrial-scale hate-mongering is off the scale – but it’s a handy distraction from the awkward stories being unearthed about the Royals.

The monarchy is knee-deep in slavery. Last week the Guardian published 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. The document states that £1,000 of shares were given to William III in 1689. The shares were in the Royal African Company (RAC), which captured, enslaved and transported thousands of African people, with the monopoly power of a royal charter. The document clearly bears the handwritten name of the now notorious Edward Colston. That’s the same Colson who was toppled and chucked in Bristol harbour.

After Colston transferred the Royal African Company shares, William III became governor of the company and earned a massive income from it. The royal charter gave the Royal African Company a protection monopoly for slavery from west Africa.

Now, the Slave Voyages database, which collects information from historical data reveals that in the 60 years of its operations, the RAC transported 186,827 enslaved people to America. They estimate that more than 38,000 people died during the journeys.

Despite the best efforts of the Daily Mail to re-write royal history as that of abolitionism, the reality is that on July 5 1799 the Duke of Clarence, the future William IV, stood up in the House of Lords and made a passionate speech in defence of slavery. He began by outlining the long history of the trade in England, stretching back more than 230 years. He noted how vital it had been to expanding both economy and Empire. And then he came to the transporting of slaves themselves – the infamous “Middle Passage”. His appeal worked. Abolition was not passed in 1799. Across almost three centuries, 12 British monarchs sponsored, supported or profited from Britain’s involvement in slavery.

It’s in this context that the relentless assault on Markel should be read. The press behaviour – acts as a conduit – a carrier and form of legitimisation for racist tropes. It’s worth remembering that the press In England speculated that Markel’s “rich and exotic DNA” would thicken the Windsors’ “watery, thin blue blood”; described Meghan as “(almost) straight outta Compton”; discussed how her family “went from cotton slaves to royalty”; and compared her newborn son to a chimpanzee. The underlying message of this coverage – was that Meghan, the daughter of a Black woman descended from enslaved Africans, would taint the British monarchy.

As England wakes to the realities of Brexit, this narrative of legitimised racism is born out through the rhetoric of the Home Secretary which are even too repulsive for some senior Conservatives.

Dr Brooke Newman, author of The Queen’s Silence, has written: “The current queen’s distant ancestors launched England into the trans-Atlantic slave trade and are responsible for the enslavement and death of millions of African captives. The Royal African Company represented the culmination of over a century of small-scale slave trading initiatives endorsed by the English monarchy, beginning with Elizabeth I’s support of John Hawkins’ slaving expeditions in the 1560s to deliver African captives to Spanish America.”

As the historian Maya Jasanoff has noted, “Scratch almost any institution with roots in Britain’s era of global dominance and you’ll draw imperial blood.” And none more so than the British monarchy.

A YouGov poll this week showed that most people care very little about the Coronation – it comes as just four private street parties have been registered in Wales for the event next month. There are three live events planned in Edinburgh. But we must move from widespread indifference – even in the face of an avalanche of media attention – to actual resistance to the institutions of monarchy and the entrenched hierarchy and feudalism they represent. The obscene wealth – and its origins built on slavery are just the latest revelations that should confirm anyone’s republicanism.

As Allan Armstrong wrote announcing the protest on Calton Hill on the day of the coronation: 

“On May 6th, the UK state-orchestrated coronation of Charles takes place in London.  Charles represents the pinnacle of the UK’s political order, based on the sovereignty of the Crown-in-Westminster.  Our Republic is organising a protest on Edinburgh’s Calton Hill, a place with a long tradition of democratic dissent.  The 2023 Declaration of Calton Hill, initiated by RIC, has been drawn up to win support for the assertion of the republican, democratic sovereignty of the Scottish people. Our protest on May 6th anticipates the withdrawal of participation in the UK state’s directly imposed institutions and extra-constitutional, non-violent, direct action until we complete Scotland’s Democratic Revolution.”

The coronation should be an opportunity to unleash rage against this institution and this broken grotesque country.



Comments (13)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published.

  1. SleepingDog says:

    Indeed, there are signs of an irreconcilable split between Imperialist and Postcolonial Unionists, mapping ever more tightly on to royalist and republican divisions. The Imperialist-Royalist faction seem especially deluded in expectation of foreign support beyond the corrupt and oppressive royalist states it cultivates (oil for arms etc). I imagine the USAmerican cultural sector has for over a decade been given the green light to take down royalism, while cinematic blockbusters from India and China make hay with stock British villains based on solid historical fact.

    The Guardian’s pivot to take on Empire head on falls into the second type, Postcolonial Republican Unionism, defining itself more negatively in terms of what it rejects. A fine, reflective piece by Gary Younge still doesn’t go far enough. The full implications are vast and the establishment edifice of lies massive.

    Incidentally, I’ve just finished watching the BBC’s repeat of Elizabeth R (1971) starring Glenda Jackson. Personal torture chamber, vicious sectarianism, toxic Court politics, state piracy, invasion of Ireland, forever wars, bankrupt government, military adventurism, crushing of democratic shoots, but no slavery (though naval impressment, still on the books, would count as modern slavery). Yet to the Imperial-Royalists, the stuff of Fan History. Perhaps Elizabeth endangered the royalist project simply by taking too long to die. The Revolution was less than two generations off.

  2. Wul says:

    The point is often made that we can’t judge actions of the past, by the values of today. After all, slavery was “perfectly legal” when the Royals were creaming profit from the trade in human flesh.

    However, the fact that their slave-derived wealth still pumps freely through the arteries of the un-dead corpse of British monarchy means that they must still be held accountable for their past adventures. You can’t have continuity of wealth and status without continuity of accountability.

    If King Charles were to renounce his (and all the other Royal parasite’s) slave-wealth, make reparations as best he could, and settle for living on the bog-standard UK State Pension then he would have my blessing. ( And no fancy Coronation crap either. Maybe a wee disco, sandwiches and cake at his Day Care centre…nothing too show-offy)

  3. St Mary of Truth says:

    Thank you! It’s good to know ppl like you exists! The RF family is evil,everything about Charles and Camilla is Diana’s blood ! Its crying against them! I promise them, The RF with their evil media will laugh at the wrong side of their cheeks! Karma works God punishes evil ppl to their 3rd and 4th generation! The tabloids, the RF and all the Tories behind attacks on Meghan will pay for their evil one day!

    1. Colin says:

      You sond like a expect on evil

  4. Phil Vellender says:

    You write atrociously. Clumsy, relative and plain awful.

    1. Thanks Phil, I’m a big fan of your work ; )

  5. Mary Van Helsing says:

    The Calton protest sounds great till you see who the speakers are. Members of our current scotgov are not going to give this a lot of credibility in the circumstances.

    1. I didnt think the Scottish Govt were asked to give anyone credibility Mary?

      1. Mary Van Helsing says:

        Sorry I will rephrase that. The presence of members of the discredited Scottish government at this demo removes any credibility that it might otherwise have had.

        1. Alec Lomax says:

          When you see the line-up per se, where is the credibility? By all means go on the march, there’s no law which says you have to hang around listening to a wheen o’ blethers.

  6. Colin says:

    Monarch Britain abolished slavery in 1833 Republic USA needed a civil war to abolished it in 1865 that is the facts

  7. Ann Rayner says:

    Harriet Martineau cannot be the ancestor of anyone as she had no children!

    1. SleepingDog says:

      @Ann Rayner, yes, I noticed that too. Makes one wonder about the Daily Mail’s grip on reality. And so what? Many people will have slaveholders among their ancestors too. Clutching at straws.
      The point that the Guardian has been making is that many people who advocated abolition in British territories were also hypocrites, or still openly racist in various ways, including its own founding fathers. After all, compensation was a massive payday for many of these vile people.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.