The history of slavery continues to haunt the British royal family, as King Charles’s upcoming state visit to Kenya brings the painful aspects of the past relationship with Britain to the forefront. The legacy of colonialism, coupled with calls for apologies and reparations, has become an inescapable topic of discussion. However, the King’s ability to deliver a symbolic apology is limited by his role as a constitutional monarch, requiring the government’s approval. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has rejected calls for an apology and reparations, stating that revisiting history is not the way forward.
The issue of the royal family’s involvement in slavery has garnered attention in recent years. The Dutch King Willem-Alexander publicly apologized for his country’s role in the slave trade, highlighting the financial gains his own royal family had made from slavery. Buckingham Palace has also supported an independent study into the slave trade and the British monarchy, set to be completed in 2026. Additionally, recent research has shed light on the British Royal Family’s attitudes towards slavery in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
According to Prof Suzanne Schwarz, the royal family’s stance on slavery was multifaceted and mirrored the divided opinions of wider British society. Her research revealed that two close relatives of George III, the Duke of Clarence and the Duke of Gloucester, played opposing roles in the campaigns for and against abolishing the slave trade. The Duke of Gloucester emerged as a pivotal figure in the abolitionist movement, working closely with leading abolitionists and showcasing his support through speeches and parliamentary bills. In contrast, the Duke of Clarence defended the use of slave labor on economic grounds and actively opposed efforts to end the slave trade.
The complex relationship between the royal family and slavery extends to George III himself. While his reign was interrupted by illness, conflicting evidence suggests that he opposed parliamentary moves to abolish the slave trade. Prof Schwarz argues that George III may have distinguished between his personal and public morality, sympathizing with the moral condemnation of slavery while justifying it on military and economic grounds.
The portrayal of royal attitudes towards slavery during this era has received unprecedented scrutiny, with experts recognizing the significance of examining pro-slavery viewpoints. However, the question arises of whether past actions can be judged against present-day values and whether individuals should be held accountable for the actions of their ancestors. In response to this, there have been instances of family initiatives, such as the descendants of William Gladstone apologizing for their family’s links to slave ownership.
For modern-day royals, the path forward lies in acknowledging the importance of diversity and historic injustices. King Charles has consistently emphasized these values in his visits, both domestically and abroad. Prof Jones believes that opening up the history and allowing academic researchers access to the royal archives will signal the King’s commitment to addressing the issue and abhorrence towards slavery.
As the royal family addresses the complex legacy of slavery, it is crucial to navigate these discussions without becoming entangled in political debates. The focus should be on recognizing the past, educating the public, and understanding the contradictions within history. By doing so, the modern-day royals can contribute to a broader conversation about the impact of slavery and work towards a more inclusive and equitable future.
