The Commonwealth Nations and the British Monarchy News

[TLLK]

The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall will attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Rwanda | Prince of Wales

The Royal Family at the Commonwealth Day Service

Their Royal Highnesses The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall will attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) which takes place in Kigali, Rwanda during the week of 20th June. 

[PrincessOfPeace]

The Queen's Commonwealth Day Message 2022 | The Royal Family

[wannable]

The world is changing. Kate and William must educate themselves on global social progress.

They are educated on social progress....the Caribbean islands want ''money''.  IOW, any 'further' social progress is up to the islanders, not the monarchy. 

1) 99% of infrastructure was carried out by the British Empire, these have been handed over to the islanders and the BE was substituted by the Commonwealth.  The commonwealth has 100% to do with 'social' progress. 

2) The speech from the islanders = money (reparation, but this has already been paid). They want more money, it's the #1 focus to all islanders (every poor country around the world, because the pandemic stoppage affected them the most).

3) China is interested only if any of these islands have a natural resource they can invest and exploit. The commonwealth (British) aren't exploiting, they only invest in social partnership; military joint exercise, health, education and the like. i.e. historically has been this way, latest (recent years) William participating jointly Royal Navy Caribbean drug bust. i.e. Hurricane destruction, Charles fundraising to reconstruct a Hospital building, which in the first place was done by white people that handed it over to the local islanders, who weren't local but slaves (a bit out of topic, but to make my point in social progress) sold by mainly the Nigerian Monarchy (at that period of history, Britain was focused in India and Southern Africa, whilst the Portuguese were rulling the sea and purchasing slaves from the same Nigerian black royals selling their own people) to the Portuguese.

[Curryong]

How has ?reparation (for the several centuries of slavery) already been paid? (by the British)? The islands for the most part were sugar plantations owned and operated by Britons during the days of Empire. There was precious little infrastructure going on by the colonial authorities nor by the early Commonwealth. Right up until the 1950s, long after slavery, the BE islands in the Caribbean were desperately poor.

Au contraire to the assertions above China has been paying for infrastructure and other projects (for their own benefit and that of the finances of many of the local politicians who have become wealthy men.

China Regional Snapshot: The Caribbean - Committee on Foreign Affairs

As for the feelings of the local population of these islands towards the British royal family, that has been changing for a very long time. The height of West Indian immigration into the UK was during the 1950s and 1960s, where the immigrants (having been taught loyalty to the Crown and Empire) were shocked to find they suffered widespread discrimination in British society at the time. See Windrush scandal. Those emigres wrote home about their experiences.  Like other parts of the old Empire/Commonwealth including the realms, the popularity of the Royal Family has been receding for at least fifty years or more, slowly but surely.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3002807

[Curryong]

An article below discusses the question of reparations and making it clear that Britain has never paid any such bounty to any of its native citizens of the former Empire, with the exception of a former disgraceful military led massacre of protestors which occurred in India in 1919 and caused a terrific scandal within Britain. A few thousand pounds was paid on that occasion.

https://qz.com/1911783/what-the-uk-owes-in-reparations/

[wannable]

Officially 2015 the UK finished paying the Slavery Compensation Act.

These poor (commonwealth) countries are doing right (it's their own country) making business with whoever offers them the most $ (China).  As I said in previous comments about reparations; they should eye not only the USA, but I'm following a reknown historian, Nigeria who sold their own people and Portugal.  The UK is the only ones who not only paid but handed over for free all the infrasctures they carried out. 

[Curryong]

Officially 2015 the UK finished paying the Slavery Compensation Act.

Er, the Slavery Compensation Act was a British Govt Act of the 1830s which was passed to pay slave owners compensation due to slavery being abolished in the British Empire. That was in the 1830s and due to World Wars and other international events, yes the Govt didn?t stop paying it off until 2015.

However, this money was not paid to former slaves or their descendants anywhere in the Empire. That money partly went to slave OWNERS who owned sugar plantations in the West Indies, to compensate them for loss of labour in the plantations, labour which of course had formerly been completely free, and partly to other slave owners elsewhere in the Empire, bar the East India Company possessions. .

These owners (who ran a campaign for compensation from the very early 19th century once they saw which way the British Govt was moving) were 99% British, some Irish. Many of them, including the later PM William Gladstone?s family, and the father of the poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning, had become very wealthy due to the slave trade and moved into the gentry class back in Britain. They thus often became absentee landlords on their West Indies plantations and appointed agents and overseers (some of the latter very cruel) to administer these estates for them.

I don?t know where you got the idea from that Britain ever compensated any slave within the British Empire  but it is completely incorrect.

20 million pounds
The British government also paid 20 million pounds ? the equivalent of around 17 billion pounds today ? to compensate slave owners for the lost capital associated with freeing slaves. This payout was a massive 40% of the government's budget and required many bonds to slave owners to effectuate the law.30 June 2020
USA TODAY: Latest World and US News - USATODAY.com ? factcheck
Fact check: United Kingdom finished paying off debts to slave-owning families in 2015 -

The Act itself

The History Press | The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833

[Curryong]

Sir John Gladstone of Fasque, 1st Baronet, FRSE (11 December 1764 ? 7 December 1851) was a British merchant, slave owner, politician and the father of the British Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone. Through his commercial activities he acquired several large plantations in Jamaica and Guyana that were worked initially by enslaved Africans. The Demerara Rebellion of 1823, a slave revolt centred on his estates was brutally crushed by the military. The extent of his ownership of slaves was such that after slavery was abolished in 1833, he received the largest of all compensation payments made by the Slave Compensation Commission.[1] After the passage of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, Gladstone expelled most African workers from his estates and imported large numbers of Indian indentured-labourers through false promises of providing them schools and medical attention. However, upon arrival they were paid no wages, the repayment of their debts being deemed sufficient, and worked under conditions that continued to resemble slavery in everything except name.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning (1806-1861), poet and writer, was born on 6 March 1806 at Coxhoe Hall, County Durham, the first of twelve children to Edward Barrett Moulton Barrett (1785-1857), Jamaican plantation owner, and his wife Mary (1781-1828).  Her family origins are documented in Jeanette Marks? The Family of the Barrett, in R.A. Barrett?s The Barretts of Jamaica, and in The Brownings? Correspondence (hereafter BC).  Her mother?s parents were John and Arabella Graham (after 1786, Graham-Clarke) of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.  John Graham-Clarke owned Jamaican sugar plantations, ships trading between Newcastle and Jamaica, a brewery, flax spinning mills and glass works.  Her father?s parents were Charles and Elizabeth Moulton 1763-1830), who married in Jamaica 28 August 1781.  Edward Barrett Moulton Barrett?s fortune came not from his father, who soon separated from his wife, but from his maternal grandfather, Edward Barrett (1734-98), owner of Cinnamon Hill, Cornwall, Cambridge and Oxford Estates on Jamaica?s Northside: more than 10,000 acres in total (R.A. Barrett 128).  Edward Barrett?s income was ?fifty thousand a year?, his great-granddaughter told fellow poet Robert Browning (1812-1899) during the courtship recorded in their famous love letters.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning was descended from slave-owners on both sides of her family, her maternal grandfather John Graham-Clarke and her father's maternal grandfather Edward Barrett (1734-1798). Her awareness of her slave-owning ancestry deeply marked her.
The family of Robert Browning also had a history in the slave-economy. Browning's grandfather, also Robert (1749-1833), had married Margaret Tittle, whose father the Rev. John Tittle had been a slave-owner on St Kitts; Browning's father, again Robert (1782-1866) was sent to St Kitts to manage a plantation described as the Anderson estate, which the Rev. John Tittle had owned or co-owned with William Coleman (q.v., under William Coleman of Lee). In his will proved in 1834, Robert Browning's grandfather said that his son Robert [1782-1866] and daughter Margaret Morris Browning 'have had by their uncle Tittle and aunt Mill much greater portion than can be left to my other dear children' [the step-brothers and sisters of the named Robert and Margaret Morris Browning], and accordingly left them ?10 each. The inference to be drawn is that money from the slave-economy passed to the father of the poet from his mother's family.

[wannable]

That was the price Britain paid to free the slaves.

[Curryong]

That was the price Britain paid to free the slaves.

Yes, but the money did not go to the slaves or their descendants. It was a commercial decision for the loss of their property (ie slaves) and it benefited slave owning families..

Britain's colonial shame: Slave-owners given huge payouts after abolition

[wannable]

They were the first slaves freed.

The infrastructures of the British Empire were handed over for free.  It is part and parcel of the 'reparation'.  The only ones who did it. No other slaving country did anything remotely near. i.e. WWII the USA was still treating black people 3rd hand citizens. The UK wrote diaries about it, they noted every single bit and piece of their allies in England territory (and what they've seen in Europe; from Italy to France, Morocco, the shared bases).

Black historians know this, recent upstarts know this too, but are creating a new woke political career, hence want the UK to pay more, because they already paid.  They don't use this rhetoric on the USA, Portugal, Nigeria because these countries (Spain too with Cuban slaves) never repaired anything.

One of the best jewels/infrastructures given for free is in India; previously known as Viceroy's House, later by India Rashtrapati Bhawan, the official residence of the Indian President. The humongous list of infrastructures built by Britain (worldwide) is so extensive, including the history behind it all, makes a facinating read.

[Curryong]

Oh for goodness sake! Most of these ?infrastructures? as you call them, in the then British Empire, were built and used by the British long before independence of these colonies. Bridges, canals, roads, harbours etc were used to facilitate trade within the Empire for Britain?s benefit. Houses, including the one you mentioned in your post, were built to house British officials sent out from London to administer the local populations, and yes, they were efficient at it. So were the public buildings erected, and used to house the Colonial civil service.

Do you really expect that the British should have destroyed the infrastructure and properties on independence? That wouldn?t have done much for trade with Britain post independence, now would it, besides being terrible image wise, in the post Colonial period. Especially as pre- Britain joining the EU, many of the economic policies of Empire Free Trade, which operated between the wars, still stood, to Britain?s advantage.

As for people being treated as third class citizens, I don?t think the Windrush generation of West Indian migrants to Britain would have called their treatment first class. And that was in the 1960s.

I don?t know what you mean by the UK wrote diaries about slavery. Countries are countries, they are incapable of writing anything. Nor do I know what you mean by ?shared bases?. Shared with whom, and when?

Certainly Britain abolished slavery earlier than the US. However, countries like Nigeria, which was annexed by the British in the mid 19th century, was a region, part of Africa?s native kingdoms. And yes at its peak it was a major slave owning area. However, it did not resemble a modern State in any form.

Completely separate to the modern Nigeria. Good luck in trying to get compensation for centuries of  slave trading from a country that did not exist before the late 19th century (as a British colony.) As for Portugal, that country after the 16th century was a poor backwater. Britain was extremely wealthy and powerful and so paid reparations, to its slave owning families. That did not benefit the African slaves who had been imported (by British owners) to work the sugar plantations.

I think a starry eyed view of the British Empire is necessarily unbalanced. Yes, there were some good things about it but also some terrible injustices which resonate today. Countries don't become enormous powerful Empires by behaving in overwhelmingly kindly and beneficent ways to the native populations under their control. The Romans didn?t, the Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch didn?t, and neither did the British.

[Curryong]

And Britain wasn?t the first to abolish slavery. The timeline below shows the abolition of slavery and serfdom in several countries over the centuries, including European and Scandinavian ones.

Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom - Wikipedia

[Curryong]

And France abolished slavery in its overseas possessionstwice, once in 1794 and again in 1848. Note, years before Britain and the US.

French Emancipation - Atlantic History - Oxford Bibliographies

[wannable]

Twice in the midst of revolution in France.

A valid point in reference to the white Christian slavery in Scandinavia countries (previously known as barbarians)

Also, I don't understand your point about the British Empires infrastructures. It is a fact it was built by them and handed over, wherever they colonised in favor to the locals and for free (it has a cost). They could have kept it all like an embassy, turn buildings into transnational, fully international organizations, and the like, but not. IOW, the Brits could have charged the costs of all the infrastructures, as I said, giving it for free equates to reparation. These people didn't have infrastructure, they have it since the BE left and was sub by the commonwealth.  The commonwealth is social progress.

[Curryong]

The infrastructures had been used by the British in those colonies before independence. Used for Britain?s benefit in the form of international trade and to facilitate colonial officialdom.As the British Empire faded, along with British power and influence after WW2, the British Commonwealth as it then was (the British part was later quietly dropped) came to the forefront.

Without an Empire and after the EU was formed Britain was in real danger of being a third rate power, a little island off the coast of Europe, a backwater like Spain. So the Commonwealth became a prestige project, helped by Elizabeth II?s enthusiasm.

It would have been a very bad look for an old colonial power to have charged a newly independent colony money for buildings etc built by them. There would have been bad publicity all over the world including in the US, and at the UN.

Other ex colonial powers like the French and Germans also left bridges, buildings, harbour improvements in their colonial possessions for the ?new owners? after they left. It wasn?t just the British.

It was a matter of prestige, spheres of influence and trade as Empires faded into the history books, but it became especially a matter of importance to the British, as the Commonwealth and Commonwealth trade was considered extremely important before Britain joined the EU. British governments may have had some sentimental ties to countries in the old Empire, especially Tory administrations, but countries? rulers rarely do things out of the goodness of their hearts.

Charging for infrastructure in other countries is the sort of thing businesses do (and China nowadays, which never had a modern colonial empire) not ex colonial powers. As I?ve pointed out, a lot of other factors were considered more important.

[wannable]

Thank you but they've all been ''constructed'' then ''used'', hence my repeated comments about infrastructures (worldwide carried out by the British Empire and handed over for FREE to be owned and used by the ex slaves).

Just a recent example: Jamaica  (W&K tour) they went to ex British Empire infrastructures; King's House (also known as Government House) inhabited by the GG of Jamaica, who is Jamaican (and black). It was constructed by Sir Charles Archibald Nicholson, a white English architect and designer.  This person has a huge list of buildings under his CV.

1872 King's House was constructed by Englishman Sir Charles Archibald Nicholson

[wannable]

^ The above is the second house the British Empire constructed, previously they constructed in the 1600 hundred's the 1st house at Royal Port (Jamaica) which was considered the first capital of Jamaica.  Other than these 2 emblematic buildings, the BE constructed the ''entire'' village (s) of these colonized countries. 

I think the commonwealth will endure many many years to come, but will it remain 54, not sure IF social partnerships are destroyed by them (colonized countries politicians, insisting in give us money rather than social progress) rather than the monarchy, i.e. William and Kate clearly stated in W speeches (he repeated it like several times) they are only interested in 'serving' (helping), that is what the Commonwealth is about.  There isn't interest in exploiting (China) only helping out in what the cw is all about (read cw official website).

[Curryong]

I stated in my last two posts the reasons for these constructions in colonial times and why they were handed over on independence. Of course they were handed over ?free?! These colonial administrations weren?t run like a corporate business worried about its balance sheets! Plus, btw, these places were constructed to be used for as long as the Empire lasted, in the minds of many Britons that could be as long as the Roman Empire, 400 years or so. They weren?t thinking of the well-being of future black GGs and PMs in the 18th and 19th centuries!

So were buildings in the ex colonial possessions of France, Holland, Belgium, Spain, including various houses in the Caribbean, handed over at independence. None of those countries charged the new native governments for them. If the British had charged money for them few of these poorer West Indies and African countries, nor India which had a huge number of public buildings built by the British, would have joined the Commonwealth as a matter of principle, denying the British an extremely important large organisation as it continued the prestige of Britain and its monarchy into the modern era.

Yes the Commonwealth will continue, though maybe not in its present form with the realms gone in the next twenty or so years, I would say. It will become less and less Anglocentric. Moreover, I can practically guarantee that Charles will be its last ceremonial head. In another 20 years or so when he dies they won?t be choosing another royal, whatever William states about his aim of ? serving?helping?. I?d like to know in fact just who these royal tours are ?serving? and ?helping? as it sure isn?t the inhabitants of the countries visited!

I agree that China isn?t interested in helping any other country but itself in any way, shape or form. It wants to be a global super-power and that?s its main goal.

I don?t need to read Commonwealth PR on its website. I grew up knowing about the Commonwealth.

[wannable]

The politicians know what the commonwealth is about, yet they ask William for ''moneys''. Yesterday: a Kenyan politician.

*****

Does Kenya still have slavery?
The Global Modern Slavery Index estimates that 328,000 people are held in conditions of modern slavery in Kenya.

*****

Who first started slavery in Africa?
The Portuguese
The transatlantic slave trade began during the 15th century when Portugal, and subsequently other European kingdoms, were finally able to expand overseas and reach Africa. The Portuguese first began to kidnap people from the west coast of Africa and to take those they enslaved back to Europe.

*****

What countries still have slaves?
As of 2022, the countries with the most slaves were: India (8 million), China (3.86 million), Pakistan (3.19 million), North Korea (2.64 million), Nigeria (1.39 million), Indonesia (1.22 million), Democratic Republic of the Congo (1 million), Russia (794,000) and the Philippines (784,000).

[Curryong]

I have never said that slavery doesn?t exist in Commonwealth countries. It?s clear that it does. And it?s also clear that the Commonwealth Office based in London does very little about it. Nor does it ever come up in CHOGMs meetings. So one could ask what is the present Commonwealth doing about this great injustice. And how do senior royal tours help this running sore?

And the meaning of modern day slavery is often too broad and needs to be defined.

What is modern slavery? - Anti-Slavery International

Of course ancient and medieval empires took part in the slave trade. However, why would citizens of the Commonwealth worry about Portuguese activities in the 15th and 16th centuries or ask it for compensation? It was British slave traders and British ships that transported slaves to the West Indies. Hence the recent protests during royal tours.

And if we are talking about historical wrongs, the English monarchs were involved right up to ***?s bow in licensing Royal sponsored Companies to indulge in slave trading activities among other things from the time of Elizabeth I and going on through Charles II?s reign. So they were in it pretty early, got some financial rewards from it and approved it. That?s what recent conversations with William were about.

For instance

Royal African Company - Wikipedia

And this

The royal family made its fortune from slave trade  - Readers' Letters | The Scotsman

?The slave trade was pioneered under the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. She allowed John Hawkins to kidnap slaves from Africa and sell them in the Caribbean. The profits were tremendous.?

?It was under Charles II that the Crown financed the African slave trade. The royal family were owners of The Royal Gambia Company, the Royal Adventurers Company and the Royal African Company.?

And
?The restored Stuart dynasty saw slavery as a way to overtake the Dutch as the undisputed masters of the Atlantic Triangle. The Company of Royal Adventures was given a monopoly over most of the West Coast of Africa. This was to last 1000 years. Charles allowed the loan of several ships for the venture. For this Charles was given two thirds of all gold mines expropriated. This gave the Crown financial independence from Parliament.

The Treaty of Utrecht (which ceded Gibraltar to the UK) also gave Britain the monopoly over the Atlantic slave trade. The fortunes made from this human misery directly benefits the Windsor family today.?

And

What are the British monarchy?s historical links to slavery? | Monarchy | The Guardian

?Between 1690 and 1807, an estimated 6 million enslaved Africans were transported from west Africa to the Americas on British or Anglo-American ships. The slave trade was protected by the royal family and parliament.

It is difficult to estimate just how much of the current royal family?s wealth is owed to slavery, but it is understood that the profits of the slave trade funded the Treasury, as well as Britain?s industries, buildings, railways, roads and parks.?

[Curryong]

And actually the Portuguese weren?t the First Nation to ?start slavery in Africa, though they were among the first to bring slaves to Europe. It started long long before then with Moors, North African traders, taking back slaves to their home ports. There is some evidence that Romans were also trading in slaves in Africa.

Slavery in Africa - Wikipedia

[TLLK]

The article regarding the Cambridges is already shared in their forum. Please continue discussion on that topic in this thread.

The Cambridges Official Foreign Visits & Tours Part 2 Feb. 2022 to present

[TLLK]

The Government of Jamaica is to begin the process to become a republic by 2025 beginning with a comprehensive review of the nation's 1962 Constitution.
Constitutional Reform Committee To Facilitate Transition To Republic ? Jamaica Information Service

A Constitutional Reform Committee (CRC), to include representatives from the Government, Parliamentary Opposition, relevant experts, and the wider society, is to be appointed to ensure Jamaica?s smooth transition to a Republic.

Minister of Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Hon. Marlene Malahoo Forte, made the announcement during her 2022/23 Sectoral Debate presentation in the House of Representatives on Tuesday (June 7).

Jamaican Government Gives 2025 Timeline to Become Republic - CNW Network

Minister Malahoo Forte explained that Jamaica?s republic process, however, will include a two-thirds majority vote in parliament along with a referendum.

?The reform work to be done in order to achieve the goal of a new Constitution require cooperation between the government and the parliamentary opposition, as well as the seal of the people,? she explained.

The timeline for the republic status in 2025, when the next general election is due in Jamaica.

[TLLK]

A new poll taken in Australia shows at this point in time,  that the majority of the nation wish to retain the monarchy.

New poll suggests majority of Australians want to retain the monarchy

A majority of Australians are in favour of the nation remaining a monarchy instead of transitioning to a republic, according to the first poll conducted since the death of the Queen.
The poll, conducted by Roy Morgan yesterday, found that 60 per cent of people want to remain in the monarchy ? an increase of five per cent since last November ? while 40 per cent would prefer to be a republic.
There were 1012 people surveyed by SMS for the poll.