In November 2023, while on his first visit to Kenya as a monarch, King Charles gave one of those empty speeches in which he acknowledged the past atrocities committed by Great Britain and its colonial legacy. He said there were ‘no excuses‘ for it, yet did not apologize! He told guests that “the wrongdoings of the past are a cause of the greatest sorrow and the deepest regret.” (No Apology from King Charles III in Kenya). This year, at the Commonwealth Summit which took place last week in in Samoa, the leaders of the Commonwealth somehow expected an apology from the King of Great Britain about slavery, the part that Great Britain played in the slave trade, and possible reparations. Has anything changed in a year? It would seem that these Commonwealth leaders had not paid attention to the King’s visit to Kenya, or maybe they thought it was going to be different? If King Charles III had not apologized for the atrocities committed by the British during the colonial era in Kenya, what made them think that he was going to apologize for slavery? or that they could now talk about reparations?
This year, the King of the British made another empty speech at the Commonwealth Summit, telling everyone how the “most painful aspects of our past continue to resonate“, as if we did not know, for our ancestors were on the receiving end, their pains still resonate with us. He added, “None of us can change the past. But we can commit, with all our hearts, to learning its lessons and to finding creative ways to right inequalities that endure.” What does this even mean? What is Britain going to commit to, with all its heart? Learning its lessons? Which lessons? What lessons can one learn when one’s coffers have been filled to the brim from others’ pain? What lessons can one learn when because of the slave trade, one has become one of the richest empires in the world? Those lessons are definitely different from the ones the enslaved and the victims have learned. From this, it is clear that the British monarch is truly mocking us!
Below is an excerpt from the BBC telling us, why King Charles III cannot quite apologize for slavery!
=====
The “most painful aspects of our past continue to resonate“, King Charles III said this week to Commonwealth leaders in Samoa, as arguments about reparations and apologies over the slave trade rumbled once again.
That’s become an occupational hazard for the Royal Family, as it can’t shake off questions about the long shadow of historic links to slavery.
It’s even more pointed in a forum such as the Commonwealth summit, with leaders representing some of the countries most affected by the legacy of colonialism and slavery.
But even if the King had a personal belief that there should be a symbolic apology or a commitment to reparations, he wouldn’t have been able to deliver it [as if he could think otherwise, when his family and entire kingdom has benefited from it]. Monarchs speak on the advice of ministers – and on a question of such political sensitivity, his speeches will have to stay within the boundaries of government policy. In other words, he has to stick to the script.
… “None of us can change the past,” the King said diplomatically, neatly aligning with Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s line that we “can’t change our history”.
… As head of state, the King is the symbolic focus of calls for such redress, whether that’s financial reparations or some other ways addressing of historic wrongs. That’s not going to go away.
That’s awkward but he’ll take that in his stride, as it’s a political decision that he can’t change and reparations for the past seem unlikely when current UK budgets are under intense stress. [their coffers were filled from your pain, now that you ask for something, their budgets are under stress].
But there’s also the more complicated question of how much the monarchy, as both a family and an institution, might have a closer responsibility.
For example, the Royal African Company, founded in the 17th Century under royal patronage, has been claimed as transporting more enslaved people from Africa across the Atlantic than any other company.
But history, like people, can be full of contradictions. When it came to Britain’s pioneering efforts to abolish slavery, in the early 19th Century, research by historian Prof Suzanne Schwarz found the Royal Family itself was divided. The nephew of George III, the Duke of Gloucester, was one of the most important campaigners to abolish slavery – a tireless opponent of the cruel trade and a supporter of the Royal Navy’s efforts to intercept slave ships. But before the royals feel the clouds lifting, George III’s son, the future William IV, was one of the most enthusiastic defenders of slavery.
…
African Heritage 