Crown Jewels looted from Africa

[Birdy1066]

The massive diamond in the sceptre of the monarch is the Great Star of Africa, 530.2 carats . It was discovered in 1905 and ‘gifted’ to the British royal family by the then colonial powers.
Activists in South Africa are now demanding that it is returned. I absolutely agree with them. Amid all the pomp and ceremony of the recent funeral everyone turns a blind eye to the fact that many of the gems in the Crown Jewels were looted from Africa in one form or another under colonialism.
Africa is NOT poor. But it’s peoples are poor because it’s mineral wealth and massive riches have been torn out of it and shipped elsewhere by western countries.
The majority of the British press couldn’t give a toss about the colonialist legacy of Great Britain but it is crucially important that the issue is examined and reparations made.
Those glittering diamonds, emeralds and rubies so much admired and set in the crowns and gaudy trinkets of the rich were taken out the dirt of Africa and dipped in the blood of its people.
At the very least it’s time they were returned.
Do you agree ?

I'm not convinced about that

I don’t understand why you are posting like that? Your dgps are immigrants so you must have some understanding of how it was for them?

Yes I do but I think they were grateful to the UK

Ok that’s good. Were they welcomed wherever they chose to live?

I think many immigrants are grateful however they also work hard to contribute. Face racism or aggression. To not recognise their whole experience is to ignore what they’ve been through. And I’m fed up of the narrative that immigrants take. It just fuels racism and there’s enough of that already.

I wouldn't say they were welcomed but just glad to live somewhere free of persecution

Fair enough.

Good for them.

It wasn’t the same for every ex-colonial immigrant. Differed in various areas too.

@CurseOfBigness Ranjit Singh wielded absolute power very skilfully, he figured his sons would do the same, but they weren’t up to the task. His empire was weak after his death, and no longer provided the buffer between British territories and the Afghans, who you may or may not know were quite fond of invading (and, ooh! looting) India. And of course just on the other side of the Afghans, the Russians!

But anyway, this is just an illustration of how facile “demands” that British people pay some kind of wokish tithe for the acts of their former governments often fall apart because the people making the demands have not bothered to inform themselves of the particulars. And there’s a lot of particulars to go through.

I suspect there was a distance between the homeland of their ancestors where they had self-governance because there was an in-between bit when they were colonised.

They would have been colonised for a few generations before coming to the UK. And two world wars. So unlikely to remember a better time in their homelands.

Makes sense why they were grateful for something better. They just didn’t know that the something better was likely thanks to their ancestors and homelands too.

Glad it worked out for them.

It’s a mixed bag.

The series of deaths of all Ranjit Singh’s heirs (except the child) that followed in quick succession always seemed suspicious. Nau Nihal Singh seemed to demonstrate talent like his grandfather, Ranjit Singh, but he died in a freak accident. Sounds a bit fishy tbh.

Problem is we were not there. It’s in the interest of the victors who write the history books to claim that Ranjit Singh’s sons simply weren’t up to the task. Clearly you like that narrative. Very convenient but doesn’t quite explain why all his heirs died in swift succession to leave a child as the only one left.

You never answered my question about how Duleep Singh was treated as a child. Do you think it was justified?

It wasn’t just about a take a diamond off a child. He was separated from his mum and sent to England. Converted him from Sikhism to Christianity. Messed him up for life and death. Are you saying it’s ok to do that to a child, then showcase the diamond he signed as a prize on the crown (that’s supposed to symbolise the sanctity of justice)?!

You claim “British territories”. I question if those territories were ever justified? Won through honest means? I realise the East India Company history is very colourful and interesting to say the least…
If they were justified territories then the Indian independence movement ultimately wouldn’t have happened or succeeded. The East India Company was ripped out from the roots only after the Koh-I-Noor was in Britain, in 1857, with many at the time fearing it was a result of the diamond’s influence (Victorians had a thing about there being a crazy curse).

@Palmfrond Can I ask about your sources? Any books or literature that you’d recommend to learn more?

Yes, William Dalrymple is a very enjoyable read, he’s written quite a few books on India & the Mughals, also an excellent one on Afghanistan that touches on the Sikh Empire iirc. and he’s also written one on the Koh i Nur which I haven’t read yet.
His work is very well researched and very readable.

@Palmfrond And I disagree that highlighting the plight of the ten year old child from whom the koh I noor diamond was taken is “wokish”.

That’s not just about a diamond. It’s about a life.

A tragic life that for the most part has been conveniently forgotten. It’s bad PR that the diamond on a crown was taken from a child - and the rest of the story about his life. But it is also about discovering the truth.

I’ve read the book about the diamond. Really good.

I need to read his other works. Any one in particular that stands out as a recommendation?

I should add that William Dalrymple seems to be in agreement that the Duleep Singh story is a tragedy. Something about his story has made the British royal family fear the diamond. It’s like they’re afraid Duleep Singh will come back to haunt them all.

Another book is “The Maharajah’s Box: An Imperial Story of Conspiracy, Love and a Guru’s Prophecy” by Christy Campbell.

There have been a few BBC documentaries about his life too. They’re on YouTube, if not on the BBC sites.

The Stolen Maharajah: Britain's Indian Royal. The story of Duleep Singh, who was taken by the British as a boy and befriended Queen Victoria, until he realised what had been done to him and turned against the British Empire.

@Palmfrond Forgot to mention this book recommendation too. Royals and Rebels: The Rise and Fall of the Sikh Empire

See. My knowledge doesn’t come from the Daily Mail. But I do read their articles on the topic and am often amazed by the comments. As you said, there are a lot of particulars in this history - I recommend you definitely read the William Dalrymple one on this if you already like his style.

Like I said, it’s not wokish to highlight the plight of the ten year old child who was used to sign away the Koh I Noor and more. It’s about the discovering the truth about the diamond on the crown (that’s supposed to be symbolising sanctity and justice). And that’s just and fair.

It wasn’t the same for every ex-colonial immigrant. Differed in various areas too.

Obviously, but we so often only focus the bad stuff. I do think it's important to focus on other experiences too.

It's more complicated even than that.

Many economic historians would argue that places like Britain in the general case derived lasting economic benefits from , in that case, being part of the Roman Empire. And that this tends to apply generally to empires which expand and bring more outlying regions into their economic sphere. Trade brings wealth and often technological innovation.

It's a way of thinking that's pretty directly contradictory to the viewpoint that various British colonies were necessarily wealthier before colonization because colonization by it's very nature strips wealth resources.

Academics who take the former view tend to keep quiet about it these days but it's not because they've all changed their minds.

@CurseOfBigness
I really recommend the one about the disastrous British invasion of Afghanistan. It’s also particularly relevant to the history of the last 21 years.

The story of Dulip Singh is a personal tragedy, absolutely, and indicative of many ugly things about the British attitudes to India and Indians.
But the fact of his age at the time he signed the treaty, it’s very emotive and I don’t think particularly relevant to the outcome.

You definitely need to read William Dalrymple book on the Koh-I-Noor to be more informed.

But the fact of his age at the time he signed the treaty, it’s very emotive and I don’t think particularly relevant to the outcome.

Really? Have you not heard of something called the Rule of Law? Or the importance of just wars rather than blatant invasions and land grabs?

The emotive instinct is that something isn’t right (like, duh?!). Gut instincts here are trustworthy in saying that something is wrong when a ten year old signs a treaty like that. It needs to be probed further.

Dalip/Duleep Singh’s age challenges the legality of the treaty. Legally, he is classed as a minor. If his mum was on the treaty then at least you can argue there was parental consent. But she’s not.

Dalip/Duleep was clearly important enough to be on the treaty. So it’s reasonable that he ought to understand what he was signing away (essentially the loss of his inheritance). You kinda need to jump through wildfire burning hoops to prove a ten year old in his situation would have the capacity to understand the magnitude of signing that treaty, especially without independent counsel and/or a legal guardian with his best interests at heart.

Duleep/Dalip would argue in later life that the treaty was unlawful in both British Law and Christianity (which was important to Queen Victoria). He had a point. So it was discussed in parliament at the time - and it made some very powerful people feel too uncomfortable to acknowledge any wrongdoing so they went on the defensive (people don’t like being told they’re bad people, especially proud people). Anita Anand writes about it in her book about his daughter.

It is also emotive because it’s about taking advantage of child and that amounts to abuse. Or do you think that’s ok?

The story of Dulip Singh is a personal tragedy

He was also a royal in his own right and represented his people and homeland. William Dalrymple notes that his tragic story is still, to this day, keenly felt by the people in the Punjab, so it’s a matter of state and diplomacy too.

It’s an awful thing to do to a child, but he was used to humiliate the people into submission.

In modern day terms Duleep/Dalip Singh would likely be entitled to significant compensation, if not the crown itself.

Imagine if something like that happened to a young British royal? The people would understandably (and rightly) take it personally because of what royalty represents to the nation. So, no, it’s not just a ‘personal tragedy’ it’s more than that… he was their last maharajah. This is about the crown.

I don’t understand what your point. What do you mean?

All these things happened long before we were born and in a different world to now
In this day and age no 10 year old would in that situation , but 10 then wasn't treated the same as 10 now
It was not just the british either and if you weren't a country taking over others then you would be the one taken over
Much more recent times we have had wars wars Germany, do you expect them to pay us back or future generations to be held responsible
You can acknowledge it , learn from it but not hold people nowadays responsible
Britain itself was invaded and taken over , thats how the world was then,
All these historical things there will be loads we don't know , nit everything was documented, even things that were may not be truly factual
Its way way more complicated than britain is bad everyone else was good

@worriedatthistime ”In this day and age no 10 year old would in that situation , but 10 then wasn't treated the same as 10 now”

Have you probed your excuses?

I understand we can’t entirely judge history by modern standards, so I have probed this point. More importantly, the exploitation of children is a timelessly emotive and ethical issue - not a modern development.

The controversy of using children had already been established a few hundred years earlier in the 17th century under British law when a 9 year old was used as the main witness to secure conviction in a witch trial. That led to prosecutors using children more often. Eventually the King realised the inherent problem of using children within the legal system and intervened.
So the dodgy use of children to secure what adults want under the law had already been experienced in British law. Age limitations were applied as a preventative measure of this exploitation of both law and children under the legal system.

This means that when the ten year old royal Dalip/Duleep Singh signed the treaty in the mid 1800s, the British already knew it was legally wrong and unethical. Otherwise why would they have separated him from his mum?

It boiled down to the British believing they had the power to get away with wrongdoing. Exploitation of a child is abuse; exploitation of a royal child is royal abuse. Who do you think intervenes in royal matters?

So why do the British royal family insist on adorning the controversial kohinoor to a crown? Have they forgotten that the crown is supposed to symbolise the sanctity of justice? Their actions suggest they’re asking for divine retribution…

It was not just the british either and if you weren't a country taking over others then you would be the one taken over

But the particulars here relate to the British, not any other country.

As @Palmfrond has noted above, the royal ten year old’s father was a military and diplomatic genius. He had enforced Treaties with the British and the argument is that the British (not another country) violated the agreements (like breaking a contract). There are no grounds to bring other countries into this particular issue (at least not yet…).

It was first Dalip/Duleep Singh’s mum who claimed the British had violated the treaties established between the two empires. That’s why the British are being singled out; they broke their contract and were the beneficiaries of that violation and sacrilege.

It is obvious that treaties between empires require some trade offs. It is also obvious that breaking treaty agreements (I.e. the contract) is advantageous if one side wants to take advantage with a land grab, loot and wealth grab. That’s why breaking treaty contracts deserve to have consequences…

@worriedatthistime “Much more recent times we have had wars wars Germany, do you expect them to pay us back or future generations to be held responsible. You can acknowledge it , learn from it but not hold people nowadays responsible”

Germany's World War I Debt Was So Crushing It Took 92 Years to Pay Off

Germany were expected to pay back - and have.

Why should Britain be exempted?

I wonder how many people demanding the return of these diamonds are actively working to address issues going on today. DH is from North Africa and the level of political corruption is staggering. What are you doing about that? Are you demanding reparations from the French? Are you asking where all the money from the large scale Chinese investments is going. DH’s country is being sold out from under the feet of the population to the Middle East and Far East - do you care?
The conditions for migrant works in the Middle East is shocking what have you done?
Do you wear make up with mica in it? Are you ok with the fact that it may have been dug up by a child in India?

Do we focus on fixing the past or trying to stop it being repeated in the present?