Kohinoor Diamond

[KohinoorDiamond]

Anyone know what’s happening with the Kohinoor diamond?

Why Queen Camilla's Coronation Crown Is Causing So Much Controversy

That helps solve the kohinoor’s provenance problem: mother earth.

Absolutely this. The reality is that civilisations, empires, societies grabbed land/resources through conquest or diplomacy over centuries. It still happens now except that its via technology and political power.

Whats happened has happened and it could have easily been the UK who had resources taken/land grabbed. Countries have been formed from previous invasions and regimes taking place and will change again in centuries to come.

Some rather uninformed concepts here. I believe the kohinoor diamond was given to Queen Victoria. It is claimed by several countries and seems to have a complicated past. I am fed up with woke calling for things to be returned and lies about ‘stolen’ items

Get a life

I read an article not so long ago, or it could have been a book review, that discussed this. It seems it wasn’t simply taken from Singh. In exchange he received a generous stipend from the crown. He was able to build a large mansion and live a good life and raise a family of 2/3 daughters. He did run off if I remember and his family still looked after. Other articles I read make no mention of this part of his story.

@bellac11 Do you think the kohinoor should be used in the next coronation? Do you think it matters either way?

I think the Royal Family realise the kohinoor is not just about a diamond; it’s what the kohinoor symbolises. There’s also a fabled deadly curse attached to the Kohinoor diamond; that’s why only women in the Royal Family are allowed to wear the gem. The boy king who came with the diamond is buried in England too.

Personally I couldnt care less what diamonds are used, I wouldnt know particular jewels by sight, they're just sparkly blobs to me

The problem will be one of PR and the bandwagon to jump on that becomes the talking point, like this thread to 'give it back' when as others have highlighted, its not as simple as that

So they may well not use it

@HerRoyalNotness Appearances are deceptive. The pension looked generous but it was actually a tiny fraction of what his kingdom and inheritance was worth. It was like taking £10 billion from Singh and offering him £10k per annum in return. But interesting the British crown engaged in an exchange; they must have realised how dodgy it was to take so much from a child without an exchange.

The BBC did a documentary, maybe that’s where you saw it? The Stolen Maharajah - Britain's Indian Royal

Singh was very obviously traumatised by what happened to him as a child; being separated from his mother was damaging.

His childhood trauma influenced him running away from his family in a doomed attempt to reclaim the kingdom that had been taken from as a child.
Queen Victoria did ensure care for his children, because she was godmother to two, but she also told his daughter in law not to have children. So Singh’s family line ended - and that’s another reason the kohinoor diamond cannot be returned.

Given to Queen Victoria by whom and how?

The victims who have earned my sympathy and empathy in this true history are a 10 year old boy and his mother, who he was cruelly separated from. His mother also earns my respect because she showed courage in the face of real adversity - she bravely escaped her (false) imprisonment, enterprisingly found sanctuary in Nepal and patiently waited for the day she could be reunited with her (vulnerable) son. Queen Mother Rani Jind Kaur had a very hard life, but her spirit never wavered (it grew stronger) - and, given the context, that couldn’t have been easy to survive.

You’re also confusing modern day “woke” for a well established proverbial expression about the mills of god grinding slowly. There’s a reason the Kohinoor has lost none of its infamous power.

Duleep Singh still kept his ropes and ropes of natural pearls, one of the possessions of the Maharajah of Lahore, even after the Kohinoor diamond was (doubtless forcibly) gifted to Queen Victoria. There are both pictures and portraits of him as an adult wearing them.

There were no cultured pearls in the 19th century, so his pearls would either have come from Ceylon, or more likely, from the Gulf states, the home of then most prized “Basra Pearls”. Basra pearls were obtained by enslaved Africans. The Ceylonese pearl industry was equally exploitative.

They might be the worthier victims who have deserve your sympathy and empathy in this true history? As another poster said in relation to diamonds, almost all natural jewels come from historical and current practices of exploitation of people/pollution/ destruction of the environment, habitats, villages/ countries of conflict. The same is true of other jewels too, including those that Duleep Singh retained. It’s impossible now, surely, to unpick the situations through which they ended up with their present holders?

@Serenster
I agree, it’s rather like demanding the person who bought or was gifted stolen goods restore them to the thief who stole them.

@Serenster That’s the first I’ve heard about the pearls. Will look into it.

@Joshitai But you’ve both missed the crucial point that 10 year old Duleep Singh was an innocent party - and so was his mother (she was just the kennel keeper’s daughter who rose to unexpected royal challenges). My sympathy and empathy is in response to how two human lives (and the memory) of a mother and a young child have been treated by the present holders of the kohinoor diamond. Duleep Singh is still buried in England. I don’t think it’s wise to forget the human experiences and trauma in this diamond and jewels story - their lives matter too.

The Logins (who became Duleep Singh’s guardians) come out as good guys in the kohinoor diamond history.

“When Dalhousie made it clear that every last coin and trinket was to be sent back to England, and not a penny of gain spent on the natives, Login felt decidedly uneasy.” - Login has a moral conscience, which does not seem to be shared by anyone else.
Login “harboured doubts about whether Dalhousie had had any legal or moral justification to start the second Anglo-Sikh War in the first place.” (William Dalrymple, “Koh-I-Noor: History of the World’s Most Infamous Diamond”).

That leads to another point: did the Anglo-Sikh wars pass the just war tests? If they were unjust wars then how can the booty be justified?

All of the RF wealth has been built on the back of others.

Just from looking on Google that diamond has been around. So many different stories and versions of events how can anyone say what's really true and who's got the best claim to it? As the Queen would say recollections may vary.

I can recommend a really good comprehensive book about this diamond (researched and written by a credible historian). Koh-i-Noor: The History of the World's Most Infamous Diamond - William Dalrymple.

“Recollections may vary” is a cunning line, but it can’t be used for every uncomfortable subject. Some things are non-negotiable facts, such as the 10-year-old child Duleep Singh signing the Koh-I-Noor diamond away in the Last Treaty of Lahore 1849 (because that is a legal document) and it is factual that at the time Duleep Singh was separated from his mother (she was imprisoned, so there are undisputed records).

The human story of a mother’s and young child’s lives and relationship at the heart of the kohinoor diamond’s history feels more compelling and relatable than an inanimate and lifeless piece of hardened, but beautiful, carbon.