A rare and wonderful interview with Princess Anne

[MrsMaxDeWinter]

A rare interview with the wonderful Princess Anne.

Pragmatic, straight-forward, and very moving, especially when she talks about what lockdown meant for elderly people.

I don't agree with her on the monarchy's links to slavery, but I really like her.

s

I don't know which history books you have been reading Gilmorehill but they read very differently to the one's I studied at uni. The Empire benefited hugely from that captive market which generated huge profits. Whilst at the time resulting in UK industry becoming complacent with it's guaranteed markets. But the point is that the UK benefited hugely from the Empire. And the Empire's trading was based on slave labour.

Entire English towns and cities were built on the back of the slave trade. I was in Lancaster recently and read up on the local history. It became the fourth largest slave-trading centre in England. If I recall correctly, the town hall was built with direct profits from the sugar industry. Very sadly, there's even a little grave of a small slave boy up in one of the coastal villages who the locals found terrified, hiding in an abandoned ship.

polkadotdalmation I know why she said it couldn't be slimmed down but she didn't seem to entertain the idea that patronages could be substantially reduced in number. Recent research by the Red Cross seems to show that having a royal patronage doesn't really increase charity funding that much, if at all. It's as if her idea of the monarchy is set in stone, which is quite dangerous I think. Of course I would far prefer to have a republic with a president. We don't need aristocratic privilege embedded at the heart of our society in this day and age imho.

Foreign aid is given to help under-developed countries, which may include countries from which slaves were captured. Having a foreign power come and take over your government does tend to hamper autonomy and progress. I never said that all the countries we help were former colonies. I said foreign aid was given "in part" for restitution purposes although they never use that terminology.

well the family heritage and lineage will continue monarchy or not, equally the family will remain very wealthy and in that way powerful regardless.

And the Empire's trading was based on slave labour.

What about the significant trade with India? Also other parts of the empire such as Hong Kong? Australia and New Zealand wool? Canada?

Entire English towns and cities were built on the back of the slave trade. I was in Lancaster recently and read up on the local history. It became the fourth largest slave-trading centre in England.

I’m curious what is meant by this. I thought that slavery was not legally possible on English soil (as confirmed in the Eighteenth century legal case of Somerset v Stewart). Any slave brought to England was therefore free. Do you mean it was the 4th largest port where goods that had been traded for slaves were brought in?

Also worth noting (although not to down play the clear slavery links) that Lancaster’s wealth was also built on the back of the mill hands, women and children, many who worked 12+ hours a day, 6 days a week in dangerous and appalling conditions.

Thank you for posting. I found it really interesting and would not have come across it through normal channels.

Why post if not to downplay all of it?

I believe this will answer your questions:

https://visitlancaster.org.uk/museums/maritime-museum/the-transatlantic-slave-trade/#:~:text=What%20was%20Lancaster's%20Role%3F,in%20the%20Transatlantic%20slave%20trade.

Please note the

Please note the term “Triangle Trade”

Anne is a good representative of the Royal Family. She's a professional, really.

But her response on Historical Slavery was not good. It was also disturbing in that we have come to expect through media reports, that there is going to be an investigation in the British Monarchy's history with Slavery. Yet Anne has said that's the media take?

We can't have fair and equal societies until we admit that Empire's historical Slave Trade effects the societies we have today. To say 'it's in the past' is completely incorrect. It's a denial of the fact that it still has knock on effects now, in my opinion.

my country a former British Colony had no 'official' Slavery. But there was Slavery. Just a different, not quite as quickly recognisable, form. And it existed well after the British Government legislated against Slavery, and while we were still considered a colony of Britain.

And yes, Modern Slavery has to be addressed today, absolutely.

We can examine the past as well as the now. It's not one or the other.

Please ignore strike outs of words. I have no idea why they are there and can't get rid of them.

Previous generations may have become rich from evil things like slavery but more recently the country bankrupted itself fighting the Nazis. The money was gone by the 1950s.

This is very naive. Stealing from other countries and exploiting them and their people, is how "we" became so rich.

We don’t expect other countries’ people to feel guilty / bear responsibility for the actions of their forefathers. Every country has a dark past because the world was violent and tough - it still is for many. Absolutely we should talk about the Atlantic slave trade m, the horrors of the middle passage and how it has shaped the modern world, but not ignore the fact that many countries were involved and slavery is existed somewhere since ancient history. I40m slaves today, it’s shameful how little it’s discussed.

Sorry - random l - 40m slaves today.

Privileged out of touch woman shows herself to be privileged and out of touch.

Agreed @CurlewKate her snootiness is edged in her face. I was surprised to see that she is relatively young at 72, she looks so much older.

So just what do people going on and on about historic slavery expect to happen?

Charles has agreed to historians searching royal archives to look at it more. I'm sure I've heard many 'apologies' from government and the royals? William and Charles have expressed sadness at their family's part.

It's a serious question. What can the British government actually do apart from acknowledge their part in slavery (which they have always done according to history books) and apologise, which I'm sure the6 have done.

First, those of us who have “gone on and on” , or rather laid out facts, wouldn’t have had to do so had pps not dismissed or minimised evidence of slave Labour and it’s key importance in building up wealth within and for the British empire. Or if Princess Anne hadn’t dismissed the subject quite so readily in her interview.

Second, this article will tell you about what the association of Caribbean countries have set out to achieve in this area:

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/24/descendants-of-uk-slave-owners-call-on-government-to-apologise

What is so wonderful about this interview?

Because it would taint the wealth that she and her family possess and have laundered through the process of time and deference. When you see the Russian oligarchs and Putin you see what our monarch and aristocracy were like a few hundred years ago. She's smart enough to know if she goes there then the jumper start to unravel. Though they are very happy to pull out a golden carriage from that era and parade around in it. So it's not a fixed rule with their pick and mix ethical projections.

We didn’t become one of the richest countries in the world because of slavery. It was because we were the first industrialised nation.

This shows truly breathtaking levels of ignorance. How do you think the Industrial Revolution was funded? Profits from slavery. Look it up.

Quite. It's an example of how you make a major mistake in trying to define history around one narrow subject. The UK did bankrupt itself saving millions of citizens of people 'enslaved' by the Nazis. Do you think Jews, Slavs and people the Nazis believed 'inferior' were going to live in a land of milk and honey? No, they were going to be slaves, worked to death or summarily murdered.

History isn't one subject. It was a fluctuating kaleidoscope of events, good and bad. Of course bad things were done, mistakes were made, and these must be acknowledged, but the idea of my taxes paying the great great great grandson of a slave, who may earn more than me, reparation, is bizarre. My ancestors were poor, and saw very little benefit from the slave trade. The aristocracy and big business obviously did, but their ancestors had nothing to do with it.

It's not even as though the slave trade has been expunged by history. It's well known and explored extensively. To make it the focus of history is narrow and divisive,

It doesn't seem that the poster that asked 'what can be done?' is actually interested in any answers to her question. Her mind seems firmly made up.

On the contrary, what can be done except apologise. What else? Who would receive reparations? Just give me an idea of the practicalities of that? Should we ask for reparations from the Germans? Where does it end? Those bastard romans invaded and enslaved us for 400 years. Do they pay reparations too.

I'm not making light of a serious subject but asking about practical solutions.

Yes. She didn’t like to be challenged on that at all did she. Quite telling I think.

QE2 learned about the death of her father whilst in Kenya where a national war of liberation against the British was underway. Mau mau were tortured and executed by the British in their many thousands for desiring freedom - pretty much like Russia in Ukraine. But many British either know or care little about these recent inconvenient truths.

The answer to most questions seemed to be "That's not a conversation I would have."