LONDON, Oct 26 — Britain’s King Charles III this week told Commonwealth leaders in Samoa that “the most painful aspects of our past continue to resonate,” as calls for reparations and apologies over Britain’s role in the slave trade surfaced again.
This issue has become an ongoing challenge for the Royal Family, which frequently faces questions about its historical connections to slavery, particularly at forums such as the Commonwealth summit.
“None of us can change the past,” said the king, aligning his remarks with Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s stance that “we can’t change our history,” a position also previously echoed by former prime minister Tony Blair in 2007, according to a report by BBC.
Even if King Charles personally supported symbolic gestures like an apology or commitment to reparations, he is bound by government policy on matters of political sensitivity.
In such cases, the royal’s speeches adhere to the script advised by ministers.
Downing Street made it clear ahead of the summit that no apology or reparation deal would be extended by the UK.
As a result, anything King Charles said on historical wrongs reflected the government’s stance, not necessarily his personal views.
Although he expressed “greatest sorrow and regret” in Kenya last year for the violence committed during Britain’s colonial era, King Charles stopped short of issuing a formal apology, remaining within government parameters.
He employed similar language in Rwanda in 2022, where he voiced “sorrow” but avoided “sorry” to circumvent liability or expectations of compensation.
This nuanced approach echoes the language used by Blair in his “deep sorrow and regret” over Britain’s role in the slave trade, which similarly avoided a formal apology while acknowledging emotional weight.
As head of state, King Charles is a symbolic focal point for calls for redress, whether through financial reparations or other efforts to address historic wrongs.
However, a more complex issue remains: to what extent the monarchy, both as a family and as an institution, might bear a more direct responsibility.
The Royal African Company, founded in the 17th century under royal patronage, was involved in transporting large numbers of enslaved Africans to the Americas.
Within the Royal Family, views on slavery have historically diverged, according to research by historian Prof Suzanne Schwarz.
For instance, George III’s nephew, the Duke of Gloucester, opposed slavery and supported anti-slave trade efforts, while George III’s son, the future William IV, staunchly defended it.
In the Royal Collection Trust’s possession is a “Jamaica Service” silver set, presented to William IV by Jamaican supporters of the slave trade, showing contrasting family legacies on this issue.
While other nations have taken steps to confront this history, such as the Dutch King Willem Alexander’s formal apology in coordination with his country’s Prime Minister, the British monarchy remains more circumspect.
This stance continues to affect modern royal visits to former colonies or regions tied to the slave trade.
While his current speech in Samoa centred on the legacy of slavery, King Charles carefully avoided any direct mention of slavery, saying, “We can commit, with all our hearts, to learning its lessons and to finding creative ways to right inequalities that endure.”
The king’s remarks reflect the challenges the Royal Family faces as it seeks to acknowledge Britain’s past while navigating the political sensitivities around formal apologies for colonial wrongs.
