The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s tour of the Caribbean for the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee has been criticised over the royals’ connection to colonialism and slavery. An open letter by

Jamaican public figures says: “We see no reason to celebrate 70 years of the ascension of your grandmother to the British throne because her leadership, and that of her predecessors, has

perpetuated the greatest human rights tragedy in the history of humankind.” But what has the monarchy got to do with slavery and colonialism? How has it benefited from these systems of

exploitation and expropriation? 1. FUNDING SLAVERY VOYAGES The British monarchy was central to the establishment, expansion, and maintenance of the British empire and the transatlantic slave

African Company in 1660, led by the Duke of York (later James II), which extracted goods such as gold and ivory from the Gold Coast, and transported over 3,000 Africans to Barbados. Many of

these people had the initials “DY” burned into their skin to signify their belonging to the Duke of York. Both men invested private funds in the company. Queen Victoria assumed the title of

Empress of India in 1877, and by 1920 the empire was 13.71 million square miles. The British monarch’s global significance and power stemmed directly from the enslavement of people of

colour. 2. THE COMMONWEALTH The Commonwealth is an organisation of 52 “independent and equal” member states. Despite this “independent” claim, the Commonwealth has imperial origins. Many of

the member states are former colonies of the British empire, and Commonwealth expert Philip Murphy describes the way imperial became Commonwealth as “haphazard”. The Commonwealth emerged

from post-WWII decolonisation, as a means of reassuring the British public that the demise of empire would not diminish Britain’s global prestige. The Queen is head of the Commonwealth, and

Prince Charles was appointed as her successor in 2018. But the position is not hereditary, and there is no constitutional or statutory reason why Charles would take this role. The role of

head of the Commonwealth allows the monarch to continue their position of international privilege and influence, which stems from colonial histories. 3. THE QUEEN AS HEAD OF STATE The London

Declaration, 1949, which addressed India’s position in the Commonwealth as a republic, set the precedent for Commonwealth countries to adopt republicanism. But today, 15 remain

constitutional monarchies with Elizabeth II as head of state, including Caribbean islands like Jamaica, South American countries like Belize, African states like Ghana, and Canada and

Australia. Since 1842, each country has nominated a local governor general as the Queen’s representative, with the power to propose legislation, (dis)prove bills and dissolve parliament.

Although the Queen has no “direct” political control in these realms, governor generals could be interpreted as ongoing monarchical administrative power. Many of these countries, including

Australia, Jamaica, Grenada, Saint Lucia and Tuvalu still use “God Save the Queen/King” as the national or royal anthem. As sociologist Ty Salandy argues, such cultural texts were used

during empire to instil British values and subservience to colonial authority, and their continued use suggests a similar system of values. In 2021, Barbados removed the queen as head of

state, officially becoming a republic but remaining part of the Commonwealth. There are reports that Jamaica is planning to do the same after the royal visit. 4. PROPERTY, LAND AND GOODS

Following the National Trust’s report into histories of slavery and colonialism in its properties, the chief curator of Historic Royal Palaces, Lucy Worsley, announced a similar

investigation into royal palaces in 2020. Worsley said that all properties used by the Stuart dynasty in the 17th century were “going to have an element of money derived from slavery” within

them. This includes Kensington Palace and Hampton Court Palace, which have connections to King William III, another part owner of the Royal African Company. This is not to mention goods now

owned by the monarchy that were stolen during colonisation, such as the Koh-i-Noor diamond from India used in the Crown Jewels, which Pakistan and India have repeatedly asked to be

returned. The lack of transparency regarding what the Crown owns versus the Queen’s personal effects makes it even harder to trace these histories. 5. ‘OUR GREAT IMPERIAL FAMILY’ In a speech

in 1947 in South Africa, then-Princess Elizabeth declared she would devote her life to “service of our great imperial family to which we all belong”. The concept of an “imperial family”

reflects the idea of the British monarchy as empire’s figurehead, vested in ideologies of white supremacy and colonialism. This idea also plays a role in royal international visits. Royal

visits have historically had colonialist implications by portraying the royal as a white saviour. Media scholar Raka Shome discusses how Diana became a symbol of this in photographs of her

playing with and caring for black children in Africa. We can perhaps see this playing out again this week in images of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge shaking hands with Jamaican residents

through wire fencing. Such visits attempt to rewrite colonial and imperial histories through discourses of philanthropy and global community, with the royals as “head” of the global family.

It is, in essence, good PR. A NEW CHAPTER? This only scratches the surface of the monarchy’s connections to colonialism and imperialism. As the PNP Women’s Movement, a Jamaican movement

advocating for women and girls, wrote in the Jamaican Observer: “We were beaten and broken into believing that our purpose as a nation was to cater to yours.” This is not least in the fact

that, as they say, roads were resurfaced and hospitals were cleaned in preparation for the royal visit this week, rather than years earlier for the impoverished black communities who use

them every day. In a speech in Jamaica, Prince William expressed “profound sorrow” over slavery which “forever stains our history”. He stopped short, however, of acknowledging the monarchy’s

role in that history, an institution from which he continues to benefit. In the wake of global movements against racism and colonialism, perhaps it’s finally time for the monarchy to reckon

with its history.