In California there is talk of paying up to 350,000 dollars per head and 800,000 million dollars in total (almost twice the annual budget of the state) to the black residents descended from slaves, as restitution for the physical and moral damages suffered by their ancestors, and because of the discrimination to which they have been –in many cases they continue to be– the object. Great Britain is not going that far, but the new King Charles III has commissioned an investigation into the role and responsibilities of the monarchy in building that empire “where the sun did not set.”
Already in the past, when he was Prince of Wales, Carlos had described slavery as “horrible and shameful”, “a black page of history”. But after coming to the throne, he felt compelled to go one step further, although without officially asking for forgiveness, as human rights groups and some collectives demand. The trigger has been an investigation by The Guardian newspaper, which shows the transfer in 1689 of a thousand shares of the Royal African Company to King William III by his lieutenant governor Edward Colston (a businessman whose statue was toppled and thrown into the water in Bristol three years ago during a protest organized by
William III was of course not the only British monarch (and politician) to benefit from the slave trade in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, and that transfer of shares (which today would be worth a fortune) is just the tip of the iceberg. . Nor is it something that was not known. What happens is that times have changed, being “inclusive” and “diverse” is part of the agenda of those who declare themselves to be on the “progressive” side in the growing and increasingly virulent culture war, and Carlos III wants to be on the side of it. right side of the story.
Not everyone agrees, and neither does California. If there are those who wonder why the inhabitants of a state that was not slavery would have to pay from their taxes for what happened three centuries ago, very substantial compensation to people who have never been slaves, in the United Kingdom (where nobody speaks scratching his pocket) Carlos III’s decision is questioned as an error and imprudence that could undermine the institution. “By uncovering this Pandora’s box, the king risks abolishing himself,” wrote author and journalist Petronella Wyatt in the conservative The Daily Telegraph.
Carlos III has only been on the throne for six months, but the most traditionalists already dislike the fact that he is a much more political king than his mother, no matter how careful he is to stay within the constitutional order and not express opinions in public. But he does do it in private, and he has already shown with his gestures (such as receiving the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, or that his first official trip was to Germany and not to the former Commonwealth colonies) that he is Europeanist and contrary to Brexit, he is concerned about the Good Friday agreements and the incipient campaign to postpone the elimination of the carbon footprint beyond 2050, he is passionate about the environmental cause, the protection of nature, alternative medicines, energy green and religious tolerance, is opposed to illegal fishing, mass farming and genetically modified crops, is in favor of a better equipped British army, believes it can improve the lives of the most deprived Britons, and wants its mark (There is speculation about a “ten-year plan” before transferring the throne to Guillermo) is precisely that.
During the seven decades of his mother’s reign, the monarchical motto was never complain, never explain (don’t complain but never give explanations either), under the premise that an anachronistic institution and alien to democracy can only subsist surrounded by an aura of mystery, if the subjects want to live a kind of fairy tale and attribute magical powers and characteristics to those who are actually as fallible as any human being. But Carlos thinks that this concept has become outdated and favors social activism (last November he gave the equivalent of 800 euros to each employee in his service to offset inflation, with the implicit but clear message that the Government should have done something similar ).
In a country without a written Constitution, with a monarchy subject to the democratic will of Parliament, there has been a precedent for centuries that the king must be politically neutral and limit himself to stamping the laws approved by the Government and the Legislature. Although there is nothing that prohibits it, Elizabeth II never voted. Carlos III will surely continue that tradition, but it is clear that – despite his environmental progressivism and opposition to Brexit – he is terrified of a Labor victory in the next elections, even though he is aware of the enormous damage that four successive Conservative prime ministers (Cameron, May, Johnson and Truss) have made Britain’s international image, and that the idea of ​​sending asylum seekers to Rwanda seems, like so many, an outrageous thing for a country that prides itself on its humanitarian tradition, and whose industrial revolution had slavery as one of its pillars.
As Prince of Wales, he boycotted banquets with Chinese presidents to express his support for the Dalai Lama, compared Putin to Hitler and, after Trump’s election in 2016, spoke of “worrying echoes of the dark 1930s.” He has censured the design of hospitals and the National Theater, campaigned against deforestation in the Amazon, and expressed sympathy with the goals (though not the methods) of the organization Extinction Rebellion.
Only 23% of young people between the ages of 18 and 24, according to a survey, consider that the monarchy is beneficial (compared to 74% of those over 65). Perhaps that is why he wishes to act as a kind of tribune of the people and conscience of the nation, a dissident of the establishment, who zealously fights climate change and assumes responsibility for the monarchy in slavery. And thus leave his mark on history.
