Crown jewels controversy: Why the coronation diamonds are seen as colonialism symbols
By Theresa Braine, New York Daily News
From problematic components such as ivory to allegedly absconded diamonds, the sacred jewels and relics to be used in the coronation of King Charles III this weekend have ignited debate and controversy.
The royals have worked to address some of the conflict by excluding the most egregious symbols of colonialism from the ceremony, but the crown jewels that will be used in the ceremony still evoke debate.
Why the Koh-i-Noor diamond is so controversial
The most prominent of the controversial crown jewels is the 105.6-carat Koh-i-Noor diamond. It’s part of the crown originally made for Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother, for her 1937 coronation. The gem originated in India and was ceded to Britain in 1849 by Sikh warrior and then-owner Maharajah Ranjit Singh, as part of the Treaty of Lahore. Whether the diamond was bestowed or coerced is a matter of contention.
Singh’s heir presented the gem to Queen Victoria in 1849. The crown in which the diamond now sits was placed upon Queen Elizabeth II’s coffin at her funeral, as it was on her mother’s before her. Between funerals, it has been displayed along with the other royal crowns in the Tower of London.
The Koh-i-Noor diamond was most likely mined in Golconda in central-southern India thousands of years ago and carries with it a “turbulent history,” according to the Royal Palace itself. Long before Great Britain colonized much of the world, the diamond was known as a symbol of conquest, the palace says. Its many previous owners included “Mughal Emperors, Shahs of Iran, Emirs of Afghanistan and Sikh Maharajas.”
As a result, several nations — including India, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan — have claimed ownership, but it has remained with Britain.
For the May 6 coronation, Queen Camilla will sidestep this particular colonial controversy by opting out of wearing the crown the gem is embedded in. Instead she will, for the first time in recent royal history, wear a refashioned version of Queen Mary’s Crown rather than having a new headpiece made as was once the custom. The palace said it was done “in the interests of sustainability and efficiency.”
The ceremony in general has been scaled back from Queen Elizabeth II’s 1953 coronation, though there will still be plenty of pomp and circumstance.
Cullinan diamonds
Queen Camilla’s revised crown will be set with the Cullinan III, IV, and V diamonds in tribute to Queen Elizabeth II. During her lifetime, she held them in her personal jewelry collection and often wore the gems as brooches. They will be nestled alongside 2,200 other diamonds in the headpiece.
However, those jewels too are considered problematic, as is the ivory sceptre Queen Camilla will be handed during the ceremony.
The blueish-white, heart-sized Cullinan diamond caused a worldwide stir when discovered in Pretoria, South Africa, in 1905. Weighing in at 3,106 carats, it was named after the chairman of the mining company, Thomas Cullinan. In 1907, the colonial government in South Africa bought it and later presented it to King Edward VII after the Boer Wars.
The diamond was then cut into nine stones, the largest being the 530-carat Cullinan I, also known as the “Great Star of Africa.” It is embedded in the Sovereign’s Sceptre with Cross, part of the regalia that will be handed to King Charles during the coronation ceremony. Cullinan II is part of the Imperial State Crown.
The remaining large stones — there were 96 smaller ones as well, according to Historic Royal Palaces — were dubbed the “Lesser Stars of Africa.” Cullinan III and IV were part of Mary’s coronation crown and then were folded into Queen Elizabeth’s jewelry collection. Some South Africans say the stones are no less problematic than the Koh-i-noor.
“The history of the Cullinan diamond is an epitome of the history of colonialism and imperialism,” University of South Africa professor Everisto Benyera told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. “It is a history of denying Africans their humanity and their rights.”
Renewed attention on the crown jewels has brought new calls for the gems to be returned to their countries of origin. In South Africa, a petition demanding the Cullinans’ repatriation has garnered more than 8,000 signatures.
“South Africans are increasingly saying this is again a massive symbol of how so much wealth, so much resource was drained from our country,” University of Oxford author and historian Priya Atwal told ABC News. “If you swap the Koh-i-Noor for the South African diamonds, you’re still in very tricky waters, and I think that is the thing that the monarchy is in, is this catch-22 situation.”
With News Wire Services