The British Monarchy and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade: The Case for a Royal Apology and Reparatory Justice - Part 2

𝘐𝘯 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘖𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘸𝘰-𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘍𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘫𝘰 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘺'𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴-𝘈𝘵𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘚𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘒𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘐𝘐𝘐'𝘴 𝘊𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦, 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘘𝘶𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘌𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘩 𝘐'𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦-𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘘𝘶𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘈𝘯𝘯𝘦'𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯'𝘴 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦-𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘉𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘫𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘴 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴, 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘊𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺.

𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵 2

The Monarchy and the Anti-Abolition Resistance

When public sentiment and parliamentary pressure against the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade coalesced in the late eighteenth century, the British royal family became a major obstacle to Abolition. King George III maintained a pragmatically pro-Slavery outlook throughout his long reign (1760–1820). Influenced by commercial advisers and colonial interests, George III viewed Caribbean plantation production as vital to British imperial wealth, tax revenues, and naval supremacy during wars with France. Consequently, the King privately opposed abolitionist proposals, delaying legislative action for decades despite widespread public petitions.  

Within Parliament, George III's sons used their constitutional seats in the House of Lords to actively lobby against abolitionist legislation. Prince William Henry, Duke of Clarence (later King William IV), emerged as one of the nation's most outspoken defenders of the Slave Trade. Having served in the Royal Navy in the West Indies, Clarence utilized his firsthand observations to construct arguments defending Caribbean planters.  

On July 5, 1799, the Duke of Clarence delivered a speech in the House of Lords opposing the Slave Trade Limitation Bill. He attacked abolitionist figures, defended the physical conditions of the Middle Passage, and claimed that stopping the trade would cause economic ruin, colonial insurrections, and the destruction of the British Empire.

Gratified by his advocacy, the Committee of West India Merchants and Planters and Liverpool Slave traders funded the publication of Clarence's speech as a propaganda pamphlet to combat abolitionist momentum. Similarly, his brother, Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, allied with pro-Slavery parliamentary factions and actively sought appointment as Governor of Jamaica in 1806.  

The royal family's pro-Slavery consensus was challenged internally by only one prominent member: Prince William Frederick, 2nd Duke of Gloucester. A nephew of George III, Gloucester broke ranks with his royal relatives to openly align with William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, and the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade. Gloucester spoke in the House of Lords in favor of Abolition, advocated for the African Institution, and supported international treaty enforcement against illicit slaving.  

Emancipation, Compensation, and the Financial Legacy

Despite royal resistance, the British abolitionist movement ultimately forced legislative action. On March 25, 1807, King George III gave reluctant Royal Assent to An Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, which outlawed British participation in the transatlantic commercial trafficking of captives. However, the act did not liberate those already enslaved in British colonies, allowing chattel Slavery to continue as an economic institution for another quarter-century.  

In 1833, under the reign of King William IV - the former Duke of Clarence who had previously led the pro-Slavery lobby - Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act. Effective in 1834, the law formally emancipated over 800,000 enslaved Africans across the Caribbean, South Africa, and Mauritius. However, the act contained two critical compromises that favored enslavers over the newly liberated population.  

Freed individuals were forced into an apprenticeship system, requiring them to perform uncompensated labor for their former masters for up to six years post-emancipation. Additionally, the British government agreed to compensate white plantation owners for the loss of their human “property.” Parliament authorized a grant of £20 million - an enormous amount that represented roughly 40% of the United Kingdom's annual national budget at the time, equivalent to between £2 billion and £17 billion in modern financial terms.  

To raise these funds, the British Treasury took out a massive loan from private banking houses, including the Rothschild family. The British taxpayer serviced the principal and interest on this national debt for 182 years, with the final repayment completed only in 2015. Crucially, zero financial compensation or restitution was provided to the newly freed African people, who were left without land, financial capital, or basic political rights.

Research conducted by the Centre for the Study of the Legacies of British Slavery at University College London (UCL) revealed that these compensation payments enriched thousands of elite British households, financial institutions, and aristocrats connected to the royal court, cementing generational wealth disparities across the United Kingdom.  

Historical Archival Discoveries

In the early 21st century, rigorous academic and archival research exposed direct personal ties between the modern royal family's direct lineage and chattel Slavery. In 2023, historical investigations revealed that King Charles III is a direct descendant of Edward Porteus, a 17th-century Scottish settler who built a wealthy tobacco plantation in Virginia. Porteus purchased enslaved Africans delivered directly by the Royal African Company.

His 1693/1694 will bequeathed enslaved individuals - including a young girl named Cumbo - to his heirs, establishing a line of inherited wealth that descended through his son Robert Porteus, to Bishop Beilby Porteus, and eventually into the maternal lineage of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, thus placing Porteus as an eighth great-grandfather of King Charles III.  

Concurrently, investigative reporting brought to light a 1689 ledger entry showing the transfer of £1,000 of Royal African Company stock from Edward Colston to King William III, demonstrating how royal wealth was directly augmented by corporate slaving operations. These archival findings spurred public pressure on the monarchy to confront its historic involvement in the Slave Trade.

In response, Buckingham Palace announced in April 2023 that King Charles III was supporting an independent PhD research project examining the Crown’s historical links to transatlantic slavery. Co-sponsored by Historic Royal Palaces and the University of Manchester, and led by historian Camilla de Koning, the study granted researchers full access to the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle to analyze monarchical investments in slaving corporations, imperial acquisitions, and plantation holdings. The research project is scheduled for completion in 2026.  

While senior royals, including King Charles III and William, Prince of Wales, have publicly expressed profound sorrow and acknowledged that slavery stains imperial history, the Crown has resisted calls to issue an explicit, formal royal apology. This distinction is politically significant because under British constitutional convention, a formal royal apology could carry legal implications regarding state liability and claims for financial reparations.

Member nations of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), alongside civil society organizations and some British parliamentarians, continue to press the British Crown for formal diplomatic apologies, structural reparative justice, and direct restitution to descendant populations in the Commonwealth.  

Conclusion

The involvement of the British monarchy in the transatlantic slave trade was neither incidental nor peripheral; it was foundational to the economic and institutional development of the British Empire.

From Elizabeth I’s chartering of Sir John Hawkins in the 1560s to the Stuart monarchy's corporate slaving monopolies under the Royal African Company, the Crown consistently utilized its executive authority to capitalize on human trafficking. When parliamentarians sought to abolish the trade, royal peers actively defended plantation slavery, delaying emancipation for decades.

Even during Abolition, state organs prioritized the financial compensation of enslavers over restitution for the enslaved. As modern archival discoveries continue to document these historical links, the British monarchy faces growing international calls to move beyond expressions of personal regret toward formal structural accountability, institutional transparency, and reparative justice. The Dutch monarch has set a precedent where it concerns a formal royal apology. Will the British crown borrow a leaf from this?

‍