← Intelligence Squared
Intelligence Squared
How deeply was the British Crown involved in the transatlantic slave trade? With author of The Crown’s Silence, Brooke Newman
00:47:57
Loading summary
Transcript44 lines
- [00:00]
A
Welcome to Intelligence Squared, where great minds meet. I'm producer Mia Sorrenti. How deeply was the British Crown involved in the transatlantic slave trade? New research by historian Brook Newman argues that from the reign of Queen Elizabeth I until well into the 19th century, the crown and its navy helped expand, finance and protect the trade in enslaved African people. On today's episode, Newman joins host Helen Carr to discuss her new book, the Crown's Silence, and what it reveals about the British Crown's long, complex relationship with the transatlantic slave trade. Let's join our host, Helen Carr, now with more. Welcome to Intelligence Squared. I'm Helen Carr, a writer and historian specialising in medieval history and public history. And our guest today is Brooke Newman. Brooke is an associate professor at Virginia Commonwealth University in the USA and she's a Fellow of the Royal Society. She is an award winning historian of early modern Britain and the British monarchy, specializing in the history and legacies of slavery. Today, we'll be talking about the Crown's Silence, her groundbreaking new book which explores the British monarchy's hidden ties to transatlantic slavery. Welcome to Intelligence Squared. Brooke, it's wonderful to see you here.
- [01:21]
B
Thank you for having me.
- [01:23]
A
So I'm interested, to begin with, with what led you to writing this book. There's been a lot of research over the last. I'd say maybe you'll know this better, but maybe 50 years in transatlantic slave trade. And I would still say that there is still so much to be done. But what was it that drew you specifically to the British Crown and their involvement?
- [01:47]
B
What led me to this topic was my interest in slavery primarily, and Atlantic history. And my first book was about the rise of slave society in colonial Jamaica. And that book took me a while to research. And while I was researching colonial Jamaica, I kept coming across references to whoever was the current monarch, depending on, you know, what century I was in. And a lot of these references were in state correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Jamaica Assembly. And sometimes the, the comments that were being made were things like, you know, his Majesty is concerned about X. And it was stuff that I had never read before, I'd never seen. And so I went and got bunch of biographies of monarchs and because I had read the historiography of slavery, but not really the biographies of the monarchs. And I had piles of these biographies and some of them are like 800 pages. And in most of them there was maybe a couple pages about slavery. And so I thought, first of all, in the historiography of monarchy itself, there's really not very much about slavery. And I Thought that was really interesting. And then secondly, I just wanted to know. I wanted to know how the role of the monarchy changed over time. And essentially, is there, I asked myself, you know, is there a story here? So it really was for me. I wrote the book that I wanted to read. It was a book that I thought, you know, I wanted to read, but also that should already exist, and I was surprised that it didn't. And anyone who was a historian of Atlantic slavery is very familiar with sort of the early history of colonization, the rise of the transatlantic slave trade, the Royal African Company. But most of these books are in some ways siloed in the sense that they are about very specific time periods, very specific regions, or just a company. They're not looking at this long story over many centuries. And they're definitely not focused on the monarchies, the monarchs and members of the royal family as like the principal historical actors. And so that's what really drove me to focus on that for my book.
- [03:57]
A
It's true, I think when we think about British monarchs in particular, mostly earlier on, we don't really tend to look at them or haven't historically look at, looked at them, biographers haven't through a more global lens. And actually, when you start to draw those parallels, you so much more opens up. And I think that just you talking about that just then made me think, how has this not. How had this not really been been looked at before? But I was also wondering if you had problems getting at the material that was necessary to be able to fully research the book. Was it something. Were the archives open to you or did you encounter some issues?
- [04:38]
B
So one of the key stories I like to tell about this book when I'm talking about it, is that, you know, after I'd already been working on it for a number of years and had actually drafted some of the chapters in right before the coronation, King Charles announced, in response to the Guardian's Cost to the Crown series, that he was going to open the Royal Archives to researchers and allow them to access the royal archives and the royal collections. And I thought, well, that's really interesting because, you know, not only had I already been in the Royal Archives, but many historians had already been working in the Royal Archives for decades. It is true that it is difficult to get in there. You have to get a security clearance. There's a lot of red tape. When I was working in the Royal Archives several years ago, you had to actually be escorted to the toilet. So there was a lot of antiquated things around doing that research. But, you know, it wasn't necessarily the case that we needed Charles, to allow us to access this material. At the same time, the Royal Archives only contains surface level material related to slavery. And I spent about six weeks working in that archive, and, you know, I found a number of really interesting things. But at the same time, I knew that I would have to go out further afield into the larger imperial records in order to get a clearer sense. And then the other part of your question, I think that's important is that depending on what time period or what reign in particular, the evidence changes. So for someone like Queen Elizabeth or James, I was heavily reliant on state papers or on some of the Colonial Office records later under James. But then when you get to the reigns of the Stuarts, because they actually chartered slave trading companies, and those companies records survive in places like the National Archives and the British Library, then you're able to look at a wider variety of sources. So there is the sort of state perspective as well as the commercial company perspective. And those two things combined were incredibly useful when trying to piece together this story, as well as correspondence between colonial governors and the Board of Trade or the Privy Council in agents that were based in the colony colonies with slave traders who were stationed in West Africa, and then later in the late 18th century with the records of the abolitionists, which are extremely helpful in answering some of those late 18th, early 19th century questions and pulling the story together.
- [07:16]
A
Yeah. On cracking open your book, I was thrilled to see that you quote Saadia Hartman. I'm a big fan of Saja Hartman's work, and I think so much of the work that you've done for this book is you're dealing with a lot of archival material, but you're also dealing with a lot of silence. And Sagia Hartman talks a lot about silence and violence in the record. And I'm just going to briefly read this because I think it's just a wonderful quote. And then the one that you follow up on as well, also sort of draws together what you've just been saying. And the quote from Saidiya Hartman is that my present was the future that had been created by men and women in change, by human commodities, by chattel persons. I tried hard to envisage a future in which this past has ended, and most often I failed. And then Queen Elizabeth I, as you quote here as well, in 1566, says, for a long time, truly a great doubt has held me, should I be silent or should I speak? And I just love the way that you use those Two quotes in tandem. And I wanted to go on, just to start where you begin really with Elizabeth I, because when we think about the slave trade, we think often one's mind goes to the apex of this 18th century, but so much of it starts actually in the 16th century. And why is this period, why specifically more 1564-55 such a watershed year? And do you think that it's specifically this period that begins the process of royal involvement in the slave trade? And I use the word process quite specifically.
- [09:01]
B
I think that in terms of what the evidence says and what we can argue based on the surviving evidence, that it's the moment when it's clear that a monarch, a sitting monarch, knew exactly what she was involved in, that there's actual correspondence that survives of Hawkins telling the Queen, this is my intention, and he says this and it survives in state papers. And we know that she gave him first the minion, sorry, first the Jesus of Lubeck, which was a 700 ton ship, this was an enormous ship. And you know, she permitted him to fly the royal standard. And she was doing this because she hoped to profit. But one of the things that I talk about in the book in terms of putting Elizabeth in context is that she was not the first monarch by any means, who had gifted essentially merchant groups use of a Royal naval vessel in exchange for a cut of the proceeds to trade with West Africa. The key was that in this particular case it was a slaving venture that Hawkins had conducted the previous year and the fact that he had returned and was successful and people were talking about this at court, this is what led her to get involved in this venture specifically. And I think most people who, not historians, but sort of your average person who knows about the Elizabethan era doesn't realize that the Queen had actually let a number of different merchant groups use her vessels, as had previous monarchs, you know, Queen Mary and others. But part of the issue is that they were just hoping to get involved in all sorts of different commodities that were already in high demand in, not only in England, but in, you know, react export European markets. So stuff like ivory, obviously gold, dye, woods, pepper, these were products that were coveted at the time. And there was no market necessarily for the English to transport commodified and enslaved Africans. But Hawkins was someone who was willing to break into the Spanish American empire. And I think he probably convinced the Queen that this was something that wasn't just a one off, that they could make money off of this, but that also that it might eventually lead to a trade that Wasn't just illicit.
- [11:20]
A
Was this happening already within other monarchies, the other European monarchies? And was it something that you think Elizabeth was there? I mean, was there an element of competition, do you think, with Elizabeth's contemporaries?
- [11:34]
B
Oh, absolutely. The Iberian powers were essentially monopolizing the Atlantic world, both commercially but also in terms of territory. By the time Elizabeth is on the throne, the Spanish has. Have already created a large empire in the Americas. They've already enslaved a number of indigenous populations. There's already been periods of genocide, both, you know, on purpose, but also accidentally through the spread of disease. And they're relying on the Portuguese, who claim a monopoly over the West African coast and West African trade to provide them with enslaved Africans. And so there's a trade that's already flourishing, and there's all of these material and natural and human resources that the Iberian powers are exploiting and that the Spanish, of course, are making, you know, all of this money and bringing it back to Europe. And at the same time, England is, you know, lacking in currency. They're not bullion rich in that same way. They want to, especially these, like, enterprising merchant community, they want to expand commercially and also ide territorially. And Elizabeth, because she's a Protestant, is absolutely interested in this as well. You know, she doesn't care as much about what the Catholics think as long as she's not getting into direct armed conflict because she cannot win, at least initially. That's definitely what she thinks.
- [12:57]
A
Yeah. It's interesting that you so often when you're working on something, you have to put it within this. Within this political context. And we know anyone who works in Elizabeth or the Elizabethan period knows that there was always a direct conflict with the Spanish monarchy and, as you say, Iberian powers. So it's interesting to be able to draw these sorts of lines between the emergence of the slave trade within the British monarchy as well. But moving on to the Stuart period, so the reign following Elizabeth, what does your research tell us about the Royal African Company and its connections to that new branch of monarchy in England specifically, as well as Scotland?
- [13:46]
B
So one way to sum this up is that even though Oliver Cromwell is not a monarch, we have to pause and talk a little bit about him, because it's the 1650s Commonwealth era that I think is such a critical transition moment because of the fact that under Cromwell and in conjunction with Parlour, the Royal Navy, it's not royal at that point, but the navy is expanded dramatically. And this is inherited by the Stuarts. When King Charles II comes to the throne in 1660. He has this, you know, drastically expanded navy, which. Which no previous monarch had had. So this was a really a gift, in some ways, from Cromwell. He's also inherited Jamaica as a royal colony. And Jamaica ends up playing a critical role in the atlantic world and in the British empire and the history of the transatlantic slave trade, especially in the 18th century. Some of these things were set into motion before Charles ii even, you know, kicks off his reign. But as soon as he arrives, he's back in England. He's already essentially kind of conspiring with his younger brother, James, duke of york, who's also the lord high admiral. How can we profit off of this Atlantic expansion that Cromwell has already kick started during the 1650s? And they've already got a number of colonies, Colonies in the Caribbean, in the areas like the Chesapeake, where plantation labor is not only flourishing, but also in demand. And so to get involved in actually getting a share of the transatlantic slave trade Makes both political but also economic sense for the stewards. And so they are initially chartering the royal adventurers. And the goal of that company, like so many companies before them, like the guinea company, initially, is to find gold mines, because they're hoping to just generate some revenue. But when that is a pipe dream, they realized very quickly they pivot to trade in African people, Because that will not only enable them to profit off of the expansion of the slave trade itself, but also to profit from the expansion of slavery and an enslaved population who will then produce these commodities, these agricultural products that are in demand in Britain, in Europe and elsewhere.
- [16:11]
A
Yeah, and I immediately thought, jumped to Charles II's wife. His queen was Catherine of Braganza, who is from Portugal. And there's this emerging connection between the England Portuguese link and then Portugal's connection to the transatlantic slave trade and trade, particularly within these regions and goods. And. And Catherine of braganza is famously famous for tea and bringing tea to England. So there's all these links.
- [16:40]
B
She's also an investor in the royal African company, so is her husband, so is the duke of york, so is their cousin, prince rupert, so is the queen mother, so is one of the king's sisters. But what's fascinating about, I think, this, the royal African company in that initial story, is that the king and the queen, they. They subscribe all of this money into the royal african company, but they can't really afford to pay up. And so the archival record is full of all of these references to the company, essentially gently prodding king Charles and saying, you know, where's your subscription. You know, could you please set an example for all these other subscribers who are tardy? And the king eventually loans ships from the royal navy and supplies and men. So he is essentially paying for his subscription through material assistance to this company, as well as being willing to provide convoy convoys that will help protect shipping on the west African coast and in the Caribbean. And he ends up actually telling the Royal African company, you know, you can take money that comes in for customs revenue from agricultural produce in the colonies and put that towards my subscription and Queen Catherine's subscription. And so there's this system that they're developing where they're hoping investment in one thing will actually lead to greater wealth overall, not just personally, but for the institution of the monarchy itself. And I think the Stewart time period is probably the most fascinating because that is blurred, both personal profit and then how the money is actually going into the royal treasury and supporting the ordinary, you know, operation of the monarchs.
- [18:27]
A
Yeah. It also begs the question of how much becoming more clear in this period, how much of royal involvement was in both financial investment, but also status. How important was it for the monarchy to be seen to have an association with the transatlantic slave trade? And this is made a case in point is you talk about. You talk about branding. Can. Can you explain that? The branding of. Of. Of enslaved people with royal insignia?
- [19:00]
B
Yes. And. And just to briefly go back to what you were just saying is, I think it's a really important point that the crown's endorsement of the transatlantic slave trade was both material and it was symbolic. And this symbolism is. Is abundantly clear in material culture, in things like portraits of his mistresses who were depicted with enslaved children who had collars around their necks in, you know, silver or gold or brass or even pearls. And they were fashionable at court. So it was fashionable and a sign of elite status to not only surround yourself with enslaved people and to invest in slavery, but to be depicted and immortalized in essentially in this master slave relationship that we see in these images, as well as the guinea coins that were minted that featured the image of, you know, King Charles II initially, but then subsequent monarchs as well, with the Royal African company's emblem, which was the elephant or the elephant and castle. So this is a way of essentially advertising royal patronage of this trade that the. The monarchy believes will lead to a flourishing nation, flourishing empire, and a flourishing economy. And so they want to be associated with this. And that is why the brand are such a critical part of the story, because it's not just in coinage or in Art. It's also part of, like, literally putting their brand on people's bodies. And the two brands that I found in the, in the records that were used were race for the Royal African Company of England, as well as DY for the Duke of York. And when I set out to research this book, there, you know, people for years and years have talked about the Duke of York's initials being used as a brand on enslaved people. But I was very curious about who exactly was branded and when and how long this lasted. Did this continue after he was deposed and, you know, run out of the country for his absolutist tendencies in Catholicism? And what I discovered, and was actually somewhat surprised was that this, the brand DUI, was in use in the 17th century, but also well into the 18th century, that there's multiple eyewitness observers who comment on this. But more importantly, there is correspondence in the Royal African Company's voluminous archive where they are instructing their agents at Cape Coast Castle and other major forts along the West African coast to continue this custom. And I found that really striking because you would think that after this company has lost the Stuart as their major patron and they've pivoted, and by the 18th century, there's a whole new model. You know, there's the Hanoverian dynasty in place. They're still using dy, which is just such a fascinating detail. But also it's only people who are owned by the company who are branded dy, and these were people who were known as, quote, castle slaves. And so it still amounts to, over the years, thousands of people who were at any point in time branded with this. But it's not hundreds of thousands of people. And the reason why, and it makes sense when you think about it, is that they're not going to brand people who they're going to sell into slavery somewhere else. Their goal at that point is to serve as essentially a dealer of human commodities. But the people that the company owns and who are based at in their specific forts, those are people they're relying on for day to day operations, generations. And they can easily flee and essentially escape into various, you know, local networks. And so if they brand them, then all of the local traders and merchants along the coast will recognize this is the property, so called property of this company.
- [22:58]
A
It's like the most violent form of wearing, of putting somebody in uniform, sort of a, you know, an owner, a sense of ownership. And I wonder, just, you know, I work on the medieval period and I do encounter things that are incredibly shocking, but I was wondering when you're working with this material so closely, how did you feel encountering that information in the record?
- [23:23]
B
It's really heavy. It's both shocking to me to see this in the archives, but it's also upsetting to think that, that it hasn't been addressed. And even the response to my book in some quarters in the UK has been, this isn't that significant. She's overblowing this. There's no real evidence here and the evidence is there. So that, to me is really interesting because I think it's a way of essentially minimizing the impact of the historical record, of essentially saying this is not that significant. But to me it is. It is significant that you have members of the royal family and whoever is sitting on the throne at the time, investing in slavery, in this institution, being willing to essentially embrace a system that they know involves selling people and they're fine. They're actually proud of it at the time. And in a lot of ways this is a story, I think, about how during the earlier eras they really weren't silent about this, they were trumpeting these connections. The silence really comes and like descends later in the process when both the monarchy and the country embraces this idea of being at the vanguard of abolition and anti slavery. At that point, it's like there's just this cloak drawn over this century of centuries of investment, but also not being ashamed of this, of making these connections clear in a way that it appears in archival records, in, you know, economic records, in the records of slave trading companies, in the Church of England's records, in material culture, in art, you know, in so many different ways. Score more with the college branded Venmo debit card and earn up to 5% cash back with Venmo Stash. Got paid back with the Venmo debit card. You can instantly access your balance and and spend on what you want, like game day, snacks, gear, tickets and more. The more you do, the more cash back you can earn. Plus, there's no monthly fee or minimum balance. Sign up now@venmo.com collegecard the Venmo Mastercard is issued by the Bancorp Bank NA Select Schools available Venmo Stash terms and exclusions apply at venmo me termsterms max $100 cashback per month. This episode is brought to you by. Indeed. Stop waiting around for the perfect candidate. Instead, use Indeed Indeed sponsored jobs to find the right people with the right skills fast. It's a simple way to make sure your listing is the first candidate C according to Indeed data. Sponsored jobs have four times more applicants than non sponsored jobs. So go build your dream team today with Indeed. Get a $75 sponsored job credit@ Indeed.com podcast. Terms and conditions apply. So good, so good. So good.
- [26:24]
A
New spring arrivals are at Nordstrom Rack stores. Now get ready to save big with up to 60% off radio, Marc Jacobs, free people and more.
- [26:34]
B
How did I not know Rack has Adidas?
- [26:36]
A
Cause there's always something new. Join the NordicLub to unlock exclusive discounts. Shop new arrivals first and more.
- [26:42]
B
Plus buy online and pick up at your favorite Rack store for free. Great brands, great prices.
- [26:48]
A
That's why you Rack
- [26:51]
B
Spring starts at the Home Depot and we are bringing the heat to your backyard this season. Fire up the flavor with our wide variety of grills for under $300, like the next grill 4 burner gas grill that's perfect for hosting your spring cookout. Then set the scene and turn your outdoor space into the go to spot with patio sets for every budget. Bring it this season with grills that deliver flavor and patios that set the vibe from the Home Depot. Start your spring with low prices guaranteed at the Home Depot. Exclusions apply. See homedepot.com pricematch for details.
- [27:27]
A
I was just struck when you mentioned the art and the symbolism, and I took my daughter to a museum and we were looking at some 18th century conversation pieces and she, she did notice that the, the presence of enslaved people and people of color within the paintings. And she noticed, even at a very young age, the, the discrepancy between them and what it meant. So I was explaining to her, and it's interesting because obviously by the 18th century the, that association with ownership and the sort of demonstration of ownership became such a status symbol even in the the, the nobility within the nobility or the higher ranks, not just the monarchy. So it's interesting how that was happening as early, earlier in the Stuart reign. But thinking about what we were just saying about the wealth of evidence that there is and how this, how violent these experiences look on the record, does that enable you to use your practice as a historian to read against the grain, to be able to try to recover some of the silences that there are around the experiences of those enslaved people.
- [28:36]
B
That was absolutely one of my goals when writing this book. And there's such a rich historiography of scholars who have written about silences in the archive. And essentially what do you do if you're trying to understand the lived experience of slavery? Slavery at the same time that you're trying to trace complicity and actually have a through line over the centuries of involvement. And that is what my book does. And I will say it's much easier as a historian as you get into the 18th century, because there, there's more enslaved voices that are preserved, as well as a number of formerly enslaved people who become active in the abolitionist community. And so I really tried to priorit the voices of enslaved people as much as I could in the book, but especially in the second part of the book, essentially, it's divided into four parts. So I would say the parts three and four, because in those parts of the book, there is a lot of things that are rupturing, essentially.
- [29:40]
A
Yeah, you literally have a part in silence at the end.
- [29:45]
B
And so during this era, there's the era of essentially exploratory, sporadic investment in transatlantic slave trade, and then there is this rapid expansion that occurs in the 17th and 18th centuries. But then once you get to the reign of George III, after 1760, there's wars, there's slave revolts, there's mass revolutions. And because of all of this ongoing conflict, there are actually more voices preserved, as well as more people who end up essentially being involved in the monarchy's defe defense of its empire. And those are parts of the story that I was able to shift. So I went from essentially tracking more about, you know, who was investing in what in the earlier period to how are people being used essentially by the monarchy? And they're being used in the sense that. That they are being asked to work at the royal dockyards in the Caribbean, sometimes in positions where they're actually skilled laborers. They're also being asked to engage in military conflict on beh, you know, in the king's name, they're being purchased in the king's name. They're being, you know, essentially owned by the Crown if their. If their previous owner dies without a legal, legal heir or a will. And so there are all of these different ways that the monarchy is still involved in exploiting enslaved people, but because of the fact that there is some paperwork that survives from that period, there's also moments where you get a glimpse at life, like the life of some of these people who were stationed, let's say, you know, on a royal dockyard near Kingston. And you find out that they are being allegedly treated better than other enslaved people, at least according to the people who are. Who are looking after them. But at the same time, they're rebelling, they're running away, they are not happy, they are not grateful to be enslaved by the crown. And it becomes clear that that is the overarching narrative. And I think that the black abolitionists also make that very clear British public. And that is why their voices in the story are so impactful and powerful at the time. And I think even now, they're still there, but we tend to. To overlook them and focus more on. On, like, parliamentary actions and the actions of these. I mean, and they were really important people like Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson and William Wilberforce. They played a critical role, but they were aided by people who'd actually lived the experience of enslavement and were trying people in Britain to empathize with the condition of enslaved people and to see them as fellow subjects instead of as commodified people.
- [32:40]
A
Yeah, I think the historical memory that exists around the abolition movement in Britain is quite sort of. It's somehow become absorbed in nationalism and national rhetoric as if, like, oh, were we wonderful?
- [32:54]
B
Look what we did. In itself, though, because it's a more hopeful story. And you think about. I mean, and I've really thought about this a lot, having written this book and talked about it, but also in the United States, we're grappling with this as well, because national identity is constantly in flux, and what we want is something stable and secure. And on the one hand, that's what the monarchy provides, this illusion of stability. But as we know from recent events, the monarchy goes through moments where it dips in popularity, when it loses its moral authority, its sense of moral clarity, and people start to question institutions. And once people start questioning institutions, then they start questioning their identity. And we've had that in the US Too, with the presidency, not just because of Trump, but also because of the fact that presidents in the past were deeply flawed as well. George Washington, he also owned enslaved people. Thomas Jefferson, So many of these people who are revered and seen as key to national identity were flawed and were problematic. And I think that that is something that in the UK is becoming increasingly clear when it comes to the monarchy. But it's also really only now that it's being addressed.
- [34:14]
A
Yeah, but so much is focused often on. On those flaws and on those. Those people who were, you know, exhibiting these. These behaviors. But. But then that almost the. I. I imagine that you encounter defensiveness when you're pointing those things out. But what you'll see, what you're trying to do is actually just get to the. The whole truth, the whole story, rather than trying to sort of conceit, to re. To rewrite or try and conceal, you're actually just saying, no, but let's just look at this on a. On a much broader spectrum and try to understand exactly what went on and look at all the details to sort of create as much knowledge as we can have. It's not about finger pointing in a way that I think often when you try it, when you are writing histories of empire, histories of the enslaved, people take it as almost this literal attack.
- [35:05]
B
Yes, definitely. And it's because, unfortunately, the whole idea of empire and slavery has been caught up in the culture wars. And it shouldn't be. It's really. It shouldn't be part of that. It be. Shouldn't be taken on its own terms and assessed on its own terms. And I do think. I mean, and I talk about this in my book, I think this is a story ultimately of progress. Progress is made. But at the same time, there's so much that remains to be done. And that is why in my book, I argue that we are still in this era of silences. We're not yet at the part of the story where we've reached a new chapter, where we're at the point where we're at acknowledgement, repair, apology. None of that has happened. And I think until everything that came before is addressed and discussed and actually, you know, out in the open instead of suppressed there, we're not going to have another chapter, because why should we? If people feel as though this history either doesn't exist or isn't important enough to talk about, then we're not going to get to the next step of this conversation. And I'm really curious to know if somebody like Charles will do anything about this, because he's already got, you know, a lot of pressure that he's dealing with right now, in addition to health issues and all the drama going on with former Prince Andrew and. And people have asked me, do you think that Charles will do something about the slavery issue, especially now, as like a distraction from other things? And I was like, I don't know. Because it. It's such a. Such an enormous undertaking. Because this is not a simple issue. This is an issue where you have to both acknowledge this history, work with the government. And it doesn't matter if it's a labor government or a conservative government. They are not prioritizing the past right now. And they're essentially all saying the same thing. We need to look forward. We need to, like, stop, you know, not try to unpick our past. And so because of the lack of political support for this, this, there's really no reason for the king to do Anything unless there was a groundswell of public opinion and they pulled and essentially noticed that, okay, maybe it would actually benefit the institution if we did something. And so until that happens, I just don't think there'll be any movement on this issue. But I also hope that the more people learn about this, and it's one of the reasons I wrote this book for a wider audience, the more pressure there will actually be on, on institutions to acknowledge the past so that we don't continue to ignore it and make the same mistakes over and over again going forward.
- [37:45]
A
I think it's such a loaded thing because you mentioned the culture wars and you were working on this, I mean, not specifically this book, I don't think, but you've been working on the transatlantic slave trade. I think, before the culturals, before the death of George Floyd, before Black Lives Matter movement moment. Do you think that it has become, they've become interwoven and caused much more of a contentious subject matter than before? Do you think it was able to be viewed and viewed more objectively on its own terms before that, or do you see that the Black Lives Matter movement and the culture wars has actually given voice to your work?
- [38:24]
B
Yeah, excellent question. So I would say having I started this book project, project officially in 2017, like that's when I went the first time to the Round Tower. And at that point I was applying for funding and I actually had some anonymous reviewers say this is not an important topic, it's just not significant. And I thought, wow. So, so that was. I really faced a lot of, of just apathy around my, my book topic initially. Then after 2020 and during 2020, there was this sea change where, where not only were people more interested in actually grappling with the reality of racial violence and reading more about it and educating themselves, they were asking questions about institutions in new ways. And I think that that made this topic both highly charged and also more important than it was before. And I noticed that because suddenly people were contacting me to ask, ask questions about my project and what are you working on? And then I was ultimately invited to be part of the Guardians Cost of the Crown series, which I also think helped move the conversation forward because it got a response from King Charles and they were never able to get a response under Elizabeth ii. But unfortunately, in the lag time that we've had movement on this from 2020, some progress, a bunch of different micro level institutional studies studies and you know, announcements about reparations that might occur even if they're not ideal. So things like the University of Glasgow is addressing this. You know, Bristol did a study, Cambridge did a study, Lloyd's of London, the Church of Church Commissioners of the Church of England. Like all of these level, lower level, confined, micro level studies were initiated. But then there was this backlash and the National Trust was attacked for being, quote, too woke up. And because of that backlash, a lot of people just shut down. They just didn't want to think about this anymore. And I think that is unfortunate because what happened was we had this window where the general public and the powers that be were for a moment aligned in caring about this issue. And then because of the backlash and because of the cultural war since then, now it has become again this like hot button topic where if you even, even talk about it, you are shamefully attacking the monarchy or you are dredging up the past or you are trying to reflect negatively on British national identity or Britain's imperial past. And I think as a historian that is regrettable because I don't think anything is that black and white we can look at the past critically and objectively without resorting to name calling or saying it's all your fault or even claiming that we know what the next step should be be. Because that's not my job as a historian either.
- [41:24]
A
Of course, of course. I mean, do you think. I think I know what your answer is going to be. This. But do you think the monarchy have shown any real accountability at all?
- [41:35]
B
No, absolutely not. I think that everything that has happened in even actually since in my book with Prince Albert delivering the first statement of regret in 1840, this idea that it is regrettable that we were involved, but we led the way in abolishing the transatlantic slave trade and ultimately in ending slavery. And so we should be congratulated because we were the champions of abolition. And that narrative is just repeated over and over and over again by not just by members of the royal family, but also by political leaders, by pm.
- [42:11]
A
I think it's also repeated in script schools and has been historically repeated in schools as well.
- [42:16]
B
Yes. So that, that notion that we led the way, we don't need to be accountable because of that. And so it's essentially like saying, you know, we've done all of this, so 95% of what we did was, was horrible, but this last 5% is what we're going to focus on instead and just close the door on the rest of it. We're doing a disservice to the younger generation when we do that. But also, and I mean, I am not, obviously I'm an American, so I'm not. I'm not a monarchist, but as someone who studies the monarchy, we're doing a disservice to the longevity of this institution as well. Because as you know, all of the comments I've been hearing right now are about how people want more transparency, they want more accountability from the monarchy, whether that's talking about, you know, tax deals they're getting, about the duchies, about finances, about who is getting what sweetheart deal at what palace, about how are people using their appointments, you know, when they're traveling, all of these different ways that the monarchy and members of the royal family are actually not being accountable to the public. I think this slavery issue and this, the colonial past is part of that larger process of being transparent, of saying, yes, this institution is imperfect. Here is what we did in the past, but also here is what happened historically at the time, time, you know, what the country was doing, how it was in a larger geopolitical conflict with these other countries doing similar things who are also dealing with this. I mean, Britain is not the only country going through this current questioning of the colonial past, involvement with slavery. And so to just ignore all of that and continue not to address it and say it's regrettable is, I think, insufficient. But it's also just kicking the can down the road. And William will continue to have to deal with this. Anytime there is a meeting of the Commonwealth heads of government that will be a moment for both pageantry, but also protests. And so more and more of these royal events are, I think, in some ways negative because there's more protesters than ever before. The support for the monarchy is, you know, declining kind of overall, especially among younger British. So why not address something and demonstrate that really we are going to change the institution, we are going to reform it. And one of the first steps is to address this history that we all know is there. It's the elephant in the room, it's the elephant stamped on these guinea coins. And we still have not addressed it.
- [44:51]
A
Yeah, yeah, you're right. I mean, it's such a huge and contentious issue. I think that it would be. It would, it would make. It would be volcanic for the monarchy. But I think that there's something volcanic sort of needs to happen with the monarchy as well, for an ultimate survival.
- [45:09]
B
Right. Business as usual just does not seem to be working for them at the moment.
- [45:13]
A
Exactly, exactly. Well, book, I really do wish you so much luck with the. With the release of this book. And I. I can't promise that you won't get negative publicity because unfortunately, you know, when, when we do important work like this, I think that that comes because you ruffle feathers, quite rightly so. But I really hope that it also falls into the hands of people who are genuinely interested and want to be informed. And so congratulations on on your book. I think it's fantastic and I wish wish you so much luck and I hope that people who have listened to this interview will definitely go out buying buy it, talk about it and tell people to go out and buy it and talk about it as well. Book. Thank you. That was Brooke Newman, author of the Crown's the Hidden History of Slavery and the British Monarchy which is available now online and in stores and I highly recommend that you go and get a copy. I'm Helen Carr and you've been listening to Intelligence Squared. Thanks for joining us. Thanks for listening to Intelligence Squared. This episode was produced by Ginny Hooker and it was edited by Mark Roberts. For ad free episodes and full length recordings. You can become a member@intelligencesquared.com membership and to join us at future live events. You can find our full events program over@intelligentsquared.com attend. You've been listening to Intelligence Squared. Thanks for joining us.
- [46:56]
B
Found something funny? Send it instantly. TikTok makes sharing with friends effortless. One tap whole group laughing moments move fast. Download TikTok now. Working across teams is tough, but Asana helps you handle it. That's because Asana is where humans and AI coordinate work together. AI can spot roadblocks and assign work
- [47:24]
A
in a snap so everything and everyone stays on track.
- [47:29]
B
That's how work gets handled. That's Asana. Visit us@asana.com that's a S a n a dot com asana.