Queen’s crown drenched in blood

IT IS traditional at funerals not to talk ill of the dead. No matter what a miserable wretch the deceased was in life, you sing only their praises. And so it is with the death of the British monarch. There was an overwhelming outpouring of grief, sorrow and tributes from across the world.

Many travelled from the corners of the Earth to London to witness Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral procession and to join the exhausting queues to view, not her face, but just the coffin with her gilded imperial crown on top. This reminded all that she was once a proud imperial monarch par excellence.

But not everyone is saddened by her death. While the media focused mainly on those mourning her death, there were some isolated incidents of protest by anti-royalists bent on marring the solemn event. The police were quick to stamp them out. Not very democratic, you would say.

More importantly, her death has exhumed Britain’s ugly colonial past. It has reignited the debate about the thorny question of the artefacts and crown jewels, opulence of the monarchy and the relevance of the royalty in modern times.

Anti-royalists maintain that the royalty has passed its sell-by date. European countries have done away with their monarchy pushing them to the back seat. But the British wanted to be different. They idolise their royalty and contribute to its upkeep. The royalty is a reminder of a bygone era of medieval traditions, customs and rituals. Though it’s outdated, it has become a money-spinning tourist attraction. With crowds of mourners never seen anywhere in the world, business would have been booming in London.

Queen Elizabeth II lived in the lap of luxury. With several palaces and hundreds of servants at her beck and call, she lived a life of luxury and opulence.

She would not have performed any menial tasks. I am sure she never washed a plate in her life. But she was a sought-after monarch. As a ceremonial head, she had a busy schedule. She attended to various matters relating to the kingdom and the Commonwealth, gracing meetings and functions with her royal presence.

But was the British monarch a flawless gem as she is portrayed to be? She was tainted, not only with the blood but with the plunder of the colonies. Even though she might not have had a direct hand in the subjugation of the indigenous tribes and the exploitation of the colonies, her wearing of the crown meant she was an accessory to the crime.

Her dazzling imperial state crown is bedecked with an astonishing array of glittering stones – 28 68 diamonds, 273 pearls, 17 sapphires, 11 emeralds and five rubies. Where did they all come from? Definitely not from her country.

Many believe that the crown jewels were pillaged from the colonies. At the centre of the controversy is the famous £400 million Koh-i-Noor diamond believed to be stolen from India, the 317 carat Cullinan and the even bigger 530 carat diamond on the imperial sceptre, from South Africa.

If the queen was an impeccable monarch with a conscience, shouldn’t she have returned the stolen jewellery? Will King Charles III do what his mother failed to do?