This Coronation of Carlos III this Saturday will mark the official start of a reign aimed at modernizing the monarchy and shaping it to fit contemporary times. The new monarch intends to project a less ostentatious image for the royal family, reinforce commitments to climate action, and address associations with a historically white and Protestant United Kingdom. There is a push to reflect an increasingly diverse, multicultural society and to reverse the monarchy’s relatively low level of support among ethnic minority communities, currently far from broad popular backing. 38% versus 62% among the white population underscores the divide that many observers see as a challenge for the institution.
part of this debate is whether the monarchy can coexist with the union while acknowledging a colonial past that is not yet fully reconciled. The royal household has faced longstanding questions about its involvement in slave trade in the mid-17th century, a topic that continues to provoke criticism from segments of the population whose ancestors came from former colonies. Historian Brooke Newman, who contributed to an investigation cited by The Guardian, suggests that the monarchy has not always been distant from past injustices.
“It will be increasingly difficult for the kingdom to pretend it has nothing to do with governance or responsibility for the slave trade,” Newman notes. Carlos III has publicly supported diversity initiatives and anti inequality efforts, presenting an opportunity to leave a clear mark on history. Beyond reducing royal expenses, Newman proposes that an independent commission conduct a historical assessment of the links between the monarchy and slavery.
colonial history
despite calls for openness, the colonial past remains a visible thread in the coronation ceremony and in the symbolism surrounding it. Professor Kahinde Andrews, a scholar in African American studies at the University of Birmingham and a descendant of African-Caribbean immigrants, connects the throne to racial colonialism.
“Even as messages of modernity are conveyed during the ceremony, the wealth of the royal family is inseparable from colonial legacies. In the jewelry line, for example, controversial diamonds like Koh-i-Noor have been replaced with stones from other regions, illustrating the ongoing debate about what the institution represents,” Andrews explains. He adds that the ceremonial greetings to Britain’s multicultural fabric can feel like symbolic gestures that fail to fully redeem the monarchy’s past. He argues that an anti-racist future for the monarchy remains elusive.
possible reforms
looking ahead, there is a sense that economic compensation and policy changes are possible steps, but much work remains. Andrews asserts that many former colonies still bear the consequences of imperial actions, and taking meaningful steps could be a starting point for restoring trust with skeptical minority communities. He contends that the royal family has grown wealthy through connections to slavery, colonial enterprises, and imperial ventures, and some argue that restitution should be on the table. Some suggest returning certain jewels to countries that requested them, while others emphasize the broader goal of addressing global inequalities created by past policies. Still, many concede that complete resolution is unlikely in the near term.
Newman emphasizes the challenge the new monarch faces in balancing heritage with modernization. She cautions that washing away a corporate image built over more than a millennium is not simple, especially when natural resource exploitation and unequal wealth have long underpinned the family’s status. The historian notes a need for proactive leadership to engage ethnic minority communities in the years ahead. Waiting for problems to fade or hoping someone else will fix them is not a viable strategy.