For many in the West, the British monarchy embodies a visible pageantry of tradition and ceremony that is often seen as a stabilizing force within democracy. Yet there exists a divergent view of Elizabeth’s reign that merits careful consideration and cannot be dismissed.
The British royal family has long sought to shield itself from active politics and from a history of colonial power and racial injustice. Many descendants in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean continue to live with the legacies of colonial rule and its enduring impact on their communities.
Maya Jasanoff, a historian at Harvard University, observed in The New York Times that the late queen helped to mask a painful record during the process of decolonization, a record whose scale and consequences remain the subject of ongoing study.
There is no denying that Great Britain built an imperial empire that spanned many regions of the so-called Third World. Its influence extended to neighboring Ireland as well, a reminder of the broader reach of empire in the past.
The monarchy’s origins lie in maritime commerce that intertwined with slavery. As early as 1562, Elizabeth I, known for her unmarried status, supported John Hawkins, a pirate and slave trader who transported enslaved Africans to the Caribbean and South America. Upon his return, Hawkins received a knighted honor from Elizabeth I, a reward tied to the substantial profits of the enterprise. Hawkins was aided by his second cousin, Francis Drake, another naval figure whose actions against rival powers are well documented in history.
Looking further back, the line of succession went from the Tudor dynasty to the Windsor lineage, and it would be fair to acknowledge that Elizabeth I was not directly responsible for every colonial policy enacted by governments and that she may have privately opposed some harsh policies, even as other leaders, like Margaret Thatcher, continued to support apartheid-era policies in South Africa.
Nevertheless, the British Crown has faced continued scrutiny over colonial practices, including ongoing debates about the compensation and accountability related to the slave trade. Barbados and Jamaica, though now independent and members of the Commonwealth, have raised concerns about historical injustices tied to their colonial experience.
Across Africa, Britain occupied large eastern territories and declared protectorates to exploit mineral resources, often clashing violently with local populations seeking autonomy and dignity. The history of resistance is rich and painful, with communities paying a high price for their pursuit of freedom.
In Kenya, for instance, the Giriama and Murang’a communities organized resistance to coerced labor during the period of upheaval surrounding World War II. During Elizabeth II’s long reign, multiple uprisings occurred as local populations asserted their rights, and prominent leaders urged authorities to address grievances with greater sensitivity and justice.
When Kenya faced a state of emergency in the early 1950s, a framework of repression emerged, including the establishment of camps and a systematic effort to break the Mau Mau movement. The impact of these events extended beyond military outcomes to the daily lives of countless ordinary Kenyans who faced restrictions on movement and travel within their own country.
Questions about the monarch’s role in shaping policy and the moral implications of empire have persisted since those early days. Critics have wondered whether the Crown could have shown greater candor and contrition regarding past actions, while still functioning within a constitutional framework that limits direct political power.
There have been moments when the royal family publicly reflected on the legacy of the slave trade and its enduring consequences. For those nations and communities that continue to bear its scars, acknowledging the past is a step toward healing, even as some may view such statements as insufficient or belated. The long arc of history suggests that the consequences of empire continue to reverberate, shaping identities, distributions of wealth, and intergenerational memory.
In charting this history, observers note that a modern monarchy must navigate the tension between ceremonial duties and the real-world impact of colonial legacies. The hope is that present and future leaders will approach these issues with humility, transparency, and a commitment to justice that resonates with people everywhere who seek dignity and equality.
In the late era of the monarchy, discussions about accountability and remembrance have become more prominent. The question remains whether sovereign leaders can acknowledge past wrongdoings while maintaining a constitutional role that respects democratic principles and the rights of citizens across former colonies.
In the public record, there are moments when contemporary leaders, including Charles III, have spoken about the atrocities tied to the slave trade. For nations that endured oppression, the consequences are lasting and require ongoing reflection, restitution, and a more equitable understanding of history.