Growing up in Kenya shortly after the turn of the 21st century, Awuor Onguru ‘24 was unable to escape the shadow of the British Empire. Though Kenya achieved independence four decades earlier, her school textbooks mentioned Shakespeare and Dickens; she drove on the left side of the road instead of the right; she frequently drank tea and ate Weetabix.
References to the English royal family surrounded Onguru. Every year she sang “God save the Queen” on Remembrance Day and celebrated Queen Elizabeth II’s birthday; in general, the British monarchy was viewed positively. This was especially true in her international private school, which had close historic ties to the UK. For Onguru, now a junior at Yale, this image was deeply harmful. The Queen’s almost universally positive portrayal represented a superficial gloss over fissures left by colonialism. According to Onguru, “We were gaslit by her presence. Everyone loves her no matter whether you’re a loyalist or not.”
Elizabeth II’s death has brought into focus the ties during her lifetime between the British monarchy and colonialism, empire, and oppression. Across her former empire, the monarchy is often associated with the starkly oppressive underdevelopment and exploitation of its former colonies. However, especially in the UK, many people do not view this history negatively or recognize it at all. Across the commonwealth, there thus exists a gulf between different interpretations of the legacy of the British Empire. This gulf has led to difficult questions.
Moses Ochonu, Cornelius Vanderbilt Professor of History at Vanderbilt University, grew up in Nigeria in the 1960s and 1970s. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan in African History in 2004 and has worked at Vanderbilt University ever since. Growing up, Ochonu said, there was a common image of the monarchy as a “mother hen” that would protect her eggs from danger.
Studying the continent’s history, Ochonu, much like Onguru, came to see this image as fundamentally flawed. For him, it whitewashes Britain’s colonial past. Reflecting on his disillusionment, Ochonu said: “As time goes on, you reflect and you see the violence that that type of portrayal does to memories and trauma as there lingers resentment and unfinished colonial business.”
Ochonu finds this to be especially true in the former African colonies where the Queen, during her life, never addressed the United Kingdom’s failures. She did not discuss the issue of repatriation of stolen artifacts; she never confronted Britain’s brutal colonial repression where anti-colonial fighters in countries like Kenya were put in cages and concentration camps; she never apologized for the empire’s actions as a whole. To Ochonu, the Queen used the cloak of diplomacy to avoid difficult conversations.
It is worth noting, however, that closer to home in Ireland Elizabeth II did hold some challenging conversations to help to heal Britain’s imperial past. Britain’s relationship with Ireland is defined by long-standing divisions concerning Britain’s historical role, particularly during clashes between Anglicans and Catholics. In 1972, on Bloody Sunday, British paratroopers opened fire on Roman Catholic demonstrators, killing thirteen. An estimated 3,600 people were killed in violence between Republican and Unionist factions from 1969 to 1998.
Discussing scars left by Britain’s history, Brendan O’Leary, Lauder Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, suggested that “the late monarch facilitated the possibilities of reconciliation by being willing to participate in the peace process, particularly by honoring Ireland’s patriot dead.” In 2011, the Queen said to the population of Ireland “To all those who have suffered as a consequence of our troubled past I extend my sincere thoughts and deep sympathy,” a statement resembling an apology. In 2012, she met the former leader of the IRA, Martin McGuinness, to build bridges with anti-British, Catholic factions.
Even in Northern Ireland, where the Queen did take measures to address enduring wounds, the monarchy still acts as a symbol of division and English domination. According to O’Leary, Irish Republicans “associate the Crown with British Imperial rule in Ireland and centuries of lack of development, and injustice – particularly but not only towards Irish Catholics” The Irish Republican Association (IRA), the most influential Irish nationalist group historically, was firmly committed to Republican principles. For O’Leary, “the divisions are deep.”
It is unclear to what extent the monarchy can independently apologize for Britain’s historical role across the globe. “Apologies open the door to reparations, which are potentially not the monarchy’s role to open,” Richard Fitzwilliams, a commentator on the monarchy for BBC, emphasized. In a democracy such as the UK, it would be problematic for the monarch to unilaterally conduct foreign policy. It is worth noting that Elizabeth II’s visit to Ireland in 2012 was closely tied to the actions of parliament and the prime minister. Thus, for the monarch to independently declare British complicity in the empire or to discuss the repatriation of colonial artifacts may exceed her symbolic role in the British state.
However, while the monarchy cannot unilaterally direct the policy of Britain, some form of recognition could help facilitate the healing process. Looking at the historic role the monarchy has played in British foreign relations, Awuor Onguru believes that the claim the monarchy cannot apologize for its past is an absurd facade. “The Queen is Britain’s foreign policy,” she said, pointing to how the Queen actively leads the Commonwealth and similar institutions. “To say that the monarchy cannot take part in making political decisions, I think is proof that the facade is up and running,” she argued. She suggested that this facade prevents conversations about Britain’s role in Africa, leaving colonial wounds open and ignored.
Responding to such accusations of colonial guilt, Jacques Arnold argued “we’re no different from anyone else.” Arnold, a board member of the International Monarchist League, has spent several decades of his life organizing events and publications in favor of the monarchy. He is committed to the belief that “the monarchy is important to maintain stability.” For him, the monarchy is an essential and inalienable part of the British state, and not something to be uniquely ashamed of.
However, Britain’s colonial legacy is particularly significant. The arbitrary distribution of territory in Africa under Britain under a policy of divide and rule created the divisions that led to the Sudanese civil war and killed nearly 400,000 people between 1983 and 2005. British involvement in the Nigerian civil war between 1967 and 1970 made the conflict far more violent, contributing to the millions of deaths that occurred as a result of it. In Kenya, the descendants of victims of the Mau Mau uprising that were captured and put in cages face continued trauma from the brutality their ancestors were faced with. Over the last few decades, nearly every person growing up in Africa has been influenced by colonialism in some way or form.
Despite its past, or perhaps because of it, the Monarchy is still very popular in the UK. 32.5 million people in the UK alone watched Elizabeth II’s funeral. According to a September YouGov poll, 67% of the British population believe Britain should continue to have a monarch, while only 20% support an elected head of state. While Republic, a pressure group dedicated to abolishing the British monarchy has built support in recent years, its support is still relatively narrow. It is unclear whether the monarchy will ever engage in difficult discussions about its past. To do so could be unpopular. However, as long as the monarchy does not engage in such conversations, the “resentment of unfinished colonial business” that Ochonu described cannot be meaningfully addressed. With the death of Elizabeth II and the accession of Charles III, the monarchy is entering a new epoch. Time will tell if the monarchy’s attitude towards its past sees an epochal shift.
Correction: An earlier version of this article misspelled Awuor Onguru’s surname