King Charles ‘backs’ research into British monarchy’s slavery ties: How Britain, its royalty profited from slave trade

The trans-Atlantic slave trade

The trans-Atlantic slave trade was one leg of the “triangular trade” across the Atlantic. European manufacturing goods would be sold in Africa in exchange for slaves. These slaves would then be taken to the Americas. In exchange, commodities such as sugar, cotton, tobacco and other cash crops (all produced using slave labour) would then be shipped back to Europe, becoming raw material for European manufacturers.

Over three and a half centuries, beginning in the 16th century, European slavers loaded approximately 12.5 million Africans onto slave ships that would take them across the Atlantic to the Americas. Conservative estimates suggest that at least 1.5 million slaves perished during the journey alone. Many more perished while toiling under subhuman conditions in the Americas.

The slave trade was first initiated by the Portuguese and the Spanish to supply labour for newly developed sugar plantations in their American territories. By the 17th century, Northern European powers such as Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Denmark had all joined the lucrative trade which supplied inexpensive labour to their colonies to provide raw materials to Europe’s burgeoning industries.

The trans-Atlantic trade yielded immense profits for the European colonists and played a pivotal role in the rise of Europe and globally diverging economic fortunes.

Britain’s role in the trade

Britain was among the most dominant slave-trading countries and is estimated to have transported 3.4 million Africans (of whom 2.7 million arrived) to British colonies in the Caribbean, North and South America. Slaves in British colonies were used for cultivating cash crops like cotton and sugar, and mining precious metals like gold.

Unofficially, Britain first got involved in the trade in the 1560s when Sir John Hawkins hijacked a Portuguese slave ship off the coast of Sierra Leone, seized 300 African slaves, and sold them to plantation owners in the Caribbean. Hawkins would conduct multiple voyages to the Caribbean, challenging Portuguese dominance in slave trade, and being handsomely rewarded by Queen Elizabeth I for his efforts.

Such private efforts (with tacit royal support) would continue into the 1660s when Britain’s official involvement in the transatlantic slave trade began.

The monarchy gets actively involved

Under the reign of King Charles II (1660 to 1685), the Crown and members of the royal family invested heavily in trans-Atlantic slave trade.

The Company of Royal Adventurers Into Africa was founded in 1663. As noted by historian William Pettigrew, the Company “shipped more enslaved African women, men, and children to the Americas than any other single institution during the entire period of the transatlantic slave trade.”

From its very beginning, the Company benefitted deeply from its connections with the Crown. Members of the royal family were major shareholders and the Crown’s political backing was crucial for its success.

Eventually, after the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89, the monarchy was weakened which in turn undermined the privileged position of the Company (Triviat: After King James II was deposed during the Revolution, he funded his exile in France by selling his Company stock). However, this would not slow down British slave trade. Nor would it stop the Crown benefitting from it.

An empire built on slavery

In the 18th century, as more and more private players entered the business of slave trade, its volume grew drastically. While the Crown now had less of a direct influence on the trans-Atlantic trade, it remained “an essential link in the imperial economy”, according to historian KG Davies.

Not only did it provide inexpensive labour to produce valuable commodities, historians have argued that profits for slave trade were essential for funding the Industrial Revolution. This was all at the cost of creating systemic problems in Africa (like depopulation and socio-political decay), the effects of which can be felt till date.

Effectively, as per historian David Richardson, “the slave trade is believed to have caused the ‘underdevelopment’ of Africa while fertilizing industrialization in Europe and particularly Britain, the leading slave-trading nation.”

Regardless of the degree of the Crown’s direct involvement, it was all done in the name of the King and in the benefit of the King’s Empire.

Abolition of slavery in Britain and its legacy

Despite the magnitude and brutality of Britsh slave trade, the dominant narrative around slavery in Britain revolves around the country’s so-called progressivism – Britain banned slave trade in 1807 and abolished slavery in its colonies in 1834, thirty years before the United States.

However, the abolitionist outlook was not just a result of moral concerns – as is often said – but rather, guided by slave resistance and economic exigencies of the time. In fact, as per the Slave Compensation Act of 1837, an amount of approximately £20 million was paid for freed slaves – not to the slaves themselves but the enslavers, who were losing their “property”.

Furthermore, while ostensibly slavery and slave trade was abolished, the British economy continued to be majorly dependent on highly exploitative labour, including slave labour from the US’s cotton plantations and indentured labour in the Carribean.

Today, the legacy of British slavery can be seen in the opulence of Britain and British monarchy – some of Britain’s richest individuals and biggest companies enjoy their privileged position due to slavery. It can also be seen in the continued systemic racism in British institutions, the relatively poor socio-economic position of black Britons, many of whom are descendants of African slaves, and the social, economic and political strife in the continent of Africa.