Yesterday’s post discussed Charles III’s proposed pared down coronation, scheduled for Saturday, May 6, 2023.

No bank holiday?

It is curious, given that it will have been over 70 years since our last coronation, the King seems to have ruled out a bank holiday.

May has two bank holidays, bookmarking the month.

This year, the second bank holiday, traditionally known as Whitsun (Pentecost) Bank Holiday, was moved one week later, taking place at the beginning of June to accommodate Platinum Jubilee festivities.

The Times reports that Parliament is all for a celebratory bank holiday weekend (emphases mine):

There have been calls from some MPs for the May 1 bank holiday to be moved or for an additional bank holiday to be announced …

Labour backed moving the May bank holiday to coincide with the King’s coronation. Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesman said: “That would certainly be a good way for the country to be able to celebrate the coronation.”

David Jones, a cabinet minister under David Cameron, told the Daily Mail that combining the May bank holiday with the coronation would be welcomed “by the entire nation”. He said: “It would make a very special memory for all of us.” Tobias Ellwood, another Tory former minister, said: “A bank holiday would help strengthen our transition to a new era.”

Khalid Mahmood, a former Labour frontbencher, said: “We can move the holiday back to the coronation weekend. We have a unique system with the monarchy and an independent parliament; I would back Britons having a three-day weekend to mark the occasion.”

Royal sources have said that any decision about whether to move the bank holiday or create a new one will be up to the government.

No. 10 is open to the idea:

In response the prime minister’s spokesman said: “Obviously this will be a historic event. We are carefully considering our plans. All options remain on the table.”

Personally, I don’t think this is as much the Prime Minister’s reluctance as it is the King’s.

The diamond

It was thought that Camilla Queen Consort would be crowned with the crown the late Queen Mother wore, the one with the incomparable Koh-i-noor diamond.

Suddenly, that prospect appears to be in doubt.

On October 13, The Telegraph reported:

The crown was thought to be a front runner among the options for Queen Camilla to wear for next year’s Coronation, and has been under discussion at the palace for as long as it has been understood she will join the King for the ceremony.

One source last night suggested that the jewel had not, until recently, been treated as “problematic”.

Charges of colonialism have now been raised with regard to the Koh-i-noor:

In Britain, it has been used in the crowning of Queens for generations with pomp, ceremony but little noticeable fuss, mounted on successive crowns worn by Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth [the Queen Mother] …

The Koh-i-Noor diamond, which has been part of the Crown Jewels for more than 150 years, is at the centre of renewed calls for its return – with India the most diplomatically-critical country making a claim to it …

The diamond, which is often said to have been “given” to Britain in 1849, is currently set in the crown worn by Queen Elizabeth, later the Queen Mother, in her own 1937 coronation.

Experts on colonialism have spoken out:

William Dalrymple, co-author of a book describing the Koh-i-Noor as “the world’s most infamous diamond” said its ownership was “not a small sensitive issue in the eyes of India” but a “massive diplomatic grenade”.

Jyoti Atwal, associate professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University, explained the diamond’s significance, telling The Telegraph how it travelled around the medieval world as a “prized possession” and in 1851, after British annexation, “went to the United Kingdom via a treaty with an 11-year-old King in Punjab”.

“In the colonial discourse it was seen as a gift from India, although it has a chequered history of being owned by different kingdoms across South Asia and West Asia,” she said. “It was one of the biggest signifiers of victory for Britain over the subcontinent and since India’s independence in 1947, there have been demands of bringing it back.

“It has always been at the centre of political restoration and restoring Indian pride, and doing away with this blot in history” …

Saurav Dutt, an author and political commentator born in Kolkata and raised in the UK, said: “Ensuring the Koh-i-noor remains front and centre in the public eye in this way flies in the face of any attempt by the Royal family and political orthodoxies to draw a line under the dispossession, prejudice, plunder and exploitation that imperialism revelled in.

“Such a position is at odds with the modern, egalitarian stance the royals seek to present themselves within a world that seeks to move on from the ugliest chapters of history that they benefited from.”

If this was historically known to be the case, why didn’t anyone complain in 2002, when it was the crown resting on the Queen Mother’s coffin at Westminster Hall where she lay in state?

No one said anything then, and even BBC commentators talked about what a splendid jewel in the crown it is.

It appears that, 20 years on, social media, which did not exist in 2002, could partly be to blame.

Jyoti Atwal said:

A resurgence of interest in “bringing it back” was now “very visible” among a new generation on social media …

There also seems to be a potential vulnerability about Charles III that indicates he might well cave in:

Lauren Kiehna, a royal jewellery expert who writes a blog under the name of The Court Jeweller, last week predicted that the creation of a new crown for Queen Camilla was unlikely but called the inclusion of the Koh-i-Noor diamond a “real, serious sticking point”.

“I would imagine that Charles and Camilla would be keen to avoid additional criticism when possible, and Charles particularly has always seemed sensitive to the fact that jewels can carry significant symbolism,” she wrote.

This is how Britain acquired the diamond in 1849, during Queen Victoria’s reign:

… the Koh-i-Noor was signed over to the British East India Company in 1849 along with vast areas of land in the Treaty of Lahore.

It is described by the Royal Collection Trust as being “surrendered” to Queen Victoria “by the Maharaja Duleep Singh in 1849”.

At the time, the maharajah of the Punjab was 11 years old.

The jewel was brought back to Britain for presentation to Queen Victoria a year later, and put on display to the public at the Great Exhibition.

Afterwards, it was cut by Garrard & Co and turned into a brooch worn by Victoria.

In 1902, it was mounted on a crown for Queen Alexandra’s coronation, and in 1911 transferred to that of Queen Mary.

In the modern era, it is best known for being worn by the Queen Mother, and was placed on top of her coffin in 2002.

Another Telegraph article on the diamond states:

The thousand-year-old, 105.6 carat diamond is the subject of international dispute, with India, Afghanistan and Iran among the countries laying claim to it.

Again, why is this coming up only now? Why did it not come up in the past?

Unfortunately, the controversy is coming as a diplomatic row has taken place between the British government and India:

Our new Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, is of Goan descent.

Recently, she complained about migration from India at the time the Government is trying to put a trade deal with that nation:

Debate over the [coronation] ceremony comes amid heightened tensions between Britain and India over post-Brexit trade.

Liz Truss’s trade deal with India is said to be on the “verge of collapse” after Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, said she had “concerns” about it, adding that “the largest group of people who overstay are Indian migrants”.

Indian government sources said the “disrespectful” remarks meant the “relationship has taken a step back”. Plans for Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, to visit the UK to seal a trade deal have been shelved, according to reports.

On Wednesday, the Bharatiya Janata Party [BJP] told The Telegraph a choice for Queen Camilla to continue the tradition of consorts wearing a crown containing the Koh-i-Noor would hark back to the days of Empire.

A BJP spokesman said:

Most Indians have very little memory of the oppressive past.

He added that the United Kingdom was not the only country that ruled over India:

Five to six generations of Indians suffered under multiple foreign rules for over five centuries.

He said that the Queen’s death revived memories of Empire:

Recent occasions, like Queen Elizabeth II’s death, the coronation of the new Queen Camilla and the use of the Koh-i-Noor do transport a few Indians back to the days of the British Empire in India.

Hmm.

The British government declared the Partition of India in 1947. George VI was King and his wife Elizabeth was Queen Consort at the time.

In short, India and Pakistan became independent nations:

The partition was outlined in the Indian Independence Act 1947 and resulted in the dissolution of the British Raj, i.e., Crown rule in India. The two self-governing independent Dominions of India and Pakistan legally came into existence at midnight on 14–15 August 1947.

Maharaja Duleep Singh

It is also worth noting what happened to the young Maharaja Duleep Singh who gave the diamond to the British government.

He became a member of Queen Victoria’s court.

Wikipedia has a synopsis of the aforementioned William Dalrymple’s book, Koh-i-noor: The History of the World’s Most Infamous Diamond, which he co-authored with Anita Anand.

The maharaja’s story begins sadly and ends sadly, but also included is the privileged and rather lengthy middle of his story from the second half of the book, ‘The Jewel in the Crown’. A summary follows.

It was unclear what the boy’s father, Ranjit Singh, also known as the Lion of Punjab, intended to do with the diamond.

When the Second Anglo-Sikh War ended in 1849, his young son gave the gem to the colonial administrator Lord Dalhousie in the context of the Treaty of Lahore. The boy’s mother, the regent Jind Kaur, had been taken away from him.

John Spencer Login, a diplomat living in India, adopted the boy to live with him and his family. Meanwhile, Jind Kaur was exiled to Nepal.

Then, a few years later:

After requesting to travel to England Duleep Singh joined Queen Victoria‘s court. When he was 15 he repeated the ceremony of giving the Koh-i-Noor, in this instance to Victoria.

When Duleep Singh turned 21, he:

began to express a great longing for his mother and more distance from the people with whom he lived in the court.

The following year, he was reunited with his mother:

At age 22 he traveled to meet her at Spence’s Hotel in Calcutta then brought her back to England.

Unfortunately, things unravelled for him for a few years:

From this point his life went into chaos with him no longer behaving like his peers in British society and spending huge sums of money.

However, his biography on Wikipedia tells us that, even as an adolescent, he lived a charmed life. Before he was reunited with his mother, he began receiving an immense annual pension from the East India Company and spent a few years in a Scottish castle.

He arrived in England in 1854:

He was a member of the Photographic Society, later the Royal Photographic Society, from 1855 until his death.^[15]

On his return from Continental Europe in 1855 he was given an annual pension of £25,000 a year^[16](approximately £2,500,000 in today’s value) provided he “remain obedient to the British Government,” and was officially under ward of Sir John Spencer Login and Lady Login, who leased Castle Menzies in Perthshire, Scotland, for him. He spent the rest of his teens there, but at 19 he demanded to be in charge of his household. Eventually, he was given this and an increase in his annual pension.

In 1859 Lt Col James Oliphant was installed as Equerry to the Maharaja at the recommendation of Sir John Login. Oliphant was to be a possible replacement should anything happen to the Maharaja’s most trusted friend Sir John Login (who did indeed die four years later in 1863).^[17]

In the 1860s, Singh moved from Castle Menzies to Grandtully Castle.^[18]

Between 1858 and 1862, he also rented Mulgrave Castle, near Whitby.

When his mother moved to Britain, she lived with him for a time in Perthshire.

In June 1861, he became Maharaja Duleep Singh and either acquired or was given Elveden Hall on the border between Norfolk and Suffolk.

Singh not only transformed the estate into a farm with hunting grounds, becoming the fourth best shot in England, but he also restored the nearby church, school and cottages bordering the delightful town of Thetford.

His mother and adoptive father Sir John Login both died in 1863.

The Maharaja’s wife, Maharani Bamba

In 1864, with permission from the East India Company, which financed him, Singh was able to go to India to place his mother’s ashes in a memorial monument in Bombay.

On his way back to England in February 1864, he stopped off in Cairo to visit a Christian mission in the city. At the American Presbyterian Missionary school, he met a student, Bamba Müller, the illegitimate daughter of wealthy German banker Ludwig Müller and his Abyssinian (Ethiopian) mistress, Sofia. Müller had a wife and children, so he left young Bamba in the care of the missionaries, where she became a devout Presbyterian. Müller paid for her lodging and schooling.

In March that year, he wrote to the missionaries, asking them for advice on finding a suitable wife. Although Queen Victoria suggested that Singh marry an Indian princess, he wanted someone less worldly. Details are scant, but it was decided that Bamba was the candidate. The missionaries asked Ludwig Müller about it and he left the decision to his daughter. Bamba had wanted to teach in a missionary school, so she prayed hard about what she should do, eventually deciding that it was God’s will that she marry Singh.

There was only one problem: a language barrier. Bamba spoke Arabic and Singh’s only second language was English. An interpreter facilitated the proposal. Singh gave the school a donation of £1,000, a substantial sum. The couple married on June 7, 1864 at the British Consulate in Alexandria. Singh made his vows in English. His bride made hers in Arabic.

The couple sailed back to England and settled at Elveden Hall. Bamba gave birth to a son in 1885; sadly, he lived only one day. She gave birth to the first of six children in 1866: three sons and three daughters. All of the daughters became suffragettes. One was a debutante who was presented at court, and another married a Scottish doctor and moved to Lahore.

Two of the sons went to Eton before joining the British Army. A memorial to both sons is in the school. The third son died at the age of 13.

All the Singh children had the titles of either Prince or Princess, as Sikh royalty.

Later life

As the years passed, despite his privileged lifestyle, Singh became increasingly discouraged with the British and longed for his homeland.

In 1884, Singh’s cousin Sardar Thakar arrived in England with his two sons and a Sikh granthi (priest). Thakar brought with him a list of properties that Singh owned in India. Naturally, he wanted to return and to re-embrace Sikhism.

In 1886, the British government formally objected to Singh’s proposed return to India for a visit as well as a reversion to Sikhism. Nevertheless, Singh set sail for India on March 30 that year.

The Government intercepted him at Aden in today’s Yemen. Officials probably feared that if he reached India, there would be massive unrest. Aden was where the Viceroy of India’s rule began, so it was the first point at which he could be legally stopped.

Although Singh had to abandon his voyage, while he was in Aden, he reverted to Sikhism in a cermony performed by emissaries that his cousin Sardar Thakar sent.

In 1887, Bamba died:

The cause of death was reported as “comprehensive renal failure brought on by an acute case of diabetes, made worse by her drinking (of alcohol)”.[1]

Interestingly, Singh appeared not to have returned to England from Aden. He ended up in Paris:

upon being stopped in Aden by the British authorities he abandoned his family and moved to Paris.

He had met his future second wife, Ada Douglas Wetherill, sometime before he attempted to sail to India:

Wetherill had been Duleep’s mistress before he decided to return to India.

When Singh moved to Paris, Wetherill joined him.

They married and had two daughters, also Princesses in line with Sikh royalty.

Before he died, Singh resolved his differences with Queen Victoria, who refused to receive his second wife:

whom she suspected had been involved with the Maharaja before Maharani Bamba’s death in 1887.^[38]

In 1893, at the age of 55, Maharaja Duleep Singh died in Paris. His body was brought back to England.

His request to be buried in India was refused on grounds that it might create unrest, as the Indians were growing increasingly upset over British rule.

Instead, Singh was given a Christian burial:

in Elveden Church beside the grave of his wife Maharani Bamba, and his son Prince Edward Albert Duleep Singh. The graves are located on the west side of the Church.

Elveden Hall had to be sold after his death to pay his debts. The First Earl of Iveagh bought it in 1894 and it remains the home of his successors, who are part of the Guinness brewing family.

All eight of Singh’s children died without legitimate issue, thus ending the direct line of Sikh royalty.

Conclusion

It seems that the lavish life the Maharaja was given in Britain and in Paris was compensation for the Koh-i-noor diamond.

Queen Victoria and the East India Company gave Duleep Singh everything he could ever ask for, except a permanent return to India.

On that basis, there seems no good reason why Camilla Queen Consort cannot wear the Queen Mother’s crown next year.

The Telegraph says that King Charles enjoys a good relationship with India:

He has recently had a warm relationship with India, meeting Mr Modi on several occasions in the last few years.

As for the crown:

The King, now Head of Commonwealth, and his advisers are understood to be mindful of the “issues around today”, with decisions about the coronation likely to be confirmed only at the last minute.

One suspects that those asking for the diamond’s return do not know about the final Maharaja’s history.