India says Koh-i-Noor diamond’s use could bring back ‘painful memories’ of British colonialism

Using the controversial Koh-i-Noor diamond in Camilla’s crown could bring back ‘painful memories’ of British colonialism, officials from India‘s governing party claimed last night.

The controversial jewel is set to feature in the coronation of King Charles next year, with the Queen Consort set to wear the late Queen Mother‘s crown at the ceremony.

The priceless piece features 2,800 diamonds with the front cross holding the famous 105-carat Koh-i-Noor diamond, one of the largest cut diamonds in the world.

The huge diamond originated from India and was given to Queen Victoria by the last Sikh emperor of India – who at the time was 10 years old.

But the gifting of the diamond is disputed and there are claims in at least three countries, including India, to have the jewel returned.

The precious gem, which is part of the famed Crown Jewels, could instead be replaced with another stone. Royal sources insisted no official decision had yet been made.

However, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s governing party in India has now weighed into the argument, suggesting that its use in the coronation could ‘transport a few Indians back to the days of the British Empire’.

 ‘The coronation of Camilla and the use of the crown jewel Koh-i-Noor brings back painful memories of the colonial past,’ said a party spokesperson to The Telegraph.

‘Most Indians have very little memory of the oppressive past. Five to six generations of Indians suffered under multiple foreign rules for over five centuries.

‘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.’

When the King first raised the issue of his wife taking her place by his side at his coronation several years ago it was provisionally agreed that she would be proclaimed Queen Consort using the late Queen Mother‘s crown. 

However Mail+ has learnt that there is ‘significant nervousness’ about this now given continuing controversy over ownership of the diamond, which originated in India and is claimed not only by the republic but also several other countries in the region.

The gem, which is held in a detachable platinum mount, may now be taken out of the crown before use – or the crown not even used at all in favour of something simpler, such as Queen Victoria’s coronet.

A source said: ‘The original plan was for the Queen Consort to be crowned with the late Queen Mother’s crown when her husband acceded to the throne.

That was certainly the agreement a few years ago when the whole idea of the Duchess of Cornwall becoming Queen Consort was first mooted.

‘But times have changed and His Majesty The King is acutely sensitive to these issues, as are his advisors. There are serious political sensitivities and significant nervousness around them, particularly regarding India.’

Buckingham Palace declined to comment today. Meanwhile, a royal last night told The Times that the jewel had not been ‘problematic’ before, but that those planning the coronation were ‘acutely aware of reflecting tradition’ while ‘being sensitive to the issues around today’.

‘At this stage it’s entirely possible that the Koh-i-Noor will be in or out. Bluntly, people will be wondering whether the really want a row over a diamond right now.’ 

Announcing the dating of next year’s coronation as May 6, palace officials said yesterday that further details about the coronation – which will incorporate a mix of the traditional and the modern – would be announced in due course.

But the issue of regalia – particularly the Queen Consort’s crown – is likely to prove a sticking point.

It was made in 1937 for Queen Elizabeth, consort of King George VI, using many stones already in the royal collection. Most of the diamonds were removed from Queen Victoria’s Regal Circlet.

The Koh-i-noor diamond had been successively mounted in the crowns of Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary, and was once again reset for this crown.

Queen Elizabeth wore the crown without its arches at the State Openings of Parliament during the reign of King George VI, and again at the coronation of her daughter, Queen Elizabeth II, in 1953.

It is impossible to know exactly where the diamond came from, although there is no doubt that it was panned in India. The earliest reference appears to relate to a powerful Mughal ruler in 1628.

It returned to India in 1813 and become a potent symbol of power until it was acquired by Britain in 1849.

The diamond was given to Queen Victoria in 1855 by 10 year-old Duleep Singh, last emperor of the Sikhs. 

Although much has been made of the fact that it was ‘given’ to this country, critics point out that this was only after the mother of the ten-year old heir to the Punjabi throne was held prisoner and he was forced to sign it away.

It then became a special possession of Queen Victoria and displayed at the 1851 Great Exhibition in London.

Since then it has become part of the Crown Jewels, and point of dispute between the UK, India – as well as several other nations – ever since.

William Dalrymple, who co-wrote Koh-i-Noor: The History of the World’s Most Infamous Diamond with colleague Anita Anand said: ‘It is not a small sensitive issue in the eyes of India. 

‘It is a massive diplomatic grenade.’

‘One of the reasons we wrote our book was that we don’t believe anyone in this country has the slightest conception of how much it matters in India.

‘For people here it is the name of an Indian restaurant or a brand of pencils or maybe something they have seen on a school trip to the Tower of London.

‘But it is actually part of a wider disconnect of a number of things that Indians get very upset about to do with the colonial period.

‘The diamond has been claimed by Pakistani, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and also the Taliban. It is a hugely sensitive and much claimed stone. 

‘It matters to a huge number of people and has continued to be very controversial since the Queen died.

‘There is an expectation that this is an issue that will come back. Colonialism is over, Britain wants to make friends with India, it is a major new rising power.

‘In a sense the British have brought this on themselves because they turned the stone into a symbol of their empire by putting it on display in the Great Exhbition of 1851.

‘It has [since] become, rightly or wrongly, a symbol for many colonised people of all they think that we took from them. Whatever your position on it, that is how it’s viewed.

‘This tiny stone, which is actually not that big – in fact, and it’s not even in the top 100 of the worlds diamonds any more – has come to take the whole weight of colonisation on its shoulder. It it has become this very, very sensitive object and is a major issue now between the two countries. ‘

Saurav Dutt, author and political commentator, told the Mail that any decision to include the diamond in next year’s coronation ceremony would ‘fly in the face’ of any attempt by the Royal Family ‘to draw a line under imperialism’.

He claimed: ‘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.’

He added: ‘In a pluralistic modern British society, the exhibitionism of this diamond in this way can only serve to outrage and remind society of the usurious relationship between India and Britain.

‘Such a position is untenable as both parties strive to cut lucrative trade deals post-Brexit.

‘From a public relations point of view, the unsavoury optics of cavorting around with this looted artifact must be outweighed by fostering improved relations between the ruler and the ruled.’

It comes as Downing Street says it is considering ‘all options’ to mark King Charles III’s Coronation with a bank holiday amid growing calls for Britons to be given a special long weekend to mark next May’s event.

The new monarch and his wife Camilla, the Queen Consort, will be crowned at an historic ceremony at Westminster Abbey on Saturday May 6 next year.

MPs have suggested the occasion could be marked by moving the early May bank holiday one week later to Monday May 8.

Some have even called for an extra bank holiday on top of the eight that are already scheduled for next year – those being January 2, April 7, April 10, May 1, May 29, August 28, December 25 and December 28.

Labour today said moving the early May day off would be a ‘good idea’, while Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg said a bank holiday would be ‘appropriate’ to mark the ‘splendid historic’ event.

No10 said the Government was ‘carefully considering’ the issue amid the clamour for a three-day weekend to celebrate the Coronation. 

Prime Minister Liz Truss’s official spokesman said: ‘Obviously this will be a historic event. We are carefully considering our plans. All options remain on the table.’

Labour backed moving the May bank holiday to coincide with the Westminster Abbey event.

‘That would certainly be a good way for the country to be able to celebrate the Coronation,’ said a spokesman for party leader Sir Keir Starmer.

‘Moving the May bank holiday that there is for that weekend would be a good idea.’

Earlier, Mr Rees-Mogg had said a bank holiday would be ‘appropriate’ to mark the ‘splendid historic’ occasion.

He told the BBC: ‘I think that having a bank holiday for a coronation seems to me to be an eminently suitable thing to do. But there is a process that has to be gone through and it has to be approved ultimately by the Privy Council.

‘When I was Lord President of the Council we had to approve bank holidays even when Christmas Day fell on a Saturday, to move it to the Monday.

‘So bank holidays go through a splendid historic process, which I suppose is only appropriate for a splendid historic occasion like the Coronation.’

If the Koh-i-Noor diamond symbolises anything, it’s that history is complex. By removing it from the Coronation, we’d be rushing down a slippery slope writes PROFESSOR ROBERT TOMBS

By Professor Robert Tombs for the Daily Mail 

Like the flicker of fire within a diamond, the prospect of a glorious Coronation for King Charles next spring is a sparkle of light in these gloomy times. 

Something truly unique in the national calendar, a ceremonial event no other country in the world can match. This ought to be an uplifting prospect, one to unite the country and banish our woes.

How miserable it is, then — albeit sadly predictable — that a tiny minority of voices are already tarnishing the occasion by kicking up a fuss about one stone: that fabulous but controversial diamond, the Koh-i-Noor, meaning ‘the Mountain of Light’.

One of the grandest and most valuable gemstones in the world, it is the centrepiece of the dazzling Queen Mother crown.

According to royal sources, it had been the King’s long-held ambition, since he married Camilla in 2005, that she would wear this crown on his Coronation day.

In doing so, she would follow in the longstanding tradition set by Charles’s grandmother, Elizabeth; by King George VI’s mother, Queen Mary, before her; and by Queen Alexandra in 1902.

As the Mail reports today, all signs suggest that tradition is now to be broken, with a different crown having to be selected instead — all thanks to the agitation of a motley crew of woke obsessives.

The inevitable next step will likely be a clamour for the diamond to be ‘returned’ to India, from where it was mined — in spite of the absence of any good historical reason, and regardless of the risks posed by setting such a precedent.

To those who hate Britain and its history, the campaign is a simple one: they see the West as responsible for all the evils of the world, with the British Empire most guilty of all. And thus, any trace of that tainted past must be banished from our social fabric.

It is a campaign that has nothing to do with real history, and everything to do with the political agenda of today’s liberal Establishment.

In their version of reality, slavery and imperial exploitation underpin all the UK’s wealth and government. They claim Britain’s culture is founded on racism and that we must all be punished for the sins of the past.

And, worryingly, their influence over public institutions — from our museums, to academia and even our statues and street names — is growing fast, as this latest debacle over the Koh-i- Noor demonstrates.

Let me be clear: we must resist this pernicious nonsense.

The Palace’s likely decision to remove the diamond from the Coronation is, in my opinion, deeply worrying. Because, once we concede that one artefact is a symbol of national guilt, we’ll soon be rushing down a slippery slope.

The reality of the past is infinitely more complex than the woke mob would have you believe, of course.

History is steeped in injustice, slaughter, robbery and brutal power grabs. But it was never one-sided. To lay all the blame on one nation, or one race, is dishonest, especially when it also means denying the good that was done in the process.

My lifelong hope has been that, through a deeper understanding of the past, we will learn to make the present better.

It truly saddens me to see ignorant or cynical partisans spreading falsehood under the cloak of history.

The best antidote is to examine the facts. And the facts about the Koh-i-Noor are particularly fascinating.

This enormous stone has been rumoured for centuries to bear a curse, first recorded by a court chronicler in 1628, when the diamond was set at the top of the Mughal Shah Jahan’s throne. This jewel-encrusted seat of power was sculpted to resemble a peacock with its brilliant tail spread like a kaleidoscopic fan.

It took an army of craftsmen seven years to make. The Koh-i-Noor, the size of a small hen’s egg and weighing just over 105.6 carats (21.2g, or about three quarters of an ounce) glowed in the bird’s head. Probably discovered about 1,000 years ago in the Kollur Mine in southern India, it is one of the world’s biggest gems.

Somehow or other, in its half-forgotten past, a curse emerged from Hindu legend: ‘He who owns this diamond will own the world but will also know all its misfortunes. Only God, or a woman, can wear it with impunity.’

Just over a century later, in 1739, the Shah of Persia invaded India. After a battle that left 30,000 dead, he plundered the Mughal’s treasury and carried off the throne —along with so much gold, silk and other riches that it took 700 elephants, 4,000 camels and 12,000 horses to transport it all.

Then, in 1813, the diamond changed hands again, when it was siezed by the Sikh ruler Ranjit Singh, styled the Maharajah of Lahore and the Lion of the Punjab. He died when his son, Duleep, was just five years old and, although his widow vainly attempted to hold his empire together, wars broke out.

By 1849, the British ruled the Punjab, and the Koh-i-Noor, sealed inside an iron safe within a red despatch box, was brought to the UK.

Contrary to George MacDonald Fraser’s hilarious 1990 novel Flashman And The Mountain Of Light — in which the protagonist smuggles the diamond and Duleep Singh out of India — Duleep travelled to Britain alone, and presented the gem to Queen Victoria personally.

The Queen, however, never much liked the stone. Neither did the general public. When it went on display at the Great Exhibition of 1851 an editorial in The Times complained that it looked like ‘a piece of common glass’.

Prince Albert ordered it to be recut, increasing its brilliance but reducing its size. But Queen Victoria, who could be superstitious, felt uncomfortable wearing it because of the curse.

She rarely touched it, though sometimes wore it as a brooch and ordered it should become part of the Crown Jewels on her death —with the stipulation that no man must ever wear it.

If the Koh-i-Noor symbolises anything, it is that history is a complex business. Anyone casting an eye over the corkscrew provenance of the diamond will be struck by one question: if Britain does not own it, then who does?

The previous owners were the Sikh despot Ranjit and his family. But he was also ruler of Lahore, which is now the second largest city in Pakistan.

Does the diamond belong by rights to Sikhs in India, or to modern-day Pakistan?

Before Ranjit seized the diamond, it had been the property of the Persians in the mountain territories that now form part of Afghanistan. Perhaps the Taliban could have a claim over the Koh-i-Noor?

Right at the start of this great tale, the Mughal Shah Jahan’s peacock throne stood in Delhi, which is partly why some people insist the diamond belongs to India —although the Mughals were Muslim, and India is now run by a Hindu nationalist government.

But the fact is that giving away this priceless jewel to Delhi would do no practical good to the billion or more inhabitants of India.

It would, however, mark a hammering humiliation for Britain — and it would endanger innumerable other national treasures.

Hand over the Koh-i-Noor, and we would have no logical defence against campaigns to give the Elgin Marbles to Athens, the Benin Bronzes to West Africa, the Rosetta Stone to Egypt, and much more.

Collections would be scattered to the four corners of the earth. Museums would be stripped. Academics would lose the chance to study the most intriguing objects ever found.

Millions of ordinary people who flock to museums from around the world would never have the chance to see them.

And then, what next? The mob would turn on the next perceived historic ‘wrong’ — likely something they have yet even to think of — and destroy that, too.

But the fact is, however much blood has been spilt over the Koh-i-Noor, as it changed hands throughout the centuries, the wrongs of the past can never be destroyed.

History, infinitely cruel and murderous, cannot be re-written.

We must respect the facts and stop this childish pretence that all the blame lies in the present. 

Robert Tombs is Professor Emeritus of French History and fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge.

King Charles’s coronation will be at Westminster Abbey on Saturday May 6: Monarch and Queen Consort Camilla will both be crowned in ceremony lasting just ONE hour on Harry and Meghan’s son Archie’s fourth birthday – but there’s NO promise of a Bank Holiday

By Inderdeep Bains, Deputy Chief Reporter for the Daily Mail and Matthew Lodge for MailOnline

King Charles’ Coronation will take place on May 6 next year with the Queen Consort being crowned alongside him, Buckingham Palace has revealed.

The new monarch will be officially crowned in what is expected to be a scaled back version of the ancient ceremony lasting just one hour and conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury at Westminster Abbey.

The event, which will see the eyes of the world once more turn onto the Britain, is set to take place on a Saturday scuppering the hopes of many who might have wished for a bank holiday to mark the occasion, as insiders claim it is ‘unlikely’ extra time off will be given.

It will also take place on the fourth birthday of Harry and Meghan’s son, Archie, potentially causing a clash in the Sussex household if the King’s second son is invited to the ceremony as is expected.

King Charles, 73, is said to want a more modest affair than is tradition with the event being cut down to less than an hour, the guest list slashed by a three quarters and a less formal dress code.

‘The Coronation will reflect the monarch’s role today and look towards the future, while being rooted in longstanding traditions and pageantry,’ the Palace confirmed as it revealed the date.

The announcement comes amid much speculation that the momentous occasion is being slimmed down amid the cost of living crisis and to make way for a more streamlined, modern monarchy.

Palace insiders said that while the Coronation will include the same core elements of the traditional ceremony which has retained a similar structure for more than 1,000 years, it would recognise the ‘spirit of our times’.

It is expected to be much ‘smaller and simpler’ than the three-hour spectacle of the late Queen’s momentous Coronation in 1953.

Plans for the major event are known by the codename Operation Golden Orb, which sets out the blueprint for the service and the pageantry surrounding it.

They are expected to see the guestlist slashed from 8,000 to just 2,000 with a more relaxed dress code with peers possibly allowed to wear lounge suits rather than ceremonial robes.

Ancient and time-consuming rituals – including presenting the monarch with gold ingots – are also set to be axed to save time.

However, the Prince of Wales is expected to play a prominent role in the occasion – the first time an heir will participate in the proceedings in three generations.

Charles was just four when his mother was crowned and the late Queen was 11 at the time of her father’s coronation – as children neither played a formal role.

In contrast Prince William – aged 40 and a full-fledged working royal – is expected to be an eminent figure at the event.

The Coronation is being held slightly earlier than was anticipated – it was first rumoured to be taking place on the 70th anniversary of the late Queen’s coronation in June.

It is also taking place on a Saturday – Coronations have not traditionally been held on a weekend with the late Queen’s held on a Tuesday.

It is believed to be unlikely there will be a bank holiday to allow the nation to celebrate, with the royal household and the government said to be mindful of the potential cost to the economy amid the cost-of-living crisis.

Guest lists have yet to be confirmed for the spectacle, including whether or not the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be invited or be able to travel from California to attend.

The date clashes with the birthday of their son Archie – Charles’s grandson – who will be turning four on the day.

The date was also the wedding anniversary of the late Queen’s sister Princess Margaret, while the King’s grandfather George VI held his coronation in the month of May.

Charles is expected to sign a proclamation formally declaring the date of the coronation at a meeting of the Privy Council later this year.

Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams says the date itself will have been chosen after consultation with ‘the Government, the Church of England and the Royal Household’.

He said: ‘May 6th is also the birthday of Archie, the son of Harry and Meghan, who will be four on that date. King Charles was four when he attended the coronation in 1953, which was very young, but he was the future king and it was important for him to attend.

‘It is a fact that since their departure Harry and Meghan have never taken any notice if their events clashed with the activities of other members of the royal family. Also, titles, which should automatically be given to both Archie and Lili under the 1917 Protocols have still to be confirmed. The fact that the date is also Archie’s birthday means a good deal of attention will be given to all this by the press.

‘The event, the first coronation for over 70 years in the last major country in Europe to have one, will undoubtedly be magnificent. Obviously it will be very different from its predecessor in 1953 and it will be exciting to read how in the coming months. This is a pivotal event in the world’s most high profile monarchy and hopefully the Sussexes will be happy to attend as Harry’s father, the longest serving Prince of Wales in history, is finally crowned king.’

The King acceded to the throne on September 8, immediately on the death of his mother, Elizabeth II – the nation’s longest reigning monarch.

The late Queen’s coronation was a carnival of celebration and a morale boost for a nation starved of pageantry in the wake of the Second World War.

Royal watchers had hoped for a similar display of pomp which would draw in viewers and visitors from around the globe.

But King Charles is said to favour a simpler ceremony to reflect his wish for a slimmed-down, modern monarchy, while retaining some of the drama and dignity that accompanied the Queen’s funeral.

But Palace insiders have insisted that the smaller ceremony will not be devoid or pageantry.

During the ancient Ceremony, the Sovereign is ‘anointed, blessed and consecrated’ by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Many will witness for the first time a new monarch take thee oath to ‘maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine worship, discipline, and government thereof, as the law established in England’.

Having been sanctified, the sovereign will then be presented with a jewelled sword and the golden spurs – the symbol of chivalry – and the armills – golden bracelets of sincerity and wisdom.

He will put on the Robe Royal of gold cloth and will be presented with the orb, the coronation ring on the fourth finger of his right hand, the sceptre and the rod.

Then Charles, sitting in King Edward’s Chair which was made in 1300 and has been used by every monarch since 1626, will be crowned by the Archbishop with St Edward’s Crown, with the congregation shouting out ‘God Save the King’.

After a blessing, the King will go to his throne and be ‘lifted up into it by the archbishops and bishops, and other peers of the kingdom’.

The archbishop, royal blood princes – likely to include the Prince of Wales – and senior peers will then pay homage to the monarch by placing their hands between the King’s and swearing allegiance, touching the crown and kissing the King’s right hand.

The Queen Consort will also be crowned in similar and simpler ceremony and take her place on a throne.

The Duke of Norfolk, who organised the Queen’s funeral, will have the role of staging the King’s coronation.

While there are concerns the King’s wishes for a stripped back ceremony would not do the Royal Family justice or would be a missed opportunity to showcase Britain on the world stage, there are others who would be unhappy at the sight of such pomp and circumstance in the current economic climate.

Royal author Robert Lacey told BBC News: ‘Will Britain, at a time of homelessness and restricted benefits and energy prices going up, really cheer to the rafters the sight of a head of state riding in a golden coach? ‘There are others who will say, ‘That’s just what we want’.’

 

When Queen Elizabeth II was crowned in 1953 there was a carnival of celebration as millions rejoiced in the display which provided a morale boost to a nation on its knees after the war.

For a day, street parties banished the hardship of post-war rationing and shortages, and even atrocious, unseasonal weather could not dampen the enthusiasm.

People began to bed down in the streets of London as early as 48 hours before Tuesday June 2 1953, just to make sure they had a standing place to watch the Queen pass by.

By Monday evening, in pouring rain and driving wind, half a million people were already lining the procession route.

The public were not the only ones making preparations.

In a tribute, Charles – now King – paid to his mother on her 80th birthday, he recalled the night before the big day when he was four years old.

‘I have vivid memories of the coronation; of my mother coming to say goodnight to my sister and me while wearing the crown so that she could get used to its weight on her head before the coronation ceremony; of thousands of people gathered in The Mall outside Buckingham Palace chanting ‘We want the Queen’ and keeping me awake at night,’ he said.

Despite initial reservations, the Queen eventually agreed to the TV cameras being present in Westminster Abbey to capture the event.

Licence holders doubled from one and a half million to three million in anticipation and many people rented a set for the day.

An estimated 27 million people in Britain alone watched the coronation live on their black and white televisions and the images were beamed around the world.

At Buckingham Palace after the ceremony, the Queen, wearing her crown, and Philip appeared on the balcony with the other members of the royal family.

Their children, Charles and Anne, were greeted with great excitement by the crowds.

In her broadcast address to the nation the same evening, the young Queen thanked the public for their support.

All of you, near or far, have been united in one purpose. It is hard for me to find words in which to tell you of the strength which this knowledge has given me,’ she said.

She added: ‘I have in sincerity pledged myself to your service, as so many of you are pledged to mine.

‘Throughout all my life and with all my heart I shall strive to be worthy of your trust.’

The night came to an end as hundreds of thousands on Victoria Embankment watched a spectacular coronation fireworks display.

Organisers and royals will be hoping for a similarly effusive display of affection from the public in less than seven months when the King is crowned.