 — From The Conversation, This Is Don't Call Me Resilient, I'm Vanita Srivastava — What's not just the jewels, it's the pomp of everything that is attached to the ceremony is such a contradiction now to the things we are talking about globally in our world in terms of privilege, colonialism and class structures. — No matter what you or I think of the British monarchy, it's still a thing. And soon we're all going to be slammed with photos and news of the coordination of King Charles III, which takes place on May 6th. That day is going to include a lot of pomp and ceremony, including a display of the crown jewels, to show just how glorious that monarchy is. But much of what was called the British Empire was built from stolen riches, globally and also much from India. At the time of its occupation of South Asia, Britain called India the jewel in its crown. India was called this because of its location, easy access to the silk route, but mostly because of its vast human and natural resources, things like cotton and tea, and of course an abundance of jewels. Literally, the brightest jewel in Britain's crown is the Kohinoor Diamond. It's considered one of the world's largest and most valued diamonds, and it usually sits on top of the crown of Queen Mary. It has a controversial history, and it's likely that for that reason it won't be on display at the coronation. But plenty of other jewels would be part of the ceremony. There's the five-pound gold St. Edward's crown that Charles will be officially crowned with, and there's the Sovereign Scepter, which has the great star of Africa diamond in it. There's also the Imperial State crown, which is set with almost 3,000 diamonds, including another star of Africa. Joining me to explore the history and meaning behind these jewels is Annie St. John Stark, Associate Professor of History at Thompson Rivers University. Also here today is Sharonjit Kaur Sandra. Sharonjit is a session instructor at the University of the Fraser Valley as well as the University of British Columbia. Her recently completed PhD reimagines museums as spaces of belonging. Thank you very much, both of you, for being here with me today. Happy to be here. Good to be here. Let's start with the coronation. Let's just start right at the level of the crown jewels. Why are the jewels so important to the ceremony? Annie, tell us what these jewels represent to the crown. I think that when we're looking at the coronation in May, we're looking at really an extensive period of recollection and memory. Every generation has a memory of a coronation. It goes back to the 10th century. So this is a millennium plus. And I think that when we're watching the ceremonies on May 6th, if we're watching any of them, we're seeing the heritage of that. When we use the word jewels, we tend to think, okay, that's a jewel like an individual stone or precious stone. The term crown jewels refers to all of that regalia. So it's the term that refers to the crown, the various crowns, various tiaras. If you're into tiaras, this is your jam, scepter, an orb, which is like a big round ball that is quite ornate that you'll see sitting in Charles's hands briefly throughout the ceremony. So we are talking about more than just a pile of very precious gems. We're talking about a history of each particular item. And so it's layers of history and the ceremony itself in its whatever connotations it still has or connections it has rather with what has transpired throughout that millennium plus holds the weight. If suddenly Charles III and his consort decided, you know, let's try something else. Let's just try a plain civil ceremony in a court in front of parliament, for example. We're not going to have any of the big gems, the crowns, the scepter, the orb. Let's just do it that way. There would be an incredible upheaval at that because in the case of the British population, its identity is very much as I think we could guess wrapped up in the longevity of this royal institution. So when we're looking at the ceremony, we're looking at a long ceremony with different stages and different phases. Each one of those parts, in effect, imparts or infuses into that monarch, into Charles and then also into Camilla. Certain promises, certain elements and characters and attributes like sincerity and courage and honor and trust and good governing. All of those go with the handing over of these artifacts, the placing of the crown on Charles's head. It has been said that the moment that crown hits the head of the monarch, in effect, the monarch is signing their name on a contract. And the contract is, I will be a good ruler, I'll be everything. And in return, you will allow me to wear this crown. I will be your head. I will give you good justice. I will give you good conscientious rule that represents your interests. We're talking about the representation that the crown jewels represent. I want to turn to Sharangit for a minute and talk about the perception of what these crown jewels mean. Well, I'm so glad you said perception because this coronation ceremony and in particular the crown jewels is part of this opulence and perceived self-worth of the British monarchies connection to global history. So it's kind of this hypocrisy, perhaps contradiction that these jewels, and I love that Annie mentioned the scepter, the orb. So it's not just the jewels, it's the pomp of everything that is attached to the ceremony is such a contradiction now to the things we are talking about globally in our world in terms of privilege, colonialism and class structures. And so it really for me is this idea of a perceived self-worth and how or when will this monarchy begin to understand that it is a perceived self-worth. In many conversations, it is to the point of being a perception and how do we move beyond the opulence to a more critical conversation around the harm that this is going to do for many communities who are a part of that history of colonization. Let's talk about the opulence. We go back and look a little bit about the history of some of these jewels on display. Can we start with what are known as the stars of Africa? They're also known as the cullinan diamonds, and they've been infused with this idea of glamour and also power. Annie, can you give us a little bit of the history of these diamonds? In the late 19th century, the late 1800s, Africa undergoes a period typically referred to as the scramble for Africa, which is exactly what it sounds like. It's essentially a scrum through which various European and so-called Western powers, European powers, end up battling for possession of various areas of Africa, various territories and regions. Ultimately, what transpires in the long run are a series of wars and battles. The cullinan diamonds come out of, essentially, South Africa. I think they're discovered in 1905. It's actually a diamond, quite large, that is then cut into several different diamonds. We have cullinan I, cullinan II, cullinan III. I think there might be seven or eight of varying sizes. In 1905, that diamond is discovered and eventually what becomes the main centroid pieces of British regalia, the cullinan I and cullinan II, are given, gifted to the British monarchy. There's some legends about how they're transported to Britain through the mail, and they're successfully received, and then they make their way, they're incorporated into various jewels for the crown and eventually make their way into the British royal regalia. But the same context I'll point out is there. It's in an imperialistic stage or phase of Britain's history that this transpires. These are definitely blood diamonds, so there's no secret about the basic background of the cullinans, just as there's no secret, the lots of myths and legends around the background for the cullinor. And also black chateau slavery, they're connected intimately, right? That whole system of slavery which impacted three quarters of the global world, so the diamond is connected to that history. Yep. They're intertwined. Annie, you were also talking a little bit about, you know, sometimes meaning changes, you know, as it changes hands. Gems play a role going back thousands and thousands of years, millennia. Gems, precious stones, semi-precious stones have spiritual meaning. They even have roles in spiritual ceremonies and rituals. Looking at Indian history just briefly, it's quite apparent that cat's eyes, diamonds, sapphires, rubies, they hold a very specific place in actual spiritual reflections, spiritual activities, spiritual ceremonies and rituals. They mean something. They are not just an artifact of geology. They have characteristics and attributes to them. They contain a certain power. They do. They have power. So it's not just a symbolic power in a way, like of wealth. Can we turn to the famous one now that it's the largest, notably the largest jewel of the crown jewels. It's the cullinor diamond. And it's not going to be part of the coronation ceremony. Let's talk about first about why we think it's being removed. Sharon, explain to us why you think this has been removed from the current coronation. I would love to know in a public statement why it's being removed. Even that erasure and that silence around what is happening is frustrating. Why is it left to people like us to have these conversations to do the guesswork and the critical work and the interrogation work to say, hmm, what's taking place? What if it is just nothing and we're kind of imbibing our own criticality into this conversation? That alone, that erasure and silence is just an unending frustration. But if I were to, you know, be a dreamer, I would hope that it's part of that self-awareness, you know, that understanding that the cullinor is a charged jewel. It's a charged diamond. I come from the Punjabi Sikh community, right? And I have my own reasons why it's charged within my own community and my histories. Can you explain some of those reasons? Like you're saying it's charged in those communities. What is the charge? Well, so, you know, Maharaja Ranjit Singh got the Kohi Noor during his reign in 1813, I think is the year that he received it. But even before that, the Kohi Noor was in the hands of many different empires over the entire South Asian continent and region. But that year for us is kind of particularly important because many Sikhs Punjabis see his reign and empire as like the Sikh empire, right? The last stand against British imperialism and colonialism in the Indian subcontinent. So when he attained that jewel, it was kind of a signifier of power and resistance to the monarchy. And then the tragic story of having that upon his death in 1839, a decade of chaos and rule and it ending with his 10 year old son, the leapsing getting that Kohi Noor diamond. So we're looking at what is considered by many to be in some ways, as you say, resistance against the British empire, the monarch, the British East India Company. All of these are combined, I'm sure you can tell me more about that. Well, what I read in the book, Kohi Noor by Anita Annan and William Del Rimpel explains that the diamond was left with Dulip Singh. He was the 10 year old. His father died, we don't know how, and his mother was imprisoned by the British. So what they write is that the 10 year old held out for five months, living in his palace surrounded by the British. Then the 10 year old quote unquote surrendered to the British and converted and learned, you know. So language around that's really important. Is it surrendered when it's a 10 year old being asked to amend the Treaty of Lahore, which in turn means he gives the Kohi Noor to Queen Victoria. And by, you know, he converts to Christianity. Does he choose that conversion? There's a whole deep layered story because at his death, the leapsing then reverts back to Sikhi. He tried many times during his adult life to convert back. Yeah, exactly. And so again, even there, the Kohi Noor is still intimately tied to this entire history because it becomes representative of that story of manipulation, conversion, power, the need, desire for that Kohi Noor. And the subsequent power that Ranjit Singh represented for so long, right? So that's why so for the Punjabi community, right, when the Queen died, many people on social media were like, okay, give us back the diamond. Like it just became that immediate jerk reaction to say give it back because we associate that history to that era, even though there's a much longer history to the Kohi Noor as well. When you look at the Dori online, even if you go to the Tower of London website, it tells you a little bit about this history, a tiny bit. But what's been the official lines up till now, Annie, about the Kohi Noor? I would just say crickets. I just looked up a few minutes ago, if there's been any updates about the status of what we would call repatriation, giving back to cultures and nations, their artifacts that started with them, there's really been nothing about repatriation, which again leads to the mystery of and the guesswork that we're doing now of why the Kohi Noor is not being part, it's not part of this coronation ceremony that's coming up. There really hasn't been any statement from the royal family. Certainly there's been some more recent conversations about repatriation of other artifacts. One of the most recent, I think, was the Benin bronzes being returned to Nigeria. So museum artifacts are big parts of that discussion. I think once you get to the crown jewels though, that's an entire level closer to the actual identity of the monarchy. And I suspect that why there isn't really a conversation about that. Johnny Ive, who's a designer with iPads and so on iPhones, he was just awarded the design of the emblem for the coronation. And on the emblem, what is not there are any of the crown jewels. I mean, there is the St. Edward's crown in a figuration of it. It's not a graphically entirely accurate depiction of it. But what is there are the Irish shamrock, thistles, various aspects of the more natural history of the British Isles. And one argument for why that's the emblem for the coronation is that it reflects Charles' interest in the monarchy by extension, its interest in sustainability in the environment and fighting against climate crises and so on. And that's not the only instance of the royal family in the figure of Charles being represented by something that's not the gems. This tells us they are aware of the meaning of symbolic representation and they know. So I'm going to go with the line that they are aware of the fraught history of the Coenor and they're electing not to include it. Maybe they think it's a form of respect. Maybe they're just trying to avoid more of this type of conversation, at least for now. Avoid, it sounds like to me, it sounds like an avoidance. Yeah, I'm thinking of that's the case. What I read is that Camilla Parker-Bowles is the one that would have worn that Coenor, I believe. And she was the one that requested it get downsized or changed, indicating that she's aware that there is this history. The statement that I had read about Camilla Parker-Bowles' decision not to use that crown and it was that it was about sustainability and recycling. Yes. Upcycling, recycling. Again, about the environment, which works with the general tenor of this monarchy. It's not about, I don't want to use that diamond because it has such a brutal history of inequity and brutality. Sharon, you were talking about, you know, from the perspective of your community, but also your museum studies. Let's say, for example, we're talking about the way that this story is told in the future. How would you recommend that this story be told? I think it needs to be told by people who have the lived experiences to tell the story. You know, the history of the museum is a history of colonialism, too. And we forget that when we are innocently in these spaces. So even today, when we talk about who's telling the story, it's still contained within these structures of theft and power. Again, back to power. And so it's interesting, even back to the Kohinoor, when it was taken from the leapsing, it was displayed in 1851 at the Great Exquisition in London. And after it was displayed, people were so bored with it. Like they thought it was not as big as Grand Oise as they thought it was going to be that it was actually filed down and shined. And it's just like when I read that, I was shocked by it. Because again, for the sake of an audience of, again, opulence and power and bravado, a jewel that was something totally different is cut down. So the museum and displaying power is a part of this performance of the British monarchy. And so when we talk about who is going to be the ones to retell this story, I absolutely feel it has to be from the communities and the professionals within those communities who can shape a different story, who can flip the script, who can use different language, who can use language that is the first language of the community that it comes from rather than using English language, right? Like there's so many creative ways we can retell this story. And it comes down to disassembling the power. And so repatriation is a huge part of that conversation. There needs to be museum spaces that offer those storytelling unapologetically and removing the politicization out of it. Because British monarchy is politicized, deeply, deeply politicized. It's crafted so robotically and so perfectly that it removes the soul. Like it removes the capacity to just be real for gods. Can you speak to the human experience of what's taking place in this world? For me, that's what frustrates me. Like we've had Black Lives Matter resurgence in the past three years. We've had COVID. We're in a, you know, recession or there's deep, deep issues that are taking place globally. And here we are talking about the jewels of, you know, Prince Charles's coronation. There's just such a, such a contradiction. Yes, it is such a contradiction. As we were gearing up for this conversation, we're talking about how complicated and confusing this British history and history of empire and how what a huge web it is. I often turn to books and to the record, historical record. And of course, Sharangit, what you're saying is, you know, read against the grain a little bit, you know, that that story is going to be told from a particular perspective. So it's not going to give you the whole story. Can I give an example of like even BC history, right? Canadian history. So the other party was this revolutionary movement. Punjabi, South Asian, Sikh activists living in British Columbia in the early 20th century. They were a very specific anti-colonial organization founded around, you know, 1905 to 1913 from San Francisco and moving along the Pacific coast up to Vancouver. This party and you can find the original archives and documents in the University of California Berkeley archives. In 1912, 1913, they did an entire assessment of what the British Empire had stolen and equated the money value and dollar value. Fascinating document. 1913 we're talking. So again, reading against the grain is going back to those community histories rather than relying on historians who often cite themselves. There's a power structure within that too. The gutter activists had it more than 150 years ago. And so I looked to them to say, show me the document, show me what you're seeing on the ground. Since you're talking about the request in 1913, but I just fast forward. I know that there are requests for reparations currently. Annie, what do you think? Can you give the jewels back to, you know, anyone, some country? What are the possibilities there? I think you can. I don't even imagine a little bit that it would be without a backlash without an uproar. If you're going to literally give back all the gems that are part of the Royal Regalia, we're talking about hundreds and maybe thousands of different gems. There's a ruby, which is really a spinel that came out of modern day. What is modern K Afghanistan? So if that were repatriated, that that would be remarkable. I think there was a tipping point though. I think that returning the gems, any of those gems that would bring the most backlash and pushback. I think when they keep the Koh-i-Nor and the Cullinan and other acquired gems that come out of the colonial and imperial periods, they're really still sending the message that that is the history that they are choosing to be the most impactful and significant. But I think the process has to start and it starts with deep, real conversations, meaningful conversations and actual action that incorporates people whose history it is. And I'm not talking about the monarchy's history. I'm talking about the history of the people's. I had a conversation this morning with a friend who's a former BBC reporter and he said, if the monarchy really wants to represent their true history, that crown should be lined with the skeletons of peasants because that's the true history of the British Empire. And if they want to retell that history, you know, not retell it, but they want to claim the true history. And then what's the word? Redress. Redress, thank you. It's a redress. And then it's time to start thinking about what is the way forward. And I think, Annie, you sound kind of hopeful about the way forward when you talk about that. Well, I'm hopeful, but it's a historian's hope that I think Shan will start with. I don't know. Historians have hope, but it's hope over long periods of time. Yeah. I feel like the hope is coming from the people. I just feel like there's like this kind of global awareness resistance, not to say that there aren't those who are staunch loyalists to the British monarchy, including here in Canada, like including people from my own community, this like staunch loyalists to what they perceive the British Empire to be. But I agree with you, Annie, right? I think we have to look to the people to keep pushing the monarchy to critique and question. And we need that back to your question of what could repatriation look like? I think it returns back to our original question, which was, you know, what do they represent, first of all? And who do they represent that to? And why does the monarchy want to hold on to that? So that's a lot of self-reflection that the monarchy needs to do, because if they have a totally different idea of what those crown jewels represent, then that's going to be the conversation to start from to say, nope, this is what the rest of the world sees it as, or pockets of the rest of the world see it as. That's where repatriation has to begin with, because there's totally different world views. Perhaps it's that on the one hand, this represents history and family and honour and all those words that you used, Annie, at the beginning. And to many people, they represent the bodies, the theft, the pillaging, the raping, all of that brutality. And modern day wealth too, right? The crown jewels themselves, I don't think, are part of a system of income right now for the monarchies. What is it that you are holding on to almost in Punjab, you say, almost a stubborn kind of holding on to these jewels? I think that's the heart of the question that the monarchy needs to address boldly in front of people. You don't need those jewels for sustenance and income. The jewels, I call them the original loot, but I know that they're not all looted. You're talking about that Punjabi word, I was thinking about the Hindi word, which is loot, and loot na, which means to rob. When did loot become part of English? When they went to India and they started looting. Exactly, yeah. Both of you, thank you so much for your time today, I really appreciate it. It was a pleasure. Yeah, it did. This was fun. Let's do this again. Coronation, watching ceremony, where we'll critique. Are you going to watch it? I'm going to watch. Are you going to be doing F-bombs? Sure, yes. I'll be right with you, Sharon. That's it for this episode of Don't Call Me Resilient. I walked into that conversation today. I admit I was a bit scared and a little overwhelmed, but I feel that after speaking with Annie and Sharon and others as I was doing my research for this episode, I have a better grasp on some of the issues that come up when we say crown jewels. I've dropped some of the readings and other resources in the show notes on theconversation.com. If you want to have a conversation with me about what you heard, reach out. I'm on Twitter, at W-r-i-t-e-v-i-n-i-t-a, at writevenita. Don't forget to tag our producers at conversationca, so they can join in, and use the hashtag Don't Call Me Resilient. If you like what you heard today, great news because we'll be back next week. And in the meantime, consider sharing this pod with a friend or a family member, or drop a review on whatever podcast app you use. Finally, if you have ideas for us and stories that you would love us to cover, we'd love to hear from you. Email us at dcmr at theconversation.com Don't Call Me Resilient is a production of The Conversation Canada. This podcast was produced in partnership with the Journalism Innovation Lab. The lab is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The series is produced and hosted by me, Venita Srivastava. Voke Sai Si is our producer. Oli Nicholas is our assistant producer and student journalist. Jennifer Morose is our consulting producer. Our audio editor is Remitula Sheikh. Atika Kaki is our audience development and visual innovation consultant. And Scott White is the CEO of The Conversation Canada. And if you're wondering who wrote and performed the music we use on the pod, that's the amazing Baki Bee Brain. The track is called Something in the Water.