Charles and Camilla 2

[Jackie3]

I wonder if it's an excuse because the kid was harmed in some way, and the corpse would reveal that.

[prayawaythefundie]

Is it possible that they don‘t know which remains are the prince‘s and don‘t want to admit that? It could be found out of course but not without unwanted / negative attention.

[rosamundi]

22 minutes ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Is it possible that they don‘t know which remains are the prince‘s and don‘t want to admit that? It could be found out of course but not without unwanted / negative attention.

It's possible, but I think it's unlikely. Coffins are usually labelled and have been for a long time, especially high-status burials (which I think it would have been, as Queen Victoria took some sort of interest in him and he was buried in the catacombs at Windsor). The Victorian cult of death was a whole [weird] thing, for those that could afford it, and since he was buried at Windsor I think he would have received all due rites and a "respectable" funeral.

However, if they can't identify him, then they should come out and say so - that there are some un-labelled coffins in the vaults and they will work to narrow it down but they will need DNA samples from living relatives in order to ensure the correct remains are returned.

Edited May 26, 2023 by rosamundi

[louisa05]

Doing any of this will cost a shit ton of money. Then everyone mad that they aren't doing it will be mad that they're spending money. They really can't win here. 

[rosamundi]

17 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

Doing any of this will cost a shit ton of money. Then everyone mad that they aren't doing it will be mad that they're spending money. They really can't win here. 

I think the people who want them to repatriate this child would expect them to spend the money involved in doing so. If I heard the BRF were footing the bill for the investigations and so on, I'd be like, "yep, seems fair enough." I'd even be reasonably OK if the money came out of the Sovereign Grant, since part of that money goes on the upkeep of the palaces.

Alternatively, Windsor charges £28 in advance or £30 on the day for an adult admission ticket. They could use some of that money.

[louisa05]

Just now, rosamundi said:

 

Alternatively, Windsor charges £28 in advance or £30 on the day for an adult admission ticket. They could use some of that money.

Windsor Castle is part of the Royal Trust. The monarchy doesn't receive any of that money. It can only receive rent from those properties, not any other income. 

[rosamundi]

1 minute ago, louisa05 said:

Windsor Castle is part of the Royal Trust. The monarchy doesn't receive any of that money. It can only receive rent from those properties, not any other income. 

I know, and I apologise for not being clearer. My point was that there are various potential sources of funding for this work, and the people who think it should be done are not going to object to it being paid for, and if people object to one source of funding being used, there are others.

[louisa05]

4 minutes ago, rosamundi said:

I know, and I apologise for not being clearer. My point was that there are various potential sources of funding for this work, and the people who think it should be done are not going to object to it being paid for, and if people object to one source of funding being used, there are others.

Taking money from the Royal Trust which uses it to maintain a massive historical collection would be so wrong. Despite the name, it is not directly connected to the family at all. 

Nice to know that the compulsion to devalue history exists beyond American shores, I guess. 

[Mama Mia]

37 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

Doing any of this will cost a shit ton of money. Then everyone mad that they aren't doing it will be mad that they're spending money. They really can't win here. 

They HAVE  a shit ton of money. They spend it on frivolous things all the time. You’d think they could dig up a couple million in pocket change between them to make this gesture. While Charles obviously personally had nothing to do with this - the ONLY reason he isn’t a recently retired middle manager trying to scrape up enough money to put in solar panels  - is BECAUSE he is a direct descendent of the people who did do this.  It’s why he’s rolling in money and jewels. 
 

 I think the institution of the British Monarchy is a lot like the plot of Seinfeld or Succession— you may have your favorites, and there  may be some positives - but overall you need to remember the characters just aren’t very nice , and are actually kind of terrible. 

[rosamundi]

2 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

Taking money from the Royal Trust which uses it to maintain a massive historical collection would be so wrong. Despite the name, it is not directly connected to the family at all. 

Nice to know that the compulsion to devalue history exists beyond American shores, I guess. 

The Royal Collection Trust has only been in existence since 1993, it was set up after the Windsor Castle fire. Using part of its income to investigate, identify and repatriate a child's remains wouldn't be so wrong, in my opinion, particularly as that child's remains are in Windsor Castle. Nor would it be wrong to use part of its income to investigate, identify and potentially repatriate items from the collection which have a provenance which is, shall we say, dubious?

[viii]

3 hours ago, louisa05 said:

Doing any of this will cost a shit ton of money. Then everyone mad that they aren't doing it will be mad that they're spending money. They really can't win here. 

Yeah, no. This is NOT one of the times where they're damned if they do, damned if they don't. They absolutely 100% need to do this and have zero excuse not to do it. They have a shit ton of money. Maybe instead of Kate buying a 2984728 blue coat dress, they can use the money towards this. It's ridiculous to try and excuse this in any way. 

3 hours ago, rosamundi said:

I think the people who want them to repatriate this child would expect them to spend the money involved in doing so. If I heard the BRF were footing the bill for the investigations and so on, I'd be like, "yep, seems fair enough." I'd even be reasonably OK if the money came out of the Sovereign Grant, since part of that money goes on the upkeep of the palaces.

Exactly. Anyone with common sense would not complain about money being spent on this. 

[Jackie3]

10 hours ago, louisa05 said:

Doing any of this will cost a shit ton of money. Then everyone mad that they aren't doing it will be mad that they're spending money. They really can't win here. 

Perhaps they could use some of the money they stole from the Ethiopians.

It's kind of you to worry about the Windsors finances, but they are richer than God. 

Sometimes when you've committed a wrong, you have to spend money to make it right. If they don't care about doing so,  then let the Ethiopian scientist to come and exhume the body.

Basically, draft an email that says we kidnapped this kid, but we are too cheap to send back his remains. If you want to spend the money, come and get him.

I'll bet you anything they don't trust the Ethiopian to do it right. Only British scientists could do it properly.

 

 

6 hours ago, viii said:

Exactly. Anyone with common sense would not complain about money being spent on this. 

Trump said, ""I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" Trump remarked at a campaign stop at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa. "It's, like, incredible."

Some people feel this way about the royal family. They'll defend them long past the realm of common sense.

[formergothardite]

The royal family has ridiculous amounts of money . Money isn’t the issue. If they wanted to return the remains of this child, they would find a way to do so. 

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

Returning anything sets a precedent they do not want to put out there.

[treehugger]

11 minutes ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

Returning anything sets a precedent they do not want to put out there.

And we have winner! 

[Jackie3]

4 hours ago, treehugger said:

And we have winner! 

It's kind of like a two-year old clutching at the sweets he stole from the kitchen. Mine! Mine!

[just_ordinary]

I wouldn’t be surprised if they can’t give anything back - because at one point the remains were already thrown out. Or they really do have no idea where he is. Re-using coffins and tossing them or placing old remains with someone else is not unheard of.
For all the importance religion had in the past, people were still highly pragmatic. 

If not, that would be a good „fact“ to establish. For them, not because it’s the honourable thing to do. 
I also have no idea how the burial sites are organised but it’s not as if you would have to open coffins, is it? Just moving them all around. As long as nothing would break open, that’s a weak argument. And giving back remains is not the same as an argument about art or jewellery. If they don’t want to give it back for whatever reason they better make sure those bones are really gone. Otherwise this will come up again and again.

I wonder why they took him in the first place, instead of killing him and his mother? Or just leave them there. That’s some weird „honourable” action I can’t wrap my head around. Taking a “ward” from the defeated to ensure deference or even the heir to force allegiance, is rather medieval and not standard 19th century strategy.

 

 

[noseybutt]

38 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if they can’t give anything back - because at one point the remains were already thrown out. Or they really do have no idea where he is. Re-using coffins and tossing them or placing old remains with someone else is not unheard of.
For all the importance religion had in the past, people were still highly pragmatic. 

If not, that would be a good „fact“ to establish. For them, not because it’s the honourable thing to do. 
I also have no idea how the burial sites are organised but it’s not as if you would have to open coffins, is it? Just moving them all around. As long as nothing would break open, that’s a weak argument. And giving back remains is not the same as an argument about art or jewellery. If they don’t want to give it back for whatever reason they better make sure those bones are really gone. Otherwise this will come up again and again.

I wonder why they took him in the first place, instead of killing him and his mother? Or just leave them there. That’s some weird „honourable” action I can’t wrap my head around. Taking a “ward” from the defeated to ensure deference or even the heir to force allegiance, is rather medieval and not standard 19th century strategy.

 

 

Not perplexing at all because standards of honor in colonialism easily lag by centuries. 

[viii]

8 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

 I wonder why they took him in the first place, instead of killing him and his mother? Or just leave them there. That’s some weird „honourable” action I can’t wrap my head around. Taking a “ward” from the defeated to ensure deference or even the heir to force allegiance, is rather medieval and not standard 19th century strategy.

I think it’s because they viewed black people as entertainment back then. They took him as a novelty. It’s absolutely disgusting. 

[anjulibai]

On 5/26/2023 at 11:41 AM, louisa05 said:

Taking money from the Royal Trust which uses it to maintain a massive historical collection would be so wrong. Despite the name, it is not directly connected to the family at all. 

Nice to know that the compulsion to devalue history exists beyond American shores, I guess. 

 

Yes, because obviously repatriating the body of a child kidnapped during colonial expansion has absolutely nothing to do with history whatsoever. 

[noseybutt]

1 hour ago, anjulibai said:

 

Yes, because obviously repatriating the body of a child kidnapped during colonial expansion has absolutely nothing to do with history whatsoever. 

That’s the thing. Do we value history by visiting crypts and museums and other preserved sacred sites? Or by righting historical wrongs?

Returning the remains would do both. Because the sacred ground for him can and should be determined by his people.

The hesitancy has nothing to do with valuing history and everything to do with fear of setting a precedent that will erode the monarchy. 

[Jackie3]

On 5/26/2023 at 8:41 AM, louisa05 said:

Taking money from the Royal Trust which uses it to maintain a massive historical collection would be so wrong. Despite the name, it is not directly connected to the family at all. 

Nice to know that the compulsion to devalue history exists beyond American shores, I guess. 

That child's remains IS part of history. It's a part of Ethiopian history (that counts, right?) 

I think the Ethiopians are entitled to have this critical part of their history, so that they can maintain their own  historical collection.  The Royal Trust's "massive historical collection" is massive because it contains other country's history--stolen, catalogued and showcased by the UK.

The UK is devaluing Ethiopian history. You sure you are OK with that?

[just_ordinary]

I mean, I don’t think the BRF sent their army off with the task to get them a new novelty court jester? Nobility preferably. So why was he even brought over?

Quite honestly I don’t get the problem in most cases. Get a good replica done, put it into the museum and sent the original back. The visitors won’t be any wiser. As for research, this would probably mean more research into national/regional/Eurocentric stuff. Because getting permits somewhere else can be a massive pain in the ass and it’s pretty expensive and needs extra funding.
And if those originals will be placed on museums for the people they belong to - great. If they disappear in private vaults or get sold- not our problem anymore. Getting good replicas done is not as expensive as a law suit and constant PR action and criticism. 
I think the jewels of the Crown Jewels are a bit more complicated. As are things that will drag up massive problems if you comply (someone mentioned that the remains might reveal something bad and that why they rather have them stay hidden. Why not getting rid of them for good though? If the evidence is there it will come to light at one point.).

[rosamundi]

48 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

I mean, I don’t think the BRF sent their army off with the task to get them a new novelty court jester? Nobility preferably. So why was he even brought over?

I think the Victorians were quite big on the "civilising effects of Empire." Bringing a "noble savage" back and putting him through a British public school education and Sandhurst, turning him into a "proper English gentleman".

[tabitha2]

His father was defeated then committed suicide and his mother had agreed to send her son to  Britain alone then later deciding to go with him but She was Ill and died soon after. The boys maternal grandmother sent QV a letter asking her to care for him.