Royal gift or 'stolen' gem? Calls for UK to return 500 carat Great Star of Africa diamond

[jak2002003]

1 hour ago, baboon said:

You get to look at them if you pay enough money, what more do you want...?

Why do I have to pay to see my own things?!!!  Oh, I am even more for getting rid of them now.  I even found out they are not British...it's some German family that changed their name because they were worried British people would not like them because of the war.

 

So, these people who love the royal family as they are a British tradition are wrong.  They are a European family ruling over us...yet many of their supporters wanted to leave Europe as they did not want unelected Europeans telling is what to do?  But they like this unelected German family doing that? The world is mad. 

[baboon]

3 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Why do I have to pay to see my own things?!!!  Oh, I am even more for getting rid of them now.  I even found out they are not British...it's some German family that changed their name because they were worried British people would not like them because of the war.

 

So, these people who love the royal family as they are a British tradition are wrong.  They are a European family ruling over us...yet many of their supporters wanted to leave Europe as they did not want unelected Europeans telling is what to do?  But they like this unelected German family doing that? The world is mad. 

'Take a look at the average person on the street. Then remember half the population are even stupider than they are...'

[DaddyWarbucks]

5 hours ago, TooPoopedToPop said:

Agreed.

There is even a word for it, "presentism" - judging past actions by today's standards.

Those who do it are almost always pushing an agenda.

So true.

And the agenda usually involves reparations of some kind.

[Foghorn]

On 9/17/2022 at 5:53 PM, candide said:

Are you claiming that the British colonisation has been made for altruist reasons and that the economic balance has not been hugely positive for the UK? ????

Yes , you are correct 

[Foghorn]

On 9/17/2022 at 5:59 PM, Bluespunk said:

There's a difference between voluntary aid and imperial theft.

Read the story ,it was given 

[DaddyWarbucks]

The colossal gems return would be a magnanimous gesture sure to please a majority of people worldwide.

But it begs the question: “To whom should be given?” 

South African leaders are notoriously corrupt and large urban areas are controlled by armed gangs.

The apocalypse foreseen by clear-sighted writers is here now.

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, Foghorn said:

Read the story ,it was given 

I have read it, I wonder if you have.

 

It was handed over by Imperial Authorities...it was theft.

 

"Supporting the British monarchy's claim to the precious stone, the Royal Asscher explains that the gem was purchased by South Africa's Transvaal government (run by British rule) and presented to King Edward VII as a birthday gift.''

[candide]

24 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

By Imperial Authorities...it was theft.

 

"Supporting the British monarchy's claim to the precious stone, the Royal Asscher explains that the gem was purchased by South Africa's Transvaal government (run by British rule) and presented to King Edward VII as a birthday gift.''

Actually, It's bit more complex, as it was a Boer settlers' government. So Boer and European settlers stole it from the original black natives' natural assets, the Boer government bought it and gave it to the King as a reward for granting them self-rule in exploiting the country and oppressing the original black population.

 

The current SA having both a Boer and black African heritage, It's a bit complex to disentangle.

[Bluespunk]

17 minutes ago, candide said:

Actually, It's bit more complex, as it was a Boer settlers' government. So Boer and European settlers stole it from the original black natives' natural assets, the Boer government bought it and gave it to the King as a reward for granting them self-rule in exploiting the country and oppressing the original black population.

 

The current SA having both a Boer and black African heritage, It's a bit complex to disentangle.

It was handed over by a British run government, the British were in charge after the second boer war. 
 

The boers were also colonial invaders, or descendants thereof, if preferred. 
 

Either way it was theft. 

[billd766]

7 hours ago, baboon said:

My argument is that for a country supposedly modelling itself on the life and teachings of Christ, it could never have been right.

Would that also apply to virtually EVERY country in Europe and not just the UK.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II_of_Belgium

 

Did you know that King Leopold II of Belgium Leopold was the founder and sole owner of the Congo Free State, a private project undertaken on his own behalf as a personal union with Belgium. He used Henry Morton Stanley to help him lay claim to the Congo, the present-day Democratic Republic of the Congo. 

 

Having said that then this follows.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State

 

In the period from 1885 to 1908, many well-documented atrocities were perpetrated in the Congo Free State (today the Democratic Republic of the Congo) which, at the time, was a state under the absolute rule of King Leopold II of the Belgians. These atrocities were particularly associated with the labour policies used to collect natural rubber for export. Together with epidemic disease, famine, and a falling birth rate caused by these disruptions, the atrocities contributed to a sharp decline in the Congolese population. The magnitude of the population fall over the period is disputed, with modern estimates ranging from 1.5 million to 13 million.

 

In 2020 King Philippe of Belgium expressed his regret to the Government of Congo for "acts of violence and cruelty" inflicted during the rule of the Congo Free State, though he did not explicitly mention Leopold's role and some activists accused him of not making a full apology.

 

King Philippe of Belgium born 15 April 1960 apologising for things that happened decades before he was even born.

 

Should the president of Italy apologise for the Roman invasion and enslavement of the UK? Or perhaps the King of Spain apologise for the Incas? How far back do people want to go for apologies, or is it ONLY the west who should be apologising?

 

As a further example you take the slave trade in Africa. Who was responsible for capturing the slaves in the first place, Could it be Arab traders who bought the slaves and sold them on, or perhaps an African tribe who turned them into slaves in the first place?

 

Why are they not being asked to apologise?

[baboon]

14 minutes ago, billd766 said:

7 hours ago, baboon said:

My argument is that for a country supposedly modelling itself on the life and teachings of Christ, it could never have been right.

Would that also apply to virtually EVERY country in Europe and not just the UK.

 

Yes of course it would. I thought I had made that clear.

[CG1 Blue]

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

It was handed over by a British run government, the British were in charge after the second boer war. 
 

The boers were also colonial invaders, or descendants thereof, if preferred. 
 

Either way it was theft. 

Thankfully most intelligent people don't still hold a grudge about bad things our ancestors may have done. At the time the British were the most successful colonialists. Other countries would have done the same had they been as successful. It was the way things were back then. 

 

But of course, if there's some financial gain to be had, some will start bleating about 'theft' etc. You won't hear them demanding that a worthless 6 inch high wooden statue of a horse be returned.

But the world's biggest diamond? Ooo we must have that back! It's the principle of the thing you know - yeah right ????

[Bluespunk]

27 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Thankfully most intelligent people don't still hold a grudge about bad things our ancestors may have done. At the time the British were the most successful colonialists. Other countries would have done the same had they been as successful. It was the way things were back then. 

 

But of course, if there's some financial gain to be had, some will start bleating about 'theft' etc. You won't hear them demanding that a worthless 6 inch high wooden statue of a horse be returned.

But the world's biggest diamond? Ooo we must have that back! It's the principle of the thing you know - yeah right ????

Don’t agree with a lot of that post, but in particular I disagree that the call for the diamond to be returned is not valid. 

[BangkokReady]

On 9/18/2022 at 2:01 PM, billd766 said:

Naturally you have proof that it was stolen and not simply dug up from deep underground, owned by the company that had it dug out, and was given by the owners 117 years ago.

The issue is that what you describe is stealing to these people.

 

I'm curious as to whether the people asking for the diamond's return would be happy for it to go to decedents of the indigenous tribesmen that probably occupied the land prior to the arrival of the colonisers and their slaves.  I don't see any reason for it to automatically go to whomever is ruling in South Africa now, simply because they are Black and from somewhere in Arica.

[billd766]

6 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

The issue is that what you describe is stealing to these people.

 

I'm curious as to whether the people asking for the diamond's return would be happy for it to go to decedents of the indigenous tribesmen that probably occupied the land prior to the arrival of the colonisers and their slaves.  I don't see any reason for it to automatically go to whomever is ruling in South Africa now, simply because they are Black and from somewhere in Arica.

If you think about it, had DeBeers not dug for diamonds then nobody would have dug the diamond out and there would be no fuss or bother.

 

A bit of whatiffery I know, but still very true.

 

It is only worth a large amount of money because of its size and being in one piece. If it was cut into small diamonds it wouldn't have the same value, and nobody would care or want it/them back.

[CG1 Blue]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Don’t agree with a lot of that post, but in particular I disagree that the call for the diamond to be returned is not valid. 

Who exactly should it be returned to, and what are your reasons for choosing that person / government / organisation? Who owns it in your opinion, and why? 

[Bluespunk]

12 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Who exactly should it be returned to, and what are your reasons for choosing that person / government / organisation? Who owns it in your opinion, and why? 

That’s for South African government to decide. They are after all the elected representatives of the country it was stolen from. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

10 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

That’s for South African government to decide. They are after all the elected representatives of the country it was stolen from. 

A diamond mining company discovered the diamond  so it belongs to them, or it belonged to them to do what they pleased with it 

[Bluespunk]

8 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

A diamond mining company discovered the diamond  so it belongs to them, or it belonged to them to do what they pleased with it 

Disagree. 
 

The mine was owned by a colonial occupier, or descendant thereof. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

7 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Disagree. 
 

The mine was owned by a colonial occupier, or descendant thereof. 

The mine was owned by a Private Company , the U.K didnt own the private company .

   The diamond was given as a present to the U.K Monarchy and no theft was reported and its now to late to report a theft  

[Bluespunk]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

The mine was owned by a Private Company , the U.K didnt own the private company .

   The diamond was given as a present to the U.K Monarchy and no theft was reported and its now to late to report a theft  

The mine was owned by a colonial invader, or descendant thereof. 
 

The land and all discovered within it should not have been his. 
 

The diamond was stolen. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

22 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The mine was owned by a colonial invader, or descendant thereof. 
 

The land and all discovered within it should not have been his. 
 

The diamond was stolen. 

The mine was owned by a born and bred South African . 

[Bluespunk]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

The mine was owned by a born and bred South African . 

Never said he wasn’t, but he was still descended from colonial invaders. 
 

The land was not theirs to exploit. 
 

The diamond was not his to sell. 
 

The calls for its return are fair enough. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

Never said he wasn’t, but he was still descended from colonial invaders. 
 

The land was not theirs to exploit. 
 

The diamond was not his to sell. 
 

The calls for its return are fair enough. 

He did buy the land , he purchased the land .

He bought the land and so the land belonged to him and so did the diamond, because it was found on his land 

[Bluespunk]

8 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

He did buy the land , he purchased the land .

He bought the land and so the land belonged to him and so did the diamond, because it was found on his land 

He purchased land from a different colonial occupier, Joachim Prinsloo.
 

It was not theirs to own or sell. 

 

Now how far back the South African government, elected by all citizens, wish to go back in history on seeking reparations for land seizures by colonial invaders, is for them to decide. 
 

As is any decision on whether to press the case for the return of this stolen diamond. 
 

However, any such claim for the diamonds return is fair enough. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

He purchased land from a different colonial occupier. It was not theirs to own or sell. 
 

 

How did he acquire the land ?

Did he buy the land as well ?

[Bluespunk]

12 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

How did he acquire the land ?

Did he buy the land as well ?

He was descended from 18th century colonial invaders. 

https://www.ancestry.com/genealogy/records/joachim-johannes-prinsloo-24-1368zw5

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

He was descended from 18th century colonial invaders. 

https://www.ancestry.com/genealogy/records/joachim-johannes-prinsloo-24-1368zw5

 

 

11 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

He was descended from 18th century colonial invaders. 

https://www.ancestry.com/genealogy/records/joachim-johannes-prinsloo-24-1368zw5

 

Makes no difference how he got there, he bought the land and the land belonged to him 

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

 

Makes no difference how he got there, he bought the land and the land belonged to him 

LOL

 

Yeah well, there I fervently disagree.
 

Though I am not surprised you would put forward such an argument. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

13 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

LOL

 

Yeah well, there I fervently disagree.
 

Though I am not surprised you would put forward such an argument. 

It wasn't illegal to invade and colonise Countries, so he was there legitimately