73 comments

  1. “If you say yes to one, the British museum will be empty”…..Lol, that’s the point of returning artifacts that don’t belong to you dummy!

  2. If the British Museum is going to be “empty” when other nations reclaim their goods back, then that clearly means there is nothing British being kept in there, to begin with! ๐Ÿ˜‚

    1. @Yvonne Plant It is said that; “the sun never sat on the British Empire, because God didn’t trust the English in the dark”, (thieves) ๐Ÿ˜‚

    2. @Ali – Thieves? Now who name calling?
      I hate to tell you this, but, firstly The British Empire does not exist anymore. For fiscal, moral and management purposes it got too big. Which is why through negotiations it returned ownership to the previous native occupiers… we could have sold it I guess…. but we didn’t. We didn’t take any slave with us either btw.
      Lots of Middle Eastern and Asian communities/countries were built on their ability to liberate other peoples/communities ‘stuff’…
      The British government has spent energy, wealth, blood and tears to help former colonial countries deal with issues and foreign invaders. Why would they do that if they were only interested in ‘stealing’.?
      Go read a lot of history books and speak to respected scholars instead of some shite blog on the interwebs

  3. How about “Star of South Africa Diamond” center piece on QE2 crown.

    If return to rightful owner, I’m not surprised if British History Museum or the Buckingham Royal Archive will be empty.

    1. @Mark Anthony you conveniently forget what the British took out of India and who actually built stuff. I think India has more than paid their fair share. If anyone, India can send a bill to the UK. Same for the other colonies.

    2. @Mark Anthony the Indians did a lot of mining. They were also good enough to be used as soldiers in both world wars. The British got much more out than they put in, otherwise they wouldnt have colonised.
      Saying that without the british the Indians would have killed each other is ridiculous. The british killed them as well. Besides, the Indians were killing each other just like the Europeans did. They were also just as diverse. You dont seem to think that the Europeans were in need of some colonising power to stop them from killing each other.

  4. not only the diamond on the crown, but also the one that is mounted on the royal sceptre, โ€œCullinen Iโ€, a 500 carat gem which belongs to South Africa.

    1. @rupesh v No, facts matter when one claims theft and tries to get the things that they “purport” to be stolen that the law does not recognize as actually stolen.

      There is a difference between “feeling” these things are stolen and actually being stolen which is one of the reasons why they have not been returned. Personally, I don’t care, but trying to relitigate history isn’t going to get them back.

  5. Apparently there is a 13 year-old girl claiming that all the rhinestones on the crown were hers before Prince Andrew took them from her while she was asleep on an island.

    1. We have to remember that Bill Clinton was a good friend of Epstein and visited his island of several times. We should include Bill Clinton in your comment.

    1. well that diamond is from Iran , it was given as a gift to the Persian king by the Mughal empire , it was worn as a jeweled crown by the pervious Iranian regime until the 1979 revolution , the diamond itself was mined from a mountain in India
      and in 1968 India asked Iran for the diamond back but it was rejected by the previous Shah , that diamond is one of just a few large size diamonds found in India

      Frankly it should remain in England , it makes no sense to return the diamond , so it might as well stay in England where it rightfully belongs , its not diamonds that made Iran a wealthy nation , its the revolution that made it strong
      I don’t support the Iranian government , I think its a fanatical government but its a fact

      here are some examples

      Under the old Iranian regime only the rich and powerful could afford cars , university was limited only for the wealthy and aristocrats , and the country was unable to get access to peaceful nuclear energy

      Under the new regime , every one in the nation has a car , healthcare is free , government funded universities are free , they have made huge progress in the field of peaceful nuclear energy and people don’t pay taxes , the whole concept of taxes don’t exist and electricity is basically free , naturel gas is basically free

      people could make the argument that in the old regime people could go to the beach and show their body or go to a strip club or a bar and get drunk so the old regime is better than the new regime , but frankly that is bullshit

    1. Does modern Britain have a colonial mentality, or do the former colonies have a ‘blameless victim of colonialism’ mentality?

    2. @Sina Bagheri Sarvestani Who ruled India before mughal?

      The Aryans.

    1. That was great I went to the Museum in London as a kid and saw the jewels it was nuts and in the seventies, Harry would say hand them over. They are rocks.

  6. โ€œPreposterous! If we return one priceless artifact we stole, weโ€™d need to return all of the priceless artifacts we stole!โ€

  7. REPLEVIN – “A procedure whereby seized goods may be provisionally restored to their owner pending the outcome of an action to determine the rights of the parties concerned”. Thank you inspector Morse for explaining this to Lewis in one episode. Just sayin’.

  8. History is history and cannot be undone. True, there are cases when decisions/acts made in recent history may be reversed, but you cannot turn back the clock. In every act of discovery, conquest, or conflict, items are moved from one place to another, one owner to another, sometimes by violence, sometimes by purchase, sometimes by treaty. Will the Indian government and aristocracy return every piece of treasure or art to its place of origin, or compensate the original owners or laborer(s) who produced it? I think not. Will the temples and sacred statues destroyed in India’s own internal religious conflicts be restored? I think not.
    Can we make decisions today based on what our future citizens/cultures will find acceptable? I think not.

  9. Okay, I’ve been reading a few comments. I’ve seen things addressing that things that were taken by force in the past should be returned to its rightful owners. Ahem. Hello, America, you realize we took this land by force? If that’s the case this land needs to be returned to its rightful owners. Hopefully they’ll let us stay, but if I were them, I would ship our asses back to our ancestorial homelands. We’ve grown off of slaughters and greed, people seem to forget that.

  10. While you’re at it, let’s dismantle the stones from some of the world’s greatest monuments because they were either built on the backs of slaves, taken from locally outsourced rocks and resources by imperialists or colonialists, or because it offends someone. Let’s see what remains of historical artifacts and monuments when everyone in the world starts reclaiming their “piece”.

  11. Love how people are using the queens death as a means to lend out the frustration, almost like the queen was guarding the diamond all along day and night.

    1. @Daniel di Parma.
      If you want to ‘go after’ a leader who’s wealth has been accrued… IN THE PAST…. by the work.of others… there are so so so many other leaders you could go after much easier.
      Just look at so many industrial and financial leaders (who just so happen to have way more wealth than our Royal family too)

      But you won’t will you. You will instead jump on the band wagon asserting the the British empire is alive and thriving and that as British nationals we are ALL slave owning, racist pirates.

      Indian history is convoluted and complex. But, one thing India has never been is one unified country… until quite recently.
      Strange how the caste system.is still alive and kicking……. but that must be Our fault too I guess.

    2. @Snippets Apart no ones asking you to grief and I am pretty sure if any important person dies in a country there is a grieving period, also the queen wasn’t sitting on that diamond with a bomb strapped to her, people are using her death as to get attention

  12. A lot of hypocrisy going on in some comment’s, who seem to forget their own history or cherry pick parts of history.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.