為什麼國王不能對奴隸制說“抱歉”

King Charles III recently addressed Commonwealth leaders during a summit in Samoa, where he remarked, 'none of us can change the past. ' This statement came amidst ongoing discussions about reparations and apologies related to the slave trade, a topic that continues to evoke strong emotions and debates. The King acknowledged that the 'most painful aspects of our past continue to resonate,' highlighting the enduring impact of historical injustices. The Royal Family has long faced scrutiny regarding its historical ties to slavery, and this scrutiny is particularly pronounced in settings like the Commonwealth summit, which includes leaders from nations that have been significantly affected by colonialism and slavery. Despite any personal beliefs King Charles may hold regarding the need for a symbolic apology or reparations, he is constrained by the political realities of his position. Monarchs are expected to speak in accordance with the advice of their ministers, especially on sensitive issues such as this. Consequently, the King's remarks must align with government policy, which limits his ability to express personal views on such matters. Just a week prior to the summit, the UK government made it clear that there would be no discussions about reparations during the meeting in Samoa. This meant that, regardless of the King's private thoughts on historical wrongs, his public statements would reflect the government's stance. In his speech, King Charles echoed Prime Minister Keir Starmer's sentiment that 'none of us can change the past,' demonstrating the careful alignment between the monarchy and the government on this issue. Last year, during a visit to Kenya, the King spoke more forcefully about the injustices of the colonial era, describing the 'abhorrent and unjustifiable acts of violence committed against Kenyans' during their struggle for independence. However, even in this context, he refrained from issuing a direct apology, instead expressing 'sorrow' for the past. This choice of words is significant, as it allows for the expression of regret without the legal implications that come with a formal apology. This approach mirrors the response of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who, in 2007, expressed 'deep sorrow and regret' over Britain's involvement in the slave trade. While some called for a more explicit apology, Blair later claimed that he had indeed said sorry. The use of 'sorrow' conveys emotion but avoids the potential liabilities and expectations for compensation that might accompany a direct apology. As the head of state, King Charles is often seen as the focal point for calls for redress, whether through financial reparations or other means of addressing historical injustices. This issue is unlikely to disappear, and it presents a challenging situation for the monarchy, especially given the current financial pressures facing the UK government. Additionally, there is a more complex question regarding the responsibility of the monarchy as both a family and an institution. For instance, the Royal African Company, established in the 17th century with royal patronage, is believed to have transported more enslaved individuals from Africa than any other company. However, the history of the Royal Family's involvement in the abolition of slavery is also marked by contradictions. Research by historian Prof Suzanne Schwarz reveals that the Royal Family was divided on the issue in the early 19th century. The Duke of Gloucester, a nephew of King George III, emerged as a prominent campaigner against slavery, advocating for the abolition of the cruel trade and supporting the Royal Navy's efforts to intercept slave ships. In contrast, George III's son, who would later become King William IV, was a staunch defender of slavery. A notable artifact from this period is the 'Jamaica Service,' a silver service given to William IV by supporters in Jamaica who wished to thank him for his efforts to protect the slave trade. Before ascending to the throne, William IV was known as the Duke of Clarence, and Clarence House is named in his honor. King Charles has previously expressed his 'sorrow' regarding the slave trade, but the issue remains a sensitive topic for the monarchy. Other countries have taken steps to address the legacy of slavery; for example, the Dutch King issued a formal apology in coordination with the prime minister. However, for King Charles and other senior royals, the question of slavery continues to loom large, particularly during visits to former colonies or regions impacted by the slave trade. The trip taken by Prince William and Catherine to the Caribbean in 2022 was marked by controversy over whether their visit adequately acknowledged the historical context. Organizing such trips requires careful consideration of how they will be perceived, as planners must navigate the complexities of cultural representation. Nevertheless, King Charles has managed to walk this political tightrope for many years. In Samoa, he stated, 'none of us can change the past. But we can commit, with all our hearts, to learning its lessons and to finding creative ways to right inequalities that endure. ' In this speech, which many interpreted as addressing the legacy of slavery, he notably refrained from using the term 'slavery' itself.