Buckingham Palace Says King Charles Can’t Apologise for Slavery, So How Did the Dutch King Manage It?

King Charles has spent the past week travelling through the Caribbean acknowledging the horrors of slavery while carefully avoiding the formal apology that reparations campaigners have requested.

Now Buckingham Palace has offered the old and quite frankly tired excuse for why the King cannot go further. He does not make policy.

That is the Palace’s position as Commonwealth leaders gather in Antigua and Barbuda for a summit where slavery, historical accountability and reparatory justice are expected to feature prominently. But there is an interesting comparison that should make Britain’s position considerably harder to defend as inevitable.

In 2023, King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands formally apologised for his country’s role in slavery. The Dutch monarchy did not collapse. The King did not suddenly become an elected politician, and the apology did not require him to personally negotiate a financial settlement.

Buckingham Palace Clarifies Charles’s Constitutional Role

On November 2, BBC News reported that Buckingham Palace had intervened in the growing dispute over Charles’s response to slavery. The Palace described the King’s Commonwealth role as:

“The King’s role as head of the Commonwealth is about “inspiring and convening, rather than policy making”, says Buckingham Palace – distancing him from rows over whether the UK should apologise and make reparations for its part in the Atlantic slave trade.”

The statement came as Prime Minister Andy Burnham opened discussions about a possible formal British apology while continuing to reject financial reparations.

Charles is due to address Commonwealth leaders on November 3. His remarks are expected to acknowledge slavery’s painful legacy while reflecting the British government’s position.

Buckingham Palace may insist that Charles cannot authorise compensation or dictate government policy, but those constitutional limitations should not become a convenient excuse for the monarchy to avoid accountability for its historical involvement in slavery.

The Dutch King Offered a Different Example

In a column for The Guardian, Dutch writer Raoul de Jong challenged King Charles to follow the example of King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, a comparison we have also made here at Feminegra.

In July 2023, the Dutch King formally apologised for the Netherlands’ involvement in slavery, acknowledged the historical responsibilities of the House of Orange-Nassau and asked for forgiveness.

De Jong argued that such apologies matter because they force institutions to confront historical injustices that some people would rather leave in the past.

While Britain and the Netherlands have different constitutional arrangements, the Dutch monarchy has already demonstrated that a reigning monarch can participate in a formal national reckoning with slavery. The Dutch government had issued its own apology in December 2022, paving the way for the King’s statement the following year.

So rather than repeatedly explaining why Charles cannot apologise, perhaps Buckingham Palace and the British government should explain why they remain unwilling to take the steps necessary to make one possible.

Sorrow Is Not the Same as Accountability

King Charles’s approach to slavery is beginning to resemble Queen Charlotte’s dismissive “Sorrows, sorrows, prayers” from Bridgerton. He offers expressions of sympathy while the monarchy continues to avoid the meaningful accountability Caribbean leaders are demanding.

Words of sorrow do little to address the consequences of centuries of exploitation when neither the monarchy nor the British government is willing to take meaningful steps towards reparatory justice.

The government continues to reject financial reparations, while Buckingham Palace insists that a formal apology is a political decision. Meanwhile, Caribbean leaders are demanding something far more substantial: institutional accountability and practical measures to address the lasting consequences of slavery and colonialism.

Nobody is asking Charles to accept personal guilt for the transatlantic slave trade. This is about institutional responsibility. The British monarchy had direct historical connections to institutions that profited from slavery, while the British state accumulated wealth through colonial exploitation.

Institutions do not escape responsibility for historical injustices simply because their current representatives did not personally commit them.

The monarchy cannot celebrate centuries of inherited privilege while refusing to confront the historical responsibilities that accompany it.

Charles Cannot Make Policy, but Britain Can Choose to Act

Rather than endlessly explaining why the King cannot apologise, the government could work with Caribbean representatives to determine what meaningful acknowledgement and reparatory justice should look like.

Charles could then participate within the constitutional framework established by ministers. The Dutch example shows that an apology from a monarch need not be impossible.

Britain’s refusal to consider reparations remains a political choice, not an unavoidable law of nature. And if Charles’s role is to inspire and convene, surely helping the Commonwealth confront one of the most consequential injustices in its history would be a worthwhile use of that responsibility.