By Elizabeth Sitotombe
THE inaugural War Veteran’s League conference took place last week.
In that huge conference room were hundreds of individuals who had been brought together through one common cause — ending years of pain and suffering at the hands of the crown.
These are the brave individuals who decided to sacrifice everything for the benefit of every other Zimbabwean.
And as they were gathered, news of the demise of the Queen of Britain filtered in.
One can only imagine the thoughts that filled their minds as memories triggered by the mention of her name came to the fore.
For many, bitter memories have resurfaced following the death of Queen Elizabeth 11.
She ascended to the throne in 1952 and passed away last week aged 96, marking an end to a 70-year reign, the longest in British history.
It is difficult to honour her without acknowledging the pain and suffering that came with her reign.
She was, after all, the face of a monarchy that was wicked and brutal. That monarchy today stands as a symbol of oppression for many blacks, Irish, Indian and Scottish, among many others around the world.
Queen or killer?
The monarch the Queen represented was built on colonial aggression, oppression, exploitation and enslavement.
The racist British monarchy murdered, raped, mutilated, enslaved and starved hundreds of millions of men, women and children all over the world for hundreds of years — and most of this happened under the watch of Queen Elizabeth 11.
She was, in fact, the overseer of these countless wars, massacres and genocides as well as being a benefactor of stolen resources and traditional artefacts.
As the Queen, she accepted human remains as trophies and some of them were exhibited in UK Museums. One of those was Zimbabwe’s Mbuya Nehanda, whose remains are yet to be returned by the sadistic monarch.
Sarah Baartman’s remains were repatriated after a lot of noise and effort from human rights organisations.
Sarah had her whole body fossilized and exposed naked for all to see in a museum. Such inhumane treatment of a woman was done under the watch of another woman. What cruelty!
She may be a heroine to British, but for those who are living in countries that were ruled in the crown’s name, she is a reminder of a nasty history — a history that she actively partook in.
To the day she died, there was no regret, no remorse, no apology or even a sense of moral responsibility for crimes committed under the crown.
Unlike her counterparts, she was a monster hiding behind an angelic face.
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) led by Julius Malema, penned a letter that echoed the sentiments of many people.
He wrote: “We do not mourn the death of Elizabeth, because to us her death is a reminder of a very tragic period in this country and Africa’s history. Britain under the leadership of the royal family, took over control of this territory that would become South Africa in 1795 from Batavian control, and took permanent control of the territory in 1806.
It was also the British royal family that sanctioned the actions of Cecil John Rhodes, who plundered this country, Zimbabwe and Zambia. It was the British royal family that benefitted from the brutal mutilation of people of Kenya whose valiant resistance to British colonialism invited vile responses from Britain.
Britain built concentration camps and suppressed with such inhumane brutality the Mau Mu rebellion, killing Dedan Kimathi on the 18th of February 1957, while Elizabeth was already Queen.
This family plundered India via the East India Company; it took over control and oppressed the people of the Caribbean Islands. Their thirst for riches led to the famine that caused millions of people to die in Bengal, and their racism led to the genocide of aboriginal people in Australia.
Elizabeth Windsor, during her lifetime, never acknowledged these crimes that Britain and her family in particular perpetrated across the world. In fact, she was a proud flag bearer of theses atrocities because during her reign, when the people of Yemen rose to protest against British colonialism in 1963, Elizabeth ordered a brutal suppression of that uprising.
During her 70-year-old reign, she never once acknowledged the atrocities that her family inflicted on native people that Britain invaded across the world. She willingly benefitted from the wealth that was attained from the exploitation and murder of millions of people across the world.”
Indeed the Queen could have taken responsibility of all crimes committed if she had an ounce of remorse in her. Instead she plundered all the wealth amassed during these violent events.
Gifted by the oppressed?
It is no secret that the wealth Britain boasts was an accumulation of items forcefully taken from other countries.
They stole and then went on to lie about it. In the possession of the Queen and on her person were jewels and artefacts of immense wealth.Apparently these were ‘gifted’ to the monarch.
Within a few hours following the death of the Queen, there were calls for Britain to return two of the jewels to their respective countries — the Kohinoor Diamond and the Great Star of Africa.
The Kohinoor was unearthed from the Golconda mines in central southern India before it was handed to the British monarch in 1849.
Many Indians believe the diamond was ‘stolen’ during the colonial regime. But according to the Royals, the stone was a ‘gift’.
It is part of the crown jewels of the Queen along with hundreds of other gemstones. The crown jewels include a collection of some of the world’s most rare and expensive gemstones.
The crown has 2 800 diamonds set into its platinum frame.
The band comprises alternating clusters of diamonds forming crosses and rectangles, bordered by single rows of brilliant-cut diamonds.
According to ‘Africa Archives‘, Queen Elizabeth owned the diamond called ‘The Great Star of Africa’, the 530 carats gem was mined in South Africa in 1905. It was stolen from South Africa, and had an estimated value of US$400million. The British claim it was given to them as a symbol of friendship and peace during colonialism — how ironic!
This is only a tip of the iceberg.
Were the royals to return all the stolen i
tems they possess, they would be left paupers because they cannot fend for themselves, but instead, like the parasitic class they are, they live off of others.
British monarch and Zimbabwe
The country experienced first-hand the heavy handedness of the monarch.
Queen Elizabeth witnessed some of the most heinous crimes against humanity in Zimbabwe when Rhodesians bombed and killed thousands of civilians at refugee camps in Chimoio and Nyadzonia, among many other camps.
On August 9 1976, the Special Counter-Insurgency Unit of the Rhodesian Forces, the Selous Scouts, massacred over 2 000 innocent unarmed men, women and children at Nyadzonia Camp in Mozambique.
Yet another attack would be launched by the Rhodesians a year later, the Chimoio massacre.
Operation Dingo, also known as the Chimoio massacre, was a deadly raid by the Rhodesian forces against ZANLA headquarters at Chimoio and a smaller camp at Tembwe in Mozambique from 23–25 November 1977.
Many lives were lost and it could have been avoided. The Queen could have spoken out about it but she did not.
After colonialism, we did gain independence, but we were never really free because out of the need to maintain British influence in former colonies came the desire to create another empire – the British Commonwealth – an association of sovereign States that have, at some time in the past, been ruled or are still being ruled by Britain.
Today, it is the UK’s emblem of dominion. The 53-country grouping is united by shared language, legal system and values but, above all, allegiance to the British crown.
“This commonwealth of nations, that wealth belongs to England.That wealth is something never shared in,” said Bert Samuels, a member of the National Council on Reparations in Jamaica.
For Zimbabwe, Britain seemed to think they owned all the land in the country despite an agreement made just before independence through the Lancaster House Agreement.
This month of September marks the anniversary of the 1979 Lancaster House Constitutional Conference on Zimbabwe which ended with the tripartite signing of the Lancaster House Agreement on December 21 of the same year.
The West refused to pay for land that had been stolen from Africans in the first place.
Therefore, funds were to be provided for the black Government to acquire land on a willing-buyer willing-seller basis.
But Britain, under the Queen, was unwilling to do anything. The 10-year reserve clause gave white people a 10-year grace period in which to put their house in order.
The 10 years came to pass; and yet 10 more years came and went. And so the frustrated Zimbabweans repossessed their land. This incensed the British and their American cousins.
Zimbabwe had nudged the remnants of colonialism through the Land Reform Programme and exposed Britain’s hidden hand in her former colonies.
And so the bully tactics began
Soon, the country became a post-colonial victim of Britain and American’s politics of aggression.
Thus the MDC was born.
In 2000, the Tony Blair government admitted to working with the opposition MDC, a party they helped form on September 11 1999.
The British Government also revealed that they were sponsoring the MDC through the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD).
The Foundation then received £4,1 million from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), although it claimed it was ‘an independent public body’ which had, in its 13 years of existence, worked “…to achieve sustainable political change in emerging democracies.”
The EU and the US imposed illegal economic sanctions on Zimbabwe at the instigation of the British government following the successful implementation of the Land Reform Programme which saw more than 400 000 black households owning farmland which was previously owned by 4 000 whites.
The former coloniser managed to internationalise its bilateral dispute with Zimbabwe, resulting in European countries imposing punitive measures on Zimbabwe and its leadership. The illegal economic sanctions adversely affected the standards of living for the general populace.
As most companies closed shop, the country’s unemployment levels doubled resulting in large scale skilled labour migration.
The illegal sanctions also had a devastating effect on the country’s social services.
Ordinary people have borne the brunt of the illegal economic regime.
The most affected sectors are health, education as well as water and sanitation.
And Blair, the man who led the onslaught on Zimbabwe, was made a Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter by Queen Elizabeth II, an honour described by The Guardian as “….the oldest and most senior British order of chivalry.”
Clearly the Queen was in support of the onslaught on Zimbabwe.
Her death also comes as a blow to her puppets in the newly named CCC party. They could not hide their grief as they went on to sing her praises on their social media pages. Sparking outrage from Zimbabweans who felt the Queen stood for no good to Africans.
It became clear why we as The Patriot Newspaper keep exposing CCC’s hypocrisy and connivance with the West.
Why does the monarchy still exist?
The anti-monarchist sentiment has grown in the few days of the Queen’s passing. Many are of the opinion that the death of the Queen should also signal the end of the British monarchy. It is a symbol of pain and suffering, even for their taxpayers who fund their comfort.
It is believed the royal family spends over 345 million pounds of the tax payers’ money every year on their extravagant lifestyles.
The monarch is not legally liable to pay income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax because the relevant enactments do not apply to the crown.
So they are simply parasites.
Over a 12 countries recognised the late monarch as their head of State, including Jamaica, Canada, New Zealand, New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Belize, Tuvalu, Papua and Australia. Many of these countries have expressed the need to ‘move on’.
Adam Bandt, leader of Australia’s Greens Party, posted along with his condolences on Twitter: “Now Australia must move forward, we need a treaty with First Nations people and we need to become a Republic.”
And Charles is not a particular favourite with the people. He not only assumes the throne but becomes the head of the Church of England, another role many feel should be discontinued.
The former Prince of Wales, whose life has been riddled with controversy, has become the strongest argument for ending the monarchy.
The revelations of infidelity in his marriage to Princess Diana left him extremely unpopular.
In June 2022, it was reported that the now King received suitcases full of cash from the Qatari Prime Minister as a ‘charitable donation’.
In 2018, his estate was caught up in the Paradise Papers which exposed how the rich and powerful stash their wealth offshore.
And simply put, many people in the UK are tired of the monarchy. And if there was to be a referendum, this choice will be clear for all to see.
Even the new British Prime Minister, Liz Truss, once called for an end to the monarchy in a video that has gone viral on social media.
Truss had no pleasant words for the monarch: “Everybody in Britain should have the chance to be somebody, but only one family can provide the head of state. We asked the public their opinion of the monarchy do you know what they said? They said abolish them, we’ve had enough.” But now that she is drinking tea with the monarch, she has backtracked, saying her comments were wrong.
But they were not wrong; they are the sentiments of many citizens who do not have the guts to say it out loud. And for those who do, it does not appear to be going well for them.
Anti-monarchists in the UK were confronted by law enforcement officers as they demonstrated against the British monarchy, with several incidents leading to arrests.
A woman who held an ‘abolish monarchy’ sign at a proclamation ceremony for King Charles III was recently charged with a criminal offence.
Police also arrested a man after he called out: “Who elected him?”
A man who went to the Parliament Square and held up a blank piece of paper was told if he had written ‘Not My King’ on it, he would have been arrested under the Public Order Act — the purported democratic country is not so democratic after all!
The freedom of expression is not quite free it seems.
People are not allowed to express their opinion as freely as they claim.
Freedom of expression is a human right. The human rights discourse has always been used by Britain to delegitimise defiant African leaders who will not bow down to their whims.
And yet here we are.
The monarchy, under the Queen who even claimed to love Zimbabwe at one point, has failed many parts of the world.
Queen Elizabeth 11 failed and not much can be expected from her son.
The Queen and everything she stood for will always leave a sour taste for many people.