The writer is a historian at the University of Oxford and author of ‘Royals and Rebels: The Rise and Fall of the Sikh Empire’
The Koh-i-Noor diamond appears to be taking early retirement.
The notorious gem sits in Queen Mary’s Crown, which has been on display at the Tower of London since 2002. After Queen Elizabeth II’s death last year, speculation was rife that the jewel would next be worn by Camilla, the Queen Consort, at the coronation of King Charles III on May 6. But in a surprise announcement earlier this week, Buckingham Palace revealed that the crown would instead be reset with other diamonds from the late monarch’s personal collection, as a “tribute”.
At 105 carats, the Koh-i-noor (or “Mountain of Light” in Persian) is one of the world’s largest cut diamonds. Thought to have originated in India’s Golconda mines, it is today described at the Tower of London as a “symbol of conquest”, due its central place in the bloody history of war and empire-building spanning modern-day India, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. Campaigners from several countries have battled for decades to have the Koh-i-noor “repatriated”. Last October, a spokesman for India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party said that the “coronation of Camilla and the use of the crown jewel Koh-i-noor brings back painful memories of the colonial past”.
According to the palace, Queen Mary’s Crown is merely being recycled in the “interests of sustainability and efficiency”. But the separation of the Koh-i-noor from the crown that has cradled it for the past 86 years feels significant in what it says about shifting attitudes to empire and royalty. Throughout history, diamonds and other precious stones have played an integral role in displays of political power, so swapping one gem for another is no trivial matter.
It was in 1849 that the East India Company forced the “surrender” of the Koh-i-noor upon the 10-year-old Punjabi Maharajah Duleep Singh. His father, the warrior king Ranjit Singh, had deeply appreciated the jewel’s value as a public relations prop. Long before Ranjit, it had been owned by Mughal, Persian and Afghan emperors.
Ranjit often dressed in simple white robes, and adorned himself with just a string of pearls and the Koh-i-noor. He felt the massive diamond was sufficiently emblematic of his power, and flaunted it before British visitors. The colonial diplomat, Alexander Burnes, was dazzled, writing in 1834: “Nothing can be imagined more superb than this stone; it is of the finest water, about half the size of an egg.”
Queen Victoria followed in Ranjit’s footsteps, making use of both his son and the diamond to burnish her imperial credentials: the young Maharajah became a celebrity guest at court, and she delighted in showing off the gem to foreign royalty. By 1877, Victoria had successfully lobbied to have herself proclaimed “Empress of India”.
At his coronation, her great-great-great grandson will echo this history by wearing the Imperial State Crown as he departs Westminster Abbey as the newly crowned king. Both this and Queen Mary’s Crown will feature the South African Cullinan gems — which are seen by some as having controversial origins.
The Koh-i-Noor’s absence from Camilla’s crown will be an important moment. While the history of the monarchy’s evolution, entwined with empire, was once a matter of little interest, global public opinion has shifted powerfully in the last decade towards scrutiny of empire and its long legacies.
The palace may be tight-lipped about its reasons for vanishing the Koh-i-noor, but that is probably because the royals find themselves in a bind. Unlike past kings and consorts, Charles and Camilla will find it difficult to justify commissioning grand new regalia. Their precious, ancient stones no longer dazzle or awe us into submission either. The gems are increasingly a lightning rod for dissent, whether they are worn or not.
