24

Recently, Rishi Sunak, a person of Indian origin, became British PM. Indians have begun making online posts about how the return of the Koh-i-Noor diamond will be possible now.

Does the British PM actually have the power to return the Koh-i-Noor diamond to India?

F1Krazy
  • 3,118
  • 3
  • 27
  • 32
Alamdhir J
  • 291
  • 2
  • 6
  • 12
    If he were Labour (38% support for republicanism), he might want to, but don't bet on a Conservative PM (4% support for republicanism) trying to return any of the Crown Jewels to India just because his grandparents were from Punjab. Also, it would take an Act of Parliament in any case, so he would need most of the other MPs to sign on. – Obie 2.0 Oct 25 '22 at 08:25
  • 12
    @Obie2.0 I think that's an answer - he does not have the power to return the diamond unilaterally, and would have to go through Parliament. – F1Krazy Oct 25 '22 at 08:37
  • 7
    Any act of parliament would have to be approved by the King. I think the answer is that there is no formal legal procedure set out in advance for the return of the diamond (you could compare goods in museums like the Elgin Marbles or various colonial-era human remains but the comparison isn't exact because the Koh-i-Noor doesn't belong to a museum), but if it were to happen it would almost certainly involve discussions between the government and King. The Prime Minister doesn't have the power to expropriate property without good reason, and anyone saying otherwise is mistaken. – Stuart F Oct 25 '22 at 08:56
  • 2
    A comment on the gemological nature - what an awful cut that thing has. It's almost entirely window. I guess the cutters of the time didn't have a strong understanding of gem optics. – Brady Gilg Oct 25 '22 at 22:52
  • Not only has he not the unilateral power to do so, had he done it so blatantly in favor of India, he would be voted out with a round of no-confidence votes faster than they got rid of Liz Truss. – stackoverblown Oct 26 '22 at 11:58
  • i truly wish the british had never been to india – jim smith Oct 27 '22 at 22:54
  • @jimsmith - Which country would you have preferred it to be conquered by? – Valorum Oct 28 '22 at 07:12
  • Maybe they would prefer that it had conquered the UK instead. Or that no one had conquered anyone. – Obie 2.0 Oct 28 '22 at 19:59
  • There's also the dispute whether India has a rightful claim to the jewel. – sfxedit Mar 17 '23 at 16:11

3 Answers3

47

Not unilaterally, no. The Koh-i-Noor diamond is part of the Crown Jewels, owned by the sovereign in the right of the Crown. The Prime Minister has no executive power to seize Crown property, and would have to pass primary legislation through both Houses of Parliament, as well as obtain Royal Assent to do so.

Furthermore, as the legislation would affect the interests of the Crown, King's Consent would need to be sought before such a bill could pass through Parliament.

CDJB
  • 106,388
  • 31
  • 455
  • 516
  • 2
    Was the Kings consent ever denied in practice? – JonathanReez Oct 25 '22 at 15:49
  • 17
    @JonathanReez in practice, it's always granted or withheld in accordance with the Government's wishes. In some cases, however, the monarch has secured changes to bills - Wikipedia has some examples. – CDJB Oct 25 '22 at 15:54
  • 3
    @JonathanReez very rarely, as refusing has historically often made problems worse. – Ti Strga Oct 25 '22 at 18:33
  • 10
    @TiStriga the English civil war had nothing to do with King's Consent, which didn't exist in the 17th century. You're thinking of Royal assent, which is different. – phoog Oct 26 '22 at 08:44
  • 4
    The Guardian has lots more to say about Queen's, now King's, consent. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent – dipetkov Oct 26 '22 at 18:44
  • I learnt just the other day from a guide who lives at the tower of London that actually the Crown Jewels are not owned by the "Crown" but instead are owned by the "People". – Ian Oct 27 '22 at 07:42
  • @Ian - Hehehe, but if the People come in and try to touch the Crown Jewels that they supposedly own, the Crown will throw them out. – Obie 2.0 Oct 28 '22 at 20:00
  • The precedent of the monarch giving their consent to matters concerning the governance of the country is, I think, of questionable applicability to matters concerning the handling of royal property. If Parliament were to pass a bill confiscating all royal property, I don't think it would be considered out of line for the monarch to refuse consent. – Acccumulation Oct 30 '22 at 03:10
-2

I think you will find that the diamond was a gift to Queen Victoria as opposed to it being stolen or pillaged (as was usual in past centuries). As such, I believe it's ownership has passed down through the hands of British monarchs and now - I suppose - it passes into the personal possession of King Charles. He might decide (as I would) to return it - as a gift - to its rightful owner, if such a rightful owner could be identified. If that were not the case, then he could (as I would) return it to the Indian Government as a gift to their people to be on display in an appropriate museum in perpetuity.

IF Charles - representing the Crown - wanted/wished to return the Koh-I-Noor to India, then nothing and nobody could stop him because he has absolute power. However, whilst his hereditary position as monarch historically precludes him from exercising this absolute power, it doesn't stop him from exercising his VERY persuasive powers which he has in abundance. If he wanted it to happen - then it would, but you'll see flying pigs first.

CDJB
  • 106,388
  • 31
  • 455
  • 516
Richard Hammond
  • 29
  • 1
  • 9
    This does not seem to actually address the question. The question of whether Britain should return the diamond is not relevant to whether the PM could. – Jack Aidley Oct 26 '22 at 08:59
  • 12
    Victoria apparently transferred it to the crown rather than bequeathing it to any heir, so it has not been in anyone's personal possession since her death. – phoog Oct 26 '22 at 09:03
  • 1
    Iran's claim to the diamond is that it was stolen from them, so the gift to Victoria was not valid. – Martin Bonner supports Monica Oct 26 '22 at 15:13
  • I think it is fair to say, that as a matter of politics, the British Prime Minister is not likely to return the Koh-i-Noor to Iran. – Martin Bonner supports Monica Oct 26 '22 at 15:14
  • 8
    @MartinBonnersupportsMonica - Having read through its history, pretty much every transfer of ownership involved some measure of coercion. One would imagine this started with the original miner who dug the thing up. It was "stolen" from everyone. So claims of theft in this case are neither persuasive nor even particularly noteworthy. – T.E.D. Oct 26 '22 at 17:36
  • 4
    That "gift" word is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. 1849 Last Treaty of Lahore, Article III: : "The gem called the Koh-i-Noor [...] shall be surrendered by the Maharajah of Lahore to the Queen of England." – AmiralPatate Oct 27 '22 at 11:07
  • 1
    @AmiralPatate A gift, like a mugging, is in the eye of the beholder. – Yakk Oct 27 '22 at 14:53
  • King Charles IS the Crown and the Crown IS King Charles. He alone is above the Law, 'cos its now HIS Law (as it was his mother's law before him). – Richard Hammond Oct 27 '22 at 19:56
-2

Although the Prime Minister lacks the executive power to order this to be done, he could (if he was willing to risk antagonising monarchists) simply ask the king to return the diamond to India. A king who wishes to remain a king would probably not want to upset the government by refusing.

user3153372
  • 1,960
  • 7
  • 10
  • 5
    It's not in the king's personal possession, so it is not within his power to return it. – phoog Oct 26 '22 at 09:04