# Why no Black or Asian UK royals ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 19, 2013, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935 "2013-07-19T14:25:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/41 "2013-07-20T03:23:38Z")
Not _significant_ ones. Until about 1950 the only South Asians in Britain were stranded (or deserting) lascars (contract sailors). There were a few thousand of them in the Docklands area and Southampton; certainly no more than 20,000 at any time. There was a roughly equal number of blacks, who were mostly Afro-Caribbean slaves (emancipated and not). ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/42 "2013-07-20T03:33:02Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Not _significant_ ones. Until about 1950 the only South Asians in Britain were stranded (or deserting) lascars (contract sailors). There were a few thousand of them in the Docklands area and Southampton; certainly no more than 20,000 at any time. There was a roughly equal number of blacks, who were mostly Afro-Caribbean slaves (emancipated and not). That seems more reasonable. The quoted poster was positing a few dozen, which didnt seem right. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/43 "2013-07-20T03:38:35Z")
Obviously there weren’t any non-emancipated slaves in England in 1950, lest my poor sentence construction confuse anyone. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/44 "2013-07-20T03:51:18Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Probably for the same reason that there are no white Asian or African royals. Because the UK royal family is European. Btw. there is a half-chinese in the Danish royal family ([Alexandra](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra,_Countess_of_Frederiksborg)). She’s ex. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/45 "2013-07-20T03:52:45Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > I am not quite sure what you mean by “ancestors” here (when you come down to it, we all have African ancestors), but teh implication that there were “plenty” of African and Asian people in Britain 100 years ago is incredibly misleading, unless “plenty” means a few dozen, or at the outside a few hundred, in the population of tens of millions. I was responding to someone who said there were none. Zero. So, “plenty” means significantly more than zero. The Africans who were present in Britain in the earliest days probably interbred such that one could show up there in the 1400s and remark that there were no Africans in Britain. As for numbers at later dates, estimates range from 1 - 3% of the population of London was black in the 18th Century. [Link](http://www.press.jhu.edu/timeline/sel/Bartels_2006.pdf). That’s more than “a few dozen”. And that was well over 100 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![thicksantorum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/65b543/32.png) [@thicksantorum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thicksantorum)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/46 "2013-07-20T04:54:35Z")
Because none of their cousins are black or Asian. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/47 "2013-07-20T08:04:07Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > According to the statistics I’m seeing, the country is a little more than 90% white. I’m not suggesting you never see minorities in Britain, but you’d think that would make it a little less likely there would be an interracial marriage in the royal family. It’ll probably happen at some point anyway. What statistics and what are the divisions available? Take into account that in many countries, someone from Magreb or most of the population of India would be considered white. ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/48 "2013-07-20T09:00:27Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > What statistics and what are the divisions available? Take into account that in many countries, someone from Magreb or most of the population of India would be considered white. According to the office of National Statistics, 91% of the UK regard their ethnicity as white. This is self-assessed, although Indian, Pakistani etc are listed as separate options. The Asian subcontinent accounts for 4.6%, Afro-Caribbean or black British 2.3%, mixed race 1.4%, East Asian 0.8%. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/49 "2013-07-20T09:21:05Z")
Actually, the OP presents an interesting question. For many centuries it was the custom of European royalty of all countries to marry foreign royalty. This not only seemed proper, but could be used for purposes of diplomacy and dynastic politics. But only European royalty. Because only fellow Euros were Christians, of course; no political/dynastic advantage to be gained by putting your princess-daughter in the Sultan’s harem. But after the Age of Exploration opened, Euro royals did **not** intermarry with the royal families of the countries they colonized, or of any nonwhite countries at all – not even if the royals in question had converted to Christianity. Why not, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Ximenean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/aca169/32.png) [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/50 "2013-07-20T09:40:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But after the Age of Exploration opened, Euro royals did **not** intermarry with the royal families of the countries they colonized, or of any nonwhite countries at all – not even if the royals in question had converted to Christianity. Why not, eh? Because those countries had no power, I would guess. ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/51 "2013-07-20T09:43:04Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Actually, the OP presents an interesting question. For many centuries it was the custom of European royalty of all countries to marry foreign royalty. This not only seemed proper, but could be used for purposes of diplomacy and dynastic politics. But only European royalty. Because only fellow Euros were Christians, of course; no political/dynastic advantage to be gained by putting your princess-daughter in the Sultan’s harem. But after the Age of Exploration opened, Euro royals did **not** intermarry with the royal families of the countries they colonized, or of any nonwhite countries at all – not even if the royals in question had converted to Christianity. Why not, eh? No political advantage. They married into other Royal families to create allies within their most important territory - Europe. They don’t need an alliance with people they had conquered. And of course feelings of European superiority over other races played a part. You’re not going to marry your subordinate. Of course, that’s history, they did things differently there. I don’t think it’s just to judge the current royal family by the actions of their ancestors. We would ALL be racist if we had to live by the opinions of our great grandparents. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/52 "2013-07-20T09:44:05Z")
> [@Ximenean](#): > > Because those countries had no power, I would guess. Perhaps not, but there are ways the Brits might have strengthened their rule in India or Africa by intermarrying their royal and peerage families with Indian or African princes, and similar possibilities for other empires on other continents. But, they didn’t. If they **had**. . . that might lead to an interesting alternate history scenario, a world of peasant-commoners of all nations ruled by a multicultural, multinational, multiracial, and perhaps even multireligious class of traditional landowning royalty/aristocracy/gentry, the ruling class (but not the lower classes) being knitted together by a global network of marriage alliances. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/53 "2013-07-20T09:50:14Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Perhaps not, but there are ways the Brits might have strengthened their rule in India or Africa . . . Or in **Ireland,** come to think of it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/54 "2013-07-20T10:11:49Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Perhaps not, but there are ways the Brits might have strengthened their rule in India or Africa by intermarrying their royal and peerage families with Indian or African princes, and similar possibilities for other empires on other continents. But, they didn’t. > > If they **had**. . . that might lead to an interesting alternate history scenario, a world of peasant-commoners of all nations ruled by a multicultural, multinational, multiracial, and perhaps even multireligious class of traditional landowning royalty/aristocracy/gentry, the ruling class (but not the lower classes) being knitted together by a global network of marriage alliances. In fact, that appears to be **exactly** what is emerging (on a continental but not yet global scale) in S.M. Stirling’s [Emberverse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emberverse) series. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/55 "2013-07-20T10:45:31Z")
> [@Blakeyrat](#): > > The UK was slaughtering whales and selling whale oil well into the 1950s. From the perspective of someone in the US (where it was banned since the 1920s) that might make you seem primitive and backwards. I don’t think equating treatment of people with animals eve goes across well, so bad example I think. (Plus this would be coming from a country that still allows hunting with bow and arrow so…yeah, cultural perspective is a strange beast.) The better example for you to use would be that homosexuality was illegal in the UK until relatively recently (See the current Alan Turing thread) and I can’t reconcile the fact that the same country that recently waived through full gay marriage equality with barely a public murmur is the same one that outlawed it a scant few decades ago. Both of our countries were “primitive and backwards” in many aspects and we shouldn’t be shy of admitting it. The most important thing to me is how far and how fast we all progress (and that progress is being made at all). I hear some of the political debates coming out of the USA and have to scratch my head at how barmy some of these discussions are and remind myself that it really isn’t a single country at all and re-calibrate my expectations accordingly. New England is not New Mexico and all that. My own thoughts are that a mixed-race royal family or PM (and family) would be worthy of remark, but ultimately perfectly acceptable to the public. As would be a gay prime minister or head of state. Of course we’ve had powerful female leaders for centuries so that hurdle is well past. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/56 "2013-07-20T10:48:30Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > The better example for you to use would be that homosexuality was illegal in the UK until relatively recently (See the current Alan Turing thread) But that wouldn’t make Britain seem backwards from the perspective of the US. 1967 is positively radical compared to the US, where it was illegal in some states until **2003**. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/57 "2013-07-20T11:05:51Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Actually, the OP presents an interesting question. Depends on your definition of “interesting”. It’s not really a great debate, is it? In the past: A mix of religion, racism, and little to gain. In the present: It just hasn’t happened yet. We haven’t exactly had a lot of weddings since religion and racism stopped being factors. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/58 "2013-07-20T13:07:09Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > At various times interracial marriage (to whites, at least) was illegal in almost every state. It’s just that most of those laws were already gone by the time _Loving v. Virginia_ made those laws unconstitutional. The Supreme Court took care of the last 16 states, and yes, it was basically the Old South. Actually a decent portion of States never passed anti-miscegenation laws (Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont) and many had repealed their laws before the end of the 19th century (New Mexico, Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, Washington.) While most of the west eventually had miscegenation laws, they actually came late there. Interracial marriage was a common and widely accepted thing on the frontier, in fact a good example is Confederate General Pickett. While on the frontier prior to the Civil War he had a native wife and even fathered a son with her. It would not have been considered scandalous at all where he lived at the time. (Later, his white wife he married later on who lived in the Southeast took pains to hide the relationship, because in the post-Civil War South such a thing was scandalous.) It was actually a shift (and a relatively brief one) when anti-miscegenation laws became the norm in the frontier/western states. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/59 "2013-07-20T15:40:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Because those countries had no power, I would guess. Partly, but the British would have said that lack of power is due to innate inferiority, or conversely that the British could succeed in taking power because they were superior. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935/60 "2013-07-20T15:41:23Z")
I used to teach English in Japan, and one of my teenaged students joked that her reason for wanting to learn English was so she could attend a British university, meet and marry either Prince William or Prince Harry (she said she’d wait until she actually met them to decide which one she liked better), and thus become a princess and perhaps someday queen. I can’t find the thread now, but I remember this inspired me to ask on here if there would be any legal barrier to one of the princes marrying a Japanese citizen. IIRC, the answer was that the Japanese bride’s religion and not her nationality would be the real issue, but that if she converted to the CofE then that would be fine. My student was of course a commoner, but if the British royal family wanted to marry its sons off to foreign royalty then it seems to me that some of the Japanese princesses would be pretty good choices. There are several unmarried princesses in their 20s and early 30s, and one of them (Princess Akiko) even has a degree from Oxford. Perhaps most importantly, the Japanese Imperial family makes the Windsors look like a bunch of hippies. Handling the media might be a different story, though – the Japanese press is pretty restrained and respectful when it comes to their royal family. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-black-or-asian-uk-royals/663935.md?page=4)