1/. In 1660, King Charles II and his brother James, Duke of York, were involved in establishing the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa.

2/. In 1672, the Royal African Company was established under a royal charter. It became a major participant in the transatlantic slave trade, transporting enslaved Africans to the Americas.

3/. James, who subsequently became King James II, was directly involved in the company's affairs.

4/. Later, King William III also held shares in the Royal African Company. Historical records document a transfer of £1,000 in shares from Edward Colston to William in 1689.

These connections are not modern political accusations. They are part of Britain's documented history, researched and acknowledged by respected historical institutions. The monarchy was not merely an observer of the slave trade. Earlier monarchs and members of the Royal Family were directly involved in enterprises that profited from it.

WHAT KING CHARLES HAS SAID

Buckingham Palace has made clear that the King understands the importance of confronting this history.

A Palace spokesperson said to Charles: "will not shy away from confronting the most shameful aspects of the past during this visit". You may therefore expect him to address them in his speech with unflinching honesty, sincere sorrow, and respect for the wider discussions that will be taking place between relevant governments on this issue at CHOGM and beyond."

WHY AN APOLOGY IS BEING REQUESTED

They are asking the present monarch, as representative of the continuing institution of the Crown, to formally acknowledge the involvement of previous monarchs in slavery.

There is a distinction between expressing sorrow over historical suffering and apologising on behalf of an institution that participated in causing it. That distinction explains why calls for a formal apology continue despite Charles's willingness to confront the past.

THE PUBLIC DESERVES THE FULL EXPLANATION

GB2GB believes that reporting demands for an apology without explaining the monarchy's documented involvement leaves the public without essential historical context. The question of whether King Charles should issue a formal apology is one for public discussion.

But that discussion should begin with an understanding of why the monarchy is being asked to apologise in the first place. The historical evidence explains the connection.

KING CHARLES, THE PRIME MINISTER AND THE MEDIA'S POLITICAL INTERPRETATION

The historical involvement of the British monarchy in slavery explains why King Charles III is being asked to consider a formal apology. But a separate political controversy has emerged in sections of the British press, directed not at the King but at Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

*Toxic Multi-Billionaire Right Wing Media Polluting Everyday News in the United Kingdom AGAIN*

The Sunday Express has accused Burnham of making life harder for the King during his Caribbean visit.

The Mail on Sunday has characterised his intervention as triggering fresh demands for billions in reparations, while the Sun on Sunday has warned against renewed financial claims.

Burnham expressed openness to considering calls for a formal British apology. He did not commit the government to an apology, nor did he agree to financial reparations. Indeed, he explicitly rejected financial payments as the appropriate response.

What evidence establishes that Burnham created new difficulties for the King or caused financial demands that did not already exist?