“The power to narrate, or to block other narratives from forming, is part of the power of empire.” —Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism (1993)
Today, as President Donald Trump arrives at Windsor Castle to meet King Charles III, the world's attention is focused on the pageantry of a historic diplomatic occasion. The visit is a testament to the enduring “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom, celebrated with military honours, a horse-drawn carriage procession, and the grand welcome from the British monarch. Yet the very grounds of Windsor Castle, the site of this modern-day spectacle, stand as a powerful symbol of a different, and far more complex, history. Beyond its medieval architecture and ceremonial grandeur, Windsor Castle preserves a remarkable array of treasures—from Indian swords and textiles to Chinese porcelain and Japanese lacquerware—many of which were acquired under conditions of war, coercion, or colonial dominance. This visit, with its focus on pomp and diplomacy, offers a timely opportunity to look past the surface and confront the legacy of empire that is literally on display within the castle walls and throughout Britain’s museum collections.
Indian and Asian Treasures at Windsor Castle
Among the most striking items from India in Windsor Castle are Tipu Sultan’s swords and daggers, seized after the fall of Seringapatam in 1799, and jewel-encrusted ceremonial weapons from the Sikh Wars following the annexation of Punjab in 1849. The history of these objects, particularly those from the Sikh treasury, has been meticulously documented by historians such as William Dalrymple and Anita Anand in their work on the Koh-i-Noor diamond. These objects, often decorated with gold, gems, and intricate designs, symbolised British political and military domination. Alongside weapons, Windsor houses ivory thrones, caskets, and chess sets, as well as textiles such as Kashmir shawls and embroidered robes gifted—or coerced—from Indian princes during the Raj.
Windsor Castle’s collection also spans other Asian cultures. China and Japan are represented through Ming and Qing porcelain, jade carvings, and Edo-period lacquerware. Persian Safavid and Qajar metalwork, Ottoman arms, and South-East Asian ivory and gold artefacts illustrate the global reach of Britain’s imperial networks. Although these objects were often framed as aesthetic treasures or subjects of scholarly study, many were acquired through coercion, unequal treaties, or outright plunder, reflecting the complex ethics of imperial accumulation. As scholars such as Nina Möntmann have argued in works on decolonising the museum, these collections often carry a “dirty baggage” of violence and pillage.
Colonial Plunder Across Britain
Beyond Windsor Castle, looted treasures are distributed throughout the United Kingdom. The Tower of London houses the Crown Jewels, including the controversial Koh-i-Noor diamond from Punjab. London’s British Museum contains the Benin Bronzes, the Rosetta Stone, and the Parthenon (or Elgin) Marbles. The provenance of the Benin Bronzes, seized during a punitive expedition in 1897, has become a central case study in the debate over colonial-era artefacts. The Rosetta Stone, a key to deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphs, was seized by British forces from the French in 1801, a clear act of wartime appropriation. Similarly, the Parthenon Marbles were removed from Athens by Lord Elgin in the early 19th century, with their legal and ethical status a subject of fierce and ongoing debate.
The Victoria & Albert Museum maintains one of the largest collections of Indian and Asian art outside the subcontinent. University and regimental museums also preserve war trophies, ceremonial arms, and indigenous artefacts, while private aristocratic estates retain objects acquired during colonial administration.
Colonial loot was legalised, while European wartime loot was delegitimised.
Claims and Repatriation Efforts
Many countries have formally requested the return of looted treasures. India, Nigeria, Greece, Egypt, Ethiopia, China, and Ghana have sought restitution of iconic objects such as the Koh-i-Noor, Benin Bronzes, Parthenon Marbles, and Rosetta Stone. The debate over repatriation is often framed by legal and ethical arguments, with Britain largely relying on the British Museum Act (1963), which restricts permanent deaccessioning from national collections. As noted in a UK Parliament briefing paper, the UK government and the British Museum have argued that these objects constitute “world heritage” and that their removal saved them from destruction. Recently, some institutions have begun offering loans or partial returns, but the most symbolic objects remain in British hands.
The Legalisation of Colonial Loot vs the Criminalisation of European Loot
A striking double standard emerges when comparing Britain’s treatment of colonial plunder with its stance on European wartime looting. The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War, established that wartime looting was illegitimate and required restitution. This framework was reinforced by the 1998 Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, which urged European and North American institutions to identify and return looted objects to rightful owners or heirs.
In contrast, colonial loot was never subjected to the same scrutiny. By the mid-20th century, imperial seizures had already been reframed as “legal” transfers of property, whether through conquest, treaties, or coerced “gifts.” Britain consolidated this position through the British Museum Act (1963), which made it nearly impossible to deaccession colonial-era objects from national collections. In effect, colonial loot was legalised, while European wartime loot was delegitimised.
As Elazar Barkan has argued, this contrast highlights how restitution is shaped by politics and power: European nations acknowledged the injustice of Nazi looting because it targeted fellow Europeans, but colonial expropriation was absorbed into the very fabric of European museums and celebrated as part of a civilising mission.
The “Civilising Mission” Justification
European powers rationalised colonial looting under the ideology of the “civilising mission.” Looted or coerced objects were reframed as safeguarded for humanity, deemed too valuable or complex to remain under the control of the “unfit” original owners. This narrative, as explored by Edward Said, was a core component of Orientalism, which constructed non-Western cultures as exotic and in need of European stewardship. Museums became centres of scientific study and cultural preservation, while military conquest was celebrated as evidence of European superiority. This narrative obscured the reality of dispossession, coercion, and cultural expropriation, masking the violence behind an appearance of benevolence.
Conclusion
Windsor Castle, British museums, and other imperial collections embody the entanglement of art, power, and empire. The treasures they house—whether Indian swords, Chinese porcelain, African bronzes, or Persian metalwork—are aesthetically and historically magnificent, yet many testify to colonial appropriation. The double standard remains clear: European wartime plunder has been delegitimised and partially restituted, while colonial plunder has been legalised and retained. These objects remain powerful symbols—of human creativity, of conquest, and of ongoing debates about ownership, restitution, and cultural justice. Understanding their provenance compels us to confront history honestly and grapple with the ethical implications of preserving the material legacies of empire.