Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In their article, the authors discuss the relations of the Zulu royal family to the family of John Colenso, 1^st Anglican Bishop of (the British colony of) Natal, as well as to the British royals, in the time of 1880 to 1925. They take account of direct encounters, ranging from private handshakes to public performances, of the use of kinship terminology in referring to each other, and the use photography in representing the families. On this basis, they argue that the families connected across the colonial divide.

The main question, then, is how to cross the white – black, European – African divide. The authors’ answer is through relations of kinship, but then the question is kinship on whose terms, Zulu or British? I suggest that the authors take a closer look at the translation of different cultural conceptualizations of kinship that shape the family relations discussed in the article. For example, they identify Harriette Colenso as sister of Cetshwayo and hence the paternal aunt of Dinuzulu, and then note that she acted as father to Solomon, “a confusing term in relation to our earlier discussion of kinship terms used” (line 1180). Now the Zulu term for father sister is baba (father) or babakazi (female father). (See e.g. Max Gluckman, ‘Kinship and Marriage among the Lozi of Northern Rhodesia and the Zulu of Natal’ in African Systems of Kinship and Marriage, OUP, 1950). Which leads to the question of the role of the father sister within the kinship structure. The authors argue convincingly that photographs of the British royals – representing the continuity of hereditary power – served as model for the 1895 pictures of Dinuzulu arranged by Harriette Colenso. However, there is a main difference: Dinuzulu had two sons from two wives, and conflicts between the houses (izindlu = wives with their sons) within the polygamous homestead (umuzi) were the driving force behind the dynamics of Zulu succession politics. In this context, father sisters were important allies in the conflicts of their (half) brother sons, their wives and sons, because they represented the patrilineage without being able to hold the leading position (homestead head / chief / king) themselves. (see Adam Kuper, ‘The “House” and Zulu Political Structure in the Nineteenth Century,’ Journal of African History 34 (1993), 483). I think that this background informed Harriette Colenso’s position in relation to, or indeed in the Zulu royal family.

Author Response

It was useful to have it pointed out that I had not addressed this issue of how the principle of heredity is complicated by polygamy. I have endeavoured to address this head on page 26 : The principle of heredity, though paramount was not sufficient in itself to fully determine succession due to the possibility of different heirs by different wives of the incumbent. Birth set the parameters of succession and, within with these parameters, the actual succession was to be determined by other means,
On the issue of Harriette being a surrogate ‘father’ to Solomon. I have added a further explanatory point to the reference to this in the text. But I think the attribution of surrogate ‘father’ status to Harriette regarding Solomon is understandable as a comment made by someone outside the family. Therefore, I do not think it needs to be considered to be in conflict with the use of kinship terms used by family members within and between the Colenso and Cetshwayo families
I think the point about looking at the meaning of kinship terms from the Zulu point of view is totally valid, and not doing so weakens my argument. I realise that I am presetting only one side of the picture.  The thing is that I am not a Zulu speaker and so not sure that I would have the expertise to assess the meaning of kinship terms from the Zulu side. I have got hold of one of the texts recommended by the reviewer: Max Gluckman, ‘Kinship and Marriage among the Lozi of Northern Rhodesia and the Zulu of Natal’ and it is really fascinating. But it will take me some time to get to grips with the material in it and, having done so, I am still not sure that I will be in a position to comment on the meaning of Zulu kinship terms. I have not yet been able to get hold of the JAH article by Adam Kuper and so haven’t been able to follow up the very interesting suggestion about the role of father sister and that the Zulu understanding of this role may have informed Harriette Colenso’s position in relation to the Zulu royal family.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper aims to explore the connections between key families under British colonial expansion in Southern Africa during the nineteenth and early twentieth century, with a particular focus on ideas and language relating to kinship ties. This makes the research of relevance to the chosen journal and special edition. There are genuinely interesting avenues for analysis within both the primary sources and the paper's framing. Overall, the research has merit and potential; however, this paper is not ready for publication in its current format. 

The author is clearly well versed in the literature surrounding the Colenso family, the Zulu royal family, and the colony of Natal. Bringing the British royal family into the frame of analysis is a genuinely interesting point of departure. At present, however, this draft unfortunately fails to clearly articulate its overarching argument in the introduction or anywhere else. What gap in the literature is this research addressing? How does it fit within the existing historiography? And what new insights or interpretations is the paper bringing to the historiography? The author needs to address these points clearly and convincingly before this research is ready for publication. 

The timeline of the journal article is jumpy, lurching forwards and backwards in time in a way that is difficult for the reader to follow. Background about when the colony of Natal was established would also be helpful to situate this research. Furthermore, this paper engages with interesting overarching themes and ideas relating to colonisating, including kinship, settler colonialism, and monarchy. The paper could be strengthened by drawing out the significance of these broader themes in the imperial context. 

As a paper embracing historical perspectives, this research engages with appropriate primary sources. This includes rich textual sources and fascinating photographs. However, the use of these primary sources (especially the textual ones) is haphazard and does not adequately support an overarching argument. As a result, the potentially very interesting linguistic discussion of kinship as conceived of through significant terms (father, son, sister, brother, aunt) is bogged down and therefore lost.

These comments are shared in the hope that the author will be able to tighten up the paper and articulate their argument in a way that makes this research more ready for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The level of the written English is strong and readable, but the structure of the academic writing detracts from how clearly the author is able to convey their ideas and articulate their argument.

At present, the opening to the journal article is choppy, as is the paragraph structure throughout. The author should consider a more standard structure for the introductory paragraph/s, either focusing on the anecdote relating to the Colenso family or by establishing the more general background to the paper within the historiography. The same principle of slightly longer, more developed paragraphs would be beneficial throughout this paper.

The way information is conveyed within the paper is very dense. Aiming to be more concise and grouping information together into longer paragraphs will assist the clarity of the writing overall. The references to the more contemporary British royal family is a stretch; this could be deleted to assist with bringing the overall length of the article down to contribute to its conciseness. 

There are minor syntax errors throughout, such as double spaces between words within sentences.

Author Response

 This revised draft comprises an extensive revision of the original article submitted which I hope will go some way to correct the structural problems identified by the reviewer. I have amalgamated and merged some subsections, reducing the total number of subsections and have rearranged paragraphs within each section. I have also have joined paragraphs together to make them longer, as requested
The aim of this re-arragement is to make the arguments clearer and also to make the narrative of events more chorological – at least within each section. I hope that this will go some way to address the reviewer’s comment: The timeline of the journal article is jumpy, lurching forwards and backwards in time in a way that is difficult for the reader to follow
I have completely rewritten the introduction which now begins with an anecdote, as suggested, and also provides more background history on the colony of a Natal, as requested. In the revised intro I have established at the outset the themes, propositions and new insights which I aim to development during the article. I hope that this will go some way towards  articulating the overarching arguments of the article, as suggested I should. My failure to established these arguments, and new insights, at the outset was a failure the reviewer was right to point out.
In relation to one of the themes established at the outset – the endeavour by the Zulu royal family to achieve parity with the British royal family – I have sought to track the high and low points in this purported relationship over the course of the article.
As suggested, I have highlighted themes relevant in the broader imperial context by, for example, pointing to the Natal government’s relations with Zulu royal family as an example of a colonial government’s struggle against an indigenous power base focused around a figure legitimatised by a traditional form of authority.  In this connection I have also highlighted the broader relevance in the imperial context of the fact that the Zulu royal family were not the only indigenous leaders who sought to validate their political legitimacy by comparison with the British royal family.
I have retained the reference to Queen Elizabeth II as I feel this contributes to the argument about the importance of heredity. I feel it would be a shame to lose this reference which I consider to be crucial in supporting an important argument made in the article.  
The photo of the late Queen Elizabeth and her heirs is a really good example of the principle of heredity in the British royal family. Furthermore, the quotes about the photo from the Telegraph newspaper are particularly pertinent and useful because they accord with the evident intent of Harriette to use this principle to justify her championing of the Zulu royal family. The Telegraph quotes also chime in perfectly with what I think is the key statement by Cope (and quoted in the article): “The British monarchy appealed to the sentiment so ingrained in the tribal world-view, at the heart of which was the notion that political legitimacy was in the first instance imputed by birth.”[emphasis added] (Nicholas Cope 1993, p. 133). (That is, the line of succession to the throne is determined by the principle of heredity.) This is what Harriette emphasises when she is returning from St Helena and speaks of the importance of the fact that she is returning with the princes. As I point out in the article: ‘The message is as suggested by the Telegraph article accompanying Prince George’s christening photo: – that “the monarchy is here to stay.” The St Helena photos fit in with this formula and its message.
Also, this example of the contemporary British royal family  is important as it illustrates that the principle of heredity continues to the present day – as an enduring feature of British monarchy for centuries. The inclusion of this example highlights the broader historical context of empire and royalty. As I point out (following Canadine), from the 1870s, “as the monarch became more imperial, the British empire became a royal empire”. The British royal family, at least symbolically, was at its heart - and at the heart of the British royal family was (and still is) the principle of heredity.
I feel that, if I have adequality introduced heredity as an overarching theme, the example of QE II’s heirs aids in drawing out the themes of kinship, heredity and monarchy in the imperial context.I feel that this is a new insight which reference to the QE II example would help to place in its full historical and imperial context.
I have endeavoured to go through and remove unwanted double spacings between words within sentences. My apologies if I have not managed to spot and remove all of these!