The Élysée Palace said Ambassador Stephane Romatet would resume his duties in Algiers more than a year after he was recalled amid diplomatic tensions between Paris and its former colony.

French Deputy Armed Forces Minister Alice Rufo is scheduled to attend ceremonies on Friday marking the 1945 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations in Algeria, accompanied by Romatet.The ceremonies commemorate the mass killings in Sétif, Guelma and Kherrata on May 8, 1945, when French colonial authorities violently suppressed nationalist protests demanding greater political rights.

The events remain a deeply sensitive issue in relations between France and Algeria and continue to shape historical and political discourse in both countries.The French presidency said the decision reflected Emmanuel Macron’s intention to restore diplomatic engagement with Algeria.

“The President of the Republic’s desire is to address relations between France and Algeria with honesty” and “to restore an effective dialogue,” the Élysée said in a statement.Relations between Paris and Algiers have faced repeated tensions in recent years over migration policy, visa restrictions, security cooperation and disputes surrounding France’s colonial legacy in North Africa.

Macron has sought a more conciliatory approach toward Algeria during his presidency, including acknowledging abuses committed during French colonial rule, though disagreements over historical memory and political rhetoric have periodically disrupted bilateral ties.

Recent remarks by Zohran Mamdani, suggesting that King Charles III should return the Koh-i-Noor diamond to India, have reignited longstanding debates over the ownership of cultural artefacts acquired during the colonial period.

The diamond, currently part of the British crown jewels housed in the Tower of London, remains one of the most contested symbols of empire.The Koh-i-Noor, though not the largest diamond in the British collection, carries a significant historical and political legacy.

Historian William Dalrymple described it as a “pocket-sized symbol of colonial loot and plunder,” emphasising its continued capacity to generate political and cultural tensions. He noted that the diamond’s symbolic weight persists across generations, often intersecting with contemporary diplomatic and political discourse.

Historical accounts referenced by Dalrymple and co-author Anita Anand indicate that much of the narrative surrounding the diamond’s prominence was shaped during British colonial rule. Contrary to popular perception, the Koh-i-Noor was neither the largest nor the most significant gem in the treasury of the Mughal Empire.

It was one among many jewels embedded in the Peacock Throne commissioned by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan.The diamond’s trajectory changed in the 18th century when Nader Shah seized the Peacock Throne during his invasion of Delhi.

He later named the diamond “Koh-i-Noor,” meaning “Mountain of Light,” and displayed it publicly. Following his assassination, the diamond moved through various hands, eventually reaching the Indian subcontinent again under Ranjit Singh, who incorporated it into his royal regalia.After Ranjit Singh’s death, the diamond passed to his young heir Duleep Singh.

In 1849, following the annexation of Punjab by the East India Company, the 10-year-old ruler was compelled to sign the Treaty of Lahore. The agreement included provisions transferring the Koh-i-Noor to Queen Victoria, a move critics have long argued occurred under coercive circumstances.

Once in British possession, the diamond was exhibited publicly and later recut to suit European preferences before being incorporated into the crown jewels. Over time, it became associated primarily with British queens, including its use in the crown worn by Queen Elizabeth, later known as the Queen Mother, during the 1937 coronation of King George VI.

Following India’s independence in 1947, the Government of India initiated multiple formal requests for the diamond’s return. These claims framed the Koh-i-Noor as a cultural artefact removed during colonial rule. The British government has consistently rejected such requests, maintaining that the diamond was transferred legally under the terms of the Treaty of Lahore.

In 2010, then Prime Minister David Cameron stated that returning the diamond could set a precedent that would “empty” British museum collections.The Koh-i-Noor has since become emblematic of broader debates on restitution, often compared with other contested artefacts such as the Parthenon marbles and the Benin bronzes.

Public sentiment in India continues to reflect strong interest in its return, with visitors to the Tower of London frequently expressing dissatisfaction at its continued display in the United Kingdom.The issue is further complicated by competing claims from multiple countries. Pakistan formally requested the diamond in the 1970s, citing its historical association with Lahore, now within its borders.

Bangladesh and Afghanistan have also asserted claims, referencing different phases of the diamond’s historical movement. In addition, exiled Taliban figures reportedly expressed interest in the diamond after 2001.Historian Audrey Truschke highlighted the complexity of determining rightful ownership, noting that the overlapping claims reflect the broader challenges of addressing historical injustices linked to colonialism.

She observed that while there is widespread recognition of the harms associated with colonial-era acquisitions, practical solutions remain difficult to implement.Recent developments suggest a degree of sensitivity around the diamond’s status.

In a departure from precedent, the Koh-i-Noor was not included in the regalia used during the coronation of King Charles III. While no formal explanation was provided, the decision was widely interpreted as an acknowledgment of the ongoing controversy.

Dalrymple noted that the diamond could assume renewed significance in future diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and India. He indicated that shifting geopolitical dynamics, including the growing importance of India in global affairs, may influence how such cultural issues are addressed.

The Koh-i-Noor, he suggested, could become a point of negotiation in bilateral discussions.The renewed attention generated by Mamdani’s remarks underscores the enduring relevance of historical artefacts in contemporary political discourse.

The Koh-i-Noor’s journey from Mughal India to the British crown jewels continues to serve as a focal point for debates over heritage, sovereignty, and the legacy of empire.

A new exhibition at Kensington Palace is drawing attention to the lives of the daughters of Maharaja Duleep Singh, presenting their trajectories as part of a broader reassessment of how colonial-era histories are interpreted in British institutions.

Titled “The Last Princesses of the Punjab,” the exhibition brings together 117 artefacts to document the lives of Princesses Sophia, Bamba and Catherine Duleep Singh, whose experiences spanned Britain, India, Europe and the United States across the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The display situates their biographies within the political and social transformations triggered by the annexation of Punjab in 1849, when the British Empire absorbed the Sikh kingdom established by Maharaja Ranjit Singh.The exhibition is hosted by Historic Royal Palaces, which oversees several royal residences including the Tower of London and Hampton Court Palace.

Curators said the project reflects a shift toward examining the lived experiences of individuals shaped by imperial systems, rather than focusing solely on imperial artefacts or state narratives.The narrative begins with the early life of Duleep Singh, who became ruler of the Sikh empire as a child before being deposed following the Anglo-Sikh Wars.

After the annexation, he was separated from his mother and brought to Britain in 1854 under the guardianship of a Scottish couple. In London, he developed close ties with the British monarchy, including Queen Victoria, and became a prominent figure in elite society.In 1864, he married Bamba Müller, the daughter of a German businessman and an Abyssinian woman, in Egypt.

The couple later settled in Suffolk, where they raised six children, including the three daughters who are the focus of the exhibition. According to curatorial material, the children were baptised into the Church of England and raised within British aristocratic norms, including formal education and participation in elite social circles.

During their upbringing, the daughters were not permitted to travel to India, reflecting concerns within British authorities that the presence of the deposed royal family could encourage anti-colonial sentiment. After Duleep Singh left Britain in 1886 and his first wife died shortly thereafter, the daughters became wards of the India Office, effectively placing them under official supervision.

The exhibition traces how the three sisters diverged in adulthood. Princess Bamba pursued medical studies in Chicago in 1901 before relocating to Lahore in 1903, where she lived for more than five decades. Princess Sophia became involved in political activism in Britain, including participation in the suffrage movement.

Princess Catherine spent much of her life in Germany before returning to Britain during the Second World War.According to historian Mishka Sinha, who serves as curator for inclusive history at Historic Royal Palaces, the sisters’ backgrounds placed them in what she described as a “multiple marginal” position, shaped by their mixed heritage, gender and colonial status.

She said this intersection contributed to their varied engagements with political and social movements of the period.Archival material in the exhibition includes a 1911 census document annotated by Sophia with the words “No Vote, No Census,” reflecting her involvement in the Women’s Social and Political Union, a leading organization in Britain’s suffrage campaign.

Records also indicate she worked as a nurse for Sikh soldiers during the First World War and resisted tax payments as part of protest actions.Catherine’s later life is documented through materials linked to her residence in Kassel, Germany, and her subsequent return to Britain. During the Second World War, she sheltered Jewish refugees in her Buckinghamshire home.

Among the artefacts displayed is the passport of a child refugee, as well as a piece of jewellery Catherine later gifted to her.The exhibition also addresses Princess Bamba’s long residence in Lahore, including her experiences during the Partition of India in 1947.

Curators incorporated this period to highlight the continued impact of colonial-era legacies into the mid-20th century, particularly in regions affected by large-scale population displacement.Objects displayed include personal belongings, correspondence, textiles and musical scores, including a copy of Die Meistersinger owned by the family.

Curator Polly Putnam said the selection was designed to support each historical claim with material evidence, emphasizing artefacts as primary sources rather than decorative additions.The exhibition also incorporates oral history through recorded testimonies.

One such account comes from Peter Barrall, who as a child encountered Princesses Sophia and Bamba during the Second World War after being evacuated from London to their estate in Norfolk. Barrall recalled that the sisters maintained a formal distance but occasionally interacted with local children under strict etiquette.

The curatorial team worked with collectors and historians, including Peter Bance, who has assembled a large private archive related to Duleep Singh and his descendants.

According to historian Tony Ballantyne, the family continues to hold symbolic significance for the Sikh diaspora, where Duleep Singh is often regarded as a figure linked to both religious identity and political history.Curators said the exhibition also reflects evolving institutional approaches to colonial collections.

In one instance, textile items previously catalogued as saris were reidentified as dupattas following further research, illustrating efforts to correct earlier classifications.The exhibition runs through November and forms part of a broader trend among European institutions to reassess colonial-era narratives through biographical and community-linked perspectives, drawing on archival research, material culture and oral testimony.

Speaking before greeting Charles and Queen Camilla at a 9/11 memorial event in New York, Mamdani said he would urge the king to return the historic gemstone, which was taken from the Indian subcontinent during British colonial rule in the 19th century.

“If I was to speak to the king, separately from that, I would probably encourage him to return the Koh-i-Noor diamond,” Mamdani said, while adding that the focus of the event remained honoring those killed in the Sept. 11 attacks.It was not immediately clear whether Mamdani raised the issue directly during his brief exchange with Charles, who was seen speaking and laughing with the mayor after the two shook hands at the memorial ceremony.

The Koh-i-Noor, a 106-carat diamond housed in the Tower of London, is among the most prominent jewels in Britain’s Crown Jewels and is mounted in the crown made for Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.The gem’s ownership has been disputed for generations.

It passed through the hands of Mughal emperors, Persian rulers and Sikh maharajas before it was ceded to Queen Victoria in 1849 under the Treaty of Lahore following the annexation of Punjab by the British Empire.India has repeatedly sought the return of the diamond, arguing it was taken under colonial rule, though British governments have consistently rejected those requests.

Other countries, including Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran, have also laid claim to the stone, citing historical ownership ties dating back centuries.The comments quickly drew criticism from Britain’s anti-immigration Reform UK party, whose home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf described Mamdani’s remarks as an insult to the monarch.

“This beautiful diamond is currently on display in the Tower of London,” Yusuf wrote on X. “That is where it will stay.”Debates over colonial-era artifacts have intensified globally in recent years, with former imperial powers facing growing pressure to return culturally significant objects to their countries of origin.

Charles’ visit to New York included a memorial tribute to victims of the 2001 attacks and meetings with local leaders, amid broader efforts to strengthen diplomatic and symbolic ties between Britain and the United States.