When Camilla and Charles are crowned at the coronation this weekend, some of those watching will be paying close attention to the elaborate crown on the Queen Consort's head.
The symbolic ornament of Britain's hereditary monarchy will be mounted with jewels from the family's extensive public and private collections.
Among the trove of treasures are rubies, turquoise, sapphires, aquamarines and emeralds.
But the bloody history behind some of the sovereign's jewels has not been forgotten.
The Queen Consort had been widely expected to wear the crown that Queen Elizabeth wore to her husband's coronation in 1937, adorned with a 105-carat, oval-shaped diamond known as the Kohinoor.
Believed to be the world's most expensive diamond, the Kohinoor has been fought over for centuries. Its return to the spotlight prompted a swift backlash from Indians who say it should be returned to their country.
The controversy threatened to overshadow King Charles's celebrations until the royal family announced the coronation crown would be reset without the stone or its crystal quartz replica.
It will instead feature three other diamonds from the royal collection: the Cullinan III, IV and V.
However, a South African scholar argues these jewels are also a remnant of Britain's brutal colonial past.
"The history of the Cullinan diamond is an epitome of the history of colonialism and imperialism. It is a history of denying Africans their humanity and their rights," University of South Africa professor Everisto Benyera said.
The turbulent history behind the Cullinan
The Cullinan diamond was discovered in a large mine in South Africa in 1905, weighing a remarkable 3,106 carats and sending a ripple of excitement around the world.
Roughly the size of a human heart and with an extraordinary blue-white colour, according to the Royal Asscher, the precious stone was the largest gem-quality, rough-cut diamond ever found.
But the Cullinan sat on the market for two years without a buyer until it was purchased by the colonial government in South Africa in 1907 for 150,000 pounds (15 million pounds, $28 million in today's money).
The story of how the large diamond ended up in the British royal collection is a complicated one.
Since 1867 the discovery of diamond deposits in southern Africa meant the then-government passed, and enforced, a number of laws that, among other things, compelled African men to work in the mines, explained Danielle Kinsey, who specialises in British history at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada
"[The men worked] for relatively cheap wages. They limited their movement, and created a legal system that incarcerated a lot of African males, who were then used in mining work, as convict labour," she said.
For the next few decades, authorities in the Cape Colony as well as Britain sought to claim the "Diamond Fields", as they were known, as part of their jurisdiction, she said.
Others who had a claim on the territory, she said, included Indigenous groups, the Orange Free State, and German missionaries.
"The British government in London and the Cape worked hard to bring the area under their jurisdiction to keep a lucrative industry within the British empire …," Professor Kinsey said.
By the turn of the 20th century, the Boer war broke out and British forces used brutal tactics to crush the resistance, until the conflict ended in 1902.
Five years later, the colonial government in South Africa presented the diamond to Edward VII, who reigned over the territory, as a token of loyalty on the king's birthday.
The uncut diamond was shipped over to England before it was sent away again to be divided into pieces.
Three people worked for 14 hours a day over a period of eight months to cut the Cullinan into nine large stones, which were each assigned a number from I to IX.
Cullinan I and II — known as The Great Star of Africa and the Second Star of Africa — were incorporated into the crown jewels collection.
The first was set into the Sovereign's Sceptre with the Cross, while the second was mounted in the Imperial State Crown.
Cullinan III and IV were originally part of Queen Mary's coronation crown, before being refashioned into brooches and other jewellery most recently worn by Queen Elizabeth II and nicknamed "Granny's Chips".
More than a century later, some South Africans see the Cullinan as a blood diamond and a symbol of exploitation.
The debate over the Cullinan's return
In the months since Queen Elizabeth II's death, almost 8,000 people have signed a petition calling for the Cullinan diamonds to be returned and displayed in South Africa's museum.
African Transformation Movement MP Vuyo Zungula tweeted South Africa must demand the return of "all the gold, diamonds stolen by Britain".
"The minerals of our country and other countries continue to benefit Britain at the expense of our people," former African National Congress party member Thanduxolo Sabelo told a local media outlet last year.
"We remain in deep, shameful poverty. We remain with mass unemployment and rising levels of crime, due to the oppression and devastation caused by her and her forefathers."
Professor Benyera says the debate is about far more than precious gems.
"What we want is not just the return of the Cullinan, or the return of any of the artefacts that were stolen … what we want is the return of our humanity," he said.
"We want those [who] perpetrated slave trade and colonialism to acknowledge their wrongdoing, first and foremost … then we can talk about reparations."
But he does not expect this to happen any time soon.
"The British monarchy is aware that such a move would open it to subsequent lawsuits, problems and the reinterpretation of its history."
India's push for the return of the Kohinoor
Over the past few decades, calls for the Kohinoor — or "Mountain of Light" — to be sent back to its homeland have also grown stronger.
From Indian MPs to Pakistani lawyers to the Taliban and the grandson of India's independence leader, Mahatma Gandhi, numerous parties have demanded the British royal family return the Kohinoor as "atonement for the colonial past".
Although several countries lay claim to the Kohinoor, the royal family has acknowledged the diamond "probably" originated in India.
Jyoti Atwal — from the centre for historical studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University — says India has been through a phase of cultural decolonisation in recent years.
In Queen Elizabeth II's final days, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was preparing to unveil two major changes in the city of Delhi, signifying a shift away from Britain's "symbol of slavery, now history".
Hours before she died, a monument recognising revolutionary freedom fighter Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was unveiled in the spot where a statue of the Queen's grandfather, King George V, once stood.
Mr Modi also announced the iconic stretch known as Rajpath — or Kingsway in English — would henceforth be known as Kartavya Path, meaning "path of duties".
The Queen's death reignited calls for the Kohinoor to be returned to India, with many anticipating that the jewel would once again adorn the head of the new British monarch.
In February, the palace announced that Queen Consort Camilla's coronation crown would not feature the contentious diamond.
"The removal of diamond, the idea that it should not be worn by Queen Consort Camilla, is a conscious one, no doubt about that," Professor Atwal said.
"It is looked upon as a sign of invasion, of cultural violence."
Instead, the Kohinoor will remain on display inside the Jewel House at the Tower of London, in a new exhibition delving into its origins as "a symbol of conquest".
The story of the Cullinan diamond will also form part of the exhibit.
Professor Atwal said this recognition would help people understand the complete history of the Kohinoor diamond but, for many in India, this would only be the first step.
"[The return of the Kohinoor] is more of an act of reclaiming our own cultural legacy, an act of winning a lost battle," she said.
"It is important for Indians to re-imagine their past, in a sense that it is now resettled and reconciled. So, there is some healing connected with bringing the diamond back."
Negotiating any potential return, however, would be complicated.
UNESCO's 1970 convention — which covers the restitution of cultural objects between nations and was accepted by the UK in 2002 — only applies to objects that have been "illegally acquired".
The royal family — as well as India's former solicitor-general — have described the Kohinoor as being gifted, or surrendered, rather than an object that was stolen or removed unlawfully.
India has since clarified that the solicitor-general's remarks did not represent the views of the government, which is making all efforts to bring back Kohinoor in an amicable manner.
According to a spokesperson for Mr Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, there is still consultation to do on its campaign for the return of the Kohinoor, but the government is hopeful the conversation will progress.
India's vice-president, Jagdeep Dhankhar, will represent his country at the coronation this weekend.
The monarchy grapples with its colonial past
The ongoing debate represents an age-old problem for the modern monarchy.
"I don't think using stones from the Cullinan will draw focus away from the royal family's connection to British imperialism and colonial exploitation," Professor Kinsey said.
"It only shifts the focus to imperialism and colonialism in southern Africa, which has its own history of war, dispossession, environmental devastation and tremendous social inequalities."
Just as his mother did, King Charles will have to grapple with how to address Britain's blood-stained past amid the global colonial reckoning.
For years, the Commonwealth has been widely recognised as a political union of 56 countries making up almost a third of the world's population.
But as former subjects of that expansive empire are increasingly keen to point out, it was built on slavery, conquest and stolen lands.
"The issue of [looted] resources is broader than South Africa and India, it is a Global South issue, which the British empire must address once and for all if it desires to retain any respect from its former subjects," Professor Benyera said.
Professor Atwal says many historians define colonialism as not just about political invasion and territoriality, but also invasion of culture.
"Britain is coming to terms with the fact that there needs to be some acknowledgement that these [artefacts and jewels] are not simply signs of victories, but these are symbols of the past," she said.
Crown jewels aside, many former colonies want formal recognition of the generational damage inflicted in the name of a monarch "appointed by God".
Several Commonwealth nations have already begun distancing themselves from the Crown, making moves to replace the monarch as head of state and calling on the royal family to apologise and pay reparations for slavery.
For his part, Charles has given some signs he intends to address these lingering issues as king, backing Caribbean independence and expressing his support for research into the royal family's links to the slave trade.
But Professor Kinsey says this is just the beginning.
"It's almost impossible to separate the history of the monarchy from the history of British Imperialism for the last 200 to 250 years," she said.
"So, this is only the beginning of the royal family coming to understand just how deeply it is entwined with … the British empire's profit-making, exploitative and even genocidal dimensions.
"It is important they've begun the process, but there is still so much more for them to do."
