Opinion / Columnist
Bulelani Khumalo is not the heir apparent to the Ndebele throne
22 Aug 2017 at 07:14hrs | Views
Following a Press Statement purportedly from the Royal Family of the Khumalos on the restoration of the Ndebele/Mthwakazi Monarch issued on the 19th August 2017, King Lobengula's House needs to state categorically that the statement is a falsity and has wide dimensions of inaccuracy in the following aspects:
1. The statement does not come, in the first instance, from the Royal House of the Khumalos. The Royal House of the Khumalos is King Lobengula's House and it did not issue the statement.
2. The mother of Bulelani Khumalo's maiden surname is not Lobengula. She is late and had a maiden surname of Ndlangamandla(Khumalo) as confirmed by Bulelani Khumalo at a King Lobengula's meeting in which Lobengula families were confirming family trees on the 4thJune,2016 in Bulawayo. One wonders why the writers decided to hide this vital piece of information that is critical at one's worthiness to be a Crown Prince in our culture.
3. King Lobengula's House was never consulted and it never seconded any of its members to represent its interests in any of the said many consultation meetings. In letters dated 11 September 2016 and 18 September 2017 to the Chairperson of the Khumalo Clan, a Dr Bruce Khumalo, concerns were raised by King Lobengula family that the family is not consulted or invited as a family to meetings in which the revival of the Ndebele/Monarch is discussed. The said consultation meetings were not inclusive of the Crown House, King Lobengula's House.
4. The mandate to identify the Heir to the Ndebele/Mthwakazi throne lies with the House where the last King was, and that is King Lobengua's House. The other Khumalo Houses such as Inzonda, Amanyangana, Omdamba, Ongwende have their specific roles that should not interfere with the role of the Crown House of coming up with the Crown Prince. In this instance the collective Khumalo sidelined the King Lobengula's House, attempted to divide it by isolating the Rhodes House of Njube taking advantage of its remoteness from Zimbabwe in the Xhosa land in the Eastern Cape and its lack of familiarity with the culture and issues in Matabeleland. This is creating unnecessary confusion in the process of reviving the Monarch.
5. The principle that for one to be a King one should be born of an anointed King is the ideal but is not a size fits all principle in our culture. There is a myriad of other factors that can come into play to override that point. Whilst a Prince may not bear a Crown Prince before anointing, a Crown Prince can bear a Crown Prince. Lobengula was a Crown Prince when Princes Nyamande and Mhlambi were born. Mfaziwamajaha came in as "inhlanzi" for her aunt Mbida Mkwananzi. The choice of any of his sons to succeed him by the King overrides all other including the royalty of mother of a prospective heir to the throne should the prospective heir be of questionable behaviour. Lobengula made a well-known choice of Nyamande over all other sons. The senior Chiefs followed that and anointed Prince Nyamande on 25 June 1896.He never chose Njube or any other son. The other sons feature due to Colonialists manipulations and not due to our culture. Nyamande's case was a Ndebele/Mthwakazi cultural procedure.
6. The process identifying the Crown Prince by the so-called elders was questioned in the letters referred to above under 3. The letters were not responded to. The concerns covered issues of the research committee and "umhlahlo" all of which were not rectified. It is the very so called elders such as Leo Zulukandaba, Phillip, Philisi, Fohlo, Ayanda, Bonman, Hlabezulu Dr Bruce all Khumalo to name a few that have aggressively strategised to sideline the proper selection process implemented by King Lobengula House.
Conclusion
The issuing of their statement is with absolute disregard and negation of the reasons why theNdebele/Umthwakazi need a stable and properly identified Crown Prince.They are down playing the seriousness of this process of reviving the Monarch. They have even tried to hide the moral skewness of their choice. Short of words, this is equating to the Stanley issue.
1. The statement does not come, in the first instance, from the Royal House of the Khumalos. The Royal House of the Khumalos is King Lobengula's House and it did not issue the statement.
2. The mother of Bulelani Khumalo's maiden surname is not Lobengula. She is late and had a maiden surname of Ndlangamandla(Khumalo) as confirmed by Bulelani Khumalo at a King Lobengula's meeting in which Lobengula families were confirming family trees on the 4thJune,2016 in Bulawayo. One wonders why the writers decided to hide this vital piece of information that is critical at one's worthiness to be a Crown Prince in our culture.
3. King Lobengula's House was never consulted and it never seconded any of its members to represent its interests in any of the said many consultation meetings. In letters dated 11 September 2016 and 18 September 2017 to the Chairperson of the Khumalo Clan, a Dr Bruce Khumalo, concerns were raised by King Lobengula family that the family is not consulted or invited as a family to meetings in which the revival of the Ndebele/Monarch is discussed. The said consultation meetings were not inclusive of the Crown House, King Lobengula's House.
4. The mandate to identify the Heir to the Ndebele/Mthwakazi throne lies with the House where the last King was, and that is King Lobengua's House. The other Khumalo Houses such as Inzonda, Amanyangana, Omdamba, Ongwende have their specific roles that should not interfere with the role of the Crown House of coming up with the Crown Prince. In this instance the collective Khumalo sidelined the King Lobengula's House, attempted to divide it by isolating the Rhodes House of Njube taking advantage of its remoteness from Zimbabwe in the Xhosa land in the Eastern Cape and its lack of familiarity with the culture and issues in Matabeleland. This is creating unnecessary confusion in the process of reviving the Monarch.
5. The principle that for one to be a King one should be born of an anointed King is the ideal but is not a size fits all principle in our culture. There is a myriad of other factors that can come into play to override that point. Whilst a Prince may not bear a Crown Prince before anointing, a Crown Prince can bear a Crown Prince. Lobengula was a Crown Prince when Princes Nyamande and Mhlambi were born. Mfaziwamajaha came in as "inhlanzi" for her aunt Mbida Mkwananzi. The choice of any of his sons to succeed him by the King overrides all other including the royalty of mother of a prospective heir to the throne should the prospective heir be of questionable behaviour. Lobengula made a well-known choice of Nyamande over all other sons. The senior Chiefs followed that and anointed Prince Nyamande on 25 June 1896.He never chose Njube or any other son. The other sons feature due to Colonialists manipulations and not due to our culture. Nyamande's case was a Ndebele/Mthwakazi cultural procedure.
6. The process identifying the Crown Prince by the so-called elders was questioned in the letters referred to above under 3. The letters were not responded to. The concerns covered issues of the research committee and "umhlahlo" all of which were not rectified. It is the very so called elders such as Leo Zulukandaba, Phillip, Philisi, Fohlo, Ayanda, Bonman, Hlabezulu Dr Bruce all Khumalo to name a few that have aggressively strategised to sideline the proper selection process implemented by King Lobengula House.
Conclusion
The issuing of their statement is with absolute disregard and negation of the reasons why theNdebele/Umthwakazi need a stable and properly identified Crown Prince.They are down playing the seriousness of this process of reviving the Monarch. They have even tried to hide the moral skewness of their choice. Short of words, this is equating to the Stanley issue.
Source - Amangwe Heritage
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
