By HRH Princess Eugene Majuru, Princess of Harare
Harare, Zimbabwe -The idea that a supreme leader like King Mbari would engage in direct, personal combat with individuals or subordinate chiefs even if they were causing trouble misunderstands the scale, structure, and sanctity of his office as the Gurundoro (“the one who has the biggest crown”).
1. The Power of Paramountcy (Gurundoro Status)
As the Gurundoro, King Mbari’s authority was not just physical; it was political, spiritual, and supreme.
Political Hierarchy: King Mbari was the King of Kings also later known as Paramount Chief, ( during colonialism) meaning his authority surpassed that of all other local chiefs. In pre colonial Zimbabwe people like Hwata, Gutsa, or Chiweshe were not Chiefs they only became Chiefs after being rewarded by British for being sellouts. The Hwata, Gutsa individuals were settled in King Mbari’s territory after he gave them asylum. In the Shona system, a paramount ruler delegated authority, but they did not personally engage in low-level disputes so there was no way King Mbari could have fought with “small boys Hwata and Gutsa”.
The Crown Symbol: The name Gurundoro itself signifies being the highest-ranking and most magnificent authority. A leader with this title maintained their position through institutional force and spiritual legitimacy, not personal duels.
2. The Machinery of the Kingdom (The “War Machine”)
In any stable, organized pre-colonial African kingdom, the King was the commander-in-chief, not an infantryman. His power lay in the systems he controlled:
Standing Army & Forces: Mbari would have commanded a large standing army or contingent of warriors drawn from his own clan and loyal sub-chiefdoms. Any threat from a smaller, subordinate group would have been met by this professional force, led by designated war leaders (machinda), without the King ever having to step onto the battlefield.
Delegated Conflict: Conflicts, territorial disputes, or issues with settlers would have been handled by the King’s designated officials, sub-chiefs, or military commanders. The King’s role was to authorize the action, not execute it.
Analogy: Just as a modern President or Monarch does not personally fight a foreign invader, King Mbari would have deployed his military resources to resolve the threat, maintaining the dignity and safety of the throne.
3. The Context of Settlement and Subordination
Historical evidence suggests groups like the Hwata and Chiweshe were later arrivals or subordinate settlers given land by the existing paramount power, Mbari, for various reasons (often after their original rulers were defeated or their lives were in danger.
Client Status: If Hwata or Gutsa were settlers or subordinates, any conflict would have been treated as an internal rebellion or a breach of the settlement agreement, not a fight between equals.
The King’s Judgment: A supreme King dealt with such issues through royal decrees, legal sanctions, or the deployment of his army, not through a personal, one-on-one skirmish. Fighting personally with a small chief or a settler would have been seen as a degradation of the supreme royal office.
The narrative of King Mbari personally fighting a subordinate figure fails to respect the political and institutional gravity of the Gurundoro title. A supreme leader of King Mbari’s stature had an entire kingdom’s military, political, and spiritual power at his disposal, making personal combat unnecessary and, indeed, beneath the dignity of the throne. The conflicts were handled by the state apparatus, leaving the King’s hands—and his crown—untouched.
Comments
About Author
