Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barbados to remove Queen Elizabeth II as head of state

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wayne
    replied
    The Queen currently heads the following countries:
    • Antigua and Barbuda (NA).
    • Australia (O).
    • The Bahamas (NA).
    • Barbados (NA).
    • Belize (NA).
    • Canada (NA).
    • Grenada (NA).
    • Jamaica (NA).
    • New Zealand (O).
    • Papua New Guinea (O).
    • Saint Kitts and Nevis (NA).
    • Saint Lucia (NA).
    • St Vincent and the Grenadines (NA).
    • Solomon Islands (O).
    • Tuvalu (O).
    • United Kingdom (E).
    That's 16 countries in total that the Queen is currently Head of State for - with Barbados removing her, that will leave 15 (with Jamaica rumoured to be considering a similar position, per bm08's post on the previous page).

    Leave a comment:


  • menime123
    replied
    Originally posted by spiritboy View Post
    Prince Carl Philip of Sweden is probably the hottest Royal ever. I'd marry him in a second and become the first ghey princess.
    If you’re a glamour model, you might stand a chance

    Leave a comment:


  • spiritboy
    replied
    Prince Carl Philip of Sweden is probably the hottest Royal ever. I'd marry him in a second and become the first ghey princess.

    Leave a comment:


  • stevyy
    replied
    I would love to have a hot royal family in my country... unfortunately, we just have too many to choose from. I'm picking the House Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg aka Denmark.

    Much like the Queen herself, I agree that such a decision should be made by the countries and their population and nobody else.

    Leave a comment:


  • menime123
    replied
    Originally posted by IVyoncé View Post
    ^
    I never said that not being in charge makes it outdated. I just find any system where you get born into expected to fullfill a role is outdated. Like I guess it is mainly because I as a Dutch guy don't see anything of what is written as something I look up to. I literally don't care about the King and his family. I don't look at their example.So I could understand and see why you look at it that way because you have a different look and relationship to the UK monarch than I have to the Dutch one.

    That’s fair I suppose. The key thing to remember is a monarch can hand their crown back and retire at any point - it’s only ever happened once in the UK but I believe it’s happened twice recently in Europe.

    I think the modern view is that it is a privilege to become King or Queen (rather than divine right) and as we go forward future generations of royalty will understand that even more and embrace it.

    In the UK we are in a strong position because it’s unlikely any of our future Kings will become King earlier than age fifty, giving them a huge amount of time to understand and come to terms with the idea. Prince Charles, for example, has been waiting seventy years to become king and William himself is almost forty.



    Leave a comment:


  • IVyoncé
    replied
    ^
    I never said that not being in charge makes it outdated. I just find any system where you get born into expected to fullfill a role is outdated. Like I guess it is mainly because I as a Dutch guy don't see anything of what is written as something I look up to. I literally don't care about the King and his family. I don't look at their example.So I could understand and see why you look at it that way because you have a different look and relationship to the UK monarch than I have to the Dutch one.

    Leave a comment:


  • menime123
    replied
    Originally posted by IVyoncé View Post
    Monarchy is a very outdated system anyways.
    Exactly what is outdated with monarchy?

    Here in the UK the Queen has no political power and no monarch has ever actually ruled (in the traditional sense) for hundreds of years. The monarch is above both the pettiness of politics and the act of running a country.

    The Queen is our figurehead, the living embodiment of all British values. She is loved and adored both at home and abroad and a part of our shared living history:



    Not being in charge of the running of a country does not make it an outdated system. The system has essentially changed beyond all recognition over the last one hundred and fifty years as a result of technology, and is perhaps more relevant than ever.

    Kings and Queens have gone from being nothing more than a face on a coin to someone real to all of their subjects. With the advent of photography, radio, television and then the internet, the royal family became more accessible than ever before.

    Royalty were essentially the first iteration of modern day celebrities - people would follow them in the news, wish them well in their successes and condemn them when they did not uphold British values (that is why Prince Charles is a divisive figure - cheating on Diana damaged his reputation forever).

    People would follow their lead too - ever wondered why a bride wears white? Or why Christmas trees became a thing? Blame Queen Victoria and her husband, Prince Albert.

    But what do you do when the world is watching? You make a difference. The current Queen and her senior royals support hundreds (if not thousands) of charities. They support businesses that uphold the right values, are passionate about climate change, serve in the armed forces and more recently, shine a light on mental health.

    Any system that brings such attention to much needed causes cannot be considered outdated. It’s important to note that British Senior Royalty is expected to dedicate their entire lives to servicing the people and only twice in living memory has anyone from the family voluntarily stepped down (King Edward and Prince Harry).

    Leave a comment:


  • theMathematician
    replied
    Originally posted by IVyoncé View Post
    Monarchy is a very outdated system anyways.
    ... because?

    Leave a comment:


  • IVyoncé
    replied
    Monarchy is a very outdated system anyways.

    Leave a comment:


  • bm08
    replied
    Gaining traction on the socials...

    Prudent Believes Saint Lucia Should Ditch The Queen As Head Of State


    The former leader of the Lucian Peoples Movement (LPM), Therold Prudent, is of the opinion that Saint Lucia should follow in the footsteps of Barbados which plans to remove Queen Elizabeth as that country’s head of state.

    He described it as a smart move by Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley and the government and people of that country.

    “We believe that independence is not completed, our sovereignty is not completed. as long as we continue to hold on to the apron strings of those persons who have oppressed us for so many years,” Prudent told St Lucia Times.

    “I believe that as an independent nation, we have to set our own course,” he explained.

    He asserted that Saint Lucia has to set its own destiny and cannot continue to have the Queen as head of state.

    The former LPM leader urged Prime Minister Allen Chastanet to seriously consider the matter.

    “Perhaps if we decide to opt for a Republican form of government, I believe it would be in the interest of our country and perhaps this is the right time to reintroduce constitutional reform, which is something that the Kenny Anthony administration and the labour party dangled before us but left it to rot among dust on the government shelves,” Prudent declared.

    He recalled that he has held the position for many years that the Queen should be replaced as this country’s head of state.

    Prudent said during his tenure as LPM political leader, the debate was raised during the administration of then Prime Minister Doctor Kenny Anthony.

    He told St Lucia Times that the LPM was one of the groups which felt Saint Lucia should have done what Barbados is planning to do now.

    Barbados aims to complete the process in time for the 55th anniversary of independence from Britain, in November 2021.
    A speech written by Prime Minister Mia Mottley said Barbadians wanted a Barbadian head of state.
    “This is the ultimate statement of confidence in who we are and what we are capable of achieving,” the speech read.
    Buckingham Palace said that it was a matter for the government and people of Barbados.

    Leave a comment:


  • theMathematician
    replied
    Originally posted by menime123 View Post
    In more generic terms, people love the romantic ideology of monarchy. There is a comfort to it and a strange fascination - you just have to see the press footage of what happens when The Queen, Charles or William and Kate travel abroad: huge crowds. Clearly it means something to a lot of people, even in ex-colonial territories like the US have a strange fascination with it (and long before Meghan came along).
    Totally agreed!

    Leave a comment:


  • menime123
    replied
    Originally posted by jio View Post
    I totally get why some European countries wanna keep their monarchs, indeed it is part of their national identity and they probably make indirectly a big part of the money spent on them (and money are not everything in the end of the day). However, it is always surprising to me why a former non-white colony like the Barbados would choose to keep their former colonial monarch for so long after independence. It's almost as if they were living in their own Stockholm syndrome of a kind...
    I get what you’re saying and I honestly don’t have an answer other than financial stability. Barbados is an independent state but is not yet a republic - it will become one in 2021 to coincide with 55 years of independence.

    Sure, 55 years is a long time but slow and steady wins the race - as a country, they have everything in place to make the switch seamlessly and a robust politic system in place.

    In more generic terms, people love the romantic ideology of monarchy. There is a comfort to it and a strange fascination - you just have to see the press footage of what happens when The Queen, Charles or William and Kate travel abroad: huge crowds. Clearly it means something to a lot of people, even in ex-colonial territories like the US have a strange fascination with it (and long before Meghan came along).

    Leave a comment:


  • jio
    replied
    I totally get why some European countries wanna keep their monarchs, indeed it is part of their national identity and they probably make indirectly a big part of the money spent on them (and money are not everything in the end of the day). However, it is always surprising to me why a former non-white colony like the Barbados would choose to keep their former colonial monarch for so long after independence. It's almost as if they were living in their own Stockholm syndrome of a kind...

    Leave a comment:


  • menime123
    replied
    Originally posted by Rihab View Post

    The fact that European empires have done far more damage than good around the world is pretty much undeniable (unless you're a white supremacist). And I don't understand how anyone who's aware (and isn't proud) of the damage done by those empires could be a fan of their relics, such as the monarchy.

    You’re being incredibly unfair and exceptionally naive here. It is one thing to acknowledge that European empires were not always a positive thing but something all together different to dismiss a current incarnation of monarchy based on historical actions of people in a different version of the world we live in.

    In Britain the monarchy is essential to our national identity. The Queen is our figure head, above politics and she has dedicated her entire life to the service of the British people. The Queen in many ways is the personification of core British values and during times of national crisis, there’s a strange comfort in knowing she is there ready to remind us to remain calm and to carry on.

    For example, she made a national address earlier this year about COVID-19 that was watched by over 24 million people, reminding us that we ‘will meet again’ - a reference to a very famous WWII song.

    I personally don’t understand the advantage of republicanism, where a country is lead only by its elected leaders. A head of state that is above politics is able to do far more good for the world than any politician could in one term.

    Leave a comment:


  • menime123
    replied
    I stan monarchy but considering Queen Elizabeth is 94, it makes little sense to remove a woman who has only a handful of years left anyway (and that’s the best case senario). I have nothing against Barbados dropping the monarchy if that’s what they want, but it must be easier to announce they will become a republic at the point of her death, and start planning accordingly now for that, rather than removing her.

    Leave a comment:


  • theMathematician
    replied
    You're reading too deeply into this. A monarch is not per se bad, there are good and bad monarchs, just like there are good and bad leaders of republics. A monarch hasn't really got major political power; it's more about representing the country and the nobility aspect surrounding royals (While there's nothing really noble about Merkel or Steinmeier, is there?).

    Leave a comment:


  • Rihab
    replied
    Originally posted by Ewokguy15 View Post
    Maybe do some research…
    I happen to know a thing or two about the various forms of government and their respective pros and cons, including the monarchy's. And I'm always happy to discuss them!

    The fact that European empires have done far more damage than good around the world is pretty much undeniable (unless you're a white supremacist). And I don't understand how anyone who's aware (and isn't proud) of the damage done by those empires could be a fan of their relics, such as the monarchy. To me, it's the same as Americans waving the Confederate Flag (because they're ''proud of their heritage'', definitely not because they're nazis!!) or Germans waving the Reich's flag (also definitely not nazis, just harmless individuals who want to return to the early 1900s!!). Barbados is right to get rid of the monarchy, as were the countries that did it before them. Of course, becoming a Republic alone does not guarantee prosperity, but neither does retaining the Queen (who does nothing for the country that a president can't do, literally hasn't visited in 4 decades) as your head of state.

    Anyway, my original point was specifically about theMathematician wanting to bring the monarchy back to Germany, where the monarchy played an important role in a World War that left Millions dead and half of the continent in ruins. Everyone should be happy that the German monarchy is history. Certain groups who want to bring it back are considered so dangerous they're under surveillance by intelligence services. But you seem to imply that you know more about the topic than I do and I'm always open to further research. So anything in particular that you can recommend?

    Leave a comment:


  • TIfan
    replied
    UK has too much power. They still basically control the world bank. Pretty much, whatever UK says, goes. And that is not fair at all. There is no need for Elizabeth or UK to have any say in what happens to any other country besides UK.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ewokguy15
    replied
    Originally posted by Rihab View Post
    ^ Is that your way of coming out as a Reich citizen?
    Maybe do some research…

    Leave a comment:


  • theMathematician
    replied
    Emmm... no ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Rihab
    replied
    ^ Is that your way of coming out as a Reich citizen?

    Leave a comment:


  • theMathematician
    replied
    Originally posted by Ewokguy15 View Post
    Thing is, most countries who drop Queen Elizabeth/England do not prosper afterwards, I understand countries wanting their independence but a lot of the time it’s not in their best interest.
    Agreed.

    Actually it would be pretty cool if my country was a monarchy, so I don't really understand why a country would want to be a republic at all causes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ewokguy15
    replied
    Thing is, most countries who drop Queen Elizabeth/England do not prosper afterwards, I understand countries wanting their independence but a lot of the time it’s not in their best interest.

    Leave a comment:


  • heppolo
    replied
    long overdue

    Leave a comment:


  • aRat
    replied
    Now waiting for the news that Rihanna is gonna supersede her

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X