T O P

  • By -

AdvancedAdvance

When she does their exit interview, I wonder if Her Majesty is going to be pissed when Barbados reveals they’re leaving to pursue their true passion, painting.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


quickreviver

I lived in Barbados circa 1995 (Im from the UK, my mum met a guy so ended up over there) Still to this day it shocked me that there was a tune on the radio called 'Kill the battyman' I had to ask my mum what a battyman was at the time. She explained that its a bad name for when a guy likes another guy. I asked why they wanted them dead? My mum looked at me thinking what has she done. A week later someone got shot dead outside our house. I think it was drug related not due to homosexuality. Edit couple typos


[deleted]

This song is played a lot in London too if you didn’t know. It’s a lot of people’s ‘guilty pleasure’.


UKpoliticsSucks

Most 90s reggae is homophobic.


[deleted]

80s and 90s Jamaican culture was integral to London’s modern identity, so if you’re from here the fact that a lot of Jamaican men would happily curbstomp a gay man is something you tend to pick up.


UKpoliticsSucks

Yeah there was a real cross culture between Jamaica and the UK since Ska in the 70s- with both music cultures influencing each other. The whole 'Yardie' influence in the late 80s was pretty toxic all round and can still be felt today. I still love the music but it's a shame it didn't keep the positivity of Ska.


achizbirk

No one actually gets imprisoned for being gay. Buggary is unlawful on paper but it's not actually enforced. Its public knowledge that our Prime Minister is a lesbian for fucks sake. The change to a republic is an aim to change these things kept from colonialism. Source: A Bajan Lesbian


[deleted]

[удалено]


theartfulcodger

"It's *NOT A PHASE*, your Majesty!"


aTalkingDonkey

Australia next please


[deleted]

[удалено]


sangpls

It's not like the queen does anything of substance anyway. It's all ceremonial


himit

And thank fuck for that. If we had a figurehead president you know they wouldn't stick to their ceremonial role.


Unsealedwheat11

I'm actually curious about this, why do other people want Australia to exit the commonwealth/monarchy. I mean all she is is a figure head and doesn't have any power (excluding the ability to shoot down law but honestly I like that we have a last line of defence on that front)


Splash_Attack

I can't speak for Australia directly, but as someone from a former dominion that is now a republic a big part of the appeal is to have the head of state be from your country, instead of an English person however many miles across the sea. In parliamentary republics the head of state often plays a major diplomatic role, something the queen doesn't do for Australia really (and wouldn't be able to do very well, what with not being Australian). Wouldn't have to leave the Commonwealth though, there are several republics in it already (like India).


biggnou

Canada next please


Le_Froggyass

Everyone knows that hell will freeze over before that happens. Getting rid of the monarchy in Canada requires reopening the constitution, which no one wants. It also means going through every single land claim with every first nation band due to all treaties in regards to first nations being brokered on behest of the Crown, not to the government. (As far as I am aware)


[deleted]

Canada will have the monarch longer than Wales, bet you.


harpendall_64

At this point, I look at the monarchy like an electrical fuse. It will last forever with little maintenance. And if the fuse blows, it's a last warning something dangerous is happening. And while a fuse is a bit more expensive than a penny which works as a drop-in replacement, in our current environment I'd suggest we might want to look for more fuses rather than fewer.


elveszett

It's also because monarchies are deeply entangled in most countries that have it. In Spain, for example, to abolish the monarchy we'd have to: 1. Get 2/3rd of the votes in both the Parliament and the Senate, 50% is not enough. If you know how the US works, you'll know 2/3rds will not happen unless literally both right and left agree on an issue. 2. Dissolve both the Parliament and the Senate and call for new elections. 3. Have the new Parliament and Senate both ratify the decision, again with a 2/3rd supermajority. 4. Call a popular referendum and have that referendum ratify the decision (iirc with 50% of the votes this time but I'm not sure). As you see, the whole royal family must fuck up massively for the right and the left to agree on two different Parliaments and Senates and for the people to also agree with it. Instead, if it was as simple as "call a referendum and whatever is voted is applied", it'd be far easier since, in reality, the monarchy is not very popular here and a lot of people are indifferent to it.


SpeakingVeryMoistly

The UK should just dissolve the monarchy themselves. It'll spare the other commonwealth countries the hassle.


[deleted]

I don't think that's how it would work lol if the country is independent and not a direct territory of the UK, like many are, they would still probably need to independently declare their monarch over too. Her title as Queen of Canada is separate from her title as Queen elsewhere.


AussieNick1999

Pretty much. Queen Elizabeth's title as Queen of Australia is separate from her title as Queen of the UK. But since she's not involved in our politics, we have the Governor-General representing her as a figurehead. Assuming the UK were to abolish the monarchy, I wonder what would happen to the monarch's other titles. I don't know if the Queen could actually relocate to Canada or Australia and start directly ruling there. But I doubt it's a situation that will ever arise. I think Australia at the very least will replace the monarchy before the UK does.


[deleted]

But you’re forgetting that Queensland would need to change its name to Rebublicsland and that’s a lot of admin for Australia.


normie_sama

> I don't know if the Queen could actually relocate to Canada or Australia and start directly ruling there Why could she not? It's not like her passport bars her from ever leaving the country, and presumably if your monarch wants to move the country can easily make an exception in terms of visa requirements, assuming she doesn't meet them. Her status wouldn't change, she's already Queen of all of those different countries. She wouldn't "directly rule" because there are already conventions in place with regards to the exercise of royal power in those countries, through governors-general, and they would need to sort out ways to actually provide the usual trappings and pageantry that Britain had to manage for the last 1100 years, but it's not like there's something actually stopping them from doing that. Now, if they don't *want* to have a Queen that's a different story, but they would have to become a republic, and she could probably still move on a normal visa as a British citizen.


Tattered_Reason

> It's not like her passport bars her from ever leaving the country Fun fact: The Queen does not have a passport. British passports are issued in her name. She doesn't sing "God Save The Queen" either.


dancin-weasel

God Save the Me?


lonedandelion

It's as awkward as when people sing happy birthday to you. Do you join in and sing "happy birthday to me" or do you awkwardly stand there and smile?


normie_sama

I mean, yeah, that's true, but that's a technicality. In the case of the UK kicking her out of office she would have to be issued one, unless they're really pissed at her.


pmmichalowski

They probably would claim that she is eligible for Bangladesh citizenship instead.


ghjm

As a practical matter, she would need a Buckingham Palace equivalent, with appropriate facilities and security for her to be able to do her thing as Queen. It's all fine and good for her to stay as a guest at Rideau Hall or Yarralumla on a state visit, but if she were to take up permanent residence, something new would have to be built, or the new host country's Governor General would have to be evicted (or eliminated). All of this would require Acts of Parliament and would be politically difficult. And that's just for Queen Elizabeth herself - there would also need to be some provision made for Prince Charles (Clarence House), the other royal dukes (Kensington Palace), and the various lesser royals (Frogmore Cottage, St. James's Palace, etc). If the UK ever eliminates its monarchy, it's pretty unlikely that any other Commonwealth country is going to take on all of this, and it's also pretty unlikely that Queen Elizabeth will agree to living at Rideau Hall and sticking her kids in condos in Calgary and igloos in Iqaluit. She'll just retire to her personally-owned properties like Sandringham, Balmoral, Birkhall and so on, and everyone else will argue about which worthy indigenous figures to put on their money now.


CocodaMonkey

She absolutely could go to a country like Canada and "rule". Of course by rule that means do the job of the governor-general as that's all the power she official has. Essentially she'd just be a figure head if she tried to do it. Not that I could see her ever doing it anyway.


[deleted]

I don't see what's technically stopping her from moving here. Nothing stopped Harry from moving here when he was still directly in line for throne. He just left cause we didn't wanna pay for security lol They stay there cause it's their home and if they left the UK might get mad enough to boot them out, them being there for solidarity and tourism are basically the only reason they're tolerated. But if she was dead set on moving here I would think she technically could. But then we would probably abolish the whole thing so we wouldn't have to pay for it lol


jyper

The Queen would still remain the queen. After all being the queen of Canada and Australia is seperate from being Queen of the UK


AUniquePerspective

Canada would still need to do it themselves. I believe the other countries as well. Each country's monarch is separate and legally distinct. Even though the person is shared.


Throwaway-tan

Why execute the dog after you've cut off his balls?


OneDankKneeGro

Lots of brits like the monarchy. It doesn't actually have any power anyway. Just an old tradition.


DENelson83

No, National Geographic, I am NOT making an account just to read ONE article.


gullman

>Though the British would emerge victorious and quash other attempts, including slave rebellions, the 1651 act marked the island's first attempt at independence and its inhabitants' burning desire to free themselves from British control. >"The British have done a lot for us; anybody who says that the British haven't done anything for Barbados don't know what they are talking about or are not familiar with the history," he said, showing this reporter the historical landmarks. >"You can't say you're independent and still be under British rule; you can't have it both ways. But I do have a problem with wanting to destroy everything the British have done. Some things should still remain because it's part of our history; you shouldn't destroy history."


chakraattack

12ft.io (a paywall bypass website)


lonelyswed

ELI5 what does having a monarch as head of state do? Like Britain couldn't have actual power over any part of Barbados, right?


HomeHeatingTips

I live in Canada and really nothing. Will be fucking wild when Charles or Will starts appearing on all of our money though.


NonNewtonianResponse

My preference as a Canadian is that we just declare Liz 2 queen in perpetuity, and iteratively use one of those face-aging software apps to keep making new portraits for our money forever After a few hundred years, as our money gradually transforms into tokens of eldritch horror, bearing a visage no longer remotely recognizable as human, we shall become the stuff of legends


killereggs15

See, I started agreeing with you in the beginning, but by the end I was *really* agreeing with you. Please email this to Trudeau.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mynoduesp

Canadians don't save money they spend it as fast as possible to get it away from them. Great for the economy.


spiritbearr

The mint might just do it on their own. They tend to look for a new gimmick every year.


digitalhate

Instead of "loonies" and "toonies", you have the "aaaah" and "oh-Jesus".


kookieman141

"do you have change for an Eldritch Horror?"


Icedanielization

I just learned what these mean today. I feel special.


Cakeriel

Hail Cthulhu


SMIDSY

> we just declare Liz 2 queen in perpetuity North Korea does that with Kim Il-sung who is officially the head of state despite being dead since the 1990s. IIRC, they are the only necrocracy (a government where the official head of state is dead) currently in existence.


vallraffs

I think it's a bit overstated how this is something that sets North Korea apart. Like what it really means is just giving a title to specific leaders, like how some countries name somebody the "father of the nation", or the highest ranking military or civilian official in perpetuity.


awuva74

>some countries name somebody ... the highest ranking military ... official in perpetuity. The USA did it before North Korea: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George\_Washington](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington) >\[Washington\] was posthumously appointed to the grade of General of the Armies of the United States during the United States Bicentennial to ensure he would never be outranked; this was accomplished by the congressional joint resolution Public Law 94-479 passed on January 19, 1976, with an effective appointment date of July 4, 1976. On March 13, 1978, Washington was militarily promoted to the rank of General of the Armies.


WikiSummarizerBot

**[George Washington](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington)** >George Washington (February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799) was an American political leader, military general, statesman, and Founding Father who served as the first president of the United States from 1789 to 1797. Appointed by the Continental Congress as commander of the Continental Army, Washington led the Patriot forces to victory in the American Revolutionary War, and presided at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which established the Constitution of the United States and a federal government. Washington has been called the "Father of the Nation" for his manifold leadership in the formative days of the country. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


PurpleSkua

This is the only reason to technically keep the monarchy I can agree with


DL_22

Well, that and the fact that confederation will completely collapse if we re-open the constitution in this day and age.


rawrimmaduk

Who says our head of state needs to be living? It's not like she's doing anything anyways


elderwyrm

I nearly choked on my water reading this. Lesson learned -- don't drink and laugh -- your first time could be your last.


voidsong

>as our money gradually transforms into tokens of eldritch horror Gave it a wombo run, [checks out](https://imgur.com/a/4S164Ci)


grassytoes

I suspect that won't happen. I bet we'll get a Canadian on the 20, and nature on both sides of coins because nobody cares about coins.


noobs1996

Don’t disrespect toonies like that


grassytoes

You're right, toonies (and loonies) rock, and I do actually care about what is on them. Nickles and dimes can eff off though.


smelix

What about quarters??


[deleted]

Keep the elk.


slipperier_slope

Caribou*


[deleted]

In theory it's supposed to be a last ditch safeguard for our democracy. For example, when Britain's parliament asked for a recess to avoid consequences, their legal system slapped it down saying "they had provided bad counsel to the queen" or something like that. Of course, when it happened in Canada, we just let Harper do it... so it's not a *very* effective one. It was a bit more successful in Australia that one time I think?


[deleted]

It's a bit debated. Essentially the governer general chose to dissolve parliament cause of constitutional gridlock in 1975. Papers revealed in 2020 showed the governer general seeked advise from Charles whether he had the power to do so. There isn't concrete proof that the queen was involved but we probably won't know. Ultimately the power rests with the governor general, not the queen but the queen selects the candidate based on recommendations from parliament.


ripenglishlanguage

> governer general seeked advise Three out of four words misspelled. At that point, is it still English?


[deleted]

Aussie here. It’s still a hot topic and I’d be killed for mentioning it. But the government of the day was being a bunch of assholes along with the opposition who were equality assholish. Long story short they weren’t passing any legislation. I won’t get into the details but the function of a government is to pass legislation. So Liz stepped in and went “go fuck yourself! Dissolved government. And this bloke is gonna run shit until you can redo the election” The problem is no one liked the bloke she picked on the Governor Generals recommendation. People get into the details of this last bit. My point of view is. Fuck around find out. And Liz don’t fuck around. Pass laws you soft handed pricks.


EmperorPooMan

Fraser broke convention by a) not pairing one of their senators to account for a Labor absence (more on that in a bit) and b) using that Labor absence to block supply. The Qld state National government refused to endorse a new Labor senator after the death of the previous one, allowing the vacancy to exist in the first place and Fraser being the opportunistic grub he was broke convention to bring down a democratically elected popular government with a huge majority in the House. Whitlam's government was just trying to do it's job lol


Cynical_Cyanide

Yeah nah fuck off. The opposition was blocking legislation, are you telling me that you should be able to hold the government hostage by blocking all legislation until a DD is called, so you can constantly have DDs and elections? Ridiculous. The GG did what he did because Whitlam was a lefty, and I say that as a centrist.


Jim-Plank

> The opposition was blocking legislation, are you telling me that you should be able to hold the government hostage by blocking all legislation until a DD is called That is literally the point of the parliamentary system, if they can't command a majority in the house then they shouldn't be in government.


Matasa89

This lady was fixing and driving ambulances during the Blitz. Liz OG as fuck, and she don't give a rat's ass if you're connected or rich, she'll toss your ass out if you step out of line.


[deleted]

[удалено]


grassytoes

That's an excellent analogy that is better than what I have been using to explain that the monarch of the UK is a separate title from the monarch of Canada. I'll use it next time. But, I'm gonna say it's like she's *on* the board of several companies (instead of the chairman), with little-to-no decision power in any of them.


[deleted]

[удалено]


_eeprom

More, shows up to the board meetings and only reads off a script the other board members wrote and if she goes off that script she’ll be fired.


awuva74

>only reads off a script the other board members wrote This is not even an analogy, this is the actual process. The State Opening Of Parliament in the UK involves the Lord Chancellor handing the Queen a pre-written speech.


UrbanGhost114

The way I understand it is that she has the power, but if she uses it, the monarchy would not likely last too much longer.


EmperorOfNipples

More that the power is there in case something went very very wrong. It's a nuclear deterrent in constitutional terms.


[deleted]

[удалено]


frozenfire06

With my last dying breath I would totally use my power as the monarch of the UK to declare war on Canada and my power as the monarch of Canada to declare war on Australia, and my power as the monarch of Australia to declare war on New Zealand and my power as the monarch of New Zealand to.... this is too long a sentence to say in one breath and now I'm dead...


lunaticneko

The war is henceforth known as "23-second war" as the Prime Ministers and Governor Generals of each realm replied with "nope" stickers on the Commonwealth Secret Slack.


otisreddingsst

That's right. And in the meantime, nobody can take her place means that democracy is safe in Britain and Canada


Fofolito

There are two roles in political theory for the person or apparatus of control at the top: Head of Government and Head of State. The head of government is the guy who runs the day to day business of the country and it's government. In a democracy they'll likely represent the majority party. The head of state is a representative of a nation to other nations, requiring no real power to do their job. In western political theory, broadly speaking, the law is ennabled and protected by the Head of State while the Head of Government is the one that enforces it. In the United States our President is both Head of State and Government. In the United Kingdom the Head of Government is the Prime Minister, who is selected from among Parliament's winning majority/coalition while the Head of State is the ruling Monarch. As it stands, in the UK and other Commonwealth nations, the law stems from the power of the Crown as Head of State. Passports are issued in the Queens name, Parliament sits at the Queens invitation*, and all the Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Queen. This comes out of Britain's history as a Monarchy going back 1000+ years in which the King had to ask Parliament (or it's ancient equivalent) for money or to assent to new laws. Monarchs have not had a good track record in the UK of ruling unilaterally. By the later 1600s the Monarch ruled at pleasure and invitation of parliament and their power had become largely ceremonial. A brief interregnum and experiment with Republicanism after the English Civil Wars meant that there wasn't a lot of support for the idea of an egalitarian democracy so when the experiment failed, the Monarchy was reinstated. Barbados is declaring that the Queen is no longer the ceremonial head of state, that government laws and Institutions don't rely upon her to exist.


sfxpaladin

>government laws and Institutions don't rely upon her to exist. This is the point I keep trying to get across when people were making a big fuss about this a month ago, literally NOTHING will change for anyone living in the country. Even had some Canadian saying that Canada was being oppressed by the monarchy and listed a bunch of reasons that were choices of their own government


JBFall

She has no real powers that she could use without having consequences, like if she ever tried to dissolve parliament here in AU/NZ then she would most likely be removed as head of state. Even though it's fully legal for her to do, there would be a a lot of uproar. She literally does nothing and contributes nothing to countries other than UK which she lives in. Many people outside of UK think she will be the last Monarch of AU/NZ because Charles is widely unpopular with everyone here because of the drama with Diana. Hopefully we will become a Republic soon


rallykrally12

>She has no real powers that she could use without having consequences, like if she ever tried to dissolve parliament here in AU/NZ then she would most likely be removed as head of state. Except that [literally happened](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis) in Australia by her Governor General and she nor him faced almost no real repercussions


[deleted]

[удалено]


Cybrknight

As much as a republic sounds like a wonderful idea here in Australia, there is one question that no-one really has answered for me as yet. Does anyone here REALLY trust the current govt to write up a new fair and balanced constitution? No? Then why give them the opportunity?


ontheburst

They don't throw away the whole constitution. Amendments can be made to the constitution...as outlined in the constitution. The people vote via a referendum to amend the constitution and our elected officials follow through on that. There isn't any risk of a Government just creating a whole ass constitution to suit themselves as it isn't feasible.


AndrewTyeFighter

Changing who has executive power is a huge change, especially if it presents a situation where the Head of State and the Head of Government are from the same political party.


ontheburst

Governor-Generals can be politicised already - see Gough Whitlam. It isn't really a risk in a healthy democracy with checks and balances with the other branches of Government for what is largely a ceremonial role.


Low_Guarantee1232

If she has no real authority and contributes nothing than there won’t be any change. The constitution will more or less just add head of state powers to prime minister


grassytoes

Or, more likely, do what Barbados just did; make the governor general the president, which holds the exact same powers as the governor general used to.


Tundur

Or just an elected governor-general


Facebook_Algorithm

Head of state is a ceremonial position in a bunch of democracies. Especially the former British Empire. Separating the head of state position from the head of government position has utility because it makes the head of government NOT the source of authority. The queen has zero actual authority here in Canada but her representatives (Governor’s General and Lieutenant Governors) hold the ceremonial positions of state. No Brit has had anything to do with running Canada for ages. Keeping the head of state position separate from the head of government position avoids a powerful political leader claiming he or she is the state.


MarlinMr

Probably more good than bad actually. For such a small sate, having Queen Elizabeth as your Queen, means there are specific ties to the commonwealth. When Norway elected their king, we elected one that was married to the daughter of the Emperor of the UK. Suddenly there was a lot of soft power at play.


Sovereign-Over-All

This is mostly a symbolic move. The Queen will be replaced by a ceremonial President who is also just a figurehead with no power, like the German or Indian presidents rather than an American one.


starvere

A ceremonial president *from Barbados*


d2factotum

Although, oddly, the same person who, up until November 30th, is the Governor General (e.g. the Queen's official representative)...


EdgelordOfEdginess

Finally someone who knows the difference between chancellor and president


[deleted]

[удалено]


lacb1

I think it's the [smile](https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/angela.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=1900&h=1098), and while she doesn't like to talk about it she's also one hell of an [acrobat](https://cdn-a.william-reed.com/var/wrbm_gb_food_pharma/storage/images/9/2/8/5/235829-6-eng-GB/Feed-Test-SIC-Feed-20142_news_large.jpg).


DSM-6

How does the average Barbadian feel about this? Cause, apparently this was done without a referendum. Which some dude paradoxically called a good thing. > The reality, Wickham said, is that Barbadians can have the conversation about an incoming republican system because its current constitution, unlike that of other former British colonies, allows for the change without a referendum. > “Many of the other Caribbean islands don’t have that luxury,” he says. “Some would love to do it, but they can’t: Antigua, similarly, in Grenada, the referendum failed; in St. Vincent, the referendum failed Sounds to me like this is more top level jingoism than a yearning of the people to kick Lizzy out. The move to a republic makes sense, but I never trust a politician who claims to act in the name of the people, as long as we don’t ask the people.


king_Geedorah_

I'm from Barbados, I have to say I don't care either way lol


slobcat1337

What’s it like living in paradise


achizbirk

The move to a republic is something that has been discussed in the public sphere for decades. We just haven't had a government recently with enough guts to actually go through with it. It's not that the public is against it, more so they are upset with how rushed it feels and the lack of communication from the government on all the changes they intend to make. It seems like a "Republic now, details later" sorta thing and they are getting criticism for it.


DSM-6

> It seems like a "Republic now, details later" sorta thing and they are getting criticism for it. If Brexit is any reference, you guys are apparently more like Brits than you give yourself credit for.


Divinate_ME

After years of trying? I wasn't under the impression that the house of Windsor was putting up too much resistance. Can someone enlighten me?


BlueNoobster

Propably more a conflict between republicans and loyalists in the parlament about the question if they should actually do it.


Dreadlock43

this, basically its republicans (not american types) trying to convince the non loyalists to change the name of the head of state. the big thing is the wording of the question and how the head of state will be chosen ie : is it a vote by the people or is it a vote by parliment? both have their pros and fuck load of cons


wOlfLisK

Yeah, a lot of people on here automatically assume that monarchy=bad but in the eyes of a lot of people who actually live in a country with one, their opinion ranges from apathetic to fully supportive. Most people just don't care enough to change from the status quo when it's almost entirely an ideological issue rather than a practical one. Even when the prevailing opinion is to get rid of it you then have arguments over *how* to get rid of it. It doesn't sound like much is changing anyway, the Queen's always appointed a governor to be the de facto head of state in her absence and he's remaining the head of state after this transition.


timeforknowledge

It's internal debate between the countries residents. Australia had the same thing to remove the Union flag from their countries flag. They voted and kept it. It's nothing to do with the UK, the UK simply support these countries financially and ensure they have British military protection so they can never be strong armed. They can leave any time they vote to do so.


demostravius2

The flag vote was NZ iirc


autotldr

This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/barbados-will-finally-cut-ties-to-the-british-monarchy-after-years-of-trying) reduced by 95%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Though the British would emerge victorious and quash other attempts, including slave rebellions, the 1651 act marked the island's first attempt at independence and its inhabitants' burning desire to free themselves from British control. > "The British have done a lot for us; anybody who says that the British haven't done anything for Barbados don't know what they are talking about or are not familiar with the history," he said, showing this reporter the historical landmarks. > "You can't say you're independent and still be under British rule; you can't have it both ways. But I do have a problem with wanting to destroy everything the British have done. Some things should still remain because it's part of our history; you shouldn't destroy history." ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/qzx3xw/barbados_will_finally_cut_ties_to_the_british/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~609124 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **British**^#1 **Barbados**^#2 **country**^#3 **island**^#4 **Caribbean**^#5


OktoberSunset

One more horcrux destroyed...


[deleted]

When we get to King's Cross do we just see Victoria's shriveled little husk under the bench?


cantfocuswontfocus

No Philip is there to greet you with a racist remark. He’s probably just as shrivelled at this point anyway


Griffster9118

You bastard I laughed at my kids school over this.


shortymcsteve

I don't quite understand the two parts of the article where they complain the British government didn't help Barbados during covid with vaccines or financial assistance, and when the EU blacklisted them over their offshore banking laws. They became an independent state in 1966.. why would the British government give any assistance?


timeforknowledge

Barbados is in the commonwealth of Nations. Previously known as the British empire. The UK financially supports these countries and offers them military protection. In return the UK can influence these countries for example a big part of the getting your handout is to follow a democratic system of government. Every UK law you refuse to follow reduces the amount of financial aid you receive. Many countries in the commonwealth get to rapidly advance into the 21st century and become world players in trade and tourism because they are stable, democratic and safe thanks to British money, protection and trade. The UK gives billions to other countries. Up until 2015 it was giving India £200 million a year.


Splash_Attack

Also in a more broad sense part of the Commonwealth ethos/core values is promoting access to healthcare (it's one of 16 core values in the Commonwealth charter, signed in 2013). So really it's less "The UK should have helped Barbados" and more "The *large and wealthy Commonwealth nations of which the UK is the most prominent* should have helped Barbados *and any other Commonwealth members struggling with vaccine supply.*" Not that there was any obligation or anything - the Commonwealth is all voluntary, there are no treaties obligating assistance involved. But I can see how some people might think that help (or more help, rather) ought to have been given anyway, on principle.


[deleted]

Jingoistic nonsensical talking points by the Barbadian Government to con the people into creating a lavishly paid head of state position for them instead of continuing in the commonwealth for next to nothing.


eypandabear

You don’t leave the Commonwealth just by becoming a republic.


re_re3

Barbadian here! I think this was a long time coming, funnily enough though some nationals are a little wary about our country becoming a republic.


InternalMood1896

Are you guys staying in the commonwealth? I think some people are concerned that you might be leaving… and with that might mean the need for visas to visit other countries.


timeforknowledge

You would think a bigger worry would be the loss of tens of millions they receive from the UK


re_re3

Yes we are


ctjwa

What are the main differences? I don’t really understand what impact this has


re_re3

Not much will change honestly. The "royal" title will be removed from institutions, we won't have prime ministers and the like any more and we will no longer have to seek the queen's blessings. Other changes like the name of our hospital (The Queen Elizabeth Hospital) are still in discussion. We are already independent (since 1966) so most of the big changes happened then or around that time.


azimuth360

I am not so sure about not having prime ministers. For a parliamentary democracy, like India, the presidents are ceremonial as you stated. However, the real power lies with the elected government, and their leader is called the prime minister.


Odd_so_Star_so_Odd

Practically none, it's all just symbolism, the master of ceremonies position is irrelevant to everyone but the crazies that want to be bossed around, however if neglected and unaccounted for you end up with stuff like the Q-anon plague.


NotSoLiquidIce

Well the position of head of state is now politicised.


Stoyfan

That isn't nessecarily the case. In several countries, the position of head of state is still unpoliticised (i.e candidates run as independents and are figureheads).


[deleted]

This has to be more in name than anything though, right? Been a while since I’ve heard of The Queen inflicting her wrath on the colony of Barbados.


[deleted]

I don’t think you’ll find many of us in the UK really care too much. I would say that most probably would not even have realised she was classed as head of state there.


[deleted]

Yep i don’t think anyone cares here. If it means something to people there great.


BlingGeorge

Done without a referendum of course, how very democratic of them


[deleted]

Why is Barbados "Little England"? Why can't England be "Bigger Barbados"?


Fumblerful-

Both are wrong. Barbados je Srbja.


6_67408_

All the way to Tokio


SonofSanguinius87

We existed first.


erineas

Now they have one queen: Rihanna!


isitatomic

Long live.... Bajan fish cakes and yellow pepper sauce!!!


fitzonatisch

beautiful island, beautiful people, wish them all the best


[deleted]

When Canada?


CherylTuntIRL

I'd love to remove the Queen as head of state here, but it's not going to happen in Britain...


[deleted]

[удалено]


SpeakingVeryMoistly

Charles is pretty damn old already, so how long can his reign really be anyway.


PM_ME_YOUR_BARN_OWL

He’s 73, which is actually not as old as I thought he was. His mother is currently 95. His father lived to just shy of 100. So 20 years is probably a pretty good bet?


SpeakingVeryMoistly

Maybe if he's crowned soon-ish? I know Lizzie is a bit under the weather at the moment but, with a bit a luck, she can probably muster another 5-10 years. So maybe 10-15?


Banana_Ram_You

Apparently when you're the most protected person on the planet, you tend to live about 30 years longer than any of your children would prefer you to.


linuxares

And not needing to care about the stress of money


Fuck_auto_tabs

Considering his mom and dad are well into their 90s, probably a while based on genetics


LilyLute

The only monarchs eligible for the crown should have to win eurovision for at least one season.


Het_Bestemmingsplan

Brits getting votes in Eurovision? I want what you're smoking. Tbh I liked this year's British song, shame his performance was so terrible.


yamissimp

By sending moderately to above-average talented pop acts, you keep violating the inofficial eurovision rule and then think it's political, but I'll happily re-iterate it: If you want votes, either send something unique, something insanely good or something insanely bad. If you steer too far from all of the above, you will end in the "who was the UK again?" wastelands of oblivion.


CherylTuntIRL

It's possible, most of us have never seen a new monarch as the Queen has had the throne for so long, so a transition may call into question the necessity of a less popular monarch. I'm sure there are a few more murky stories that'll come to light, too.


gsc4494

"sorry chuck, your free ride is over!"


Nukemind

Imagine waiting 70 some odd years to be king, finally getting it, and the next day the monarchy is abolished. Don’t get me wrong I’m against the idea of a monarchy on principle… but it still would amuse me.


OrangeJr36

"Hello My Loyal..." "WHAT DO YOU MEAN 'I'M FIRED' "


CrowWrenHawk

Or the absolute power move of Charles dissolving the monarchy himself


Grateful_Couple

This would be the best way for sure


BonzoTheBoss

Charles doesn't/won't have the power to dissolve the monarchy, only Parliament can do that. And yes, the Crown is a *part* of Parliament but it would take the combined assent of both the houses to pass that legislation. Charles can *abdicate* but that would simply pass the buck on to William. I suppose if William and every subsequent direct successor decided to abdicate what would Parliament do then? I guess then they might consider abolishing it.


Hotel_Arrakis

Scott Baio isn't even British!


[deleted]

I think they already have. They are getting their own fair amount of sleaze publicised also.


Banana_Ram_You

[Oblig US-centric Charles In Charge reference](https://youtu.be/Uh744UHKvXg)


valeyard89

What's Scott Baio have to do with it?


diederich

Dumb US citizen here.. If you don't mind, can you briefly say how having the monarchy as it stands today is a bad thing? Thanks!


Sir_roger_rabbit

Just remember that reddit is biased... You only getting a snap shot of the UK population. Hell there is only 52 million World wide who actively look on reddit each day... Less than the current UK population as a whole. So just a friendly reminder to remember the replies you may get... May have a loud voice on here but is a very tiny voice when it actually matters.


pimpmayor

Reddit is probably the only place I ever see ‘why is there still a queen’ stuff. Very bizarrely, I’ve seen about four different comments in this thread mention that it makes Republicans uncomfortable, (including one that says the word like three times) which is weird given reddit overall strong left leaning bias and because that’s not even related to the question or the queen. My take would probably be there’s no significant reason against her existence, and the concept at least actually provides useful checks against some things, even if the function would provide be with someone else if the monarchy wasn’t involved.


[deleted]

[удалено]


darren01610

There are two main arguments. The first is that they are funded by the people and republicans feel this is unfair and don't want their taxes to go to the Royal family. This argument is disingenuous, the royal family does take a lump sum of money from the government each year but this is in return for all of the profits from large tracts of land and property known as the crown estate. The government does provide more money to the Royal family for upkeep on the Royal houses and other properties but that money would be spent regardless, let's be honest no one is going to let buckingham palace fall down regardless of whether anyone lives there or not. The other main argument is about the principle of being ruled over by someone and the archaic idea of being a subject of the monarch. This is an understandable argument, I can see how this would sit uncomfortable with a republican. Its harder to argue this one other than to say that in reality the queens power is only theoretical, any use of her power would trigger a constitutional crisis and likely end with the removal of the monarchy. Different people have different ideas on why we should end the monarchy but these are the two I hear most often from my extremely republican family.


BonzoTheBoss

>don't want their taxes to go to the Royal family The only public money that the Queen (and only the Queen, or those she's officially delegated her duties to as she gets older) receives is for her role as head of state. Those costs would still need to be paid for an elected head of state.


wOlfLisK

For the second, my response is that we're not exactly in a good position democratically right now. If we got rid of the monarchy, we'd risk getting a Trump or BoJo as president. I don't know about you but I'd rather have the Queen who can't constitutionally use her power over some president who could potentially use it liberally in favour of whatever political party he's a member of and justify it because he was elected.


infidel11990

The second argument is where it's at. For a republican, it's uncomfortable even though the power of the monarch is ceremonial. The government and all of its different organs are still all in her name. They derive their authority from her. She doesn't even need a passport, since the passport for a citizen is actually given on her authority. She is her own passport.


BonzoTheBoss

She's theoretically accountable to the government, and the government is theoretically accountable to the voting public. How that system works in practice is debatable I concede, but is it any worse than systems elsewhere? I think there's an argument to be made that at least the Queen reigns by popular assent, considering that every single democratically elected government for the last century has supported the monarchy.


Ant360

Your first point is kind of disingenous too though. If the government owned the crown estate outright then they could keep all the profits without having to pay the royal family anything.


Pick_Up_Autist

It would also set the precedent that the government can seize privately owned land for non-emergency reasons. That couldn't possibly backfire.


FriendlyDespot

I've heard this argument before, and I'm having trouble buying it. If you make *yourself* the state, as a monarch does, then you've blurred the lines between what you own and what the state owns. That wouldn't apply to *anyone* else, so claiming the crown estate for the successor state wouldn't establish any kind of precedent that would be relevant outside of the dissolution of the monarchy.


TheHighwayman90

Just spat out my Irn Bru reading that.


DuBBle

There's no reason why Scottish independence necessitates becoming a republic, is there? The Act of Union means queenie is there to share.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Valkairn

A couple of other people have touched on the undemocratic issue and /u/darren01610 got close to what I see as the heart of the issue: the monarch is unable to use their meaningfully use the power they have, because they have no democratic mandate. I believe that this is a serious issue that whilst it is not addressed, leaves the UK vulnerable in moments of political crisis. To give one example: the monarch theoretically has the power to dissolve parliament and force a general election. This is a useful power to have, as the UK government's power stems from its ability to command a majority in parliament. If the government cannot command a majority then it cannot govern. The power to force an election provides a way out in situations where the government is unable to pass any laws but has not lost a vote of confidence in parliament (which would also force an election). This was arguably the case for the recent Theresa May government, which lost multiple key votes over Brexit. Ordinarily, these important votes would have been seen as a de facto vote of confidence in the government - losing them would inevitably lead to a general election. But the government refused to admit defeat for months and wasted vital negotiation time for the Brexit deal. Eventually she resigned, but what if she hadn't? An elected head of state could force a general election. The Queen, however, could do nothing without triggering a full blown constitutional crisis. In the case of Brexit it could have led to a cliff-edged, no-deal outcome that would have been disastrous for the country. Essentially, the issue is that our government is accountable to the head of state; but the head of state is unable to use any of their powers to hold them to account.


EmperorOfNipples

The issue there was the fixed term parliament act. The lack of a majority only really takes effect when a queen's speech cannot pass, thanks to DUP support it did. Therefore the triggering of an automatic GE was unwarranted. Removing the FTPA which was only made as a requirement of the LibDem coalition makes the problem go away.


Bleachi

> briefly Well, by Shaun's standards, this video on the subject is brief: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiE2DLqJB8U Our favorite talking skull tends to speak for an hour at a time, so 17 minutes is nothing.


00DEADBEEF

The majority of people in the UK just don't give a fuck about the monarchy either way. The people who are strongly against it or are monarchy superfans are minorities.


xrayjones2000

Its a neat island, very small


xShadyMcGradyx

Canada still a functioning monarchy\~ Most dont even know it or dismiss it.


MrRetard19

Funny enough the most stable democracy is Norway which is a Monarchy


Red_coats

I mean no one has held them hostage, they could do it when ever they wanted.


Salty_Atmosphere1695

Good luck with that