Barbados celebrates the Royal Couple

In Barbados Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex - accompanied by his wife, Countess Sophie - addressed a Joint Sitting of Parliament in the Senate Chamber, held in commemoration of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, praised the nation for its 'resilience' and urged to learn from the past in order to move forward.

He said: "Rarely has this been more important than now as all parts of the world struggle to overcome the past few years of international economic turmoil. As legislators and as leaders you are well aware of the responsibilities and difficulties you face as you seek firstly to safeguard your country's hard won economic and social gains in so volatile an environment, and then to prosper. To respond to these challenges, you will need courage, creativity and common sense, traits which have long characterised the Barbadian spirit. With trust in the resilience of your people, confidence in the future and faith in the Almighty, Barbados' continued development will be assured."

The royal couple's two-day visit on 23rd and 24th February began, when they arrived at the Bridgetown Port on board the HMS Royal Fleet Auxiliary Fort Rosalie. They were met by a group of dignitaries including Acting Governor General Elliott Belgrave and Mrs. Belgrave, Prime Minister Freundel Stuart, Chief Justice Marston Gibson, and Minister of International Business and International Transport George Hutson and inspected the Guard of Honour.

The Earl and Countess of Wessex joined Governor General Elliot Belgrave at his official residence along with Prime Minister Freundel Stuart.

The Barbadian visit culminated in an official state dinner at the Official Residence of the Governor General of Barbados on 24th February.

The royal couple wore co-ordinating outfits of black and white, with Countess Sophie sporting a long white gown with black ribbon and shrug detail.

The Queen speaks out for the "smaller, more vulnerable nations, many of them from the Commonwealth"

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York for the first time since 1957 on Tuesday, 6th July 2010, paying homage to the organization’s accomplishments.


One interesting aspect of this visit to the UN was the fact that she addressed the General Assembly's 105th plenary meeting as - in her own words - "Queen of sixteen United Nations Member States and as Head of the Commonwealth of 54 countries".

As Queen of some smaller Commonwealth nations, she acted as advocate in their interest, reminding that a great "challenge is climate change, where careful account must be taken of the risks facing smaller, more vulnerable nations, many of them from the Commonwealth".

The Queen's speech can be read here.

Or you can watch this video.

Her Majesty, World Citizen

One of the republicans' main objections to the Monarchy is their claim that we don't have an “Australian head of state”. Constitutional Monarchists say that we do indeed have an “Australian head of state” – the Governor General - and that the Queen is the Australian sovereign. This definition is, of course, rejected by republicans for it would discredit their effort to abolish the Monarchy.

I on the other hand, want to point out that the Queen is not a foreigner, but an Australian. She is also Canadian, Barbadian, Jamaican, Scottish, Irish, English and even French, when one considers her status as Duke of Normandy (for the Channel Islands).

She may not have an Australian passport – in fact, I doubt that she has a passport at all, not even a British one - but she has served this country since ascending to the throne. She is as free a person, as we once were and will never be again.

The Queen embodies the time, when everybody could travel without a passport. Before World War I travellers on the Orient Express could board a train in Istanbul and get off the train in Calais to board a ship to Britain without visa and passports. A passport was a request to assist and protect the bearer of the passport. Today travel documents are become high tech instruments, but not to make travelling easier or more convenient, but to control the passport holder and restrict our free movement. The currently standardized biometrics used for the new type of passports with electronic identification systems are facial recognition, fingerprint recognition, and iris recognition. A biometric identifier held on an electronic chip gives those who can read the data total access to the stored information. Those who issue these new passports give the illusion they could prevent terrorist attacks. In fact they give total control of all our movements. Passport holders are constantly watched and monitored but for what real purpose?

Does this give the Queen a privilege she should not have? On the contrary: Her Majesty not being a passport holder is a reminder to politicians – and in fact to all of us – that we should resist electronic documents of all sorts. We should aim to get the same freedom that Her Majesty still enjoys. As I said: She embodies this freedom.

Passports don’t prove anything. Having the passport of a certain country does not mean that you are a citizen who contributes in a positive way to the society that issued the passport. It just states that the passport was issued by a certain country, how you received this little booklet is of no importance. You may have received it because your parent(s) belonged to this state, you may have been naturalised, you may have been forced to accept it, because you lost your home country and fled to the new one, giving you no choice, but to accept it. However, you may have bought your way into the country that issued the passport either by bribing officials or by promising to “invest money” in your new country. And certainly there are those who use – false – passports to achieve something they would not be able to do with another passport. Does your passport show that you render a special loyalty to the state that issued the passport? Also, this piece of paper can give no proof for that.

The Queen of Australia may not have an Australian passport, but Her loyalty towards Australia has never been in doubt. The Queen represents the type of international citizen that politicians around the world resent.


The biometric passport has an updated design since its first launch and additional security features. The updated features include pages with intricate designs, complex watermarks and a chip antenna.

The Coat of Arms of Barbados was adopted upon independence in 1966 by decree of Queen Elizabeth, Queen of Barbados. Like other former British posessions in the Caribbean, the coat of arms has a helmet with a national symbol on top, and a shield beneath that is supported by two animals.

Republicans are braggarts

Republicans are braggarts. All the time and everywhere. Do you need proof? Here's the latest example for my assertion.

When republicans live in a Monarchy and work for its destruction, they claim the “vast majority” does not identify with the institution, the Monarchy is old fashioned and outdated, nobody is interested in the Royal Family and their duties, etc.

But when it comes to a referendum to introduce a republic, the great reformers suddenly shriek off and turn frightened to use the “r”-word. After all, it IS a frightful word connected with lots of atrocities throughout its history of the past 229 years. Look at all those fabolous republics from Zimbabwe via Pakistan to China.

What do republicans do when they call for a referendum, and when they try to avoid the simple question: “Do you want a Monarchy or a republic?”? They use a manipulative trick which indicates that they aren’t very certain about their cause:

The Deputy Prime Minister of Barbados has announced via the Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation that when the country goes to the polls in nine months, a referendum on whether the country should become a republic will be held concurrently. According to an unsourced statement on Wikipedia, the question is to be:
"Do you believe Barbados should have a Barbadian as its head of state?"

A perfidious question because it infers that everyone who votes NO and who wants to retain the Monarchy was Un-Barbadian, anti-national, unpatriotic.

The proposed question is far from a being a fair question if the Barbadians want the Monarchy or a republic. It does not address what relationship there should be between the people of Barbados and the Crown, but it is pure and unashamed populism. It is malicious. How will the Monarchists of Barbados lead their campaign for a “foreign Head of State”. Even though the Queen of Barbados is no foreigner, but as Barbadian as any other Barbadian, the supporters of the Monarchy will have a hard time to organise a referendum campaign.

Once again this example shows that republicans refer to referenda won by republicans as fair and open (Italy 1946 or Greece in 1973/74), however, in cases where the Monarchists won, they were manipulated (Australia 1999, Spain 1947, Greece 1935 and again 1946).

Republicans are bad losers. And never fair players, I may add.