The Caribbean has seen a number of island nations talk about severing constitutional ties with the British monarchy – but many still remain tethered.
Jamaica has raised the issue of removing the Queen as its head of state over recent years, with a succession of the country’s prime ministers declaring their support for the idea.
In 2003, the then prime minister PJ Patterson called for Jamaica’s links with the monarchy to come to an end – and seven years later another premier, Bruce Golding, said the constitution would be amended to usher in a home-grown president.
His successor, Portia Simpson Miller, hugged and held hands with the Duke of Sussex during a royal visit in 2012, just hours after she repeated her intention to hold a referendum to remove the Queen as head of state.
Despite the repeated public announcements by the politicians, Jamaica still remains one of the Queen’s realms – but even the latest prime minister, Andrew Holness, has said becoming a republic is a priority for his government.
In St Vincent and the Grenadines, a 2009 referendum saw voters reject the proposal to oust the monarchy and substitute it with a republic.
And a few years later, a St Lucian government-appointed constitutional review commission published a report which made a number of recommendations, including scrapping the nation’s constitutional monarchical system in favour of becoming a republic.
Barbados has signalled it intends to remove the Queen as head of state and become a republic – something a Buckingham Palace spokesman has said is a “matter for the government and people” of the Commonwealth country.
If its leaders honour their commitment, they will be following in the footsteps of other Caribbean countries which opted for a home-grown head of state like Guyana in 1970, Trinidad and Tobago in 1976 and Dominica in 1978.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here