I don't know if you're aware but the PM still performs social duties. I can think of a lot of commercials that I have heard that begin with, "Under the auspices of Prime Minister.....". And the reason why he (and in the future, possibly a she) has to perform these duties is because he functionally HAS the power, which is precisely why he is being invited or asked to the event's patron.
He is invited to more that he accepts. If the PM wants to attend an event for political reasons, or just because he supports the cause - that is OK. The thing is, he does not have to!

Power and prestige are Siamese twins ma boy!
Only for those that want both (and I agree, most do!)

To me its foolish to trick ourselves into believing that they're separate
They are separate offices, but as the PM appoints the GG they are not that separate

also to dish out additional salaries to perpetuate the myth.
What myth is that?

As I see it let's move to the Bahamas being a Republic, doing away with the Queen, GG's and all those other vestiges of the past. It's time for the Bahamas to grow up.
Many of the countries in the Commonwealth of nations have grown up. Having a Queen, GG or other "vestiges" has not held them back.

The myth that Power and Prestige are inseparable - a point you and I obviously disagree on.
I also think though that if it we look at from a sociological perspective, there is considerable merit to having the funcitonal Head of State deliver the duties of that headship. There is tremendous power in ceremony and as such the Head of State should be SEEN to participate and DELIVER the ceremony that is part and parcel of the office.
Whats more, the GG is a figure head and the Bahamas should strive to remove all false, propped and inefficient layers of governance.
On the whole bit about the PM not having the "time", this is absolutely ridiculous. The Bahamas is a country of ONLY 304,000 people! The current PM has a cabinet of SIXTEEN and a Public Service of about 20,000 (12% of the working population)....how many people does it take to govern this country? If the man / woman don't have the time bulla they don't want it or they are woefully inefficient and are micro-managing and really have NO business leading.

Paul L. Adderley desrves the GG seat any way he is a wise Honarable man.
on the other hand Dame Ivy Should Have never Been there in the first Place she never was an elected offical, Rather appointed to all of her post by the than Hubert Ingrham administration.

BUT THAT IS A STORY ALL BUY ITSELF HOW IT CAME TO BE ONLY IF YOU KNOW THE FACTS. Dame Ivy and Hubert have very close ties wll (special) he sees her as a mentor and confident at hart, did you know that Dame Ivy has or had a Doughter in the washington/ Bahamian overseas office?

See we need the facts than put the picture togeather.

do any of you understand Bahamian History or politics....the govenor General represents the queen, one cannot have a Govenor General without the Queen being head of state. If we do away with the queen, we will have to do away with the title govenor general, not to mention, all Sirs, all OBE's all Queen Counsels and the like....

sounds good 2 me. can u give me one good reason why there needs to be a person representing the queen in 2005 of country that holds it own. yes i did understand the role of GG and like I said when I was growing up in the BA in the early 90's learning about it, I wondered why was it necessary for a free country to have the queen represented and sittin up on the dollar bill.

can u give me a good reason why in 2005 the queen needs to be represented in bahamian governemnt?

like someone said i would b cool with it if bahamian citizens had resident rights in Brit and vice versa.

i am 100% sure that the position/title will be done away with. hopefully the sirs,madams,and silly mass wigs will be as well. independence was only 32 yrs ago. i was so relieved when they placed someone else on that dollar bill.

on the become a state of the usa, I could give to hoots about that. all i am saying is it is illogical for a free country needing to have someone from their former opressing nation to be represented in any form in their gov.

He (Paul Adderly) must be taking up this postion soley for the perks! Other than that, if his postion is to do away with our soverignty as a former British colony, him taking up the GG postion isnt helping that cause.

As everyone knows, Mrs. Ivy Dumont is about to retire for the 3rd or 4th time.
Recently, Paul Adderley has been appointed as deputy Govenor General, and he serves as acting Govenor General when Dumont is indispose, and that is all well and good. As Adderley is an honourable man.
But, has anyone realized that Paul Adderley is not Knighted. (A.D Hanna isn't Knighted also by the way). So what? you may ask, just knight him now. But really there is a reason...the reason is both men refused the title some time back; repeatedly. I am sure many of you know why;
Why? Simply because they don't believe in the title; in fact, (and correct me room if I am wrong, as we do have people in this room who knows Bahamian history well), both Adderley and Hanna promotes the idea that we need to be free from the shackle of our English pass; that being all of the awards and the knighthood titles that she bestows upon her subjects.
And, in truth, I am cool with that opinion...what I am concern about is..how in heaven can Adderley be acting Govenor General, and perhaps the future Govenor General when he wants us to relinquish being ruled by the Crown...
I say something smelly happening. What you say?

just thought I should bring this one back...

Well first, you should refer Dumont by her official title which is Dame Dr. Ivy Dumont. She has earned her titles and should be referred to by them properly.
I think what Paul Adderly is doing is quite fair and honorable. Accepting the title of Sir. from the Queen would be a sign of holding on to our former colonial links. I agree, much like him, that it is time we sever those ties (unless they want to give us some benefits like allowing us to carry a UK passport).
The post of Governor General is a governmental position in our legislature. The fact that the person is appointed "by the queen" doesn't matter since she almost always acts on the word of the Prime Minister. This means he is de facto appointed to a position of respect and authority by the people. There is nothing wrong with him accepting this post.


There is nothing wrong with him accepting the Governor General post if he wasn't all his political career against the trappings of colonialism and what is more colonial than the Governor General? And so the issue is this: has he change his mine on his vow never to accept colonial honors. Either way he has to deal with his own conscience, like the old saying goes:Never say never!

did canwery start this thread just out of the goodness of his heart about the truth?
or did he just want "governor general in trouble" on top of the yahoo search engines?
:dgi:

i see nothing about this thread that warrants discussion other than tangenting!!

like this...
man, they had downtown packed today hear..couldnt even get parking on market street or anything!!

gee....
dont even talk about at the post office yard..:shhh: