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?

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?

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.

dear boys and girls did any of you think for one second that our ties "cross the pond" is probably one of the only things saiving us from corruption greed and bigotry right now in this nation. God bless the Bahamas.

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.

Thank you for reminding me about the title. I tought Mrs. was an adequate title of respect, especially stating that she is Govenor General, which the title Dame corresponds.

Secondly, you contradicted yourself, either that or you do not know what the title Govenor General means. Govenor General represents the queen, as the queen is our head of state, since we are a commonwealth country. In order to represent the queen one must be knighted, as that particular person is a protector of the realm.

Thank you for reminding me about the title. I tought Mrs. was an adequate title of respect, especially stating that she is Govenor General, which the title Dame corresponds.
Secondly, you contradicted yourself, either that or you do not know what the title Govenor General means. Govenor General represents the queen, as the queen is our head of state, since we are a commonwealth country. In order to represent the queen one must be knighted, as that particular person is a protector of the realm.

Actually the title Dame has nothing to do with her being the Governor General. It simply means that she was knighted. In her current official title of Her Excellency the Right Honorable Dame Dr. Ivy Dumont, the parts that correspond to her position are Her Excellency and the Right Honorable. Even if you don't want to use the entire title, at least call her Dr. since she has worked hard to earn that title or just plan Ivy Dumont. Would you call Sir. Lynden Pindling just Mr. Lynden Pindling? No. You would call him Sir. Lynden, Lynden Pindling or something else along those lines. Anyhow, back to the point...

Unless the Bahamas is distinct from other commonwealth nations on the part of knighting, to my knowledge and from my research, there is nothing in writing that requires a GG to be knighted. Just look at the current GG of Canada.

My original point was that while the queen is the head of our government since we still are in the parliamentary system, she has no power at all aside from ceremonial functions. That is part of why we requested to become independent. So until we decide to become a parliamentary republic and drop the role of the GG and add a president to perform these functions SOMEONE has to perform the duties. It is a necessary post within our current structure. Knighting someone using DCMG (Dame Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George) such as Ivy Dumont is unnecessary. It is just another way of holding on to the former colonial powers instead of creating our own national awards which would mean a great deal more to me. While I am sure it would look nice to have those initials behind his name, what he is doing is simply protesting and asking for us to let go of this colonial title and move on. Maybe that will start a trend and the next step would be to let go of the GG title and appoint or elect a president to perform ceremonial functions. But one step at a time...

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.


u sumed it up right there, i remeber as a child wondering y the bahamas had a govenor general and y the queen had to b all up in da kool aid. i say forgot the brits and their stuffy tittles. no probs with the govnor genral position still being around but if it goes who cares. in any even being knited should not b a requirement. if the brits fool enough to keep that embarassing royal family around, and all that queen this and knight that bull spit good for the them. i mean should the BA really b taking ques from a country with a queen and a prime minister. :bigmouth:


tada how ever u pronounce the rest- u probably wont like what i am about to say and think i am on an american trip but i believe the USA is more active in keepin the bahamas in check than jolly ol england

u sumed it up right there, i remeber as a child wondering y the bahamas had a govenor general and y the queen had to b all up in da kool aid. i say forgot the brits and their stuffy tittles. no probs with the govnor genral position still being around but if it goes who cares. in any even being knited should not b a requirement. if the brits fool enough to keep that embarassing royal family around, and all that queen this and knight that bull spit good for the them. i mean should the BA really b taking ques from a country with a queen and a prime minister. :bigmouth:
tada how ever u pronounce the rest- u probably wont like what i am about to say and think i am on an american trip but i believe the USA is more active in keepin the bahamas in check than jolly ol england

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....

u sumed it up right there, i remeber as a child wondering y the bahamas had a govenor general and y the queen had to b all up in da kool aid. i say forgot the brits and their stuffy tittles. no probs with the govnor genral position still being around but if it goes who cares. in any even being knited should not b a requirement. if the brits fool enough to keep that embarassing royal family around, and all that queen this and knight that bull spit good for the them. i mean should the BA really b taking ques from a country with a queen and a prime minister. :bigmouth:
tada how ever u pronounce the rest- u probably wont like what i am about to say and think i am on an american trip but i believe the USA is more active in keepin the bahamas in check than jolly ol england

Next thing you will say is that we should become state of the great USA

Would you call Sir. Lynden Pindling just Mr. Lynden Pindling? No. You would call him Sir. Lynden, Lynden Pindling or something else along those lines.
I would have called Mr. Pindling by his name. Mr. Pindling and he would have stopped, turn around and answered me by saying: Yes, how can I help...

i mean should the BA really b taking ques from a country with a queen and a prime minister.

Well I will have to agree with Canewry here...you are misunderstanding the situation. Technically we have a queen and a Prime Minister as well since Queen Elizabeth II is our Chief of State, but represented by the GG.

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....

You say that like it is a bad thing. I would love to do away with the title of Governor General, but we still need someone to fulfill the role of Chief of State. If we appoint a president to fulfill that role or simply have the Prime Minister fulfill that role, it still amounts to the same thing. We need a chief of state. Personally I would prefer if we elect a president for that role since I cannot imagine Ingraham or Christie serving in that capacity. I like the idea of Sir. Orville of Dumont since they both are very refined and good at dealing with those state functions.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if we get rid of the Queen as our Chief of State then all that means is there will be no new QCs or other appointments such the like. I don't think it will mean that current title holders will lose that designation since I gather that is what you are implying. Can someone verify this?

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....

So I found it. Unless we pass a law here in the Bahamas persons can still hold the titles of OBE, QC, etc. The only difference is that they cannot style themselves "Sir...". In fact, there are many persons with such letters who are not Commonwealth citizens or British.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_honours_system#Honorary_awards

Let us say that we did sever our ties with England. The post of Governor-General would no longer be needed to represent the Queen. But it would be wise to keep such an office, we might call that person Governor or something else.

Having a Governor would (as it does now) free the Primer Minister to do the work of running the country. The Governor, though head of State is really the Social head. It is he/she that entertains dignitaries, receives diplomats, opens fairs and such things that steals time from the Prime Minister. In the US they just have the President who fills both roles. No wonder they get so old so fast! They are doing two jobs

There was a time in this country when the Governor was THE power. He was appointed by the Queen and he could over-ride anything the House said. Today the Governor-General is appointed by the ruling party in power. The appointment is "rubber-stamped" by the Queen. The Governor-General is really powerless now a days. He does as he is told by the ruling party in power. But the office does take some of the Social weight off the PM and that alone makes it worthwhile.

Let us say that we did sever our ties with England. The post of Governor-General would no longer be needed to represent the Queen. But it would be wise to keep such an office, we might call that person Governor or something else.
Having a Governor would (as it does now) free the Primer Minister to do the work of running the country. The Governor, though head of State is really the Social head. It is he/she that entertains dignitaries, receives diplomats, opens fairs and such things that steals time from the Prime Minister. In the US they just have the President who fills both roles. No wonder they get so old so fast! They are doing two jobs
There was a time in this country when the Governor was THE power. He was appointed by the Queen and he could over-ride anything the House said. Today the Governor-General is appointed by the ruling party in power. The appointment is "rubber-stamped" by the Queen. The Governor-General is really powerless now a days. He does as he is told by the ruling party in power. But the office does take some of the Social weight off the PM and that alone makes it worthwhile.

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. Power and prestige are Siamese twins ma boy!

To me its foolish to trick ourselves into believing that they're separate and also to dish out additional salaries to perpetuate the myth. 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.

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. Power and prestige are Siamese twins ma boy!
To me its foolish to trick ourselves into believing that they're separate and also to dish out additional salaries to perpetuate the myth. 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.

The PM does perform certain social duties, but not to the extent that the GG does. Have a GG or someone else as Chief of State means that the PM doesn't have so many obligations on his social calendar, which helps the entire system run much smoother.
When an ambassador comes to the Bahamas, they present their credentials to the GG. When a justice is to be sworn in, it is done by the GG. The list just goes on and on...
In theory, yes the PM can perform this function, but having a separate post as Chief of State allows the PM as the Head of Government to focus on more important things such as disaster relief after a hurricane. It also gives the PM more time to represent the nation and various conferences around the world. You would be surprised at the myriad state functions are held at the Governor General's house. I doubt if the PM would have time to attend them all.