Duke and Duchess of Cambridge: Platinum Jubilee Tour of The Caribbean 19-26 Mar 2022

[Alison H]

Yes, I admit that the topic of reparations has been discussed both in the Netherlands and in France too.

Nevertheless, going back to my original point, Portuguese America actually was by far the biggest slave importer, accounting for 38.5 % of the Atlantic slave trade, followed by the British West Indies with 18.4 %, the Spanish colonies with 17.5 %, the French West Indies with 13.6 %, British North America with 9.7 %, the Dutch West Indies with 2 %, and the Danish West Indies with only 0.3 %. Yet, slave reparations is an issue which, as far as I know, has never been seriously raised either in Brazil or in the Spanish-speaking countries, and is a debate that is more commonly associated with English-speaking (or secondarily French or Dutch-speaking) countries in the Caribbean. Why?

Britain put significant pressure on Brazil to abolish slavery, and there was also very strong support in Britain for the Abolitionist movement in the US.

Maybe it's the way history went: the Spanish colonies became independent long before the British colonies did, and there was no significant immigration from South America to Spain and Portugal in the way that there was from Africa to Britain and France and from the West Indies to Britain. Or maybe it's an internal thing: the middle-class left wing in Britain now takes the view that everything about the British Empire was evil, and even that schoolkids should be taught this, whereas I don't think that there's a similar school of thought in Spain and Portugal.

I'm not sure why it's directed at the Royals. OK, they are the symbol and personification of the UK, but a lot of people's ancestors benefited far more from slavery than the Royal Family did, and Prince Albert was a prominent abolitionist.

 

[PrincessofEurope]

My summary of the tour

Belize - light on engagements, I am totally aware 1 got cancelled but even then it was still light on meeting the public

Jamaica - awkward from the start, they tried their best but seemed an uphill struggle. Did also appear to have the most formal engagements which screamed old royal tours that didn't go down well in a country seeking to remove Monarchy

Bahamas - the best section, a lot more fun and relaxed and the public seemed to enjoy them visiting.


Forgive my ignorance - but when the Dutch royals visit the Dutch Antilles do they receive similar protests?

 

[Fem]

I'm still so impressed by the statement William put out after the tour. It was the perfect answer for the times this tour has became an absolute ****show, addressed the difficult situations they were put through. I would be glad if the media picked it up more widely. It was a very king-like statement from him.

Were the Cambridges used by the local politicians? Yes, especially in Jamaica. But did they deal with it in the best possible way? Yes.

Here we have two royals who are stepping into their roles slowly and with consideration for the modern world. They can handle anything that is being thrown at them, as the current situation shows. They can dazzle, meet with locals, have fun, show off countries best features and do their job without complaining and without putting their foot wrong.

 

[TLLK]

My summary of the tour

Belize - light on engagements, I am totally aware 1 got cancelled but even then it was still light on meeting the public

Jamaica - awkward from the start, they tried their best but seemed an uphill struggle. Did also appear to have the most formal engagements which screamed old royal tours that didn't go down well in a country seeking to remove Monarchy

Bahamas - the best section, a lot more fun and relaxed and the public seemed to enjoy them visiting.


Forgive my ignorance - but when the Dutch royals visit the Dutch Antilles do they receive similar protests?

A great question Princess of Europe and hopefully one of our Dutch posters can answer it. Regarding the Netherlands' colonial past I do know that the King recently announced that the Golden Coach would no longer be used due to a depiction on one of the coach's panels. This article has a good photo of the problematic scene with some history behind the historic object.
https://www.cnn.com/style/article/d...den-carriage-colonialism-intl-scli/index.html

 

[caethi]

I agree. It was very well written.

From an Australian perspective, there hasn't been much on our news about the tour, just a few small video clips of Catherine and William now and then. So it hasn't come across as being a disaster at all. I suppose there's a lot more about it in the English press. What about the rest of the world?

Good question. A Washington Post editorial was highly critical of the tour, if not openly disdainful.

 

[wartenberg7]

My summary of the tour

Belize - light on engagements, I am totally aware 1 got cancelled but even then it was still light on meeting the public

Jamaica - awkward from the start, they tried their best but seemed an uphill struggle. Did also appear to have the most formal engagements which screamed old royal tours that didn't go down well in a country seeking to remove Monarchy

Bahamas - the best section, a lot more fun and relaxed and the public seemed to enjoy them visiting.


Forgive my ignorance - but when the Dutch royals visit the Dutch Antilles do they receive similar protests?

In my opinion should a nation, who doesn´t like the "look" or typical aura of monarchy, not have a monarchy at all!
I mean, what´s the point in having Royalty in jeans and sweater just dancing away with locals, playing soccer and all that silly stuff Harry was so keen in doing (I know, many people nowadays love to see the Royals acting like the guy next door. I don´t and I cannot see what would be the point to all of this!) claiming to be "royal" but without being "allowed" to act what they are - royal!
I enjoyed the (unfortunately toned down, no white tie, no sashes, no tiara...) "state banquet" and that "bad bad" military parade with the short drive in that Jeep the most of all of this tour of which I was surprised and relieved, the BRF was still able to present itself so dignified and elegant!

When it comes to this tour my impression was that there was a minority and some parts of the press against it, while many locals loved it and were happy to see the princely couple. Yes, the press is always happy to write things like that down as a failure...

And no, I don´t think there are so much criticism for the dutch King and Queen yet when it comes to dutch colonial past in the Dutch Antilles. But our dutch fellow posters might be know more about that.

 

[Somebody]

My summary of the tour

Belize - light on engagements, I am totally aware 1 got cancelled but even then it was still light on meeting the public

Jamaica - awkward from the start, they tried their best but seemed an uphill struggle. Did also appear to have the most formal engagements which screamed old royal tours that didn't go down well in a country seeking to remove Monarchy

Bahamas - the best section, a lot more fun and relaxed and the public seemed to enjoy them visiting.


Forgive my ignorance - but when the Dutch royals visit the Dutch Antilles do they receive similar protests?

The Dutch royals are typically received with a lot of enthusiasm whenever they visit one of the six islands. This doesn't mean that there is no occasional small protest but the general feel of those visits is always celebratory. The latest being princess Beatrix' visit in November.

An example of the warm feelings towards the royal family (probably more so than to the Netherlands itself) is the name of the airport of Aruba: 'Reina Beatrix Airport'. Aruba also has a statue of queen Wilhelmina in their capital Oranjestad ((yes, named after the royal family the 'Oranjes' - just like the capital of Curacao is named after the various kings: Willemstad)) opposite of the monument that celebrates their independent status within the kingdom), so if they wanted to get rid of the royal family, it would be quite easy to start with changing the name of their airport.

 

[TLLK]

The Dutch royals are typically received with a lot of enthusiasm whenever they visit one of the six islands. This doesn't mean that there is no occasional small protest but the general feel of those visits is always celebratory. The latest being princess Beatrix' visit in November.

An example of the warm feelings towards the royal family (probably more so than to the Netherlands itself) is the name of the airport of Aruba: 'Reina Beatrix Airport'. Aruba also has a statue of queen Wilhelmina in their capital Oranjestad ((yes, named after the royal family the 'Oranjes' - just like the capital of Curacao is named after the various kings: Willemstad)) opposite of the monument that celebrates their independent status within the kingdom), so if they wanted to get rid of the royal family, it would be quite easy to start with changing the name of their airport.

Thank you for your reply.

 

[Frelinghighness]

Yes, I admit that the topic of reparations has been discussed both in the Netherlands and in France too.

Nevertheless, going back to my original point, Portuguese America actually was by far the biggest slave importer, accounting for 38.5 % of the Atlantic slave trade, followed by the British West Indies with 18.4 %, the Spanish colonies with 17.5 %, the French West Indies with 13.6 %, British North America with 9.7 %, the Dutch West Indies with 2 %, and the Danish West Indies with only 0.3

Noting how many slaves colonial powers imported to their colonies is a simplistic and incorrect method to evaluate the business of slave trading. The Dutch were at war with the Spanish and Portuguese in the 1600s to achieve world domination. They conquered part of Brazil in the mid 1600s for a few decades and called it Dutch Brazil. The prize was the port on the west coast which was the largest slave trading center. So the Dutch West India company set up shop and were the middlemen, effectively selling slaves to the Portuguese. This is just one example. That the slaves weren’t Christian was their justification

 

[Mbruno]

The Dutch royals are typically received with a lot of enthusiasm whenever they visit one of the six islands. This doesn't mean that there is no occasional small protest but the general feel of those visits is always celebratory. The latest being princess Beatrix' visit in November.

Which is actually ironic, because, unlike the Bahamas and Jamaica, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten are not independent.

The Jamaica Independence Act 1962 clarifies for example that "the Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of Jamaica" and that "No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on or after the appointed day shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to Jamaica as part of the law thereof".

Conversely, in matters that are assigned to jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Netherlands, which include foreign relations, defense, and nationality law, the Dutch Parliament actually serves as the legislature for the Dutch Caribbean islands, even though the islands have no representation therein.

 

[Somebody]

These small islands probably figured out that, at least for now, this is their best option. They aren't able to defend themselves - if for example Venezuela would decide to conquer Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire (as they are very close to the Venezuelan border), so they prefer their relative autonomous status within the kingdom of the Netherlands (as for Curacao and St Maarten that was negotiated relatively recently and came into effect in 2010), including a military presence (and money) over being fully independent with the advantages but also all the risks that entails. This of course doesn't mean that at times especially the politicians complain about the Netherlands imposing regulations that limit them in doing as they please.

These relationships within the kingdom remain sensitive and I am sure could be further improved. Nonetheless, so far, it seems the people of the various islands prefer the current status quo over the alternatives.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Which is actually ironic, because, unlike the Bahamas and Jamaica, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten are not independent.

The Jamaica Independence Act 1962 clarifies for example that "the Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of Jamaica" and that "No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on or after the appointed day shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to Jamaica as part of the law thereof".

Conversely, in matters that are assigned to jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Netherlands, which include foreign relations, defense, and nationality law, the Dutch Parliament actually serves as the legislature for the Dutch Caribbean islands, even though the islands have no representation therein.

The islands of Curaçao, Aruba and Sint Maarten are independent. The islands of Bonaire, Saba and St Eustatius are municipalities of the kingdom of the Netherlands (exactly their wishes).

The Netherlands and the three independent islands share the same head of state. When the Rijksministerraad (the extended Council of Ministers involving all territories) assembles, the three islands each are represented by an own minister, authorized to act on behalf of his/her Council of Ministers.

For so far there are no anti-monarchy protests on the Caribbean parts. Like a previous poster wrote: royal visits to the Caribbean islands tend to generate more local enthusiasm than royal visits in the European part.

 

[Somebody]

The islands of Curaçao, Aruba and Sint Maarten are independent. The islands of Bonaire, Saba and St Eustatius are municipalities of the kingdom of the Netherlands (exactly their wishes).

The Netherlands and the three independent islands share the same head of state. When the Rijksministerraad (the extended Council of Ministers involving all territories) assembles, the three islands each are represented by an own minister, authorized to act on behalf of his/her Council of Ministers.

For so far there are no anti-monarchy protests on the Caribbean parts. Like a previous poster wrote: royal visits to the Caribbean islands tend to generate more local enthusiasm than royal visits in the European part.

Not sure that is exactly the right description. There is one kingdom (sovereign state) and not 4 different kingdoms (in this way the situation differs from the British one). The kingdom of the Netherlands includes 4 countries: The Netherlands (17 mil. people), Curacao (160.000), Aruba (105.000) and St Maarten (40.000). The islands Bonaire (20.000), St Eustatius (3.000) and Saba (2.000) are special municipalities of (the country) the Netherlands. See this link for a visualization of the current situation.

However, this discussion should probably be moved to a different thread as this is no longer about the trip by the D&D of Cambridge.

 

[Durham]

Good question. A Washington Post editorial was highly critical of the tour, if not openly disdainful.

Not surprising. It's now a newspaper that struggles to hide its anglophobia. And its wilful misunderstanding of the British monarchy. Just like the NYT. Zero understandng of modern Britain or its people.

 

[87SaminB]

These blogs were what I wanted to post:


https://www.itsalawyerslife.com/sets-views-lies-and-videotape/


https://royalwatcherblog.com/2022/0...o-know-the-caribbean-royal-tour-is-a-success/

 

[Hallo girl]

Not surprising. It's now a newspaper that struggles to hide its anglophobia. And its wilful misunderstanding of the British monarchy. Just like the NYT. Zero understandng of modern Britain or its people.

Could somebody tell me why the American media appear to be anti royal, they are not American royalty so why are they so bothered. Or are they in the minority and we just see the negative stories.

 

[87SaminB]

I was glad to see in the 2 blog entries I shared that it was acknowledged there were in fact a number of positive elements to the tour and, while there were some challenging moments, I feel that overall it was a pretty successful trip. I look forward to wherever the Cambridges go next!

 

[Alisa]

The editorials were not anti-royal and certainly not anglophobic. They explicitly laid things in black and white and it was obvious to see the short comings.

It is good to read things from another perspective without rose colored glasses.

 

[Hallo girl]

The editorials were not anti-royal and certainly not anglophobic. They explicitly laid things in black and white and it was obvious to see the short comings.

It is good to read things from another perspective without rose colored glasses.

Thank you for your feedback, it is appreciated.

 

[Fem]

Could somebody tell me why the American media appear to be anti royal, they are not American royalty so why are they so bothered. Or are they in the minority and we just see the negative stories.

It's the media, the negative stories always get more clicks. I also think that American media would love to see William and Catherine taken down a peg for obvious reasons, which we cannot discuss.

It wasn't the best tour for sure. But it also was not a failure some people in the media are telling us it was.

 

[Mbruno]

Could somebody tell me why the American media appear to be anti royal, they are not American royalty so why are they so bothered. Or are they in the minority and we just see the negative stories.

Americans are instinctively anti-royalist. After all, the United States is a republic that was born of a violent insurrection against the King of Great Britain, who was (mostly unfairly) labeled a tyrant in the US Declaration of Independence. The Americans who were royalists, or at least wished to remain loyal to the Crown, left to form (English) Canada.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Thank you for such a well thought, factual response. It hasn't anything to do with wanting to "take down" the Cambridges who are quite popular here in U.S.

One or two American newspapers criticizing them is not the complete picture.
The usual fawning print and TV press here surrounding their relationship and family life are often so sugary my teeth hurt.

Check out some of commentary from BRITONS in the Daily Fail if you want to see some real anti-Cambridge invective!

 

[Durham]

This article is a typical example. It writes about a “global monarchy” when there is no such thing. It talks about “constitutional links” to the royal family. What on earth are they?

Zero credibility.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...5325d8-acd2-11ec-8a8e-9c6e9fc7a0de_story.html

And this one dripping with poison:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...m-kates-cringeworthy-colonial-caribbean-tour/

"it’s good for the world to see the British monarchy for the symbolic mess that it is, an outdated relic of imperialism" absolute twaddle.

Why do they even print this stuff if not to put the boot in?

 

[Marengo]

I imagine that they write them because they know that people will click on them? Newspapers are businesses after all. And this fits perfectly in the culture war that some like to spend their time on & which has been utilised by many areas of the media to generate income.

How many articles haven't we seen these last years about some obscure library or university in the middle of nowhere cancelling something or somebody. Not urgent news for most of the world but a popular item for the press. Outrage clicks are also clicks, which in the end fills the coffers for these organisations. Nuanced stories -while being more credible- will often be less popular to the readership so these outraged opinion articles have become a popular business model. Even more so now news is so easily accessible -often for free- and by writing these opinion pieces / background stories newspapers can try to attract paying subscribers.

 

[Frelinghighness]

The first article wasn’t so bad, at least most of the facts were correct. Actually,the writer admitted that republicanism is for the political class, and that the monarchy is popular with the people. Because the BRF is so popular with Americans, they write controversies to get attention and readership. As Moonmaiden pointed out, the tabloids have always had the brf on their covers. It sells!
What kills me is the inaccuracies, for example during royal weddings when the American commentators get all the people wrong.
Also, that they assume the BRF is the only royal family, except of course, Monaco

 

[Durham]

We deserve better from media outlets like the WP. We see the same thing here in the UK unfortunately.

But it definitely speaks to a nasty undercurrent in certain circles. The monarchy has always had its critics. Especially in terms of that old British favourite the class system. But it's only recently that the monarchy has become caught up in the modern culture wars. I think it's obvious where that comes from but that would be off topic.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

This article is a typical example. It writes about a “global monarchy” when there is no such thing. It talks about “constitutional links” to the royal family. What on earth are they?

Zero credibility.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...5325d8-acd2-11ec-8a8e-9c6e9fc7a0de_story.html

And this one dripping with poison:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...m-kates-cringeworthy-colonial-caribbean-tour/

"it’s good for the world to see the British monarchy for the symbolic mess that it is, an outdated relic of imperialism" absolute twaddle.

Why do they even print this stuff if not to put the boot in?

The WaPo along with the NYT are influential, left leaning newspapers.

They are in no way "typical" down the middle American media.

The leftist media in the US is more than balanced out by right wing sources such as Fox News , the National Review, and the Wall Street Journal which are more likely to be Royal friendly.

Why latch on to one negative American OpEd and insist that it is typical?

ETA: I just finished the first article. ITA with frelinghigness that it is not derogatory....simply honest.

 

[Frelinghighness]

I imagine that they write them because they know that people will click on them? Newspapers are businesses after all. And this fits perfectly in the culture war that some like to spend their time on & which has been utilised by many areas of the media to generate income.

How many articles haven't we seen these last years about some obscure library or university in the middle of nowhere cancelling something or somebody. Not urgent news for most of the world but a popular item for the press. Outrage clicks are also clicks, which in the end fills the coffers for these organisations. Nuanced stories -while being more credible- will often be less popular to the readership so these outraged opinion articles have become a popular business model. Even more so now news is so easily accessible -often for free- and by writing these opinion pieces / background stories newspapers can try to attract paying subscribers.

Very well said. In fact a well known cable network in the US uses the “villain” model for every story they do, their retired producers have reported. Each story must produce an angry or fearful response from the viewer. This emotion makes people much more likely to tune in and stay tuned in believe it or not. Small local news also employ this technique

Truthfully, the raging ratings of Prince Harry probably has influenced the negativity. However, they don’t,want to knock the RF too much so that people don’t care

 

[Durham]

The WaPo along with the NYT are influential, left leaning newspapers.

They are in no way "typical" down the middle American media.

The leftist media in the US is more than balanced out by right wing sources such as Fox News , the National Review, and the Wall Street Journal which are more likely to be Royal friendly.

Why latch on to one negative American OpEd and insist that it is typical?

I haven't.

In all my posts I've only ever mentioned the NYT & WP. I realise that they're "progressive" & that there is a diverse media in the US.

But this is the view of many people in Britain. I'm not making this up. Honest.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-new-york-times-gets-britain-wrong-again-

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-new-york-times-orgy-of-british-despair

https://twitter.com/x/status/1257631759514173441

The above Christopher Meyer is a former British Ambassador to the US.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

But again....they are discussing The New York Times. Not American media in its' entirety.

Are we to believe that there are no newspapers or citizens in Britain critical of Americans...particularly American politics, recently?