The Tribune

BY its nature, news reporting has to be selective. Editors worldwide determine what is of interest and whether, for a variety of reasons, it should be brought to public attention and is worthy of publication.

In Britain over the last couple of years, one subject which the media always fully reported about was the incidence and serious consequences of the coronavirus pandemic. Everyone was affected. But, inevitably, the spotlight fell on those in the public eye – including, of course, the Royal Family.

Following this line of thought, it is unsurprising that people are now comparing the atmosphere and spirit of last week’s memorial service - at Westminster Abbey in the heart of London – for Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, with the sadness and sombreness of his funeral service a year ago at St George’s Chapel in the grounds of Windsor Castle. Because of the pandemic restrictions in force at the time this was attended by just 30 people, nearly all close relatives.

 What was described as its austere dignity was epitomised by the poignant image of The Queen sitting by herself as she mourned her beloved husband of 73 years. Her state of “aloneness”, as the TV cameras panned in on her, was seen by millions watching from the comfort of their living rooms, and they admired her quiet dignity and strength as a wonderful example to others of stoicism and composure. By contrast, last week’s service was attended by 1,800 people and, with its mix of splendour, tradition and humanity, it was widely seen as a magnificent tribute to Prince Philip.

 It would be superfluous to repeat what was written in praise of him following his death last year at the age of 99 – apart, that is, from a reminder of Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s memorable words that “By any measure, Prince Philip lived an extraordinary life – as a naval hero in the Second World War, as the man who inspired countless young people through the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and, above all, as Her Majesty The Queen’s loyal consort. We are a kingdom both in grief and gratitude; grief at Prince Philip’s passing, and gratitude for his decades of selfless service to the country.”

 At last week’s service, the Dean of Westminster paid tribute to Prince Philip’s intellect, work ethic, sense of humour and devotion to family – a remarkable man who could also be abrupt since he was known for not suffering fools gladly and was not slow in “pricking what he thought to be bubbles of pomposity or sycophancy.”

 Meanwhile, others have spoken anew about a special man, a unique blend of traditionalist and moderniser, who disliked sentimentality but understood human foibles - a great public figure who has left a gaping hole at the centre of the Royal Family.

 For Bahamians, it is noteworthy that Prince Philip was a regular visitor here over the years. His first official trip was with The Queen in 1966 during a Caribbean tour. But, as long ago as 1959, he came to the Royal Nassau Sailing Club to present race trophies, including the cup donated by King George V.

 His last private visit was in 1998 in connection with his own award scheme – known locally as the Governor General’s Youth Award – when, almost needless to say, it was a most interesting experience to have accompanied him on his appointments.

Following last week’s high-profile memorial service, many people have been disappointed and even irritated that the UK press should be making so much of what is being called the central role in it played by Prince Andrew. He escorted The Queen inside the Abbey and guided her to her seat after which he himself sat in the front row next to his brother, Prince Edward.

 Since newspapers in Britain all too often look for sensation and controversy, perhaps it comes as no surprise that the most critical among them are now saying that he should not have been allowed to play such a significant role because he is a disgraced figure who is supposed to have stepped down from public life after being stripped of military honours and royal patronages and banned from official royal duties. They claim his action cast a shadow over the dignified proceedings of what should have been a memorial to a great man and was “another clanger by the Royal Family”.

 To my eye, such criticism in these particular circumstances is over the top and borders on pure mischief-making. It is largely generated by so-called royal watchers intent on publicity at any cost, though there is a legitimate debate about Andrew’s long-term future more generally.

 But his father’s memorial service was essentially a family gathering as well as a state occasion.  Interestingly, public feedback over the weekend shows that many people believe his prominent role at an important family event was justified even though otherwise it is right that he should relinquish his public duties. Moreover, reportedly The Queen herself wanted her favourite son to escort her in view of her increasing lack of mobility, and her wishes should surely be respected -- but whether or not this might have any bearing on his future role within the family can only be a matter for conjecture at this stage.

HUMMINGBIRDS

I wonder whether anyone who happened to read my piece earlier this month about Harriet – aka Harold - the Hummingbird might like to know that she has successfully hatched two eggs. Now, one can see two small beaks protruding over the edge of the tiny nest high up under our patio roof. But my wife and I are still pretending not to notice it for fear of disturbing and frightening the mother bird and her brood.

The other day, Harriet’s landing radar seemed to have malfunctioned when she was returning to the nest, presumably to bring some tasty morsels to feed her little ones. She flew into my study again. But unlike the last time - when she came in deliberately because she was cross with me and was making a point about my staying away from her newly-built nest – on this occasion she apparently did so by mistake.

With her tiny wings beating furiously, Harriet tried in vain to fly towards the light through the closed windows in a frantic but unsuccessful bid to get out of the room. But, fortunately, my wife was able to intervene and managed, with the aid of a large bath towel, to usher her out through the open door. So the crisis was averted, the chicks were fed and all was well in the end.

We now await the next stage as the young ones eventually become able to fly and at some point push off for good – leaving us to ponder at leisure on the intriguing and amazing wonders of Nature.

A FARAWAY FORGOTTEN CONFLICT

Although it was top of the world’s news agenda at the time, Argentina’s invasion of the British territory of the Falkland Islands on April 2, 1982, that provoked a bitter military conflict has now been largely forgotten except by those who participated in it and the families left to mourn their dead. But this year is the 40th anniversary of the Falklands War and there has been a good deal of publicity about it, perhaps encouraged in part by those watching developments in Ukraine as another example of unprovoked aggression. The Argentine invasion was all the more shocking because such action by the military junta in Buenos Aires was unexpected by Britain given that bilateral diplomatic negotiations about the future of the Islands were taking place at the time.

In reaction to the invasion and occupation of this remote place with a population of less than 3,000, who were fiercely opposed to any interference in their lives by Argentina, a naval task force was quickly sent and British armed forces landed on the Falklands on May 21.

Historians argue that the success of the operation of assembling a task force at short notice and sending it 8,000 miles to the South Atlantic surprised the junta who underestimated Britain’s political will and resolve to mount such a forceful response in an effort to retake the Islands.

Meanwhile, Britain had made clear at the UN that, in accordance with international law, it had no doubts about its sovereignty over the Falklands which it had administered for 150 years, and it was protecting its citizens in a legitimate overseas territory in accordance with the principle of self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter.

After fierce fighting, the Argentines surrendered on 14 June. But the price paid was high in terms of casualties suffered by both sides. During a conflict lasting seventy-four days, six British warships were sunk, 255 British and 649 Argentine military personnel were killed and many more were wounded. Among numbers of Argentine aircraft and ships lost, the cruiser named the General Belgrano was sunk by a British nuclear-powered submarine. Three islanders also lost their lives during the hostilities.

Coincidentally, at a personal level I became involved in the aftermath of the conflict as a young(ish) desk officer in then Foreign and Commonwealth Office working on policy in relation to reconstruction and redevelopment of the Falklands and was fortunate to be able to make a familiarisation visit there in 1986 -- a fascinating and sobering experience that left a sense of pride that one’s own country was prepared to stand up to international aggression in the way it did in order to protect so few.

As regards the future, from Argentina’s latest pronouncements it still maintains its claim to what it calls the Malvinas situated some 250 miles from its coast and it has said it wants to engage Britain in talks about sovereignty. But imposition of a fisheries licensing regime many years ago will have helped the local economy and the attitude of the Islanders themselves has not changed. Indeed, in a 2013 referendum 99.8 per cent of its population voted to remain British.

As I understand it, Britain continues to maintain a military presence in the region – and I imagine the present government remains committed to respecting and protecting the interests of the Islanders, the overwhelming majority of whom clearly wish that the Falklands should continue to be a British Overseas Territory.