The Tribune

By Malcolm Strachan

THOUGH it may not attract the attention of the men’s version of the game, the Women’s World Cup has been held over the past few weeks – with Spain beating England in the final yesterday.

One sideshow from that final was an online debate about whether or not Prince William should have attended the final.

The Queen of Spain, Queen Letizia, was present at the final in a crowd of 75,784 in Australia, but Prince William was nowhere to be seen. His absence was all the more marked because he is the president of the English Football Association and while the online shouters and complainers ranted about why he should have been there, the absence might in part be down to the strange way in which protocol tangles things up, even here at home in The Bahamas. Sometimes especially so here.

The new King, Charles III, has yet to be invited to Australia for a visit – which has a knock-on effect in protocol terms.

The suggestion is that the Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, who has said he is open to a visit by the King, actually prefers the idea of a republic, and is in no rush to invite the monarch.

The knock-on effect from that is that other members of the Royal Family cannot go on a state visit under protocol until the king has been first. It would, apparently, be inappropriate for them to do so as the king has to lead the way.

If that sounds like a nonsense way of doing things, well, note the words “state visit” in there. Prince William could still go as a representative of the FA, but it appears that while the royal could do that, he perhaps does not want to be seen to be overstepping his mark anyway. And so he sat, halfway around the world, while Spain performed in front of their Queen. He may well have wanted to be there, but the do’s and don’ts of protocol are not so easily navigated.

So how does this affect us? Well, we have our own little entanglement with protocol in recent times.

 “Mother” Pratt has been chosen to become the next governor general of our country, a post that is a legacy of our pre-independence times and a lingering attachment to that same monarchy.

All kinds of protocol surrounds that kind of announcement, too.

The departing governor general, Cornelius Smith, had to start off his tenure with a public apology for the premature announcement of his appointment when he broke the news to staff at a farewell lunch at the Passport Office in Grand Bahama.

At the time in 2019, he said: “I wish to assure the Bahamian people that this was a private discussion that was never intended to be made public.”

The public part of that came about when a video of his comments was made on a phone and shared on social media.

Then Opposition leader Philip “Brave” Davis said he was “shocked out of my socks” to see the statement, adding: “This is a violation in my view of all protocols. These announcements must come from the Queen and normally do not come until the Queen has agreed that the now governor general should demit office. This is another example of the loosening of standards under the FNM.”

For “Mother” Pratt’s announcement, it seems some were sailing close to the wind over those protocols, judging by The Tribune headline ahead of the announcement pronouncing that she was the favoured candidate to fill the role before Mr Smith’s departure was announced.

But then among many I talk to it has been an open secret seemingly that Pratt was destined for the role – the only question was when the change would be made.

The nonsense of the protocol here too is that we go through a pantomime of Mr Davis recommending that Pratt should be appointed, with the King then carrying out the appointment.

We have an elected leader of the nation, but we still cannot appoint directly the occupant of the role of governor general, which while being a largely ceremonial position, still is considered the highest office.

Why we allow ourselves to be tied up in all this red tape of procedure instead of cutting through it like a Gordian knot is beyond me. We live in legacies of years gone by that apply to centuries-old routines rather than the society of today.

And where we have changed things, we have replicated the routines of yesterday – such as with our own honours system, which runs in tandem with honours handed out by the monarch. They come complete with titles before the name so we have right honourable this and most honourable that and the rate some of these honours are being given out, sooner or later we’ll all have one.

Given how much time we have spent lauding our 50th anniversary of independence, it seems a bit surreal to now be turning to the inevitable pomp and ceremony that will go with the appointment of someone to a role that points a big arrow to our ongoing connection with those we say we are independent from.

You will note none of this is about Mother Pratt herself, this is about the procedure that surrounds the post.

And so it is only fair to say a note about the incoming governor general herself. I am sure she will be excellent in the role. She seems to be broadly loved – though I note an online Tribune poll only showed a slim margin of people in favour of her appointment. I hope that is dissatisfaction with the role rather than the person, as I suspect she is probably one of the best candidates to take up the post in our history. A former Deputy Prime Minister, even acting Prime Minister, and with the common touch that makes her a shining light in her community – she is the perfect choice.

I wish her well – and my frustrations lie not with her, but with this hidebound system we live in, where we cater to the whims of a structure we chose to break away from, yet still remain attached. And yet we shall bow and curtsey, and remain entangled in rules.