THERE are mixed views from Jamaicans about removing The Queen as head of State, as the country moves closer to celebrating its 60th anniversary of political Independence.

In recent months, the Government has hinted at plans to change Jamaica’s constitutional monarchy status. Removing The Queen as head of State would result in Jamaica becoming a republic. This is a form of government in which supreme power is held by the people and elected representatives of the country.

When the Jamaica Observer visited Half-Way-Tree, St Andrew, on Monday, those who spoke with the news team were seemingly influenced by the decision of our Caribbean neighbour Barbados, last November, to cut away from Britain, plus the three-day visit of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Prince William and his wife Kate to Jamaica last month.

Some shared that the move to ditch The Queen has been long overdue, while others said the country is not in a good economical position to stand on its own.

Kenneth Latty said since the country is independent, there is no use in being represented by The Queen.

“That shouldn’t be. If that’s the case then we shouldn’t have to get a visa to go to the United Kingdom. If we are ruled by The Queen and The Queen is responsible for us, we should be able to go to the United Kingdom free and there are things that they should be doing to help the country too, like help to build bridges and roads. It don’t make any sense. We are independent and yet The Queen has to sign documents for us to do things. That is not right,” he said.

Sabrina Simpson added, “I think it would be a good idea. I didn’t think Jamaica was still governed by The Queen. And if we weren’t it wouldn’t be any different because I already think that. I think it would be a good thing. We would be way better than we are right now and we wouldn’t have to answer to anybody.”

Noting that Jamaica should have its own way of management, Stephen Lewis said, “Just listening to what I know right now in terms of the heads of government thing and how things are setting, I do believe that we need to move away from that and to be of our own. It sounds to me that having this king and queen as heads of government seems a bit remote to me. I don’t think we would lose with removing The Queen as head of State, to be [an] independent country doing what we need to do, I think that is the way to go.”

But one woman, who gave her name as Natasha, said Jamaica should still receive support from The Queen.

“It would be better because wi nuh really have it right yah now, so wi fi take any help wi can get. Yes we independent but I don’t think we are ready to stand on our own right now. Not now. Wi just trying to recover from COVID-19 and all of that so we cyaan deal with that right now,” she said.

Another woman, Paulette, who also supported the removal of The Queen as head of State, added, “Wi cyaan manage pon wi own because nuff a the things wi need, we cyaan afford. Wi nuh have nuff money fi run wi country.”

Meanwhile, Mikaido Portuondo said he believes Jamaica should still be a British colony.

“Right now mi sorry wi even slightly independent. Yuh nuh see a back way the country a guh, wi gone to the dogs. Right now we shoulda be a colony of England because right now fi tell yuh the truth the money woulda stronger. Weh the sense we independent and it na make wi better in no way at all? I don’t see the sense,” said Portuondo.

Another dissenting voice, Peter Brown, went further to say that apart from becoming a republic, Jamaica should also look to sever ties with the Commonwealth.

“We should be a republic, it’s a long, long time and there is no benefits we are getting from being in the Commonwealth. I think it is common poor, not wealth. Now is the time that we should begin to charter an independent route and especially now with the war in Ukraine, it shows us that we need to take positions now that are not necessarily equal to what England is saying. Being a republic gives us a lot of independence,” said Brown.