Did the Attorney-General change his advice to the government on the legality or otherwise of going to war against Iraq? (Probably not.) Why won’t the government publish his final revised opinion on which his parliamentary reply of 17 March 2003 was based? (Because it didn’t exist.) Why won’t they publish the earlier advice given 10 days earlier? (Because it could prejudice Britain’s case if the war’s legality is ever challenged in an international court.) Was the opinion in the parliamentary reply an accurate account of Lord Goldsmith’s own views? (Yes.) Was it a full account of his advice to the government? (No.) Was the omission of vital parts of that advice meant to mislead? (Yes.) Have we been here before? (Yes, indeed — twice!) Click here to read a likely explanation of what really happened, and why the government is being so coy about it.
Lord Goldsmith, Britain’s Attorney-General 
Brian
http://www.barder.com/brian
Sir Thomas Brimelow, [later Lord Brimelow] who succeeded [Sir Denis] Greenhill [as Permanent Under-Secretary of State (PUS) of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Head of the Diplomatic Service] in November 1973, was, unlike his immediate predecessor, an outstanding linguist. Raised in a Lancashire working class family, he spoke French, German, Spanish, Polish, Italian, Swedish and superb Russian. He was once asked in Moscow, ‘Mr Brimeloff, where did you learn to speak such good English?’ Self-effacing and well-mannered, the PUS possessed a formidable intellect that put those who worked with him on their mettle. During 1942-45, as head of the Consular Section in the British Embassy in Moscow, Brimelow had on more than one occasion a face-to-face meeting with the Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin. After the war in Europe had ended, he returned to the [Foreign] Office in the summer of 1945 to play a role in the implementation of repatriations to the Soviet Union already agreed by Britain. After spending a period in Ankara, where he learnt Turkish, he returned to London in 1956 to act as interpreter during the visit of Khrushchev and Bulganin, and became head of the Office’s Northern Department. Brimelow also served as Counsellor in Washington, Minister in Moscow, Ambassador to Poland and Deputy Under-Secretary during 1969-73. Once described as ‘the toughest-minded and most intransigent of all the Cold Warriors’, Harold Wilson valued Brimelow’s counsel when it came to pursuing a tough line with the Soviet Union. His tenure as PUS, however, was a brief affair, lasting barely two years. [Quoted from HISTORICAL PAPERS: HISTORY OF THE FCO]
Among many other things, Tom Brimelow will be long remembered for invariably reading the previous day’s ‘Pravda’ in his room in the Foreign Office whenever he was serving in London, and no doubt when serving overseas too. I was reminded of the memorable sayings of Tom Brimelow by something in a recent e-mail from a friend, a much more distinguished former British diplomat (more distinguished than me, not than Brimelow): ‘The late Tom Brimelow had a wise precept, originally coined in the context of dealing with the KGB: "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk"’.
Brian
http://www.barder.com/brian/
Understandably, perhaps, the Financial Times didn’t publish the following letter that I submitted to it earlier this month:
“Your defence correspondent attributed the French foreign minister’s greeting of the new US Secretary of State as "Cher Condi" (FT 19-20 February, p. 11) to the effectiveness of her charm offensive. If M. Barnier was correctly quoted, I would have thought it more an insult to her femininity, and clearly unwarranted at that.”
A suitable text for deconstruction by some university Department of Gender Studies?
Brian
http://www.barder.com/brian/
In the debate today (23 Feb 05) on the government’s Prevention of Terrorism Bill, described by several Labour back-bench MPs and others as the worst and most repressive piece of British legislation for 200 years, Bob Marshall-Andrews QC MP (Lab.), himself no slouch when it comes to interpreting obscure legal language, claimed that it was in effect impossible to discover the meaning of Clause 4 of the Bill which lays down the duration of validity of the ‘Control Orders’ to be made by the home secretary to deprive terrorist suspects of their liberty, completely or partially, without trial. Mr Marshall-Andrews, in a speech containing some magnificently eloquent invective against the Bill, argued that if Clause 4 was unintelligible in English, it would be even more utterly meaningless when translated into Arabic, Urdu or Gujerati. To enable you to match your legal skills against Marshall-Andrews’s, here’s the text of that clause in all its glory:
4. Duration of derogating control orders
(1) A derogating control order–
(a) has effect (subject to subsection (3)) for a period of 6 months beginningwith the day on which it is made;
(b) must specify when that period will end; and
(c) may not be renewed.
(2) Subsection (1)(c) does not prevent the Secretary of State, whenever a derogating control order ceases to have effect–
(a) from exercising any power of his to make a new control order to thesame or similar effect for a further 6 month period; or
(b) from relying, in whole or in part, on the same matters for the purpose of making that new order.
(3) A derogating control order has effect at a time only if–
(a) the relevant derogation remains in force at that time; and
(b) that time is not more than 12 months after–
(i) the making of the order under section 14(1) of the HumanRights Act 1998 (c. 42) designating that derogation; or
(ii) the making by the Secretary of State of an order declaring that itcontinues to be necessary for him to have power to imposederogating obligations by reference to that derogation.
(4) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order containing a declaration for the purposes of subsection (3)(b)(ii) is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(5) No order may be made by the Secretary of State containing such a declaration unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
(6) Subsection (5) does not apply to an order that contains a statement by the Secretary of State that the order needs, by reason of urgency, to be made without the approval required by that subsection.
(7) An order under this section that contains such a statement–
(a) must be laid before Parliament after being made; and
(b) if not approved by a resolution of each House before the end of 40 days beginning with the day on which the order was made, ceases to have effect at the end of that period.
(8) Where an order ceases to have effect in accordance with subsection (7), that does not–
(a) affect anything previously done in reliance on the order; or
(b) prevent the Secretary of State from exercising any power of his to make a new order for the purposes of subsection (3)(b)(ii) to the same or similar effect.
(9) In this section–
“40 days” means 40 days computed as provided for in section 7(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (c. 36);
“the relevant derogation”, in relation to a derogating control order, means the designated derogation by reference to which the derogating obligations imposed by that order were imposed.
[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs4/terrorism_bill.pdf]
Bob Marshall-Andrews QC MP
Perhaps it’s meant to deter terrorists, not to convey information about the duration of Control Orders.
Hardly anyone, from either the government or the opposition benches, had a good word to say about the Bill, and many denounced it in the most damning terms that I can remember being used about a piece of legislation submitted by any government for the approval of parliament. And, as reported on the BBC website, “in their first vote on the plans, MPs approved them by 309 votes to 233, despite opposition from the Tories, Lib Dems and 32 Labour rebels”, a government majority of 76. Mr Marshall-Andrews described the Commons chamber in its performance of its principal task of protecting the country against bad legislation and the abuse of power by the executive as ‘Lilliputian’.
Brian
http://www.barder.com/brian/
The government evidently plans to hustle its deplorable proposals for house arrest, without trial on the orders of a politician, through Parliament this week, relying on its docile majority in the House of Commons and (to get them through the Lords) on the fear of the Tories and Lib Dems that if they persist in their principled opposition, they will be labelled at the forthcoming general election as ‘soft on terrorism’. There is not much time to do what we can to stiffen the resolution of opponents of the proposals in both Houses of Parliament to what Bob Marshall-Andrews MP has rightly described as the greatest breach of our ancient liberties for more than two centuries.
If you agree, please feel free to draw on, or indeed just to forward as it stands, the message below which I have e-mailed to a group of MPs, one peer and one prospective Labour candidate, and urge determined opposition on your own MP, and on any MPs or peers whom you know. But you need to hurry if you’re going to have any effect!
Here’s what I have sent to the MPs, etc.:
>>This is from Brian Barder, a former member of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission who resigned early last year because of my objection to the extension of SIAC’s remit to include appeals against detention without trial, a system that I was denouncing as abhorrent long before the law lords finally condemned it. I have been campaigning against the home secretary’s even more objectionable house arrest proposals in articles in the Guardian, in letters to the Guardian, the Times and the Independent, and in numerous television and radio interviews. The texts of the main articles and letters are on my website, http://www.barder.com/brian/, if anyone wants additional arguments for the forthcoming debates in Parliament.
I am writing to urge you to continue to oppose Charles Clarke’s proposals in every way open to you, and to continue to insist on the principle that it can only be a proper court of law (not even a judge or team of judges, still less a politician) that should have the power to deprive men and women of their liberty. Mr Clarke’s "concession" of empowering a judge to review and if necessary quash a control order made by the home secretary is worthless: it does no more than import the SIAC system used under the present discredited law into the new proposed law, which is of far wider application and scope.
There seem to me to be two main shortcomings in the Clarke proposals:
1. There is a world of difference between (a) a proper trial in which a court of law decides whether there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of evidence on which to convict an accused person of an offence under the law, and if so to send him to prison for a defined period of time: and (b) the detention by a politician of a person whom he merely suspects and believes to be involved in terrorism, with a judge subsequently assessing whether the detention order was ‘reasonable’ – i.e., without being able to enquire into whether or not the detainee has committed any offence.
2. The home secretary claims (e.g. on this morning’s Today programme) that he is responsible for national security whereas the courts are not; and that accordingly he, not the courts, should decide who needs to be detained in the interests of national security. But this is plainly wrong. It flies in the face of the entire tradition, going back to Magna Carta, that the executive should not have the power to deprive anyone of his liberty without a trial and conviction in a court of law. If the Clarke doctrine were to be accepted, it would open the door to every kind of abuse. The home secretary is responsible for protecting the nation against murder and burglary: but even Mr Clarke would hardly claim that this justifies him in transferring from the courts to himself the power to decide who should be sent to prison for those offences.
There is an alternative to the Clarke proposals which should command virtually universal support, and which I tried to summarise in a letter published on 18 February in the Independent:
"The Conservatives and Lib Dems (and reportedly many Labour back-benchers) are right to reject Charles Clarke’s proposals for a new law replacing the present regime under which non-British nationals may be detained without trial by order of the Home Secretary.
“It now looks as if when Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy meet the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary on Friday to try to hammer out an agreed way forward following the Law Lords’ condemnation of the present law, Tony Blair may offer as a ‘concession’ the admissibility of intercept evidence (from phone tapping etc) in the criminal courts, in exchange for the Tories and Lib Dems dropping their opposition to the rest of Charles Clarke’s ‘house arrest’ proposals.
“Mr Howard and Mr Kennedy should reject any such deal. …[A]dmissibility of intercept evidence would make very little difference to the number of suspects who could be tried in court instead of detained by the Home Secretary. The much more difficult problem is evidence which, if disclosed to a suspect, could identify the informer who supplied it, endangering both the informer and the security services’ ability to recruit informers in future, a vital weapon against terrorism.
“If we are to return the power to deprive people of their liberty to the courts, where it belongs, and remove it from an already over-mighty executive, the least bad solution is to give a special criminal court the power, when absolutely necessary and subject to stringent safeguards including trial by jury and proof beyond reasonable doubt, to withhold certain kinds of evidence from the accused, hearing it in closed sessions where the accused’s interests are represented by a security-cleared special advocate (as happens now in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission).
“This breaches the important principle of the right of the accused to know all the evidence against him: but the only practical alternative is something like the Clarke proposals, which still breach the principle of full disclosure but in addition breach the even more important principle that no one should be deprived of his liberty, without trial, by order of a politician."
The Terrorism Act 2000 creates numerous offences, sweepingly defined, which are perfectly adequate to enable anyone suspected of involvement in terrorism to be charged and tried in a proper criminal court for what he or she has actually done, not for what a politician thinks he might do in future. And the question of the admissibility of intercept evidence, which seems to obsess so many commentators, is basically a red herring, as argued in my letter in the Independent (above). Please don’t allow yourself to be diverted down that blind alley!
Brian Barder, 22 February 2005<<
It’s a dark day when we have to rely on the unelected chamber of Parliament to defend our ancient rights and liberties. But the more opposition is voiced to these proposals in the House of Commons, the more the House of Lords may be emboldened to reject them.
PS: Since posting the above, I have listened attentively to the home secretary’s statement in Parliament this afternoon (22 February) introducing his proposed new legislation, and to his replies to many questions, mostly hostile, some passionately so. Alas, nothing newly revealed about the Clarke proposals affects in any way what I had already written above. Indeed, Charles Clarke has made a bad prospectus even worse by seeking to insist that whoever takes the decision to deprive a person of his liberty must be accountable for that decision to parliament (while in the next breath refusing to discuss ‘individual cases’ raised with him): so, he says, decisions are for him because he is accountable to parliament, not by a judge or a court which is not. As his Tory namesake and predecessor, Ken Clarke, acidly pointed out, it is precisely because the judges and courts are wholly independent, and not accountable to any outside body, that it is they and only they who can be trusted to make impartial decisions in matters of an individual’s freedom or incarceration. He might have added, but refrained from doing so, that such decisions, if made by a politician, are likely to be distorted and corrupted, not only by considerations of party political advantage but also by fear of what the wildest of the tabloids will say about them: another potent reason for ensuring that they should be kept well away from the politicians. It’s hard to believe that a man as intelligent and well educated as Charles Clarke finds it difficult to grasp such elementary constitutional principles. It was galling for a life-long Labour supporter to hear a Labour minister aggressively defending the most authoritarian and totalitarian measures to have been proposed in peacetime by any government in living memory, while silently applauding a magnificent and well-documented demolition job performed in reply by David Davis on behalf of the Tory opposition.
Brian
http://www.barder.com/brian/
There are some highly readable and worthwhile entries, as of course you would expect from this chip off a pretty old block, on Owen Barder’s Blog (yes, we are by some chance related). Browse through the list of recent entries, but in particular have a look at these, including some of the appended comments:
Ken Livingstone is not anti-Semitic
Reporting from Iraq
(including a link in a comment to
http://www.stephengrey.com/personal/iraq2004.htm )
Globalisation and the power of business
If there’s just a whiff of mutual admiration society about some of the entries here and in Owen’s blog, so much the better!
PS: Matt has added the following comment, repeated here so that you can click on the hyperlink:
"Anonymous said… This is a wonderful spoof election video…if you haven’t seen it already
enjoy 
http://www.backingblair.co.uk/vote_blair/index.htm
Matt<<
Brian
http://www.barder.com/brian/
The Independent, Letters, 18 February 2005
Special courts are the answer to ‘house arrest’ dilemma
Sir: The Conservatives and Lib Dems (and reportedly many Labour back-benchers) are right to reject Charles Clarke’s proposals for a new law replacing the present regime under which non-British nationals may be detained without trial by order of the Home Secretary.
It now looks as if when Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy meet the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary on Friday to try to hammer out an agreed way forward following the Law Lords’ condemnation of the present law, Tony Blair may offer as a "concession" the admissibility of intercept evidence (from phone tapping etc) in the criminal courts, in exchange for the Tories and Lib Dems dropping their opposition to the rest of Charles Clarke’s "house arrest" proposals.
Mr Howard and Mr Kennedy should reject any such deal. Quite apart from the difficulties raised by David Raynes (letter, 14 February), admissibility of intercept evidence would make very little difference to the number of suspects who could be tried in court instead of detained by the Home Secretary. The much more difficult problem is evidence which, if disclosed to a suspect, could identify the informer who supplied it, endangering both the informer and the security services’ ability to recruit informers in future, a vital weapon against terrorism.
If we are to return the power to deprive people of their liberty to the courts, where it belongs, and remove it from an already over-mighty executive, the least bad solution is to give a special criminal court the power, when absolutely necessary and subject to stringent safeguards including trial by jury and proof beyond reasonable doubt, to withhold certain kinds of evidence from the accused, hearing it in closed sessions where the accused’s interests are represented by a security-cleared special advocate (as happens now in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission).
This breaches the important principle of the right of the accused to know all the evidence against him: but the only practical alternative is something like the Clarke proposals, which still breach the principle of full disclosure but in addition breach the even more important principle that no one should be deprived of his liberty, without trial, by order of a politician.
Sir BRIAN BARDER
London SW18
_______________________________
"We fight on: we fight to win" — © M Thatcher (just before giving up)
Brian
http://www.barder.com/brian/
The future titles and status of Camilla, Princess of Wales-to-be (not) and Queen-to-be-later (even more not), are an inexhaustible source of enjoyable discussion. A friend recently wrote to me in an e-mail that he couldn’t recall the husband of any reigning female monarch ever being called King, so there was nothing unusual in denying that title to Queen Victoria’s eminently worthy husband Albert. Prompted by this observation, my historical adviser jotted down some thoughts in a little paper (which you can read, if interested, here), including the reminder that two husbands who did manage to acquire monarchical titles through their marriages to reigning queens were William of William-and-Mary, and Philip of Spain, or so I’m reliably informed.
The precedents for the current carryings-on of HRH and his betrothed are not of course exact, since in the past it’s generally been the reigning monarch or heir to the throne trying (by and large without success) to secure a corresponding title for the spouse, whereas in this case he’s trying to deny her one.
My e-interlocutor also wrote:
… it has been a settled convention for more than a millennium that the wife of a reigning male monarch is known as Queen…. I’m surprised that more attention has not been paid to the point raised by one or two commentators – namely, the exact wording of the Clarence House statement, which said it was "intended" that Camilla should be titled Princess Consort. "Intended" strikes me and quite a few others as carrying several degrees less of certainty than "will". The speculation seems to be that Charles insisted on this choice of words because he still hopes that he will be able to get Camilla accepted as Queen in the end. Is this totally impossible?
I’m happy to find that in his (as usual) splendid column in last Sunday’s Indie-on-Sundie (readable online by subscription only), Alan Watkins made in much more scholarly fashion the same point that I have been mulling over since the terms of the royal engagement were announced: namely, that whatever Prince Charles might say, with or without the present prime minister’s approval, and whatever titles his bride-to-be might care to use before and after Charles becomes King, Camilla will become Princess of Wales upon her marriage to the Prince of Wales, and she will become Queen upon her husband becoming King — unless an Act of Parliament decides otherwise. And, as Watkins remarks, the prospect of debates on the future and character of the monarchy, inside and outside Parliament, while such a Bill was going through all its stages in both houses, would perhaps be viewed by both the royal family and Mr Blair with distinctly modified rapture. The Bill would also require the assent of all the other realms whose heads of state we share, and – as I have remarked in an earlier entry on this blog — there are 15 of these, some very large like Australia and Canada, some pretty small like Grenada and St Vincent: any one of these could well decide to stir the pot a little by raising objections to this or that provision of the Bill on these grounds or those. (His Excellency the High Commissioner for the Bahamas in London has already put down a quietly ticking marker.)
Whether by the time Charles succeeds to the throne the public will accept the idea of Camilla as Queen (the point about which my e-friend properly speculates), is of course another matter. Accepted or not, absent an Act of Parliament to the contrary, Queen Camilla she will be. Titter ye not: it’s treason.
Brian
http://www.barder.com/brian/
So he is going to make an honest woman of her, after all. I have been proved wrong in my suspicion that the whole question of Charles and Camilla – will they or won’t they? – had been put in the Too Difficult tray, despite the danger that if it stayed there until Charles inherited the throne, any solution would become exponentially more embarrassing.
We’re cosily reassured by all concerned – Clarence House, Downing Street, the Archbishop of Canterbury (ruminating spiritually into that magnificent Old Testament beard) – that the decision raises absolutely no constitutional or political problems. Abracadabra! Potential difficulties over the supposed hostility of the sweaty mob, led by the yellow press, to the idea of Camilla becoming Queen when Charles becomes King, supplanting the beloved ghost of Diana in that role, are magically swept away by the announcement that there won’t be a Queen Camilla, just a Princess Consort, echoing with appropriate gender adjustment the dear departed Albert of Hall and Memorial fame. Similarly, because there can only be one Princess of Wales (now resident in the people’s Hearts), the soon-to-be wife of the Prince of Wales, although she will inescapably be the Princess of Wales, will unconvincingly disguise herself as HRH the Duchess of Cornwall. No need for the beloved ghost to worry.
And yet… Can these matters really be adjusted that casually by the prime minister’s bland announcement? Royal marriages and the royal succession have a huge historical resonance. It was a decision of the whole Cabinet and other opposition to his intended marriage to an American divorcée that forced the King to abdicate in 1936: “Concern about Edward’s private life grew in the Cabinet, opposition parties and the Dominions, when Mrs Simpson obtained a divorce in 1936 and it was clear that Edward was determined to marry her”, as one history of the event puts it. And there’s no need to be reminded of the turbulent married life of Henry VIII, who created the Church of England to facilitate it. Of course there’s little risk of a succession issue arising now, Camilla being past child-bearing age (although it would be interesting to speculate about the question of the succession if King Charles and Unqueen Camilla were to adopt a son and William and Harry then went under a bus). But can the long established convention that the wife of a reigning King is entitled to be, indeed automatically is, the Queen, be quite so easily dismissed by a statement from Downing Street? Is no legislation required for this? (At least one television commentator asserts that the legal advice within No. 10 believes it is: has the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown been obtained, and if so what is it?) Can Tony Blair deliver the nation’s approval of what’s proposed off his own bat without even consulting the cabinet, still less Parliament?
HRH Him and HRH-designate Her
[He is the one on the left]
Even more controversial is the apparent failure to consult any of the governments of the other 15 independent countries[1] of which the Queen is head of state and the Prince of Wales heir to the throne. The Murdoch Australian newspaper The Australian had this from its Europe correspondent:
‘Charles’s spokesmen were quick to claim that no legislation would be required in the UK, Australia and other Commonwealth countries to ensure Camilla did not become queen but several legal experts disagreed and by late yesterday royal aides conceded that such legislation may indeed be required.
‘The threat that Commonwealth members may once again take a hard line, as they did with Edward VIII in 1936, cannot be discounted.
‘Basil O’Brien, high commissioner in London for the Bahamas, yesterday warned the BBC there could be trouble ahead. "At this stage it is a completely private matter between the prince and Mrs Parker Bowles," he said. "When and if he ascends the throne there is a different dimension and at that stage Commonwealth countries will have to assess their formal positions. I have some personal issues with them remarrying." ‘
The Toronto Globe and Mail (Canada) was more outspoken (doncha love that “regrettably”?):
‘Regrettably, the Justice Department decided yesterday that the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada does not need to approve the marriage of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, thus depriving the nation of Conrad Black and Ed Broadbent debating the nuptial proprieties of the country’s future sovereign.
‘Ticket sales to the event might have erased the national debt.
‘Lord Black of Crossharbour, the beleaguered capitalist who gave up his Canadian citizenship for the title he loves, and Mr. Broadbent, former federal leader of the New Democratic Party, who is not known as a monarchist, are both members of the Privy Council, which constitutionally advises the Governor-General on government matters.
‘It met to approve the marriages of then-princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip in 1947, and Prince Charles and Diana in 1981. That was because their children would be in line to become Canada’s head of state.
‘In this case, a Justice spokesman said, Ms. Parker Bowles will not ascend the throne and there will be no impact on the line of succession, a blunt but diplomatic judgment call that, at 57, she is not going to have children.
‘Thus no need for the Privy Council to meet. The Prime Minister issued a statement wishing the couple happiness. The Governor-General, the Queen’s representative, said nothing.’
So far few media commentators seem to have picked up the points about the possible need for legislation to ensure that Camilla doesn’t become Queen automatically when Charles becomes King, and whether the governments of the Queen’s other 15 Realms were consulted beforehand, whether they were asked for their consent, and if so whether they gave it. One commentator who did ask these questions was the irrepressible Simon Jenkins in The Times, although his answers to them were so idiosyncratic as to be hard to interpret.
One last intriguing thought. What role will be devised for Camilla at Good King Charles’s Coronation? Fortunately, perhaps, that assigned to the then young Prince Philip at the present Queen’s coronation may provide a precedent, since the husband of a reigning Queen doesn’t automatically become King (an inconvenient bit of sexism if ever there was one, and a possible problem if ever there’s a serious attempt to eliminate sexual discrimination from the royal marriages and succession laws).
Footnote: Youth accosted by television reporter last night in busy market square for his opinion on the romantic royal news: “I don’t give a monkey’s.” Probably a more representative view than the media, with their royal rat-pack in full cry, dare to believe.
Brian
http://www.barder.com/brian
[1] Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, The Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, the United Kingdom. Yes, he’s Heir to the Throne of the lot.
