THE EDITOR: Britain's King Charles’s visit to Australia received a little shake-up by an Australian senator after the king’s address to that country’s parliament.

Charles was shielded from a face-to-face confrontation with Senator Lidia Thorpe but she still openly reminded him of Australia's Indigenous people’s long rejection of the Britain’s continued grip on her country and its alleged insensitive handling of Australia’s native people.

Not knowing much of Australia’s history, I was surprised to learn that a country as large as that, with a population of over 27 million people, after ending its constitutional ties with the United Kingdom in 1986 still remains a constitutional monarchy in which the British monarch perseveres as the head of state.

A constitutional monarchy, also known as limited monarchy, parliamentary monarchy or democratic monarchy, is a form of government in which the monarch exercises his or her authority in accordance with a constitution and is not alone in making decisions.

TT gained independence in 1962 and became a republic on August 1, 1976, having a head of state in its own right. As such, we should no longer be required to owe allegiance to the British monarchy.

So why does the British still makes so many crucial decisions for us? Or rather, why do we keep running back for final legal decisions in so many pivotal matters that undoubtedly are affecting the peace and tranquillity of our country when obvious inappropriate decisions are made? Are we truly independent or are we constrained under an obscure constitutional monarchy?

Does the British possess some degree of exceptional wisdom that we, Third World people, including our respected leaders, can never ever possibly acquire, not in a million years? Aren’t our politicians confirming this folly by the mere fact that they keep running back for crucial decisions even with all the details of a matter before them?

Are they (the British) totally unaware of our continuous spiralling crime rate over the last decades, hence their evident sympathetic decisions on heinous matters that we refer to them? Or do they make these gentle decisions based on their own domestic crime situation?

Exactly who among us are contented with our dependence on the British for final decisions, more so in heinous matters?

When our government declared that Columbus’s three ships on our coat of arms would be changed, like many other citizens I did not verbally express any objections. Truth be told, initially I did feel a tad of thrashing as this was the history that I was embedded with through all the years at my only alma mater, Charlieville Presbyterian School.

However, taking into consideration that knowledge is continually increasing therefore one never stops learning, and while not totally rejecting Columbus’s "discovery" of our beautiful island, there are times when I now tend to view the Santa Maria, Nina and Pinta as the seeds of slavery and indentureship.

Living on a small island like Trinidad, I would, or should, always be thankful to ce