Calling all Caymanians who’d like tea with the queen

| 28/01/2011

(CNS): Citizens or nationals of the Cayman Islands who are planning to be in the United Kingdom Wednesday 29 June, Tuesday 12 July or Tuesday 19 July and would like to include one of Queen Elizabeth’s royal garden parties at Buckingham Palace on their schedule are invited to submit applications to attend. British citizens living outside the UK are also eligible, according to a release from GIS. Applications should be addressed to the Deputy Governor’s Office, at the Government Administration Building. The deadline for submission is Thursday, 17 February. Invitations are not extended to diplomatic service staff on leave or to anyone who has previously attended one of Her Majesty’s garden parties.

It should also be noted that applying will not automatically result in an invitation. Successful applicants may be accompanied by a spouse and up to two unmarried children between the ages of 18 and 25. Single guests may take a companion who must be at least 18 years old.

To apply, the following information must be submitted in writing: the applicant’s full name, title and decorations, occupation, marital status, name of accompanying spouse or companion, names and ages of accompanying children, a reliable UK contact address (not a bank or hotel) and a preferred attendance date, as well as any date which will not be acceptable.

Completed applications may be hand delivered, emailed or faxed to Tristaca Ebanks in the Deputy Governor’s Office, no later than Thursday, 17 February. Her email, phone and fax contacts are, 244-2286 or 244-2432, and 949-0877. Successful candidates who are compelled to change travel plans, or are unable to accept an invitation, must immediately inform the Deputy Governor’s Office.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Local News

About the Author ()

Comments (68)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Shock and Awe says:

    Some poster pointed out that there are a lot of comments about something as obscure as tea with her majesty but many of the comments are actually addressing whether the monarchy is relevant to them.  And.. these have been countered with comments from those who support the monarchy.  This same thread then went in a different direction, offering comments on the territories, etc. And those in support of the monarchy feel strongly that without a connection to the U.K. many existing territories, Cayman being one of them, would find it difficult to survive.  Others see no benefits.

    My original post was meant to bring to the attention of those who don’t know what took place in the Chagos Islands and in particular Diego Gracia.  It was a long time ago some forty years and circumstances were different than what we see today. Whether there was a need for a U.S. military base or not is beside the point. The way in which the process took place albeit a long time ago is still relevant today.  As it reflects on the attitude towards overseas territories and the rights of it’s citizens. Did someone say you can’t have your cake and eat it too?  The same applies to this attitude.  By declaring an area to be an overseas territory along with that goes bestowing citizenship on it’s residents and along with citizenship go rights.  When the people were removed from the Chagos Islands, they were merely informed they had lost their homes and villages.  And their way of life.

    They had absolutely no input into this decision.  So much for rights. Compensation consisted of 3,000 pounds per individual.  At the point when this took place they were poverty stricken, and had lost their means of survival.  The communities on Diego Garcia had been self-sufficient, never asking for, nor receiving aid from Great Britain since becoming "a colony" of the recently enacted British Indian Ocean Territory.  Imagine the confusion of an indigenous community when told they were not only a part of Mauritius, but had now become a part of the newly formed territory. For them, perhaps it implied what some have stated here, that they were now under the protection of Great Britain. What they needed "protecting from" is another topic and is also relevant. They certainly were not protected from the expropriation of their land by the U.S.  So much for protection.

    Minus rights, and minus protection, what exactly took place?  What good did it do?  To be an overseas territory?  And, more relevant. who benefited at all from this status as a territory?  To some degree the Falkland Islands may have benefited.  But as someone pointed out, they were white.  I’m trying say that Great Britain has taken liberties with which one of their territories deserves the protection of citizenship. And which are disposable.  Depending on it’s best interests.  Therefore the supposed advantages can change overnight.

    Now this whole sordid episode is being hidden behind terming the Chagos Islands A Marine Protection Area.  Very nice as if it was all for the greater good of mankind when in fact it was a violation of human rights

    Those people were U.K. citizens.  And still are.   Whether they chose to be or not, the U.K. insisted on that at the time.  But…this is the most relevant…. their rights and protections were also bestowed and at the whim of the U.K. and in conjunction Her Majesty. This is the same reality for all so called "territories".

    As loyal citizens who gave up their heritage. their homes, their land.  And their futures. For as someone said.. the best interests of the U.K. 

    My question is….why weren’t they invited for tea?



    • whodatis says:

      And let the church say A-men.

      Solid post.

      However, as I have said many times before … many of our fellow "British citizens" simply do not give a hoot about the lives and or plight of people such as the Chagossians.

      Why that is so is as much your guess as is mine. But this is clearly the case.

      All I know is that from the age of adult understanding (personally 13 – 14 years of age) I realized that it was best to keep my affiliation and "respect" of the "Monarch" at a strong arm’s length.

      For who knew – perhaps I would / will be the next irrelevant and disposable "Tarzan / Man Friday" – (a phrased coined by a celebrated OBE by the way!).

      It is what is – bring on the thumbs.

      Truth is truth.

  2. Blousenskirt says:

    Extraordinary! Just look at the vitriolic nonsense (attaboy whodatis, proud of you) and other stuff that this non item (the Queen asking us to tea for chrissakes) caused.

    • Hot Lunch says:

      You are right, and if anyone knows anything about a good tea bag, it is surely Her Majesty

  3. The Crown says:

    Personally i think Her Majesty is quite adorable,considering seeing her in a different way than what has been the projected tailoring,for what seem’s like eternity. Surely no one can dispute the intricate objective thinking of the British,but what good is that thinking if only a few & not the world to benefit from it? Obviously certain things would shape such an opinion,however god does work in mysterious ways & the winners are always those who retain their humility. I think Her Majesty should reside more often in Cayman,she certainly needs a bit more sun & have all the luxuries as if she was in the Uk.

  4. Just Commentin' says:

    I prefer whole-leaf green tea with turbinado sugar, and light pecan biscottito go with it. If Her Majesty can do that, I might consider showing up at her little do.

    But wait! I need "a reliable UK contact address" to qualify for an invitation??! What the heck is Her Majesty thinking anyway? How the hell would a Caymanian have a reliable UK address? We barely have a reliable Caymanian addresses for chrissake! This kinda precludes the unwashed masses from showing up in their wampahs, doesn’t it? Was that the idea? I bet plenty of resident Brits with status a vacay condo on SMB and who also still maintain their estate in Excestershirehamwickfordfieldworthmorelandboroughingtonbridge will apply to hob-nob with HM. The average Caymanian is out of luck though.

    I know that the Queen is a bit strapped these days what with having to cut back due to recent austerity measures imposed on the budget that supports the monarchy and all. But I would have thought that Her Majesty could still afford postage to the Cayman Islands. Guess not, huh? Gee, things must be worse than I though in Merry Olde England.

    I guess this means I have to buy a flat or have a mistress in the UK to qualify to attend? Drats! Bad timing!

    The real estate market in the UK is quite off these days so I will not be buying a flat there. And as for the mistress, bad timing again. Double drats!

    Although I know this will be of great disappointment, please gently convey to Her Majesty that as I just recently dismissed my Welsh mistress and thus no longer have a reliable address in the UK, I will not be attending.

    The Queen is probably is not planning on serving pecan biscotti anyway, so no great loss.

  5. Pete Mitchell says:

    Ah yes… I saw this headline and just couldn’t resist looking at the poorly constructed, bad grammar, and vitriolic comments from the internet empowered all knowing locals.

    Remember this, if it wasn’t for Liz, your teensy little sand bar wouldn’t enjoy the protection of Her Majesty’s Royal Navy, or the cache of being under the protection of the U.K.

    And then what would happen? Who would stop Joe Invader coming in and stealing your coconuts and sisters then?

    Once again, know your place.

    • Just Sayin' says:

      The abolition of the Monarchy could easily save the British Public in excess of 50 Million Pounds per year. Or we could keep them and raise University tuition fees instead.

      • Anonymous says:

        And lose about 10 times that figure in tourism in a year, especially with the Royal Wedding approaching

        • Anonymous says:

          Are there still Pharaohs in Egypt and do the Egyptians make money off them? The legacy (for lack of a better word) is worth far more in tourism dough than the pomp and circumstance.

          • Anonymous says:

            I love this comment.

          • Anonymous says:

            Yep seeing a 2000 year old picture of wedding is better than witnessing it first hand

            And really the royal family is comparable to the only remaining wonder of the ancient world, ha ha ha.

    • anonymous says:

      Ah yes, but you M’dear, are unable to print an accent acute …very common indeed…. 

      • Anonymous says:

         It’s actually cachet.  Caché means hidden.

        • I wanna be Dick Shaughary says:

          Yeah, and “cache” without the accent means a store of things that may or will be required in the future, usually protected but not necessarily hidden.

          I agree though: you can surround them with the Royal Navy but you can’t make them speak the Queen’s English. Oy!!!

          That said, I’m currently feeling quite opposed to antidisestablishmentarianism… but that’s an unrelated topic.

    • whodatis says:

      Dearest Pete,

      Consider the following;

      I am a Black, English speaking man born in the Caribbean in the 20th Century.

      (Do you understand the historical events that led up to my existence?)

      What’s that about "Joe Invader" again?!

      Honestly, some of us really ought to remove our heads from our colons and put them in an (honest) history textbook – good luck finding one though.

      P.S. The irony in all of this is that so many mainland Brits are today clambering all over themselves in their desperate attempts to safeguard their opportunity to get to / remain in my tiny island nation.

      That must sting.


      • O'Really says:

        The 2001 census in the UK indicated that there were 369 Caymanians living in the UK at that time, out of a population of roughly 59m. The population statistics for the Cayman Islands indicate there were just over 22,200 Caymanians in 2001 ( which includes status holders as far as I am aware).

        369 individuals represent 1.66% of the Caymanian population. If 1.66% of Brits lived here, based on 59m total population, there would have been just over 980,000 of us. I seem to recall the number was a little lower than that.

        Apparently Caymanians love living in the UK a whole lot more than we love living here. What was that about heads and colons?

        I’ll watch the 2011 census with interest. The British Overseas Territories Act 2002 made living in the UK easier for Caymanians, so I would not be at all surprised if the numbers were higher.



        • Just Commentin' says:

          By the "we" may us cuzzes assume you are a Brit?

          Why must we be subject to a Madoff-style numerical analysis? Magic numbers like that only work when you need to skim off a few billion from unsuspecting investors. Here your funny figuring is bound to be outed before the web page loads fully.

          Clever ploy to use percentages. But you did not paint the full picture. Did you? Net numbers of actual people is another way of looking at it.

          Here are how the numbers of heads stack up:

          According to your figures, 369 Caymanians love living in the UK. You said they love to live there, I didn’t.  Until I came across your comment I did not realise that the census in the UK was so comprehensive that it includes statistics on how enamored a person is with the country. But if you say so, we will go with that. By the way, does the UK census include any stats on how nauseating a person finds the country? Just wondering. Be interesting to find out.

          Any way…  According to the previous (1999) Cayman Islands census  – subtracting UK citizens with Caymanian connections – there were around 2,000 UK persons living in the Cayman Islands. Whether they "love" living here or just kinda like being in a place with a nice climate, year-round warm sunshine and cold beer, in which the living is good and their chance to make a decent buck (quid or whatever) is better than in the UK seems not to a part of the statistics I saw. Darn! (Where did you find those stats on love anyway?)

          So Bernie, does these numbers mean that Brits love living in the Caymans over 500% (over five times) more than Caymanians love living in the UK? I mean you are the statistical guru on these things, you tell me.

          (I feel as if I should interject something about heads and colons here but I am not sure of the protocol.)

          The bottom line is, there is not enough pudding in Yorkshire to make me want to live in the UK. I would have visited there (maybe) this year, but due to repast conflicts and address difficulties because of an estranged mistress, I am not attending Her Majesty’s little tea do. (You may find the wherefore’s thereto in another of my comments on this page.)

          Sure, some may love donning their mufflers, hoisting their brollies or trudging through slush much of year. More power to ’em. As for me: Please pass the Coppertone and another Greenie, would you old chap?

          Ahhhh! I love living here! (Can we put that as an addendum to my census answers?)

          • O'Really says:

            I am a Brit.

            May I take it from your ability to fill most of my screen without actually saying anything and your inability to grasp even basic mathematical concepts that you are a moron?

      • Anonymous says:

        Your little 2×4 "Island Nation" is owned by someone else. There really is no getting past that fact.

    • Just Commentin' says:

      I saw your comment and had no choice but to read the poorly constructed thoughts offered. IMHO, vitriolic but fact-based comments are preferable  to moronic ones any day.

      On the subject of the monarchy, adults playing "dress-up" is pitifully archaic. "Liz", as you call her, could disappear from her throne this afternoon and we would still enjoy all the protections that come with being a British Overseas Territory (i.e. a British colony).

      I trust you now know your place and have retreated there. Now please stay under your rock and do not come out until called. OK?

    • Worried says:

      Would the Royal Navy mind stopping the major influx of guns??  And if they’re not too busy, cocaine??   And if they’re not too afraid U.S. military occupation??  In Grenada….for instance.  After tea of course.

  6. whodatis says:

    Textbook response there Pit Bull.

    My personal favorites:

    "What happened in 1970 was morally questionable compared to current standards." (Exactly when will the proverbial moral compass of British atrocities become stationery? Remember, Britain is currently major partners and enforcers in 2 ongoing illegal invasions / wars.)

    "The islands are uninhabitable for a non-scientific population without a likely investmentof $100m or so."

    "Courts have reviewed the process.  The matter is history.  Compensation was paid.  The issue is closed.  May the islands remain a marine reserve for the benefit of mankind."

    And most of all … "Enjoy the unemployment and gun violence that comes as part of the independence package." (LOL! Sounds a lot like mainland Britain my friend.)

    I am always perplexed by the intellectual cruelty and callousness of certain nationalities.

    The scary thing is that you most likely actually believe the bull$**t that you have just spewed all over our screens.

    Quite sad.

    • O'Really says:

      "The scary thing is that you most likely actually believe the bull$**t that you have just spewed all over our screens."

      Coming from you this is rich indeed! Thanks for the laugh.

  7. Anonymous says:

    For a moment there I thought I thought about changing my plans for that day but after giving it some thought, I think I’ll stick with my scheduled enema. It will be much less painful.

    • Just Commentin' says:

      Talk about pain: I just finished my regular after-reading-comments hair pulling session.

  8. Anonymous says:

    So they want a reliable contact address in the UK, but it can’t be a hotel. Where thedickens else would I stay if not at a hotel. I’ll be a tourist in London at that time and that;s where most people stay when they travel. Guess I automatically don’t qualify since I don’t have any where else to stay but a hotel during my visit there during the T-Party. What a bunch of bull.

    • Apply yourself a little bit harder says:

       I am sure there is someone in Cayman with family in England that will let you use their address.  Not being able to use a hotel is for security reasons.  It is just a good rule, don’t give up.  (no cell phones or cameras allowed inside the garden as well)  you can use your camera in the area with the changing of the guard *inside the gates and the tourists will be taking photos of YOU.

      A Londoner living in Cayman

    • are you worthy to attend? says:

       You mean "tea" right??  You must be 18 to attend…are you?  Another shining example of our school system!

  9. Anonymous says:

    Regualar or decaf maybe I will have a cigar with that tea also

  10. Loyal Subjeckt says:

    June 29??  Aww too bad. 

    That’s theday I walk the dog. 

    Could she re-schedule?

  11. Anonymous says:

    How blessed and privileged Caymanians are!  Don’t take this for granted!

  12. Frank says:

    I heard Beenie Man and Bounty Killa are going to be there.

    • Bareback Boy says:

      Beenie and Bounty? Why not Barefoot and Barrie? The people of the Cayman Islands demand to know why their talented local musicians are once again being overlooked!

  13. Shock and Awe says:

    Absolutely!  Over tea…..I would also like to ask Her Majesty why she signed the Order In Council presented by Tony Blair forbidding the Chagos Islanders from ever returning home contrary to the ruling of High Court and the UN Human Rights Commission.  They are U.K. citizens who remain living in abject poverty and committing suicide in Mauritius.

    Stealing A Nation- John Pilger.

    "I’m dreadfully sorry, I don’t remember that."

    Well there’s a lot of things you "don’t remember" isn’t there?  Your Majesty?

    Oops I’ve spilled my tea all over your hat.  Dreadfully sorry.

    • Pit Bull says:

      The Order in Council, which remains in force, merely shored up the position after elements were questions in legal challenge.  The present status of that part of British territory is perfectly legal. 

      • Shock and Awe says:

        Pit Bull:  These are all nuances you speak of.  If you watch the film (Stealing A Nation) you will find the Chagos Islands were once a part of and governed by Mauritius.  When Mauritius obtained it’s independence the U.K., already in negotiations with the U.S. for a military base on Diego Garcia, stipulated that the Chagos Islands not be included within their territory.  The British Indian Ocean Territory, B.I.O.T. was then formed which included Diego Garcia, although it was a fabrication formed solely to differentiate the Chagos Islands and it’s people.  Knowingly full well the islands had been inhabited since the eighteen hundreds the U.K. government then lied to the world that there were no permanent residents. They cut off all shipments of staples, killed all the dogs, and then told the people that their island had been sold.  When in fact it had been leased to the U.S. as a military base.  The people were loaded on a ship and taken to Mauritius and dropped off at the harbor.  The housing provided for them was an abandoned development.  No doors, no windows, no electricity, no water, and no sanitation. 

        As to the status of this territory upon colonization these people had become British Citizens with the supposed rights of citizenship.  And it has become clear given the deceit involved the colonization of their lands (and others) by the U.K. did not and has had nothing to do with protection, democracy, or any other benevolent concept.  It is merely imperialism and, when needed, exploitation of a people, land, and resources without any apparent benefit to the country being colonized.  It is a shameful episode in British history and one which many would rather ignore or forget. 

        But it does serve as a warning to others Mother Britain can be deceitful, mean, and arrogant.

        Ps. Orders in Council have been a convenient way to circumvent Parliament and the democratic process.  And have been used far too often for that purpose.  Please watch the film.

        • Pit Bull says:

          The criticisms in your original post relate to the recent conduct of the UK rather than the historic steps taken at the height of the cold war.  However because it suits you better, you drag up historic matters.

          What happened in 1970 was morally questionable compared to current standards.  But in the geo-political context it may have a decision for the greater good in establishing air support in the region at the time.

          The modern issue is clearer.  The islands are uninhabitable for a non-scientific population without a likely investment of $100m or so.  Whatever the issues of the past, the UK is entitled to take the view that repatriation is not in the in interests of the UK.  Given the tactics of the political agitators of the descendants of those that lived in the Chagos islands for a few generations, the UK had determined greater good of the UK requires that there are no visits to the islands given that the requests for visits are intended to be a pre-cursor to a re-occupation.

          The recent Orders In Council were reviewed by the UK Courts and found to be valid.  Orders In Council are subject to judicial review and the provisions of the human rights act.

          Courts have reviewed the process.  The matter is history.  Compensation was paid.  The issue is closed.  May the islands remain a marine reserve for the benefit of mankind.

          If the UK was ever of the view that activities in Cayman were not in the interests of the UK it would be entitled to take steps, via Orders In Council or direct action to protect those interests.  That is because it is British territory and the needs of the nation must come before the needs of the region. 

          If you don’t like the prospect of that there is always the choice of independence. Enjoy the unemployment and gun violence that comes as part of the independence package.


          • Shock and Awe says:

            I have to respond to this. I need to respond to this:

            "If the UK was ever of the view that activities in Cayman were not in the interests of the UK it would be entitled to take steps, via Orders In Council or direct action to protect those interests.  That is because it is British territory and the needs of the nation must come before the needs of the region."

            What possible right does any country.. such as the U.K.  ..have to impose itself through force or coercion on peoples and countries living half way across the planet?  It is also morally reprehensible to assume that the needs of U.K. will then take precedence over the needs of locals.  That is an abomination.  All types of occupation and oppression begin this way either under the pretext of "bringing democracy", or the worse fabrication…."protecting the population".  Against what??  Other nations with imperialist ideologies who wish to take over the country as well? There have only ever been two valid historical reasons for the creation of "territories" be it the U.S., Spain, the Dutch, or the U.K.:  exploitation of resources and or military advantage.  The people themselves, their interests, their way of life, and their cultures have never been a consideration.  Countries have been traded like playing cards and been decimated throughout the world and especially in the Caribbean while this geo-political game has been played. You will notice a profound shift has been taking place as more people decide that their allegiance is to themselves. Rome found out a long time ago, in Britain of all places it just does not work.  The British people gained their independence from Roman Imperialism through struggle.  Why is now so hard to understand or accomodate that same desire in others?  Why the difference?  The lesson was not learned that people want the freedom to decide for themselves what’s best for them.  It can not come from a faraway place no matter how hard it tries to be justified Pit Bull.

            Make no mistake

            Diego Garcia was "traded" to the U.S. so that it could swing it’s dick in the Middle East as the world’s police force and for access to the resources in the region.  Oil.  Similar to what we found so disgusting about the Nazis.  Similar to Rome?  In the process people were displaced, mistreated, and their human rights abandoned. With the cooperation of the U.K. as co-conspirator. Don’t try to gloss it over with mention of a higher purpose.

            You embarrass yourself. We’ll discuss this over a pint.




            • whodatis says:

              (@ Pit Bull)

              As my Granny used to say …

              "Uumph! Put ‘dat in ya pipe n’ smoke it!"



            • Judean's People's Front says:

              ‘Rome found out a long time ago, in Britain of all places it just does not work.  The British people gained their independence from Roman Imperialism through struggle.’

              Siblings … Rome brought us nothing. Apart from the roads and the sanitation, the cultural value left to Britain is not worth a Jaguar’s ear lobe.

              • Anonymous says:

                Rome brought you nothing?  You’re obviously a few sandwiches short of a picnic…  The whole western civilization is based on the ancient Greek and Roman culture, society, etc…

                • Anonymous says:

                  When in Rome, do a Roman.

                • Henry Hill says:

                  I think you missed the sarcasm.

                • Judean People's Front says:

                  Well there is obviously the law and order, the wine, the aquaduct and the whole of western civilisation. I grant you that. But after all that, what did the Romans ever do for us?

            • Pit Bull says:

              Forgive me if I focus on the 21st century, rather than your rather odd misconception of the end of Roman rule over Britain.

              Cayman is part of the territory of the UK, so decisions can and should be taken to reflect the greater good of the sovereign state where necessary, although that power is obviously exercised with considerable restraint.  If Cayman wants sovereign status the UK will happily grant it.  

              You cannot have your cake and eat it.





              • whodatis says:

                My friend,

                You do realize that Britian ain’t worth shyte’ today – don’t you?

                Seriously dude … come on.

                You criticized the poster for referring to Roman times – but the era of when Britain actually held some degree of power – albeit by way of TERRORISM – is long gone buddy.

                Wake up. Have some coffee will ya?

                People like you amuse me though – never stop posting.


                Looks like the empirical approach of yesteryear was all in vain doesn’t it?


                • Anonymous says:

                   This is not really relevantto the poster’s point though, is it?  

                  The fact remains that Cayman is a dependent territory, and has chosen this status for itself.

                  If "Britain ain’t worth shyte [sic]," then the question must be asked:  Why does Cayman not request independence?   

              • Shock and Awe says:

                Cayman is part of the territory of the U.K.?

                Let me look at the globe……..

                Ah yes

                What’s the connection?  Cultural? Tradition?  Proximity?Similar interests?   Trade? What did the U.K. traditionally import to the Caribbean? Let’s forget the slave trade. It was a necessity for the greater good of what was it?

                …the sovereign state??

                Societal?  Nannies!

                I can definitely see the connection there.  Pink

                Now I will take out my felt pen

                • O'Really says:

                  Ah, I see it now. You are developing a new legal theory where two parties freely enter into and subsequently reaffirm a mutually binding agreement, which gives both of them rights and responsibilities, but which can only be enforced by one party because they are not joined at the hip. Hmmm, interesting.

                  Now, if you will just take that felt tip and write " I am a dunce" on your forehead, I’ll know to avoid you next time I’m enjoying a pint.


    • whodatis says:

      Valid point.

      However, as you will discover – she and many individuals on here are of the opinion that such issues do not matter as they are varying degrees of "British-hood".

      I am of the suspicion that the ranking has something to do with the hue of one’s skin.

      I cannot for the life of me figure out why I have that inkling as there is no such evidence to support this theory throughout the history of the (faded) British Empire.


      *The moral of that story is "not all animals are equal".

      In this case tortoises trump apes.

  14. noname says:

    Many thanks for the invite Lizzy, I would much rather gouge my eyes out with a red hot poker however.

    Maybe next year.

    • My2Cents says:

      Twit. How about some respect for the monarch?

      Its only an invite. If you don’twant to go, don’t, but no need to insult her too.

      • Just Sayin' says:

        Well nobody asked for your 2 cents worth.

        • Ex-Pat married to a Caymanian says:

           As an American married to a Brit, who also has a long family history to Cayman, we applied for this event in 2009 and I thrilled when the formal invitation arrived.  I was proud to represent The Cayman Islands (my hat was fab, the tea and Victorian sponge cake were delicious too.)

          Being inside Buckingham Palace and walking the beautiful gardens is an event I will never forget.  

          Mind you, that 99% of the people INVITED to these garden parties are long serving volunteers working with many worthy charities, teachers, young military officers, and noteworthy upstanding citizens.  

          I’m afraid that the negative posters on this site would not be worthy of attending and I am glad they will not apply.  I came back to Cayman and tripled my volunteer efforts in the community after being inspired by her majesty and the people who attended the garden party.

          • Anonymous says:

            Well I suppose since they give nothing really to the Cayman Islands, and that was shown in our time of need after IVAN, the least she could do is encourage people to volunteer for free.

            Tea and biscuits eh……. we may as well accept them because that is all we are likely to get.

            • Anonymous says:

              " Well I suppose since they givenothing really to the Cayman Islands, and that was shown in our time of need after IVAN, the least she could do is encourage people to volunteer for free.

              Tea and biscuits eh……. we may as well accept them because that is all we are likely to get."

              And whose fault was that but not your Honorable Premier?  He turned the help away.

            • Cassius Dio says:

              "Well I suppose since they give nothing really to the Cayman Island"

              Except for our legal system and the basis of our laws, and the political stability that allows Cayman to be an offshore financial centre.

              And of course the defense to stop Cuba invading

              Yep nothing

              • Anonymous says:

                cuba, invading? what for? sand? we dont need it, turtles? we dont need it and you dont have it anymore, trees? you dont have it, mountains? you dont have it, oil? you dont have it, location? the closest u got is Jamaica (we dont need it) or honduras (god forbids we need that) gold? dart got it, diamonds? kirk got them, money? is only electronic…so what makes you think that Cuba will invade Cayman when they actually had never invade no country ever, not like UK or US.

                OK brings the stability this country needs and people on the financial industry are here because they believe in them nor in UDP or PPM, that is a fact, leave poor cubans alone, they have done no harm to you or no one else but themselves ignorant.

                • Anonymous says:

                  They occupied Grenada to prop up a communist coup, in case you forgot.

                  • Anonymous says:

                    The Cubans in Grenada were "invited" there by the Government of the day, and were busy building the new airport.

                    What do you think of workers from Communist China being "invited" here to build a sea port?

                    We can hardly call them invaders or occupiers if the majority of the population welcome them with open arms.

            • Caymunian Peoples Front says:

              Yes.  What have the British ever done for us?

    • In the neck of time says:

      Orf with his head.!!

    • Anonymous says:

      You have no self respect, so I assume you wouldn’t have any for Her Majesty. So sad… how some people can lower the standards of the human race.

      • Just Commentin' says:

        In my opinion otherwise intelligent adults playing dress up and posturing as if they were still back in the 1600’s is lowering the standards of the human race. How can anyone who participates in such a farce be taken seriously muchless respected?

        Orlando has Mickey Mouse and London has the Queen – both are tourist icons but of little use as anything else. That being said, I do not respect the Queen any less than I do Mickey, or any other human being playing a role for the entertainment of the masses, if that is any consolation to you.

    • Anonymous says:

      Please hurry up and do that…how arrogant!