Technically because most heads of state have some manner of executive power, which the Queen does not. She is a figurehead and therefore "technically" but not in practice.
Even if that bald assertion were true (Ireland, Israel, Germany, Australia, Japan, Andorra, Italy, India, etc etc etc) what difference does it make? A head of state is a head of state.
+ruftytufty all of those countries' heads of states actually do have significant powers, except for Andorra. Queen Elizabeth literally has no power over any part of Jamaica.
No Kyote, that is just wrong. Queen Elizabeth has extensive formal powers in Jamaica - essentially the same ones as she has in the UK. She approves all legislation, calls elections and appoints ministers. She exercises all those powers at the 'guidance' of democratically elected representatives.
In Canada, Elizabeth II is the head of state, but her representative (governor general) is a sort of acting head of state, with all decisions being on behalf of the Queen. Despite this, the Queen is still very much the legal head of state (although in practice both don't exercise control over Canadian society). I'm not familiar with Jamaican politics, but as a fellow Commonwealth Realm I do believe it's a similar scenario.
Tried "Queen of England", but that was incorrect. I guess that's her title, which is different from the "person"? I didn't realize that, and moved on to other guesses.
Yes, but Queen Elizabeth is the official head of state regardless. It is the same here in Canada, where she is technically the Queen of Canada, whilst the governor general represents her.
So somebody is complaining that the "technically" for the head of state question is unnecessary because she simply is the head of state and another comment is complaining that "head of state" is meaningless because she doesn't really do anything.
I guess you can never get it correctly for some people...
It's ironic, I believe the reason the word 'technically' was put there to stop people such as Example B from claiming the Queen somehow doesn't qualify as head of state (she very much is, officially). I'm not sure why Example A would worry so much about the wording either, but there's no winning on the internet :P (I don't remember making that question myself, but I wholeheartedly agree with it and its wording!)
Small nitpick, but Jamaica became independent from the West Indies Federation (Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Indies_Federation ), not the UK. In 1958, Jamaica and several other British colonies in the Caribbean were combined as the West Indies Federation which became an independent country. After a bunch of internal tension between the islands (particularly Jamaica and Trinidad) the federation was dissolved in 1962, with Jamaica and several others becoming independent, while minor islands returned to British rule. Maybe rephrase the question to "Country that Jamaica was a colony of until 1958" or something like that.
The West Indies Federation was under British rule, however. According to Wikipedia, independence was the goal of the federation, however it fell apart before that goal was reached. Therefore Jamaica gained its independence from Britain.
Jamaican 🇯🇲 here- nah, we only became independent in 1962. We really wish the Federation had happened though. In hindsight we see that quite a bit of political manipulation was utilized to misinform the masses to vote against it.
Why "technically"? There is no sense in which he is not the head of state of Jamaica. The question could simply be "Head of state". There is still only one possible correct answer.
uh, Queen Elizabeth has no real power.
She is just a head of state.
The governor general is the one that represents her whilst she's not there.
He's the one that appoints ministers etc.
Apparently were thinking of getting rid of the queen of the head of state.
So yeah.
(hmm)
I guess you can never get it correctly for some people...
Jamaica we have a bobsled team”