A question of honour has blown a storm in Trinidad and Tobago. The Privy Council ruled yesterday that the Trinity Cross of the Order of Trinity is discriminatory and illegal. The order was established by the Queen in 1969. It is for gallantry, and has so far been awarded to 64 islanders, including V.S. Naipaul and Garry Sobers, for distinguished service. But a group of Muslim and Hindu islanders objected to both terms of the “Trinity Cross”, on the ground that they discriminated against non-Christians.

If this cross is illegal, where does that leave the Victoria Cross and the George Cross, the only decorations that take precedence over the Trinity Cross? Moreover, the whole menu of the honours system is stiff with crosses and grand crosses, saints and the British Empire, and other relics of the age of chivalry. The Union Flag is blazoned with no fewer than three crosses.

Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council has shown the flexibility that has preserved its members since the Norman Conquest. It has ruled that the Trinity Cross is illegal; but it has not made its ruling retrospective. So the holders of the Trinity Cross do not have to return their honours to have the crosses taken out. In any case the three sailing ships on the coat of arms of the islands represent the Trinity. And Trinidad was named after the Trinity by Columbus. The honour has already been renamed the Order of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. So honour is satisfied in honourable compromise.

The islands are entitled to take a view on their own honours. But this decision should not set a precedent that the United Kingdom feels it needs to follow.