Vice-Regal Saint: Should all Knighthoods be the Sovereign's prerogative?
By David Byers (Convenor of ACM in Country, New South Wales)
Some years ago a friend of mine said “you’ve got to wonder about a nation that gives Knighthoods to rock stars”, and he had a point. Why on earth should the Crown be brought down so low as to be giving such honours to people like Elton John or ex-Beatles? I got to thinking about the process the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches goes through in making saints, now I know a Knighthood is not even close to those great honours but it is still something great.
The other problem is with politicians advising the Queen to Knight one of their political pals, something that has happened in the Australian State of Queensland for many years. Now in Australia our governments no longer advise the Sovereign to make Knights, only the Queen can give out Knighthoods to her Australian subjects on her own prerogative. Should this be the case in the UK? Maybe it should be the case that Knighthoods are only given out at the Sovereign's personal prerogative, for all her Realms.
Posts
1915.jpg){kind=small}
.gif)
.gif)
8 comments:
I agree, it is cringe making to see medicore media whores like Elton John or Mick Jagger getting the same honour as Sir Thomas Moore or Sir Winston Churchill!
They should be reserved for the Queen or future King to hand out!
Perhaps some exeptional actors or singers could get it, like Dame Kiri De Kanawa, but this would be the exception and not the rule as it seems to be now!
Agreed. Let Knighthoods return to the Royal prerogative!
I agree too. They've been debased. Sir Tom Jones... the whole chivalrous line, from Lancelot to Churchill, shudders in the grave.
I do not mind if the occassional popular entertainer is recognised, but it is getting out of hand. The Beatles, well, I'd rather listen to Bach but they were/are one of the greatest musical phenomenons in human history. Elton John? Not so much.
Knighthoods are linked to different honours. Some honours are the Queen’s prerogative, others are not. While Mr Byers’ suggestions are most agreeable they are not realistic. If you look at the extent of Birthday and New Years Honours lists there has to be some sort of government involvement, however wanting.
I would forget the churches in this context. As for the comparison with the RC Church, some of the more recent beatifications by the late pope caused controversy, too.
Looking back at knighthoods, there was always bargaining and window-dressing involved, except that it did not take place in the public domain to such a degree as we are having now.
I just feel that we have to accept a fair share of trade union blimps, trashy celebrities, retiring backbenchers etc. to accompany real worthies.
Fast bowlers, goalkeepers and singers, by the way, can be as deserving as scientists or rear admirals. The public are not daft. They recognise if they are facing any run-of-the-mill Sir Tufton Bufton, or a yodelling fruitcake or someone perhaps slighty more deserving.
I don't see my idea as not realistic, as it is how it operates in Australia. We have the Order of Australia that is given out in the name of the Queen by our politicians but they are not knighthoods. The knighthood in Australia can only be given out by the Queen.
Indeed, you're right there, point seen and taken - I wasn't thinking of teh Australian way in particular. Thanks for the clarification.
I think it's probably fair to say that even then the Queen is advised, come to think of it. Her grasp and knowledge of a nation's life cannot be total.
Still. Elton John...
Post a Comment