The Student Room Group

Are knighthoods good or bad?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80
Bad
Original post by gladders
State favour only insofar as the Queen is the one who gives them the gong; but, again, so what?

Knighthoods are actually making a comeback, generally. Just last night the Australian Government restored them.


1) she is the legal leader of the nation. that is privilege if she makes a point that you are respectable whereas others aren't deserving of this respect.
2) so what? just because other countries are doing it that doesn't mean that it's a good thing



Because I would wager that a democratic system of appointing knighthoods would:

a) endow knighthoods to people even more undeserving of them than the present means does (we should elected Justin Beiber to be a knight, he's sooooo dreamy!)

b) endow upon these people actual, concrete legal privileges ('don't you know who I am? I was elected a knight!')


1) at least a majority of people would have consented to their knighthood at the time opposed to a panel of appointed people who have no meaningful connection to the society
2) what concrete privilege would they get? are you saying that getting the knighthood if it was eletoral would be better in that sense and more valuable? why wouldn't those people deserve it if their communities were consenting to it, though? I thought you said it was the community saying "thanks"? not a panel of adminstrators/bureaucrats
Reply 82
Original post by River85
I think he's referring to Barotencies (e.g. Sir Mark Thatcher, 2nd Baronet), which aren't techincally knighthoods (they rank above most knighthoods).


But between 1964 and the present day only 1 (to my knowledge) has been conferred, so it's not exactly a commonly awarded honour!

Original post by captain.sensible
how is that saying that the message of that honour given "as clear as mud" though? you've completely gone off the point. telling me that I'm one of few people holding this view doesn't actually undermine my view itself, and it certainly doesn't explain how the honour being given to a person isn't clear - jimmy savile got an honour as the other person had said before - and other people, e.g. ceausescu and robert mugabe were knighted - who agreed with that message?


My point was you said the thing clearly does x. If it was that clear other people would agree with you (I'm sure you're not about to suggest that you're the only person capable of understanding your point). Even in this thread we haven't seen anybody who does so. As people haven't shown up agreeing with it, my thought, then, is that it is not that clear.

And yes, people who later emerged as criminals or undesirable were once given awards. So? Are you now saying the Government body should be lambasted for it's inability to see into the future?
Reply 83
Original post by captain.sensible
panel of appointed people who have no meaningful connection to the society


Did you even read the lists of who's on the various committees?
Reply 84
Original post by captain.sensible
1) she is the legal leader of the nation. that is privilege if she makes a point that you are respectable whereas others aren't deserving of this respect.


No, pretty sure this is only your view and not the view of most people. Everyone's deserving of respect. Or do you consider that soldiers who don't get medals don't deserve respect?

2) so what? just because other countries are doing it that doesn't mean that it's a good thing


No, but you claimed they are unnecessary - clearly some legitimately differ from you.

1) at least a majority of people would have consented to their knighthood at the time opposed to a panel of appointed people who have no meaningful connection to the society


How do you know that? You have made absolutely no effort to investigate the credentials of those who recommend appointments to the orders. I would wager they know a great deal more about the achievements of individual men and women who do small but important efforts than the people, who would only be interested in the big-bang-wazzow epic spenders.

2) what concrete privilege would they get? are you saying that getting the knighthood if it was eletoral would be better in that sense and more valuable? why wouldn't those people deserve it if their communities were consenting to it, though? I thought you said it was the community saying "thanks"? not a panel of adminstrators/bureaucrats


Well I inferred (apologies if I misunderstood) that by a democratic system you meant a nationwide electoral system to knighthoods. While many do do local efforts which could be recognised by communities (and many knighthoods are appointed based on consultations with such communities), a lot of efforts are nationwide and the impact could be dissipated.

Anyway, there's more than one way for a society to express gratitude. Election's one of them, but it has a place and is not a universally effective means.
Original post by Drewski
My point was you said the thing clearly does x. If it was that clear other people would agree with you (I'm sure you're not about to suggest that you're the only person capable of understanding your point). Even in this thread we haven't seen anybody who does so. As people haven't shown up agreeing with it, my thought, then, is that it is not that clear.


1) it is clear in what it does - that's why it's called the "honour" system. what are people perceiving the purpose of a honour? who exactly sees it as a symbol of state dishonour? and again it's not about whether you LIKE the honours system, it's about what the honours system's message is when it gives certain people honours. that's as clear as crystal.

And yes, people who later emerged as criminals or undesirable were once given awards. So? Are you now saying the Government body should be lambasted for it's inability to see into the future?


2) hmm I didn't know the queen knighted ceausescu BEFORE he became a tyrant!
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by gladders
No, pretty sure this is only your view and not the view of most people. Everyone's deserving of respect. Or do you consider that soldiers who don't get medals don't deserve respect?


(I'm sorry this is going to have to be my last message here because I'm getting too many responses):
no, it's the law that she is the head of state and the legal/de jure leader. that's not my opinion. and if the leader, the head of the authority, says that someone is worthy of more respect than someone else, that carries a message. and no, I said that they are given "more" respect, and if a private doesn't perform as well as another soldier then no, they don't deserve the same award. that's not unfair though, it's not an "everyone's a winner" system, but again, it has not a privilege meaning but a state service meaning, not a "society is inaudibly saying thank you" meaning which the honours system in my honest opinion certainty doesn't convey based on the decision makers



No, but you claimed they are unnecessary - clearly some legitimately differ from you.


what are they necessary for? telling the citizens which members of society are the best?

How do you know that? You have made absolutely no effort to investigate the credentials of those who recommend appointments to the orders. I would wager they know a great deal more about the achievements of individual men and women who do small but important efforts than the people, who would only be interested in the big-bang-wazzow epic spenders.


then why don't you tell me how I'm wrong in my statements if you're only assuming it opposed to knowing it?

Well I inferred (apologies if I misunderstood) that by a democratic system you meant a nationwide electoral system to knighthoods. While many do do local efforts which could be recognised by communities (and many knighthoods are appointed based on consultations with such communities), a lot of efforts are nationwide and the impact could be dissipated.


it *could* be nation wide but it could be based on local STV or something too.

Anyway, there's more than one way for a society to express gratitude. Election's one of them, but it has a place and is not a universally effective means.


again, "society" isn't the same as a "state". we aren't a legal democracy. the minister of state, e.g. david cameron (or tony blair, whoever you want), promising things before an election and then not doing those things later on when he's in power ifs a perfect example of how the state is not the society.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 87
Original post by captain.sensible
it's about what the honours system's message is when it gives certain people honours. that's as clear as crystal.


Is it?

www.gov.uk/honours
The honours system recognises people who have:

- made achievements in public life
- committed themselves to serving and helping Britain
They’ll usually have made life better for other people or be outstanding at what they do.


Yes. I see what you mean. Evil.
Original post by Drewski
Is it?

well you give me an interpretation of how the "honours" system doesn't convey state "honour" then?

Yes. I see what you mean. Evil.


ohh all right then so how did ceausescu do any of those things?
Reply 89
Original post by captain.sensible
well you give me an interpretation of how the "honours" system doesn't convey state "honour" then?


It's a thanks. It's a recognition of thanks for life/work in public. No more, no less. The name is just a traditional nuance. If it was called the "thanks system" would you have as much of a problem with it? Look beyond the archaic/tradiontal name and look at the people it's being awarded to now.

ohh all right then so how did ceausescu do any of those things?


Something that was revoked (probably before or just after you were born) bears little resemblance to the award system as it is now. Someone's distant ancestors might have been involved in the slave trade, but do you blame their current antecedents?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by clh_hilary
What do you think?


If you look at who is getting knighthoods, it tends to be whoever is friends with or is giving money to the party in power. David Cameron's hairdresser got an MBE, while there are people dedicating their lives to making the world a better place who get no recognition at all. I don't think Knighthoods are necessarily bad but they're very elitist and don't necessarily go, as some people on this forum have said, to people making the world a better place.
Reply 91
Original post by captain.sensible
(I'm sorry this is going to have to be my last message here because I'm getting too many responses):


I understand, it must be a bit galling to be outnumbered like this!

no, it's the law that she is the head of state and the legal/de jure leader. that's not my opinion. and if the leader, the head of the authority, says that someone is worthy of more respect than someone else, that carries a message.


Yes, the message being 'we should be more like that guy', which, when properly done, is a very good thing indeed.

and no, I said that they are given "more" respect,


No you didn't, you said (to wit): "1) she is the legal leader of the nation. that is privilege if she makes a point that you are respectable whereas others aren't deserving of this respect."

and if a private doesn't perform as well as another soldier then no, they don't deserve the same award. that's not unfair though, it's not an "everyone's a winner" system, but again, it has not a privilege meaning but a state service meaning, not a "society is inaudibly saying thank you" meaning which the honours system in my honest opinion certainty doesn't convey based on the decision makers


But this is the thing: Drewski and I object to your premise that honours should be or are state-exclusive and so this is a bad thing. We simply object to your claim, and the State (and the rest of the country, by and large) disagrees with your premise as well.

what are they necessary for? telling the citizens which members of society are the best?


You said it yourself - it's not an "everyone's a winner" system. If people do great things, they should be held up as examples to be admired and emulated.

then why don't you tell me how I'm wrong in my statements if you're only assuming it opposed to knowing it?


I have done. It's been quite easy as most of your arguments have been based on how this offends your own personal feelings rather than a critique of known and accepted ideas and principles.

it *could* be nation wide but it could be based on local STV or something too.


That doesn't respond to my point of how the people suck at being meritocratic on a national basis.

again, "society" isn't the same as a "state". we aren't a legal democracy. the minister of state, e.g. david cameron (or tony blair, whoever you want), promising things before an election and then not doing those things later on when he's in power ifs a perfect example of how the state is not the society.


There you go again, not backing up your definition of a 'legal democracy' with any authoritative references.

There's no such thing as a legal democracy. If there was, what court of law is competent to judge one, and what countries have they decreed to be 'legally' democratic? What ones have they declared 'illegally' democratic?

Face facts, friend: you can be democratic and monarchical; you can be a free and equal country and have knighthoods and honours. And you can have these honours appointed by central committees rather than simply people winning popularity contests.
Reply 92
Original post by SocialistIC
If you look at who is getting knighthoods, it tends to be whoever is friends with or is giving money to the party in power. David Cameron's hairdresser got an MBE, while there are people dedicating their lives to making the world a better place who get no recognition at all. I don't think Knighthoods are necessarily bad but they're very elitist and don't necessarily go, as some people on this forum have said, to people making the world a better place.


I think Drewski would agree with me that the system is by no means problem-free, but that it could be reformed to make sure only the truly deserving receive them.
Original post by gladders
I think Drewski would agree with me that the system is by no means problem-free, but that it could be reformed to make sure only the truly deserving receive them.


Yeah of course I agree. It should be reformed not abolished.
Reply 94
Original post by gladders
I think Drewski would agree with me that the system is by no means problem-free, but that it could be reformed to make sure only the truly deserving receive them.


Original post by SocialistIC
Yeah of course I agree. It should be reformed not abolished.


The simple step of taking the Government out of it would do it for me and exclude the current Government from making recommendations. Have the committees, but have them report to a national NGO, independent of the Government, to then by awarded by HM The Queen.
Original post by Drewski
The simple step of taking the Government out of it would do it for me and exclude the current Government from making recommendations. Have the committees, but have them report to a national NGO, independent of the Government, to then by awarded by HM The Queen.


I'm quite anti-royalist so I'm not so sure. I imagine the queen would do a better job than the government on doing a fair list so yeah fair enough.
Reply 96
Original post by SocialistIC
I'm quite anti-royalist so I'm not so sure. I imagine the queen would do a better job than the government on doing a fair list so yeah fair enough.


She simply hands them out, not decides who gets them, leave that to the committees already set up.
Original post by Drewski
She simply hands them out, not decides who gets them, leave that to the committees already set up.


Fair enough. We give her millions of pounds of taxpayers money a year just to sit on an expensive chair, we might as well give her something to do.
Reply 98
Original post by SocialistIC
Fair enough. We give her millions of pounds of taxpayers money a year just to sit on an expensive chair, we might as well give her something to do.


We make a profit from her. Do your research first but then take it to a different thread, this one's actually bucking the trend and staying on topic.
Original post by Drewski
We make a profit from her. Do your research first but then take it to a different thread, this one's actually bucking the trend and staying on topic.


If you're talking about tourism, of the top 10 tourist destinations destinations in the country none of them have anything to do with the royal family. Also, I'm almost certain that more people would come to the country if they could look inside the palace rather than just look at the outside and wonder whether she's inside but fair enough I'll leave it at that and not stray too far off topic.

Quick Reply

Latest