7 ms·
>Interestingly enough, Jobs himself was also considered for knighthood by the Queen of the United Kingdom, but the proposal was blocked by a former Prime Minist
by joshes 15y ago
>Interestingly enough, Jobs himself was also considered for knighthood by the Queen of the United Kingdom, but the proposal was blocked by a former Prime Minister because Jobs declined to speak at a Labour Party conference.
That's fascinating to me. As an American who has never paid much attention to British knighthood, I am not knowledgeable about the process for selecting whom becomes a British knight. Could someone with the requisite knowledge perhaps elucidate on whether or not ostensibly petty politics get in the way of these things with regularity?
It seems absolutely absurd that someone who is being considered for knighthood could be denied of that because of something as minuscule as declining to speak at a party conference.
- fiesycal 15y agoI'm fairly sure you have to either have British citizenship or citizenship in one of the Commonwealth nations to be knighted. Otherwise you receive an honorary knighthood. Also some Commonwealth nations don't allow their citizens to receive honours, for example Canada.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- bitops 15y agoYes, it's honorary for non-Brits. Bill Gates, for instance, is just below knight, though he still holds a high honor bestowed by the Queen.
- FrankBooth 15y agoJust below knight? He was awarded a KBE, honorary though it may be.
- ComputerGuru 15y agoIn fact, should he even end up a British citizen (dual-citizenship, give up his US citizenship, or whatever else), he would automatically become a full knight.
- protomyth 15y agoIt has to be honorary for U.S. citizens because of the Constitution of the United States's Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8. A U.S. citizen cannot swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen and remain a citizen. That being said, there is a lot of wink-wink-nudge-nudge where the UK is concerned.
- noblethrasher 15y agoIsn't that just a restriction on people holding a political office of some kind? "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State"
- toyg 15y agoUk honours are titles (Commander of the British Empire, etc).
- ugh 15y agoI think “And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them …” is where the question is coming from. Who is them in that sentence? The United States? And if that is so it seems only those in the United States holding an Office of Profit or Trust (whatever that means) are exempted. Citizenhood doesn't seem to come into play.
- OstiaAntica 15y agoAmerica was founded as an egalitarian republic, free from the aristocratic tyranny of Europe. The purpose of that provision was to keep formal aristocracy out of America, and to keep the U.S. government from adopting similar ranks and privileges here. An American cannot accept knighthood.
- protomyth 15y agoDug a little deeper: seems Afroyim v. Rusk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk says something different about the average citizen. There was an amendment that did not get ratified ( http://www.heraldica.org/topics/usa/usnob.htm http://www.heraldica.org/topics/usa/usnob.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment ). I remember Ike's knighthood was honorary, but he was elected President.
- bch 15y agoRegarding Canada, apparently that's not entirely true in practice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_v._Chr%C3%A9tien#Black.27s_arguments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_v._Chr%C3%A9tien#Black.27...
- FrankBooth 15y agoConsidering the British honours system is _entirely_ political faffery, no, it's not at all surprising.
- mhb 15y agoYou would think it would be as impervious to human frailty as the choice of the pope or the winner of the Nobel peace prize.
- spitfire 15y agoFor a time you could simply buy your way to a knighthood. At least for the last 50 years they've been an almost entirely political construction, recommended by the government and rubber stamped by the queen. The Victoria Cross and George cross however, are earnt on merit alone.
- teamonkey 15y ago> For a time you could simply buy your way to a knighthood. You still can. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/new-year-honours-for-the-great-the-good--and-the-tory-donors-6283148.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/new-year-hono...
- zobzu 15y agoI find it a little sad. I'd prefer this to be earned by deserving people - ones who have shown courage, bravery, etc and/or bring pride to the nation. Not ones who pay/have friends/are just well known. Nowadays, knighthood doesn't represent anything of importance.
- peteretep 15y agoWhen /did/ it represent anything of importance?
- JonnieCache 15y agoIt's not so much that these things are interfered with by petty politics, rather that they are defined by petty politics. See the following clip from the sitcom-cum-documentary Yes Minister for a more complete elucidation of the issues: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmXzGI0XP7M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmXzGI0XP7M If you want to understand british politics, watch all of Yes Minister. Then watch all of its spiritual successor, The Thick Of It.
- megablast 15y agoAnd if you want to know about US politics, watch the West Wing. Sorry, could not resist, just kidding. WW is an idealised form of government.
- NickPollard 15y ago'Yes, Minister' and 'The Thick of it' are satire. They don't show government in a very favourable light.
- JonnieCache 15y agoThe thing is though, large chunks of yes minister are true stories. This is less true for the thick of it.
- volatile 15y agoAnd if you want to know about Australian politics, watch The Hollowmen.
- ComputerGuru 15y agoCan you be knighted posthumously?
- toyg 15y agoA lot of people have a say on the list of people to be honoured, but the Prime Minister is the most influential of the lot. Technically speaking the monarch could overrule any objection (afaik the process is not defined by any specific law or regulation, just built on convention), in practice it rarely ever happened with Elizabeth II. It will be interesting to see how this, like many other conventions established under her rule, will morph once we go back to having a male King who will be more popular than the political establishment, something that hasn't happened for a very long time.
- epscylonb 15y agoI would say the queen is more popular than the political establishment as it is.
- toyg 15y agoShe wasn't necessarily so when she "took office" and formed her views on what her role had to be. At various stages, up to the 80s, a large segment of the population would have happily done away with the monarchy, which is unthinkable today. In a way, her constitutional profile as a weak ruler was a way to sneak the institution past turbulent times. The next ruler will probably find himself, from the very beginning, more popular than powerful. The temptation to wrestle back some power from an unpopular political class will be strong, and there are very little safeguards. This wouldn't necessary be a bad thing: the UK system values pragmatism over principles, maybe restoring some royal privileges could be useful to get us out of the current ideological rut.
- Silhouette 15y ago> the UK system values pragmatism over principles I suspect that's because, for better or worse, a lot of people in the UK do as well. Personally, I'm always torn on the House of Lords. In principle, as an institution, the Lords is an anachronistic affront to democracy that obviously has no mandate and no place in legitimate government for the 21st century. Pragmatically, I can't help noticing that the elected representatives in the House of Commons often seem incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery or showing any empathy whatsoever for their constituents, while the Lords actually has a fairly respectable track record for getting in the way of bad legislation. I would much prefer a second chamber (or entirely new system) where everyone with any kind of power to act on behalf of the people also had a democratic mandate, but until such a system comes along, I suspect as a practical measure we're actually better off with the Lords than without.
- arctangent 15y ago> I am not knowledgeable about the process for selecting whom becomes a British knight Here is a description of how the British honours selection process works: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgovernment/Honoursawardsandmedals/DG_067909 http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgo...
- bch 15y agoNot knighthood, but we in Canada went through something similar not too long ago with Conrad Black, Jean Cretien, and Black receiving the "name, style and title of Baron Black of Crossharbour" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Black#Peerage_controversy_and_citizenship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Black#Peerage_controvers...). Cretiens move was legal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_v._Chr%C3%A9tien http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_v._Chr%C3%A9tien), but in the local media spun as very personal. C'est la vie.
- mkramlich 15y agoI hereby make you a Knight. waves holy artifact This basically sums up the process.