do they now just knight all of thier celebrities, or what? do you think it's lessening the value of such a title? i do.
2006-11-13 06:15:13 · 5 answers · asked by practicalwizard 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
Some knighthoods are inherited, others are created.
As far as knighting only celebreties, check again. Some of those who have been knighted in recent years are hardly household names. The honor is given to people who have made significant contributions to the nation -- this includes advances in medicine and research, as well as the more obvious celebs like Sir Paul and that lot. I think you are correct, that the value of the title is being lessened, but I believe that to be a result of the fact that too many people are being knighted. It should be more discriminatory. Simple popularity shouldn't be the criterion for knighthood. I mean Elton John? Give me a break!
2006-11-13 07:15:08 · answer #1 · answered by old lady 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are too many knighthoods given out. A lot of people get it just for doing their jobs, especially businessmen who have been well-paid, and there is a very high proportion in the civil service. I think the few celebrity knights have generally been more deserving than some of the celebrities given lesser honours (Roger Moore and Paul McCartney I can respect, but not vulgar chat show host Jonathan Ross).
One solution as someone has said is to give more power back to the Queen, but where she already has control, over the Kights of the Garter and the Thistle, look at who she has chosen. Mainly a bunch of hereditary peers who get it because all their predecessors had it. I don't know what the present Duke of Wellington has done for this country to deserve its highest honour, other than be Duke of Wellington.
2006-11-14 09:48:00 · answer #2 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think many of the knighthoods, at least the life peers, are recommended by the Government of the Day. Some (such as the Thistle and Garter Knighthoods, I think) are in the Sovereign's personal domain.
IMO, there should be less government interference and more rights returned to H.M.
2006-11-13 14:57:11 · answer #3 · answered by kent chatham 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The main factor is how useful you have been to the political party in power. A large donation is important as is the willingness to clean up some of their economic and political blunders.
These titles are useful to social climbers but not considered important by most ordinary people.
2006-11-14 01:23:41 · answer #4 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm pretty sure the queen chooses someone who has been prominant in setting a good example for England inetrnationally or somehow contributed to the overall well being of the country.
2006-11-13 14:24:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋