Sir Imran Khan?? Why not??

[Sir Alex]

Only all rounders with moustaches can carry a knighthood well. As the only all rounder of his time who didn't attain puberty, he doesn't have a chance.

How'd ya know?? Numerous females testify to the opposite...

 

[bagapath]

in this day and age, a knighthood has as much global significance as a padmashree or an honor of similar kind from other governments. the love and respect imran enjoys from cricket fans around the globe, the same kind viv, sachin, botham or border would be accorded, is much more valuable than such titles I feel. because this comes from people spread across across national boundaries, following different cultural heritages, speaking different tongues.... what these millions of fans get out of a global sporting ambassador's onfield acheivements and how they choose to reciprocate spontaneously with so much love and affection makes this much much more valuable than titles conferred by state heads which are as much influenced by petty politics and recommendations as real achievements. in that sense, a knighthood is as irrelevant as royal families around the globe.

 

[zaremba]

You missed an important part of my post :-

" if any Indian ever chose to identify with the title"

No my point was that you can't tar everyone with the same brush. There are plenty of bad apples who achieve honours in any country. Perhaps a more balanced view might be to take into account the truly honourable recipients of that award, such as those I've mentioned.

Everyone is perfectly entitled to their opinions but there's a nasty little anti-British undertone to some of the posts in this thread. It's not particularly attractive and doesn't have any place on a cricket site of this sort. Thread doomed.

 

[Jono]

More anti-Monarch I think.

 

[Sanz]

@Zaremba :- May be anti-imperialist tone but not anti-British unless ofcourse both are same for you. I have never had issues with anyone (other than Indians) having honoured with the Knighthood. Infact on many occasions I have used "Sir" for guys like Hadlee, Richards, Sobers.

 

[zaremba]

Tbf, if I was offered a knighthood or even an MBE/OBE etc. I'd turn it down too and I'm English. Useless relic from an imperial past that is meaningless and imho somewhat distasteful in the modern age.

There's a good case for arguing that the honours system is a relic and should go. (Knighthoods however aren't particularly imperial in nature: there have been knights in England since the Middle Ages).

Hereditary titles are even worse mind you. I don't see why someone should have the right to be called "lord" or "sir" (in the case of a baronet) simply because of their parentage.

 

[Streetwise]

Hereditary titles are even worse mind you. I don't see why someone should have the right to be called "lord" or "sir" (in the case of a baronet) simply because of their parentage.

England have their own caste system.

 

[Stapel]

More anti-Monarch I think.

Probably right there. In the Netherlands we've seen the odd knighthood-refusers, for being against the principle of monarchy.

However, that is not the point. Every nation, republic or monarchy, dictatorship or democracy, has its own ways of honouring citizens. In monarchies, the titles happen to be royal. I really cannot see a bad thing in it. It simply adds some tradition, which seems in its place, when it comes to awards. If such a tradition comes from an imperial age, why bother?

My grandfather was knighted for being loyal to one employer for 50 years. Should he have refused that because some dude got the same piece of metal for brutally murdering several villages on Sumatra, 100 years ago?

 

[G.I.Joe]

How'd ya know?? Numerous females testify to the opposite...

Paedophiles, the whole lot of them.

 

[Craig]

Probably right there. In the Netherlands we've seen the odd knighthood-refusers, for being against the principle of monarchy.

However, that is not the point. Every nation, republic or monarchy, dictatorship or democracy, has its own ways of honouring citizens. In monarchies, the titles happen to be royal. I really cannot see a bad thing in it. It simply adds some tradition, which seems in its place, when it comes to awards. If such a tradition comes from an imperial age, why bother?

My grandfather was knighted for being loyal to one employer for 50 years. Should he have refused that because some dude got the same piece of metal for brutally murdering several villages on Sumatra, 100 years ago?

Well no, IMO. Unless he was involved in those incidents on Sumatra, then he has nothing to do with that and if he was offered an award, then it is up to him to take it or not. Unless of course you were being rhetorical.

 

[Stapel]

Well no, IMO. Unless he was involved in those incidents on Sumatra, then he has nothing to do with that and if he was offered an award, then it is up to him to take it or not. Unless of course you were being rhetorical.

I actually was being rhetorical .
Point is that there is no use in refering to situations of a 100 years ago.

 

[SJS]

Every country has civilian awards. India has its Padma awards topped by the Bharat ratna, Pakistan has the Nishan-e-Pak and so on. These are, invariably, conferred on their respective civilians, excelling in various fields, by the head of state..

England has the Queen (or King) as head of state even though the monarchy is now purely ornamental (for want of a better word) in nature. Its just that they had awards for their citizens from the days when the monarchy was for real other than that the awards serve the same purpose as they do in India and Pakistan as they do in other countries.

If that country chose to continue with its centuries old awards (from the time when they were actually decided and conferred by the monarch) why should we run the awards down. The monarch no longer decides on who the awards should be conferred upon just as the Indian President doesn't (I do not know for sure about Pakistan). The British Government
decides as does the Indian government.

Why shouldn't the british continue with the old awards and constitute new ones. There is a certain tradition attached to these old awards and they respect that tradition. Who are we to sit in judgement over their traditions and raise the bogey of imperialism to show our own complexes.

Imperialism, is gone and done and dusted. If and when the Australians and New Zealanders (and a handful of others) want to cut off the umbilical chord that ties them to Britain they will do so, And one day they will but the decision is theirs alone.

But for God's sake how would a Knighthood become more 'palatable' to the sceptics if it were called by another name. If at all there is a discussion, it is about the British Monarchy and whether the time has come to end that institution. Everyone knows the debate has been ongoing in that country for long and one day the monarchy will end but surely it is for the British to do that.

As for showing disdain for one's countrymen accepting an award by another country well a former Indian Prime Minister and one of India's most loved and legendary actors of all time received and accepted the highest civilian awards of Pakistan.

I suppose a real military dictatorship is somehow better than a quaint and largely ceremonial monarchy.

 

[BoyBrumby]

If anyone deserves a knighthood for cricket it should be Richie Benaud IMO, but AFAIK Australian's don't really get them anymore.

It's rather a shame you chaps don't accept them anymore, but I think you've replaced them with your Order of Australia awards now. Blokes like Richie & SR Waugh would suit being "Sirs" IMHO.

There's a good case for arguing that the honours system is a relic and should go. (Knighthoods however aren't particularly imperial in nature: there have been knights in England since the Middle Ages).

Hereditary titles are even worse mind you. I don't see why someone should have the right to be called "lord" or "sir" (in the case of a baronet) simply because of their parentage.

Ref: Sir Mark Thatcher.

 

[zaremba]

Ref: Sir Mark Thatcher.

I thank you

 

[pskov]

For the record I'd have no problem accepting an equivilent civillian honour if one were to be set up in place of the current system of honours. It is the association with the monarchy and the ludicrous inclusion if the word Empire that I have a problem with.

 

[Matt79]

It's rather a shame you chaps don't accept them anymore, but I think you've replaced them with your Order of Australia awards now. Blokes like Richie & SR Waugh would suit being "Sirs" IMHO.

Correct. We have the Order of Australia, with an Companion of Australia (AC) being the equivalent of a Knighthood. We've just conferred an honourary AC on Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudiyono in recognition of his government's work in bringing the Bali bombers to justice, previously we've given one to Nelson Mandela amongst others. Several Australian sportsmen, including cricketers, have received OAM or AMs, with are the equivalent of MBEs, or OBEs.

There's a separate body that selects recipients - I think the Prime Minister makes appointments to that body, but can't directly award them, apart from Honourary ones. Richie Benaud received an OBE before we moved to the new system (happened under Whitlam I think). I suspect that he can't therefore be given an Order of Australia unless its at a higher level, which would be an Officer of the Order (AO) or Companion (AC). I would be surprised if he was awarded either when he's still working - if he retired completely from 9, he'd probably be awarded an AO, and he may well be awarded an AC when he passes away.

Allan Border, Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh are all AO, equivalent of a CBE, so that seems to be the standard practice for retiring Australian captains.

 

[jeevan]

Among the Indians who associated themselves with that title, ones that jumped to mind are scientists - Sir CV Raman and Sir JC Bose. Myself, I'd be happy to shine their shoes for them, let alone sharing the same title.

p.s. And btw, the guy who was knighted wasn't the actual butcher of Jalianwala Bagh (that was an Gen Dyer) and the knighted O'Dwyer was relieved of his tenure as the governor of Punjab for supporting Gen Dyer's action in the massacre. Slightly OT.

 

[Furball]

@Zaremba :- May be anti-imperialist tone but not anti-British unless ofcourse both are same for you. I have never had issues with anyone (other than Indians) having honoured with the Knighthood. Infact on many occasions I have used "Sir" for guys like Hadlee, Richards, Sobers.

Given India's colonial history, I don't see how anti-imperialist and anti-British differ in the slightest.

 

[Furball]

For the record I'd have no problem accepting an equivilent civillian honour if one were to be set up in place of the current system of honours. It is the association with the monarchy and the ludicrous inclusion if the word Empire that I have a problem with.

See, that's what I like about the honours system.

I'd regard myself as fairly left wing and republican, but at the same time I like the sense of history and tradition that comes with being made a Knight or given the Order of the British Empire. It may be an utterly meaningless title but I like the sense of history that goes along with it.

Might just be because I'm a historian though.

 

[Jono]

Given India's colonial history, I don't see how anti-imperialist and anti-British differ in the slightest.

Hmmm, Aborigines that complain about their past treatment are anti-Australian are they?