[joshes]

>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.

[JonnieCache]

It'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

If you want to understand british politics, watch all of Yes Minister. Then watch all of its spiritual successor, The Thick Of It.

[betageek]

Couldn't agree more with this comment - even better the genii behind The Thick If It have a new HBO series which I imagine will have an interesting take on US politics: Veep http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veep_(TV_series)

[megablast]

And 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]

'Yes, Minister' and 'The Thick of it' are satire. They don't show government in a very favourable light.

[JonnieCache]

The thing is though, large chunks of yes minister are true stories. This is less true for the thick of it.

[wgx]

Having worked in a UK government press department I can tell you that The Thick of It is very close to the truth in more cases than most imagine.

[mjwalshe]

and YM is Maggie Thatchers favorite show

[volatile]

And if you want to know about Australian politics, watch The Hollowmen.

[spitfire]

For 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]

> 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-hono...

[arctangent]

> 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/UKgo...

[FrankBooth]

Considering the British honours system is _entirely_ political faffery, no, it's not at all surprising.

[toyg]

A 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.

[toyg]

She 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]

> 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.

[geden]

Have you considered the that maybe one of the reasons the House of Lords works (and I believe most people are of the view it at least sort of does) is because they ARE unelected, and thus don't have to pander to any interest other than their own humanity?

Given the state of politics in the west, perhaps leaders in society should be appointed in a similar way to jury service.

[Silhouette]

I think there is potential in having a second chamber where the people making decisions serve a long term in office (possibly until they choose to retire) unless they are actively recalled. As you say, that puts them above the need to make decisions based on the worst kind of reactionary politics, as often happens to those serving for terms of only a few years who always have one eye on the re-election campaign fund.

On the other hand, I think getting into such office in the first place should be about more than buttering up the current PM. Rather like the US Supreme Court, if all you have to do to reach such high office is receive the assent of someone who may themselves be on the way out politically by the time they appoint you, there is a very real danger that too many bad apples get in and then can't readily be removed.

I've often mused idly over the jury service for politicians idea. For a while, I wondered what would happen if we ran a staged process where randomly selected citizens were invited to join the second chamber for one term of office, lasting quite a while (say 6 years), with a new intake every other year so you never have a chamber full of people who haven't figured out how things work yet. The difficulty I always run into is that like jury service, it probably has to be compulsory rather than an invitation if you're going to get a reasonably representative group, but unlike jury service it is clearly not reasonable to require people to give up several years of their lives for public service. And you can't really do it on shorter terms of say one year, because then the administration of the day can just wait out a hostile second chamber and hope for better luck next time before steamrollering through all the bad legislation it really wants in one favourable year.

[geden]

I'm optimistic enough to believe that as technology increasingly eliminates most kinds of material scarcity, and human network effects & education continue to eliminate violence, then the question would be, well, really, why wouldn't you want to be in public service?

[rmc]

> Technically speaking the monarch could overrule any objection (afaik the process is not defined by any specific law or regulation, just built on convention)

The UK doesn't really have a constitution in the sense that the US, France, Germany, etc. have a constitution. Power changes all the time, and has gradually gotten more democratic over the last 200 years.

In theory, all power is from the Queen/King, which they give out to Parliament. In theory

In practice Parliament has the power, and if the Queen/King over steps their bounds it's either sorted out by war (Parliament vs. the Monarch (English Civil War in 1640s)), or Parliament kicks out the Monarch and gets someone else in (Glorious Revolution of 1688 when they got rid of the Catholic King and invited the Prodestant Willian of Orange in).

[epscylonb]

I would say the queen is more popular than the political establishment as it is.

[non123]

Is there that much love for Charles?

[NickPollard]

No. I wouldn't say he is unpopular, but Charles is definitely less popular than the Queen, particularly due to the Diana/Camilla situation.

Quite a lot of people have mentioned (not particularly seriously) that they would prefer if he just abdicated for William (who is very popular).

[FuzzyDunlop]

He's not popular with some people for what might be an abuse of power.[1] He's had a reputation of intervening in architecture projects that don't fit his ideal vision (ie. they're not traditional, Georgian style), leading to them being cancelled outright even at the late stages of planning.

[1] http://goo.gl/hA78K

[toyg]

Chances are that Charles will never be king, and if he is, it won't be for very long.

[cstross]

See also Edward VII -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_vii -- Queen Victoria's oldest surviving male offspring, he had to wait 59 years for the throne. Reigned for nine years, then died.

Given the Windsor family medical history, Elizabeth II could well make it past her centenary. In which Charles will not get to place his bum on the throne until he's in his late seventies or eighties.

[fiesycal]

I'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.

[bitops]

Yes, 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.

[protomyth]

It 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]

Isn'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"

[protomyth]

Dug a little deeper: seems 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 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment ). I remember Ike's knighthood was honorary, but he was elected President.

[OstiaAntica]

America 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.

[toyg]

Uk honours are titles (Commander of the British Empire, etc).

[ugh]

I 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.

[FrankBooth]

Just below knight? He was awarded a KBE, honorary though it may be.

[ComputerGuru]

In 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.

[bch]

Regarding Canada, apparently that's not entirely true in practice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_v._Chr%C3%A9tien#Black.27...

[bch]

Not 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_controvers...). Cretiens move was legal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_v._Chr%C3%A9tien), but in the local media spun as very personal. C'est la vie.

[zobzu]

I 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]

When /did/ it represent anything of importance?

[mhb]

You would think it would be as impervious to human frailty as the choice of the pope or the winner of the Nobel peace prize.

[mkramlich]

I hereby make you a Knight. waves holy artifact

This basically sums up the process.

[ComputerGuru]

Can you be knighted posthumously?