Talk:List of honorary British Knights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can anyone point me to some concrete evidence that Sergey/Sergei Kruglov was knighted? The London Gazette's archive doesn't come up with anything when I search for Kruglov. Slicing 19:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

According to one Russian book detailing the lives of our secret police chiefs, Sergey Kruglov received some unnamed British order for providing security at the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences. Mapple 20:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I had been fleshing out this page by searching on google for "Honorary Knight", but I just realized that I'm missing all the "Honorary Dames". So the disparity on this page in the ratio of males to females is entirely my fault due to that oversight. I will get around to fixing it eventually unless someone else finds this topic interesting enough to work on with me.  :-) Jimbo Wales 21:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I notice that someone added Anthony Hopkins, who was then removed because he is a "real Knight"... But isn't he a United States citizen these days? Does that make him now honorary? Does anybody know how that works? Might be worth adding to the page, perhaps, if anyone does know! Angmering 15:30, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe he actually renounced British nationality. -- Necrothesp 12:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, he didn't. Also, Sidney Poitier isn't an honorary knight; as a dual-citizen (Bahamas/USA) who has a citizenship of a Commonwealth country that recognises the British monarch and awards knighthoods, he's a genuine 'Sir', so removing from list. Also changing 'subject' to 'citizen'; see 1981 British Citizenship Act. -- Holgate 21:43, Apr 2 2005 (UTC)
Although it should be pointed out that Sidney Poitier never uses his title. -- Necrothesp 22:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, though it is used on his behalf when he's on diplomatic business for the Bahamas. -- Holgate 13:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I know the Bahamas recognises the monarch but are you certain that they are allowed to accept bonafide British Honours ? In Canada we recognise the monarch but the practice of awarding british honours was severed with the Nickle Resolution in the 1930's. Dowew 18:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
The Nickle Resolution only changed the Canadian Government's policy on the matter, not the law. If the Queen announced tomorrow that the Canadian Prime Minister was now a Knight, there wouldn't be anything they could do (except complain, obviously). (And he'd be stuck with the knighthood, there being no way to renounce it.) Proteus (Talk) 18:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
And there have, in fact, been some cases relatively recently of the Canadian government being distinctly unhappy about knighthoods being awarded to Canadian citizens living in Britain. An example being Sir George Bain, Vice-Chancellor of the Queen's University of Belfast. -- Necrothesp 18:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The most notable case of cource being Conrad Black - there is more about this on the Nickle resolution page. Dowew 23:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

And what about Bob Hope? Born in England, he would seem to be in the same boat as Plum Wodehouse. —Tamfang 16:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Title

This was moved to List of honorary British knights; I've moved it back to List of honorary British Knights, the correct capitalisation. HTH. James F. (talk) 13:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Hi, I've been following Berliner Philhamoniker for years, and I am interested in their current conductor, Simon Rattle. It is said on their official website that he was granted as KBE in 1994. However, when I looked up the list of KBE, I could not find his name. I would appreciate if anyone would verify this. Thanks a lot.

Michael Wang

[edit] Hong Kong

Several people from Hong Kong have recently appeared on this list. Presumably most, if not all, of these people were actually awarded substantive knighthoods/damehoods, as they were British subjects at the time, so should they really be on this list? Have their awards now switched to honorary awards (I'm not even sure if it is possible for a substantive award to retroactively be made honorary) or do they simply choose not to use them? If the latter then they should probably be removed. -- Necrothesp 23:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Special provision was made for people from Hong Kong to retain British nationality after 1997. See British_nationality_law_and_Hong_Kong, either as British Nationals (Overseas) or as full British citizens. However both of these statuses had to be applied for so your question is still valid, the same goes for any other former colony that became independent as a republic. It would also apply to any person granted a substantive knighthood and then naturalised in a non-Commonwealth country (such as the U.S.) before 1949, as at the time this caused loss of British nationality. JAJ 15:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knights of British India

There were many who were awarded Knighthood in india during british regime. I don't find them in the list. Should their names be here?

VP

No. They were awarded substantive knighthoods, not honorary ones, since India was a full part of the British Empire. Only citizens of protectorates (like Zanzibar) and mandated territories (like Palestine) received honorary awards. Even subjects of the Indian princely states (and the princes themselves) received full awards. -- Necrothesp 1 July 2005 09:44 (UTC)
Foreign royalty also qualifies as honorary knights, I guess. I've added several monarchs from Europe and Asia to the list. Mapple 13:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References ?

I would like to ask if there are any official reference lists (preferrably online) that one could consult regarding the Order of the British Empire. Thank you for any information you can provide. Tasis

The official site of the Order of the British Empire is here [1] but there doesn't seem to be a list. Dowew 18:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knights or Ladies?

I suppose that foreign Queens become Honorary Knights of the Garter, not Honorary Ladies. Am I mistaken? Mapple 06:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

According to this article they are Ladies, but it may be wrong. -- Necrothesp 10:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
There is a contradiction there. I'll quote, 'In 1987 Her Majesty the Queen decided that ladies should be eligible for admission as Companions of the Order, with the same rank and privileges as Knights Companions. The first Lady Companion to be appointed was Lavinia Duchess of Norfolk in 1990, followed in 1995 by the former British Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher.' Thus neither Queen Beatrix (1988) nor Queen Margrethe (1979) are counted among Ladies. But 'Her Majesty Queen Beatrice of the Netherlands joins HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, her own mother Princess Juliana and Queen Margarethe of Denmark as the contemporary Ladies of the Order and HM The Queen's daughter HRH Princess Ann...'. Mapple 18:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Not really a contradiction. Ladies had been admitted to the Order on an honorary basis pretty much since its foundation. The Duchess of Norfolk was, however, the first to be admitted to the Order as a full Companion counting as one of the 25 full members. See Order of the Garter#Sovereign and Knights. -- Necrothesp 18:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I know... but were Ladies admitted as Honorary Ladies, or as Honorary Knights? For example, what post-nominal letters, if any, were used for Queen Margrethe II in 1979, when there were no Ladies Companions--'LG' or 'KG'? Mapple 19:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
As a Sovereign, she wouldn't have used post-nominals. Proteus (Talk) 18:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
True, but she would still have had a designation when awarded the honour. -- Necrothesp 17:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Murray

according to her wikipedia page, Canadian singer Anne Murray was made an honourary DBE. Murray was the first canadian singer to get a #1 record in the United States. Is this DBE correct or vandalism ? Dowew 17:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Not sure. But it wouldn't have been honorary if she did get the DBE. As a citizen of a country ruled by the Queen, her honour would have been substantive, even if by Canadian convention she didn't use the title. -- Necrothesp 18:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it is incorrect data. Her official site doesn't list it [2] and neither does her Order of Canada citation which has been updated to include her Order of Nova Scotia [3] Dowew 23:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this confusion with the Irish mezzo Ann Murray who was made an honorary dame?

Yes, I believe so. It's been reverted. The Canadian Anne Murray was also supposedly made a Companion of the Order of Canada in 1975 and again in 1984 - see List of Anne Murray awards#Other achievements. The earlier one must have been at Member or Officer level. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Rettle

Hi, I am following Berliner Philharmoniker for years, and I am interested in their current conductor Simon Rettle particularly. It is said (from their official website) that Mr. Rettle was granted as KBE in 1994. However, when I looked up the list of KBE, I could not find his name on it. Does anyone know if he really was granted? or the honoring system works in other ways? Thanks.

Michael W

Simon Rattle was made a Knight Bachelor, not a KBE. His knighthood is substantive, not honorary, as he is a British subject, and he is therefore Sir Simon. -- Necrothesp 10:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OM, CH and RVC

Earlier today I removed a swag of guys who were awarded these honours. I removed them because the title "List of honorary British Knights" suggested to me they didn't belong here. Later, I read the opening a bit more closely and discovered the list is intended to include these honours, despite the fact that the recipients are not knights. This is a source of confusion and needs to be sorted out. One option would be to rename the list as something like "Foreigners Awarded British Honours". The thing is, honorary appointments to the Order of Merit and the Order of the Companions of Honour are already listed on their respective pages, so it seems silly to double them up here. The only non-knights who appear on this list who don't appear elsewhere, are recipients of the Royal Victorian Chain. I recommend we remove the RVC recipients and have them listed on the RVC page only, and have a proper list of honorary RVCs just like we have for OMs and CHs. Then this list can become what it says it is, a list of honorary British Knights and no more. JackofOz 08:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Renaming it "Foreigners Awarded British Honours" would open it up to endless lists of people being awarded OBEs and the like, which would make it too long in my opinion. The OM, CH and RVC are awards of an equal status to knighthoods, which is why they've been included, and I think we should continue to include them. Maybe it should be renamed though (since women aren't knights either, but I definitely think we should include honorary dames). -- Necrothesp 11:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, if we're going to continue to include CH, OM and RVC, we certainly can't continue to call the list "List of honorary British Knights". Even "List of honorary British Knights and Dames" doesn't solve the problem. But something like "List of honorary British Knights, Dames and Recipients of equivalent honours" is unwieldy and ugly. JackofOz 11:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW, re your statement that RVC is equivalent to a knighthood. Our article says ".. in fact, the Chain is not even given a precedence within the British honours system". That seems to suggest that no equivalence can exist because the RVC is not even a part of the honours system to begin with. Where does that leave us? JackofOz 11:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Technically true, but it is a very high award that tends to go to heads of state and royals, so I think it's appropriate here. -- Necrothesp 15:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Citizens / British Subjects

There is a popular myth out there (particularly among Americans) that British people are "British subjects". This is false, and since 1983 the term "British subject" has a specific meaning referring only to certain people who derive British nationality from British India or the Republic of Ireland pre 1949. See British subject

British citizens are not British subjects under the law.

It's accepted that to hold a substantive knighthood one needs to be a citizen of a country which has the Queen as Head of State, however the use of the term British subject in any context other than its statutory meaning invites confusion. JAJ 02:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint your opinion about this being a misconception of Americans, but I'm very British and I'm proud to be a subject, not a citizen. I'm fully aware what it says on my passport, but that is merely to make us the same as the rest of the world - a sad state of affairs. As a native of a monarchy, not a republic, I am a subject of a monarch. Since the monarch is the fount of all honour, one must be a subject of the monarch to receive a substantive honour. It therefore seems wholly appropriate, and not in the slightest bit confusing, to use the term in this article. -- Necrothesp 13:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
British citizens are subjects of Her Majesty in right of the United Kingdom, in common with British overseas territories citizens, British Overseas citizens, British Nationals (Overseas) and British subjects (per the British Nationality Act 1981). The constitutional status of British protected persons is different and they are not generally considered to be subjects of Her Majesty.
There is a contrary view that being a British citizen is a more appropriate term for a constitutional monarchy, but that's not really the question here. What is more important is to use a NPOV term that reflects the facts and does not cause confusion to those less familiar with constitutional nuances than you are.
I still have doubts that "British subject" is the most appropriate term to use, at least not without further clarification. What term would you suggest to describe Australians, Canadians and citizens of the other Commonwealth Realms? As they are subjects of Her Majesty in right of another Realm, the term "British subject" doesn't necessarily represent the constitutional reality in these instances. JAJ 20:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
On 26 January 1949, the Citizenship Act 1948 came into force in Australia. The day before, all Australians were British subjects. But from 26 Jan, they became Australian citizens. All immigrants who have been naturalised since then are Australian citizens. Our monarch is the "Queen of Australia" (who just happens to live in Britain). We are not subjects of the "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (a different crown), and "British subjects" we are most definitely not. JackofOz 21:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Nobody has said that people from the Commonwealth Realms are "British" subjects (although they are most certainly subjects of Her Majesty - in fact, I have heard an Australian describe himself as an "Australian subject" on TV). But the people who are listed in this article as becoming British subjects have indeed become such and it is by virtue of becoming subjects that they become eligible to use their knighthoods substantively. -- Necrothesp 05:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I have added a footnote explaining the use of the term "British subject" in the context of this article. JAJ 14:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knight Bachelor vs KBE

When someone gets an honorary knighthood they usually acquire an honorary KBE (Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire). However substantive knighthoods are usually in the form of Knight Bachelor

When someone awarded an honorary KBE subsequently becomes British and receives a substantive honour, do they get a "substantive KBE" or a "substantive Knight Bachelor" and if the latter, do they keep their KBE title as well? JAJ 15:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's true to say that "substantive knighthoods are usually in the form of Knight Bachelor". Maybe there are more knights bachelor than any other single category of knighthood.
They were given a KBE but it was only because of the nationality issue that it had to be honorary. Once the nationality changes, the KBE changes from honorary to substantive. If a person had an honorary KBE and later became British, to then be given a substantive Knight Bachelor would represent a kind of demotion. And unless the honorary KBE were rescinded, they would have two knighthoods: KBE (honorary) and Knight bachelor (substantive). I guess this is technically possible, if slightly absurd. They would be "Sir" because the Knight bachelor, and have the KBE post-nominal, so it would be impossible to tell that the KBE belonging to "Sir James Smith KBE" was honorary. JackofOz 20:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The majority of substantive knighthoods are indeed Knights Bachelor. KCVOs, KCBs and KCMGs are awarded only to specific classes of people and very few substantive knighthoods are KBEs (most of those that are are on the Overseas List, for some reason). But the honorary knighthood and the substantive knighthood are not different things - if someone gets an honorary KBE then they do not receive another knighthood when it becomes substantive; the same knighthood is merely converted from honorary to substantive form. -- Necrothesp 22:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
That suggests that anyone who gets an honorary KBE and then becomes British would end up with a substantive KBE. I don't see how it could work otherwise. And isn't a substantive KBE ranked higher in the order of precedence than a Knight Bachelor, which those who are already British are normally awarded? JAJ 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely right on both counts. -- Necrothesp 00:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
A linked question. How did British politician James Molyneaux get a KBE rather than a Knight Bachelor? Or is the Wikipedia article incorrect? JAJ 04:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand that if a person already is in the Order of the British Empire (MBE, OBE) then if they are subsequently knighted that knighthood will be a KBE - representing a promotion within the Order. DuncanHill 20:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is true - singer Tom Jones has an OBE and is a Knight Bachelor. JAJ 01:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It's absolutely not true. Many people have OBEs or CBEs and then go on to become Knights Bachelor. Most acting knights do, for a start. The KBE tends to be used when a slightly higher class of knighthood is required or when the person lives outside the Commonwealth Realms (for some reason). But often it's not at all clear why someone has been made a KBE instead of a Knight Bachelor. -- Necrothesp 18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revoked knighthoods ?

Anyone up for starting a page about people who's knighthood has been revoked ? So far I have found Albert Henry and Nicolae Ceauşescu..and of cource all those German princes after WWI. And Emperor Hirohito...anyone have any ideas ? Dowew 03:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also Anthony Blunt. -- Necrothesp 23:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
And Terry Lewis and Roger Casement. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Tsang

Does anyone know whether his knighthood was awarded before or after the return of Hong Kong to China? If awarded before 1 July 1997 then it should have been substantive, not honorary. JAJ 04:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

14 June 1997, according to the London Gazette, so substantive. I'll remove his name. -- Necrothesp 23:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honorary/Honourary

Could somebody please tell me why the title and most mentions in the article are spelt 'honorary' and not the British English 'honourary'? I know spelling arguments can often be petty, but unless I'm misunderstanding something, I'd have though this one is pretty clear cut. SteveLamacq43 21:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Although British English uses "honour" instead of "honor", it usually uses "honorary" not "honourary" (the latter is acceptable, but is very rarely used and would probably be considered archaic). One of the peculiarities of the English language (which is almost never regular)! So basically, "honorary" is entirely correct, and "honourary", while also technically correct, would be considered highly peculiar. -- Necrothesp 23:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining, I had no idea! Well, even at my age, every day's a school day! Cheers, SteveLamacq43 13:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Germany

Section 7, Royalty.

I want to collect all the various German states under "Germany" with the states as a subsection. It will also give me a chance to put some rulers in the proper section (I see that Kaiser Wilhelm is listed under the German Empire, but his sons under Prussia, for example)

Any objections? --garryq 13:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think they're better left under the individual states. The reason why Wilhelm II is under Germany and most of his sons under Prussia is that they were usually referred to as "Prince X of Prussia" - only the Emperor and Crown Prince were usually referred to as being "of Germany". -- Necrothesp 14:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)