More honoured in the breach

The system of awarding honours in this country has always been a shabby transactional affair. Mediaeval monarchs would dub knights for acts of valour on the battlefield, in that sense rewarding very real service to the crown. As time went on, however, the process morphed into a cynical exercise of royal power through patronage and, as it did so, it became more and more enveloped in the mystique of chivalry, so much so that Edward I commissioned a replica of King Arthur's round table, which now hangs on the wall of the Great Hall in Winchester Castle.

This is a prime example of the English genius for dressing up their grubbiest activities in a cloak of respectability - preferably an ermine-trimmed one. About fifty years after Edward I faked-up his round table his grandson, Edward III, founded the Most Noble Order of the Garter, now Britain's oldest order of chivalry. Whatever the truth behind the king's picking up of the Countess of Salisbury's slipped garter, the king was clearly getting his rebuttal in first by adopting the motto Honi soit qui mal y pense (Evil be to he who thinks ill of it) for his new elite club. His retrieval of a lost item of lingerie becomes a venerable institution by the magic of royal association. Snapped knicker elastic is transmogrified into an object of chivalric devotion by the king's touch. Utterly ridiculous, of course, but it has stood the test of time.

Fast forward another century-and-a-half and Henry VIII was reviving mediaeval jousting tournaments (almost the death of him) and repainting the venerable Winchester table with Tudor emblems to prop up his family's flimsy dynastic claim to the throne. His daughter, Elizabeth, famously knighted Francis Drake on board his ship, The Golden Hind, in Deptford. Ostensibly, this was to reward him for being the first English sea captain to circumnavigate the globe, and also for his gallantry in fighting the Spanish. But unpack that story and it gets really shady. Firstly, Elizabeth never set foot on the Golden Hind. Forget the famous paintings of Drake kneeling before his queen; they're not photographs of an actual event they're shameless propaganda. 

The historical truth (insofar as such a thing can be said to exist) is that she charged the French Ambassador with the task of tapping 'Sir' Francis on the shoulder with her sword. Why the French Ambassador? Duh! Because she needed the support of the King of France in her fight against the King of Spain. The knighthood itself had nothing to do with gallantry either, it was a reward for bringing her so much looted Spanish gold that it exceeded her normal royal revenues for a whole year! No wonder she was chuffed with him. (Spoiler alert: in reality Drake was a slaver and pirate - honour had little or nothing to do with his knighting.)

Elizabeth's successor, James VI of Scotland (James I of England), finding himself strapped for cash in 1611 devised the brilliant concept of Baronetcies, hereditary knighthoods which he could sell to his wealthy English subjects. The going rate was the equivalent of £1.5m in today's money. Playing on the snobbery of the emergent English bourgoisie was a safe bet: he sold two hundred of them (do the math).No wonder he was called the wisest fool in Christendom.

His grandson, Charles II, regained the English throne in 1660 after the Civil War and was crowned the following year. He had an estimated thirteen mistresses during his life, many of whom were noblewomen and some he ennobled. Louise de Kérouaille, for example, was created Baroness Petersfield, Countess of Fareham and Duchess of Portsmouth - not a bad haul of gongs for a night's work. Of his thirteen (some estimate nineteen) illegitimate children, all the sons were given dukedoms, several of which are still extant. Being conceived on 'the wrong side of the blanket' was obviously no hindrance in society if the philandering father was the king. This puts a rather different slant on the concept of the monarchy as 'the fount of honour'.

By the end of the reign of George I in 1740 there were forty non-royal dukedoms, today only twenty-four remain. However, there are still some eight hundred hereditary titles and the Life Peerages Act 1958 allowed Prime Ministers to reward personal service by awarding supporters a title and a seat in the House of Lords - in other words an unelected position in the national legislature - for life. As well as the annual New Year's Honours List Boris Johnson also availed himself of a Dissolution Honours List in 2019 in which he ennobled his brother, Joe, and his controversial Resignation Honours List of 2022, just signed off by Rishi Sunak, is rumoured to have included his father, Stanley. Luckily, the House of Lords Appointments Committee (HoLAC) was having none of it and removed his name.

It is clear that Boris Johnson has made a mockery of the honours system but, to be candid, it was risible long before he got his grubby fingers on it and brought it to its current state of disrepute. The Labour Party under Sir Keir Starmer (himself a recipient of a knighthood for his time as Head of the Crown Prosecution Service) has pledged to abolish the House of Lords. In that objective at least, Boris Johnson has made his job easier for him. The system is now so tarnished by accusations of cronyism that the Lords is ripe for abolition, sad in a way as it is arguably the more conscientious of the two Houses of Parliament. However, a new system of recognising and rewarding public service needs to be devised which precludes political patronage.

I find the concept of rewarding politicians with knighthoods, damehoods, MBEs, OBEs etc obscene. Political service, whether as a Councillor, Assembly Member or MP, is a paid role for which being elected by the people should be honour enough. No-one forces you to do it, it's your choice so why expect a gong for it? I would, however, still want to see citizens rewarded for voluntary community service, charitable fundraising (but not for being a highly-paid CEO of a major charity), acts of humanity, bravery, gallantry etc, Such selfless efforts deserve recognition, which should probably be the subject of popular nomination or vote.

But, however it's done, for God's sake don't let a Prime Minister anywhere near the process.

Update 24.07.23: Nice to know the Deputy Prime Minister, Oliver Dowden, reads my posts. Speaking about the creation of a new Humanitarian Medal he said "This new medal is a fitting tribute to our humanitarian heroes who put the needs of others before their own, often in the most challenging or dangerous environments." Nadine Dorries take note.


Popular posts from this blog

On old age

"The fact is that when I come to think it over, I find that there are four reasons for old age being thought unhappy: First, that it withdraws us from active employments; second, that it enfeebles the body; third, that it deprives us of nearly all physical pleasures; fourth, that it is the next step to death."  Writing his essay,  De Senectute (On Old Age), in 44 BCE, Marcus Tullius Cicero went on to refute these four supposed reasons in characteristically robust and forthright manner. Cicero wasn't one to sit about moping in his own old age; he remained actively engaged in the political life of the Republic whose survival, in the face of tyranny, he championed so fiercely.  Cicero was nine years younger than I am now when he met his untimely end yet he considered himself already an old man; or, rather, his society judged him to be so. His second point about age enfeebling is more germane. Physical decline had not yet impacted him but, six years on from my retirement, I
Read more

Born to rule

When, ten days ago, I posted my piece about the manipulated image of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and her children (see Snap Judgment) I didn't know of her cancer treatment. Had I known, I would have adopted a gentler, though I hope no less critical, tone. But I didn't know, and nor did any of us outside the immediate royal circle, which rather goes to strengthen the case against the monarchy. For Kate and her family the diagnosis of cancer (as yet unspecified) will have been a devastating blow, as will the chemotherapy she is currently undergoing. On a human level, of course I sympathise and extend my best wishes for a full recovery as, indeed, I did at the time of her father-in-law's diagnosis. It is particularly cruel, then, that on top of all this she has been obliged to record a video statement to reassure the public. As if she didn't have enough to contend with already. But such is the unpalatable obligation placed upon any royal personage - noblesse oblige. Whic
Read more

Working to rule

An avowed republican I may be but news of King Charles III's cancer diagnosis is nevertheless a cause of sadness - I might not want him, or anyone else, as my king but I wish the man no harm.  However, Jonathan Swift's opinion that "health is the greatest of all possessions; a pale cobbler is better than a sick king" serves as a timely reminder that ill-health in the monarch is not simply a personal matter, it has constitutional implications. To be blunt about it, Charles' death, in constitutional terms at least, would be no great problem; the king is dead, long live the king. The succession is assured and the crown would pass immediately to the Prince of Wales, who would be pronounced William V. The ship of state would sail on. A long-term or debilitating illness, on the other hand, could have far-reaching consequences for the institution of the monarchy at a sensitive time, coming so soon after the death of Britain's longest-reigning monarch, Charles' mo
Read more