Knights and Dames

Seems like the Government has decided to have our own 'Knights' and 'Dames'.

You are joking, surely  

Cringe.

this guy is a bloody idoit
guess who will be given the title of sir
hint a former pm and not a labor one  

Why would it be cringeworthy to honour citizens that have gone above and beyond in the best interests of this great country? (not that Im particularly for or against)

Because knighting is a Monachistic activity.
Is Mr Abbott going to morph himself into King Tony?

"My Kingdom, my Kingdom, my kingdom for a pair of budgy smugglers..."

its an old fashioned thing well past its useby date

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:Because knighting is a Monachistic activity.
Is Mr Abbott going to morph himself into King Tony?

"My Kingdom, my Kingdom, my kingdom for a pair of budgy smugglers..."

When did we become a republic?

Scrunch wrote:

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:Because knighting is a Monachistic activity.
Is Mr Abbott going to morph himself into King Tony?

"My Kingdom, my Kingdom, my kingdom for a pair of budgy smugglers..."

When did we become a republic?

I would argue with u scrunch the only thing ill say is John Howard was a bigger monarchist and he didn't bring them back . Well past their use by date

Scrunch wrote:

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:Because knighting is a Monachistic activity.
Is Mr Abbott going to morph himself into King Tony?

"My Kingdom, my Kingdom, my kingdom for a pair of budgy smugglers..."

When did we become a republic?

And when did we start Knighting people who are simply doing there job and are very well paid for doing it as well. Cringeworthy is not the word--pardon me while I puke.

testy wrote:

Scrunch wrote:

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:Because knighting is a Monachistic activity.
Is Mr Abbott going to morph himself into King Tony?

"My Kingdom, my Kingdom, my kingdom for a pair of budgy smugglers..."

When did we become a republic?

And when did we start Knighting people who are simply doing there job and are very well paid for doing it as well. Cringeworthy is not the word--pardon me while I puke.

So a knighthood from the queen of another country is acceptable, but not someone from our own?

I completely understand the flack for Abbott because he's a prize knob, just think people go overboard in their criticisms - If this is one of the bigger issues our nation faces (sadly it isn't) then we wouldn't be too bad off would we?

mickyj wrote:

Scrunch wrote:

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:Because knighting is a Monachistic activity.
Is Mr Abbott going to morph himself into King Tony?

"My Kingdom, my Kingdom, my kingdom for a pair of budgy smugglers..."

When did we become a republic?

I would argue with u scrunch the only thing ill say is John Howard was a bigger monarchist and he didn't bring them back . Well past their use by date

Dont particularly see the relevance

Scrunch wrote:

testy wrote:

Scrunch wrote:

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:Because knighting is a Monachistic activity.
Is Mr Abbott going to morph himself into King Tony?

"My Kingdom, my Kingdom, my kingdom for a pair of budgy smugglers..."

When did we become a republic?

And when did we start Knighting people who are simply doing there job and are very well paid for doing it as well. Cringeworthy is not the word--pardon me while I puke.

So a knighthood from the queen of another country is acceptable, but not someone from our own?

I completely understand the flack for Abbott because he's a prize knob, just think people go overboard in their criticisms - If this is one of the bigger issues our nation faces (sadly it isn't) then we wouldn't be too bad off would we?

Yes exactly, I have never heard of the Australian Government handing out these gongs before.
We are still part of the Commonwealth and as such they are handed out by the Monarchy--Don't get me wrong I am a fence sitter on this subject, whether we should be or not, but as it stands I have never heard of a knighthood being awarded by a sitting government of Australia

We haven't had knighthoods for a long time in Australia and it's nothing to do with a republic.

We've had our own awards (OA, etc) to honour deserved citizens and I have no problem with that.

This is an unbelievable throwback to a bygone era and even the Advertiser is making fun of it.

The only such award I agree with is the one given to Edna Everage.   

redandblack wrote:This is an unbelievable throwback to a bygone era and even the Advertiser is making fun of it. 

Not everything has to be modern. If we could go back to $0.20 pints I don't think there would be much outrage.

No, you're right, not everything has to be modern, but this is a throwback to the forelock tugging days.

It does have its good side, though.  We all need a laugh and this is as silly as anything we've seen for fair while.

It was only 3 months ago he specifically promised he wouldn't bring back these honours.

I can't wait for the cartoonists tomorrow.  I'll put some of them up here and we can all have a good laugh.

Bravely back to the 50's and Bob Menzies.    

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/photogallery/federal-politics/cartoons/david-pope-20120214-1t3j0.html

I think the knocking down of people recieving a knighthood is simply the usual tall poppy syndrome so popular in society. People cannot achieve anything without someone else needing to feel that they have to knock them down because they recieved nothing themselves. Why not simply be happy for the outgoing and incoming GG? Peter Cosgrove fully deserves to be honoured in any was possible for what he has done for this country.

Yes I agree Cosgrove deserves it.

But he is getting it for what he is about to do, not what he has done.

If you get it just because you are GG, I think it downplays the value of it a bit.

Just saying.

That's fair enough, Ben, but there are already awards for people such as Gen Cosgrove. We have AO's, etc, which are our own awards.

Others will disagree, fair enough, but I'm not alone in thinking this is just a ridiculous step backwards to the old British Imperial Honours.

I thought we were a bit more of an independent country than this nonsense, just my opinion.

Tony Wright in The Age:


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/tony-abbotts-bunyip-aristocracy-arise-lord-clive-and-lady-gina-20140325-35g7i.html#poll

Classic straw man argument.

Pick some people who will never qualify for the award, like Shane Warne and Clive Palmer, put a Sir in front e.g. "Sir Clive" and then rubbish the idea because Palmer doesn't deserve a knighthood. Of course not, but it was never intended that he would ever receive one.
It's knee jerk, populist, posturing that gets a F in logic, but no doubt the Abbott bashers will love it. Much easier to ridicule then discuss the pros and cons in a sensible manner.


Not sure if we need an honorific to recognise our best citizens but if we decide we do then I suppose Sir and Dame is as good as any titles. It gives more recognition then calling everyone Mr and Ms and any "Australianised" version will most likely be cringeworthy.

The big question is, should the very best of Australians who have risen to the top of their fields and have international as well as national standing, The Peter Cosgroves, the Noble Prize winners, the Chief Justice, have a title to reconise their achivements?

Surely the debate is that we already have our own Australian awards, in varying importance, which are there to reward the very people we're now talking about.

Even John Howard saw that going back to Knights and Dames was anachronistic.

Rule Britannia   

Who addresses people as OAM though R&B?

Well, that is a different debate.

Australia is supposed to be an egalitarian society. I think calling someone 'Sir' or 'Lady' or 'Dame' is unnecessary and something we're much better off without. I have no problem with recognising achievement through an awards system, but 'Sir' and 'Dame' are a British tradition, I think? We grew up enough as a country to depart from British titles long ago.

The other problem is that a good percebtage of 'Sirs' have bought them through donations to political parties, etc.

I just think this is a laughable, retrograde step, which appeals to the Monarchists and those who agree with them.

I like the Queen, I like England.

But this is Australia, a sovereign country which is not England.

I agree that they ( Sir / Dame ) are not ideal, but I do think a very small elite group of Australians should have some sort of notable addressable title to distinguish their contribution to society.

OAM or AO is not something that really is "usable".

Mind you, I would think it would be very difficult to convince me of someone deserving such an honour.

For mine, someone like a sporting or entertainment personality would not be deserving. ie - Bert Newton. Someone like a Fred Hollows of Fiona Stanley may be worthy....may be.