Talk:List of people who have declined a British honour

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guardian's list[edit]

The original list has 300 names on apparently. The guardian's highlights have a few names on that our's doesn't. It would be good if someone could find the full 300 however ;)

The Guardian's extras from here:

Now three of those are Guardianistas and may not warrant inclusion in our list (unless we are going for completeness). Secretlondon 18:16, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

Independent has far more, including

Not sure I'd actually heard of any of these, though.

Might it be possible or useful to add value by giving some indication as to why these various people have declined the honors offered them (the Falklands, Iraq, thought Atlee was funny-looking, whatever)? --Charles A. L. 21:16, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

It would definitely be a useful/value-adding thing to do. I don't know if it's possible, though. —Paul A 07:31, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
To be honest there is not much point. The government has said that the refusal rate is 2% (which is pretty darn low if you think about it) so with 1200+ people on every list (twice a year) there should be many more names than this. These names are all arts and media types - where are the people from other areas who have refused honours? I don't think their names have been published. Wiki-Ed 12:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to organize this list[edit]

By the honor that they have refused. It seems from the information in the intro that this is particularly relevant because you can see who is declining a lower honor etc. If I get the order of the sections wrong, please feel free to change the order to one that you consider more appropriate. If these shouldn't be sectioned at all, I'd like to hear how you would rather organize the list, but it's possible that I'm wrong. savidan(talk) (e@) 14:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that now seems inappropriate because some people are lacking that information. Can anyone propose a better organization? savidan(talk) (e@) 14:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just arrange it alphabetically? gunslotsofguns 11:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alphabetically, perhaps by last name, you know, the one you alphabetize by? 71.102.144.27

More on Organization[edit]

The current ordering (alphabetical by first name) doesn't seem to add much to the content of a very long list. The reasons why are useful, but could perhaps be rolled into the pages on the people themselves. Unless someone can think of a better organizational scheme, this seems like it might work better as a category, perhaps leaving some of the explicatory content under a page like 'refusing a British honor'. Thoughts? 132.174.23.47 18:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original suggestion was a good idea - sort by honour declined (with an "unknown" list at the end where we don't know, although it seems odd to me that a refusal could be verifiable enough to be on the list where we don't even know what was declined). Proteus (Talk) 08:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

What about military honours? Siegfried Sassoon threw his Military Cross into the River Mersey. That certainly sounds like he was rejecting it. Other people who (tried to) return their awards are on the list. Ben davison 17:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Later acceptance of a declined offer[edit]

When an honour is declined does it remain "available" should the person change their mind about acceptance later on? Or is the offer withdrawn once declined? JAJ 12:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the offer doesn't stand if declined, although another offer may be made in the future. -- Necrothesp 12:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Javier Sánchez Broto[edit]

A great man, perhaps somebody should click on the link and read a wee bity more about him

Gareth Peirce[edit]

I believe Gareth Peirce is worth mentioning as a special case. According to the BBC article, it seems like she intended never to make a public statement on rejecting appointment as a CBE, but accidentally failed to inform the government of this, or was through some other misunderstanding included in the Honours List.

If nothing else, the case suggests that whatever mechanism was used to establish acceptance (opt-out? A phone call? A misdesigned web form?) is prone to occasional failure, and that it is not always true that individuals can avoid making a public statement on whether they are prepared to accept an appointment.

However, I'm not sure there's editorial justification for mentioning this in the Gareth Peirce article: there's at least one quote suggesting she doesn't want the matter spoken of, there's confusion about what happened, and the status of accidental leaks is legally difficult - the BBC, at least, appear to have decided to purge any mention of the incident from their profile on her.

So, how about pointing out that the system has failed in at least one instance, with a link to the story, without naming anyone? RandomP (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peerage Act 1963[edit]

The Renouncing an honour section claims that "no official provision exists for renouncing an honour", but isn't that wrong because of the Peerage Act 1963 brought on by Tony Benn's fight to renounce his Viscountcy to remain an MP? Shouldn't this interesting development be discussed a little here? See Tony_Benn#Peerage_reform. Rwendland (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This (the disclamation of a hereditary peerage) is the only instance where one can renounce an honour, and there are very specific circumstances in which it can be done. It only applies to hereditary peerages, not life peerages, and must be exercised within a year of succeeding to the title (or, in the case of a minor who succeeds to a title, within a year of reaching the age of 21). There is still no provision for renouncing an honour that one has previously accepted; what the Peerage Act 1963 did was introduce a mechanism whereby one might decline a specific sort of hereditary honour which (due to an accident of genealogy) had been imposed upon one. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ringo Starr[edit]

According to his Wikipedia entry, he says that he *would* turn down a knighthood. There's no indication that he was offered a knighthood. Ringo should be removed from the list, unless someone can find evidence that he was, in fact, offered the honor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.38.69 (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Gladstone[edit]

Did Victoria really offer him an earldom ?

It's certainly true that until the last twenty years or so, a retiring Prime Minister was traditionally offered an earldom (Harold MacMillan was the last one to accept, taking the title Earl of Stockton, although this was some years after his retirement). Similarly, retiring Speakers of the House of Commons were traditionally offered a viscountcy, and George Thomas was the last one to accept, becoming Viscount Tonypandy. These days, a life peerage (barony) is the usual form. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but it is surprisingly when thinking about Victoria`s view on him. I also see Chamberlain on the list, without references. I also heard that Thatcher was offered an earldom, maybe Major too, but this is maybe only rumours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.3.134 (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life for Windsors[edit]

Is this serious? Why would anybody suggest Life Peerage for Prince of Wales when he's expected to become Sovereign? Similarly, Prince Philip and others, being royals with hereditary titles would not be considered for such a 'silly thing'. It doesn't seem to make sense. Is there any proof of it? Errarel (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. Under the terms of the House of Lords Act 1999, only life peers have an automatic right to a seat in the House. Furthermore, ninety seats were reserved for hereditary peers, to be elected by themselves from amongst their number; also seats are reserved for two Great Officers of State who have ceremonial duties in the House: the Earl Marshal (in practice, for many centuries now, the Duke of Norfolk) and the Lord Great Chamberlain in the event that the latter is a peer (currently the Marquess of Cholmondeley). In 1999, as part of the reforms, first holders of hereditary peerages (that is, those who were created peers on their own merits rather than inheriting the title from a forebear) were offered life peerages to enable them to continue to sit in the House. This latter provision also applied to certain members of the Royal Family, including the Prince of Wales (whose titles of Duke of Cornwall and Earl of Chester were treated as hereditary by the Act, even though they're never actually inherited), but in accordance with entirely sensible constitutional conventions, none of them chose to exercise this right. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The provision about first holders needs to be reworded in the article, which now says life baronies were offered only to royals. Four were granted in all. —Tamfang (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm McDowell[edit]

Surely he was never offered a knighthood? (92.7.6.186 (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Maybe yes, maybe no. We need a citation. But you make it sound an extremely unlikely proposition. Remember, Mick Jagger was given a knighthood for his services to "music".  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why?[edit]

For those readers such as myself who may not be familiar with either being offered or accepting/declining a British hono(u)r, would some context at the top be appropriate? What constitutes a British honor? Is this an official governmental act? What responsibilities accompany, say, knighthood? Is turning down this offer perceived as insulting? Is it commonplace? What reasons might one have for refusing? Financial? Modesty? Politics? I am not asking for opinion, but any fact-based context or background would be appreciated. --Replysixty (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of articles about this. I recommend starting at Order of the British Empire. Newjerseyliz (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the superscript "why" against many of these entries is fatuous. No-one is under any obligation to accept an honour and the decision to decline one is normally personal; a defined reason is neither necessary nor expected, and most certainly need not be made public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.33.144.19 (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Fraser[edit]

How did Antonia Fraser "later" (re Pinter: "although his wife later became Lady Antonia Fraser, DBE") become "Lady" Antonia Fraser? According to her own entry in Wikipedia, she is the daughter of the 7th Earl of Longford and thus would have been a "Lady" from birth, would she not? And why is the mention of her name not given a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.3.168.75 (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't Lady until her father inherited the earldom in 1961. More to the point, she "became Lady Antonia Fraser, DBE" when she was given the DBE. Perhaps that sentence could be worded better? —Tamfang (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Logue[edit]

Logue entry rv; appears to be incorrect as per "The King personally recognised his friendship and gratitude to Logue by appointing him to the Royal Victorian Order, first making Logue a member (MVO) in time for his coronation,[19] on 11 May 1937 and later elevating him to commander (CVO) in 1944." (from Logue article) Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Claude Auchinleck[edit]

It was mentioned in his biography that he declined a peerage after World War II. Does anyone know whether it was a viscountcy or barony (I highly doubt that it was an earldom or higher)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.106.96 (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cromwell[edit]

Unless this list only comprises monarchy-given honours - in which case it should be so described - it should include Oliver Cromwell's 1657 refusal of the title of King of the Commonwealth.Straw Cat (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced entries[edit]

A significant number of entries on this list are not referenced. I think that's problematic, particularly as some of this sounds like it could be urban legend: "Henry Lascelles, 5th Earl of Harewood, GCVO (in 1922, as he thought marquessates tended to die out more quickly than earldoms)" as one example. Might be true, might not. There is no mention of it in our article about him. (Of course, in many cases, declining an honour will be such a minor footnote in someone's life that the article about them might not mention it, even if this article, which deals with the phenomenon generally, does. But either way, a reliable source is important.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added refimprove. Most of the examples were probably added in good faith, but there may be a need for pruning if they cannot be verified.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Phillips[edit]

I've removed Fiona Phillips entry from this list. It read: "Fiona Phillips, from the Labour Government to be a People's Peeress". I have removed it for two reasons.

First, when you read the sources (see her article for sources) it is not completely clear that she was actually offered a peerage. It seems there were informal talks about her doing some kind of public health campaign, and this may or may not have been a ministerial position. Apparently sources at Number 10 denied that a peerage was offered, she thinks otherwise. It isn't important either way, but she's far from a confirmed member of the set of people we are discussing here.

Second, even if she had been offered a peerage by Gordon Brown, that wouldn't make her a "People's Peeress" - that popular term refers to Peers who come through the House of Lords Appointments Commission. So our listing was misleading in that way as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 5th Marquess of Lansdowne[edit]

I have just removed this entry:

I have not found any sources confirming in, and therefore certainly none confirming the rationale. It may well be true, but I've not confirmed it.

It is relatively easy to confirm the entry for the 3rd Marguess of Lansdowne, as his refusal of a Dukedom is covered in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. I haven't added that reference yet, as I'm unsure what site I should link to. Is there a good version of the 1911 online without advertising slapped all over it? (There are loads of spammy sites!) Our version at Wikibooks appears to me to be incomplete and doesn't have the relevant page. Many versions can be found in Google books, but they all seem to show only a very-hard-to-read tiny excerpt.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Portsmouth[edit]

I have removed this unreferenced entry:

After some effort to find confirmation of this, I did find it mentioned on a message board but nothing further. The 5th Earl of Portsmouth doesn't have a Wikipedia biography, so it seems unlikely that he did anything remarkable enough to warrant an offer of a Marquessate. I did find that he donated his scientific papers to Cambridge University, so he seems like a wonderful fellow to at least that degree. But pending further research, I'm removing this one now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Blair[edit]

I removed Tony Blair because this correction clarifies that Blair neither sought nor was offered a peerage.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed him again, see link above and this one, he was never formally offered a knighthood, either. Queen makes Blair an offer that he can refuse, The Telegraph, 13 May 2007--Nyctc7 (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

John Hookham Frere and Charles Pelham Villiers apparently declined peerages. Tryde (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Foot the British politician also declined more than one honour according to his Wikipedia article. Peter b (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward VIII[edit]

If the crown section is included for Cromwell would it not be benifical to include Edward VIII's resigination as King? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerakith (talk • contribs) 22:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward VIII of the United Kingdom became king automatically on the death of his father in 1936, but never had a coronation as a result of the abdication crisis. Cromwell was offered the chance to be king in 1657 but declined it, so the situations are not identical.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, but surely the fact that he declined the crown which was 'offered' to him, warrants his inclusion in this list? Zerakith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.11.220 (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abdication is not really the same thing as declining an honour. Edward VIII's abdication is more like the resignation of Richard Nixon in 1974.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's true there is some inconsistency; John Lennon accepted his MBE, then later "resigned" from his "membership"; the article is supposed to be about those who declined in the first place.Straw Cat (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, it's seems to be a grey area simply because of the inclusion of people who first accept it and then later decline. I will cede to the consensus. Zerakith (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Include
He declined the honour. Full stop. If he has to be separated from Oliver Cromwell and put in List_of_people_who_have_declined_a_British_honour#Renouncing_an_honour or have his own special section, then so be it. But it's weird to not include someone who so famously declined such an honor not be on this page anywhere. Kire1975 (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction[edit]

Isn't this cruft and trivia? Unless anyone objects I propose deleting it all.Straw Cat (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter I[edit]

In the russian version, Peter I of Russia declined the garter orden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.61.191.151 (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet Office documents released[edit]

Sourcing in the news today: JB Priestley, Roald Dahl, Lucien Freud and LS Lowry among 277 people who turned down honours and Revealed, the big names who snubbed honours from the Queen. The notable omissions from this article are Henry Moore (knighthood 1951) and J. B. Priestley (life peerage 1965 and Companion of Honour 1969).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The full list, published by the Cabinet Office, is here. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hywel Gwynfryn[edit]

It's widley known that he refused an MBE around 2005, but as he wouldn't be that well known to the London press a reference is hard to find. Only thing I can find on-line is a letter in the Daily Post praising him! --Rhyswynne (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Cleese of Fawlty Towers, or When is a "No, thanks" a Refusal?[edit]

I understand that people usually need to be sounded out so as not to cause embarrassment to the Crown. The source says that Paddy Ashdown "was going to offer" Cleese a peerage but he turned it down. That means it was all at the level of informal dialogue and never got to the stage of a formal offer which was formally declined.

But this raises the question: At what point in the process can we safely say the person has "declined" an honour, as distinct from "indicated they would decline the honour if offered it"?

I imagine there are other people in our list who are in the latter category, so we need to be very clear about what we're talking about. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 10:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dates?[edit]

For those of us who are unfamiliar with the details of British history, it would be very useful if a date could be provided for when the Honours were turned down. A year is included with a few of the individuals but it's not the standard (which is just "Honour, Name, Circumstance"). It makes a huge difference if these refusals happened in the 19th century, 20th century or 21st century.

I know this would take some time to pull together but I've seen on Wikipedia that there are a solid group of editors who work on these topics so I hope it could be a clean-up project for one or more persons. Thanks! Newjerseyliz (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem with this entire subject is that reliable information on who has declined what honour, and how or when, is in fairly short supply. The whole thing is supposed to be private, and it's considered very bad form to state publicly that one has turned down an honour. The only really reliable source is the list published a couple of years ago as the result of an FOI request. Some of the other names are accompanied by citations to interviews or published biographies, but there are a lot of others that either don't have any supporting citation at all, or are basically hearsay, conjecture or WP:OR. Surely WP:Verifiability says that the uncited or poorly-cited ones should be deleted (or at least commented out) - shall we do this? -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Winston Churchill[edit]

Removed sentence "Churchill had a rather contemptuous attitude to the House of Lords over his long political career, perhaps having to do with being a younger son in an aristocratic family and having made his own way." Churchill was the eldest of his father's sons, and the previous sentence is unsupported by a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.151.64.139 (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hawking[edit]

Didn't he refuse Knighthood ? according to this he did — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:100:741C:4C6D:8CA6:2FC3:DCB (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In June 2008, he was reported to have turned down a knighthood, and his spokesman said "Prof Hawking does not like titles. In fact he dislikes the whole concept of them."[1] It is quite likely that he has turned down a knighthood, but if it was done in private it is hard to source reliably.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of inappropriate [Why?] superscripts[edit]

I've removed almost all of the [Why?] scripts at the end of various entries in this list.

  • The script in question is rarely meant to be used to specifically request an explanation of something, but rather to clarify it ([[2]], [[3]])
  • As has been pointed out on this page, the expectation that every refusal will have an elucidated (or even public) reason is unrealistic and moreover would be unnecessary. If a reason has never been given, and the subject dies, will the [Why?] remain there forever?
  • The choice of putting an example after every individual entry is messy, and on first glance it looks like vandalism. Furthermore, it's not the proper style; if the problem exists in the general text of the article, then an infobox is placed at the header. If an article has no citations, we don't put [citation needed] after every sentence. We put the relevant infobox in the article.

I've left in some of the [When?]'s, but I feel as though they have a similar issue. If anyone has any input, feel free to share. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of people who have declined a British honour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Pick[edit]

Can Pick really have turned down a life peerage? He died in 1941 and life peerages (apart from those for top judges) were introduced by an Act of Parliament in 1958. If Pick declined a peerage it can only have been a hereditary one, I think. Tim riley talk 22:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Lobel[edit]

The article claims that Eli Lobel was offered, and declined, a knighthood in 1955. Quite frankly, I find this difficult to believe. Lobel was an Israeli anti-Zionist activist, a Marxist economist who worked on the first five-year plan in Cuba. It seems to me inconceivable that thew Brirish state would have offered such an honour to a 28-year-old foreign revolutionary, and I am certain that this (unsourced) claim must be either a deliberate hoax, or a reference to another person. Unless someone produces a credible citation from a reliable source, I intend to remove this assertion in a couple of weeks. RolandR (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having investigated further, I have found that the correct reference should be to the Romanian-British classicist and papyrologist [[Edgar Lobel}, and I have amended the entry. However, the wrong name was added in March 2012, and now seems to have been widely shared across the internet. So we can probably expect to see this mistaken entry repeatedly re-added to the list by editors who do not think, and do not check their sources.

Serbian and Yugoslavian Field Marshals[edit]

All six entries for Serbian and Yugoslavian field marshals appear to be in error as each received the named honour, according to his own page.
I suspect that someone has edited this page believing it to be a list of recipients, not of decliners of honours.
I know nothing of these Yugoslav marshals, however, and do not have the confidence to delete the entries. Anyone? Specifics:

  • KCB: Živojin Mišić, Serbian and Yugoslavian field marshal (1915)
  • KCB: Stepa Stepanović, Serbian and Yugoslavian field marshal (1918)
  • GCMG: Živojin Mišić, Serbian and Yugoslavian field marshal (1917)
  • KCMG: Radomir Putnik, Serbian field marshal (1915)
  • KCMG: Petar Bojović, Serbian and Yugoslavian field marshal (1918)
  • KCMG: Pavle Jurišić Šturm, Serbian and Yugoslavian general (1918)

Not Proven (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double entry[edit]

Should Gareth Peirce be really in twice? At the moment she is in both the refused and returned sections. The circumstances listed suggest the is the more correct as the honour was announced and returned. Dunarc (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McCartney and Glenda Jackson[edit]

What honour did Paul McCartney refuse because he already has a MBE, CH and a knighthood?

I can’t find a any information that Glenda Jackson refused a damehood? Bob3458 (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farage?[edit]

Is Nigel Farage's claim to have turned down a peerage sufficiently credible, considering his track record of lying and misrepresenting events for the sake of his agenda and the counter statement from the Tories?

Conservative party officials denied the allegation as “typical Farage attention seeking”.

A Tory spokesman said: “Neither the Conservative party, nor its officials have offered Brexit party candidates jobs or peerages.”

Mr Farage told the Daily Telegraph he expected the police could be asked to investigate.

“The offer of peerages for material return is clearly an offence,” he said. “And I think this may unravel over the next couple of days.”

Reference: from the FT

Given the talk, from such people as Lord Falconer, of the police investigating the matter, perhaps Farage should be pulled from the list pending some credible support coming to light? --Nazzy (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Manual of Style talk[edit]

There is an RfC here regarding the use of post-nominals for people who have returned their medals. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of List of Welsh people who refused "British honours" into List of people who have declined a British honour[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge the pages. Titus Gold (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although some of these people refused the award for reasons related to being Welsh, others did not. Does not need a separate list. (t · c) buidhe 21:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't feel that the Welsh people list meets WP:LISTN due to lack of existence of sources about Welsh people collectively declining British honours. (t · c) buidhe 00:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple sources which list Welsh people that declined British honours, if you have a thorough read through the sources of the Welsh page. The article List of Welsh people who refused "British honours" is already a sizeable article and cites Wales/Welsh specific reasons for refusal of the honours. There are also Wales specific preludes and context and a significant Welsh distinction which merits the Welsh page staying as it is. Titus Gold (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are either about people in general declining british honors or individual Welsh people declining honors. That's a sign that LISTN is not met. There's no reason why individuals citing Welsh republicanism and similar as reasons for declining (where applicable) can't be covered on this page. Certainly some Irish and Scottish people declined for similar reasons while many of the Welsh people on your list did not give such a reason. (t · c) buidhe 00:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from Welsh wiki page "Welsh refusals have also been discussed in national Welsh media, listing some nine Welsh refusers of an "honour" including Carwyn James and Jim Griffiths for example."
Here is the source from BBC specifically listing Welsh people who have refused British honour.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/cymrufyw/46647850 Titus Gold (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from Welsh page" Beti George also refused an "honour" for similar reasons, stating "I'm also a republican and the Empire to me is a symbol of oppression, slavery and suffering. I'm in good company - the likes of Hywel Gwynfryn and the late Carwyn James and there are probably many more.". She cites other Welsh poeple who have refused the award.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/cymrufyw/55719444 Titus Gold (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Think it's time to close the discussion and close the merger proposal as there does not seem to be a demand to merge these articles. Could a neutral editor do this, please? Titus Gold (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus so far. Why not wait for other editors to weigh in. (t · c) buidhe 01:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. Most of this list seems to be of people who happen to be Welsh declining an honour - many for reasons that are unknown or unstated, and many for reasons that are common to many other people declining honours (such as the widespread antagonism to the idea of a "British empire"). Just because the people can be defined as Welsh does not justify having a list - you may as well have a List of red-haired people declining a "British honour" - or similar. It's almost entirely WP:SYNTH. Where notable and sourced, those listed can be merged into List of people who have declined a British honour - and a short couple of paragraphs could perhaps be added into that article giving an overview of the most notable Welsh people listed. And all the 'scare quotes' need to be removed from the article - they are purely there as editorialising. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per above, reasonable arguments – DankJae 12:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but I've tidied the article up a bit, as per Ghmyrtle's comments, and it should be closely watched for WP:NPOV. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge ("Scare quotes" is irrelevant to the proposal of merger. Feel free to "correct" these "scare quotes" if you like.) The article is about Welsh people. Wales is a devolved country in the UK and so deserves its own list. Welsh lists have been made in the media, so why not Wikipedia. There are unique Welsh reasons, including having been recognised by Welsh establishments and so the article contains unique Welsh reasons. The British page also includes people who declined an "honour" with no reason, so this is a futile argument. I'm afraid that "red haired" is not a country or a nationality, so that is a poor argument.Titus Gold (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    it seems like we have a consensus to merge, with 3 in favor and 1 opposed, so unless there is an objection I will carry it out. (t · c) buidhe 14:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should wait for more editors to weigh in on it. Titus Gold (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge It is not necessary to have separate lists of people who have declined an honour. Ensuring there is one up to date and accurate list makes more sense and avoids needless duplication. It would only really make sense for a separate article if the reason all were rejecting the honour was due to being Welsh, but its not clear thats the case. This is just people from Wales like the rest of the UK and world who have rejected a British honour. RWB2020 (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note Just want to bring to everyones attention the fact Titus has been canvassing for others to join in this proposed merger discussion clearly in the hope of them backing his position. [4] [5] RWB2020 (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have, didn't think there was anything wrong with it when I wrote them. I've just read up on the term following your comment and it seems it's not allowed so I'll neutralise my remarks. Thanks for bringing my attention to this. Titus Gold (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merged Welsh page[edit]

I have merged List of Welsh people who refused "British honours" into List of people who have declined a British honour. Although I don't agree with the merger and would be happy to see it reverted, I have gone with majority view. I've done a basic job, but please feel free to review and improve the merger with discussion and correct any merger steps I may have missed. There may be some tidying to do on the merged article.Titus Gold (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Financial reasons?[edit]

In the lists, "financial reasons" or "the prohibitive cost of the lifestyle that dukes were expected to maintain" are lists as reasons for rejection. However, this is not inlcuded in the Reasons for rejection section. Does anyone know where to find more data on this? OJH (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_people_who_have_declined_a_British_honour&oldid=1208281180"