Talk:Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Other countries =

Certainly there are other countries besides Britain that still grant knighthoods. And historically of course the term meant something besides the "British honour system". Howeever I can't undo the redirect. --rmhermen

Yes you can. Edit any page, and then in your browser's address bar remove the page name from the URL & paste in the name of the redirecting page, then load this new URL. -- Tarquin

Could knighthoods be withdrawn? -- wshun 20:26, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Commander David Gilmour

Can someone tell me which Order he is commander in and what might be the qualifications for being a commander.Does he have any ongoing responsibilities. Can he be contacted thru the British Empire. Does he answer to the people or Queen. Harrenstien@webtv.net

I had to do a Google to find out what you were talking about. Written like that it makes him look like a naval officer or senior policeman! If you're using the honour in his name, it's "David Gilmour CBE", and the article tells you which order this is. He was awarded it "for services to music", and no it doesn't imply any responsibilities to anyone whatsoever -- it's an honour, that's all. If you want to contact him, write care of Pink Floyd's record label. Arwel 00:32, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

____________________________________________

The link for the Order of Saint Patrick is, wrongly, linked to the page relating to Saint Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin. Philip Hurst 2 December 2003

Some things I don't understand

The current article is a generally excellent introduction to a newcomer to the subject, but after reading and studying the article several times over the past several weeks, there are still a few things that I do not understand.

1. What does it mean to say that a particular honour (or grade of an order) "is not knightly"?

2. Which honours carry the title Sir (or Dame, where applicable)?

Are those the same thing?

Then let me go on with further questions. Within the Order of the British Empire is it true that the higher ranks (GBE, KBE/DBE) are "knightly" and thus carry the title "Sir", while the lower rings (CBE, OBE, MBE) do not? So a mere MBE is entitled to use the postnomials but not the title "Sir"?

All of that is what our articles seem to say, but I find counter-examples common on the web, for example a reference to "Sir Geoff Hurst MBE" or "Sir Jack Brabham, OBE".

We specifically refer to "Other orders, decorations, and medals which do not carry titles, but entitle the holder to place post nominals, e.g., OM, CMG, etc., after his or her name." But what about Sir Isaiah Berlin, O.M.? Jimbo Wales 20:42, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

One can be a knight in one order (or in none, as knight bachelor) and additionally hold a non-knightly rank in another order. Your examples are all knights bachelor, e.g. Geoff Hurst became Geoff Hurst MBE in 1977 and then was knighted in 1998 becoming Sir Geoff Hurst MBE. --Wik 20:54, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
Yeah; to show this he could be shown as "Sir Geoff Hurst Kt MBE", though those aren't necessarily official (uncodified things are wonderful, aren't they? ;-))...
James F. (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
"Kt" would be wrong as "KT" is the abbreviation for Knight of the the Thistle. Knights Bachelor do not have post nominals as they do not belong to an order of chivalry.
Wiki-Ed 12.43, Sept 15, 2004 (UTC)
"KT" is (rather obviously) not the same thing as "Kt". A Knight Bachelor's legal name (as would be used on legal documents and the like) is "Sir John Smith, Knight", and this "Knight" is sometimes abbreviated to "Kt" and used outside a legal context. Proteus (Talk) 13:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A knight bachelor is simply "Sir John Smith". The honour is an appointment and does not confer membership of an order. Therefore holders are not entitled to post nominals, nor do they have the right to put "knight" after their name. I've not seen "Kt" used in a legal context, but if it has been used this way then it's wrong. Check the Order of Wear in The London Gazette (17 March 2003) - that's the official line. Wiki-Ed 14:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're simply wrong, and I suggest you buy Debrett's Correct Form if you don't believe me. And I don't know where you got the idea that only members of orders are allowed to use post-nominals, because that's nonsense as well, as any Member of Parliament ("MP") or peer in the Privy Council ("PC") will readily tell you. Proteus (Talk) 19:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Since when did Debretts decide honours policy? It is a commercial publication; The London Gazette is the Government newspaper. I suggest you check that. Alternatively write to the Cabinet Office or the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood and they will readily tell you what's what. However, to save you the trouble, I can assure you that if The Queen (or any official source) were writing to a knight bachelor they would be addressed as "Sir John Smith".
(NB Even Debretts do not agree with you [1])
I don't know where you got the bit about "only members of orders are allowed to use post-nominals" - I didn't say or infer that.
Oh dear: I've just found the "Knight Bachelor KB" stub. Hmmm. This section is generally good and informative but some work needs to be done to correct popular misconceptions (and a couple of factual errors). I'll have a go at it soon. Wiki-Ed 21:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I give up. If you want to believe the nonsense you do, go ahead. (However, you clearly need to learn the difference between a legal name and a formal style. The Duke of Norfolk's legal name is "The Most Noble Edward William, Duke of Norfolk", but his style is "His Grace The Duke of Norfolk", just as a Knight Bachelor's legal name is "Sir John Smith, Knight" and his style is "Sir John Smith". Legal names aren't used when writing to people, only when referring to them in legal documents.) At any rate, the Government isn't the highest authority on matters such as this - the Earl Marshal is. Proteus (Talk) 08:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Sovereign has always been the highest authority on honours matters and she is advised directly by the Committee on the Grant of Honours Decorations and Medals. The Earl Marshal (don't make me laugh) hasn't had a significant role in honours for quite some time. I'm glad to see you've given up on the "Kt" "KB" (etc) fallacy and I'm not going to pursue your facile contention about "legal names" as it is totally irrelevant to honours (i.e. this topic). However, if you're serious about it perhaps, as a challenge, you could provide some evidence of this alleged (mis)usage. Wiki-Ed 16:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Debrett's Correct Form, 2002 edition, page 12, section "Legal Documents": "Knights Bachelor are accorded 'Knight Bachelor' or 'Knight' after the name." I suggest you do some more research before you appoint yourself the world expert on matters such as this. The newsgroup alt.talk.royalty would be a good place to start. (Incidentally, KB is obviously wrong for Knights Bachelor, and I never said it wasn't, as it's the abbreviation for Knight of the Bath.) Proteus (Talk) 20:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'll say it again: Debretts does not constitute an official source and it's not always correct. This is not "evidence" (perhaps you misunderstand what the word means?) - it is an opinion. Now I suggest you do some more research and preferably not in internet news groups (now you have made me laugh) or Debretts. As for experts - there are three people who have enough experience and access to Royal/Government records to legitimately style themselves that way. I work with one of them. I appreciate your amateur enthusiasm for the subject but there's only so much you can learn from the outside so stop contradicting me. Wiki-Ed 21:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Dear oh dear, high words and scorn indeed from Wiki-Ed. However, he is wrong and Proteus is right. For an example of King Charles II referring to "Sir Edward Walker, Knt." in letters patent under the Privy Signet and Sign Manual in 1673, see here. For a more contemporary example, of Queen Elizabeth II referring to "Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet, Knight" and "Sir Douglas Mawson, Knight" in a royal charter which she presented in person in 1954, see here. All three persons referred to in this way were (or are) Knights Bachelor. Chelseaboy 6 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)
I could point out your examples are over 50 years old, but the more relevant point is that the word "Knight" is not a post nominal, it's a description. People can call themselves whatever they like (and other people - including the Sovereign - can call them whatever they like too), but it does not mean that they have a right to that name as a title. The post nominals for each order of knighthood are in the warrants. Find the warrant for knights bachelor and show us the paragraph saying Knights Bachelor can append "Kt" "Knt" or "Knight" (etc) after their name. (It doesn't exist.) Wiki-Ed 6 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)
Is Hurst a knight bachelor, then? I wasn't aware that knights bachelor were still created. john 05:28, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Oh, very must so - this is a list of Knights Bachelor created as part of the 2004 New Year's Honours.
James F. (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
In order:
  • It's not a knighthood, and so a holder cannot be correctly called 'Sir' (or 'Dame').
  • The knightly ones.
  • Yes, they're the same.
  • Yes, those honours are knightly, and yes, those ones aren't.
  • Yes, a holder of an MBE isn't a knight.
  • Those two articles need correcting; will get on it. (Thanks for the more detailed information, Wik!)
  • The Order of Merit (OM) is not knightly (though it is a terribly high honour). Companionships of the Order of St. Michael and St. George (CMG), similarly, are not knightly.
HTH.
James F. (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


do all the orders confer knighthood?

Order of St John

There is, furthermore, a semi-official Order, the Order of St John of Jerusalem. Its members can wear the Order's insignia, but do not receive any titles of Knighthood or use any post-nominal letters.

What about all that GCStJ, KStJ/DstJ, CStJ, OStJ, SBStJ/SSStJ, ESQStJ, etc. I see here and there. Isn't that postnominals associated with this order? Or is that with some other order with a similar name? —Gabbe 16:55, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

I believe they're for use within the Order only. Proteus (Talk) 17:02, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


So, they should not be listed on pages like Louise, Princess Royal and Duchess of Fife, Princess Victoria Alexandra of the United Kingdom, etc. or what? —Gabbe 19:06, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
They aren't normally listed with other post-nominals, so probably not. Proteus (Talk) 21:39, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

First, the Order of St. John is not "semi-official." It is as official as any other Order, but its statutes state that membership in the Order do not confer any special precedence. Appointments in the Order of St. John are announced in the London Gazette, and the insignia may be worn on military uniform, just as with any other British Order. Knights of the Order are granted a knight's helmet when granted Coats of Arms, and Bailiffs are granted supporters, again as with any other British Order.

Second, the post-nominal initials may be used as appropriate, including in biographies like the ones cited, or, for example, in obituaries.

Membership in the Order of St. John is not considered to be merely a one-time honour, but is a long-term committment to support the work of the Order. I have revised the statements about these matters here. 66.156.107.108

PS That "semi-official" business originated with one of the several spurious or "self-styled" groups that mimic the genuine Orders of St. John. Another calumny they are fond of is that the Queen is merely the "protector" of the Order. In reality HM The Queen is the Sovereign Head of the Order of St. John just as with the other British Orders. 66.156.107.108

"Letters that signify membership of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem are not included after the name." (Debrett's Correct Form.) Proteus (Talk) 22:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The post-nominal abbreviations associated with the Order of St. John are not "for use only within the Order." As mentioned above, they may be used as appropriate. The distinction to be made about the various degrees within the Order is that they do not in and of themselves confer a specific social precedence; for example, a Knight of the Order of St. John does not, by virtue of his membership in the Order of St. John, rank higher in the Scale of Precedence than a Commander in the Order of the British Empire. Once again as above that "post-nominals are for use only within the Order" business is a calumny thrown at the Order of St. John by the "self-styled" groups. 66.156.107.108

"Self-styled" groups like the Government? Although it appears in the Order of Wear, the Order of St John is shown as a decoration. It does not appear in the list of official post-nominals and officials should not use them in correspondence. Wiki-Ed 10:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. The abbreviations are commonly used in obituaries; in entries in the peerage publications including Burkes and Debretts; in other biographies; and, as well, announcements concerning promotion to the various Grades are published in the London Gazette. Hardly "for use only within the Order."

The Statutes of the Order of St. John, Part Three, Section 32, paragraph 2, read: "The letters specified after each grade may be used by those to whom they apply to such extent as may be prescribed in the case of those borne on a Roll of a Priory by the Priory Rules of that Priory and in the case of those borne on the Roll of the Order by Order Rules but admission or promotion to any Grade of the Order or the privileges derived therefrom of wearing the insignia appertaining or belonging thereto shall not confer any rank, style, title, dignity, allellation or social precedence whatsoever." 66.156.107.108

This article is about state honours; the Order is not a state honour. Its status may be vague because it has statutes and has the Sovereign as its head etc, but at the end of the day it is not awarded by the state for the state. Hence "semi-official" - which explains the London Gazette (commercial publications can do whatever they like). The last bit ("shall not confer...") of the statutes which you quoted would seem to confirm that this is the case. Wiki-Ed 10:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The point about the London Gazette is that the Gazette is the journal in which official Crown notices are published. There is nothing at all vague about the status of the Order of St. John. You are quite correct that the Order of St. John is not a State Order; it is a Royal Order, with appointments at the discretion of HM The Queen. You are, however, still incorrect about that "use only within the Order" statement, which was obviously copied from one of the several half researched websites discussing Orders of Chivalry. 66.156.107.108

I doubt it came from a "half-researched" website but rather, I suspect, from the statute you quoted: "The letters specified after each grade...shall not confer any rank, style, title, dignity, allellation or social [read: state] precedence whatsoever." Surely that means, in other words, that they have no official status outside the Order? Wiki-Ed 14:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

We are going round and round in circles, and it's obvious to me that nothing I can say will change your mind, so this shall be my last posting about this matter. The only point I have attempted to make here is that the postnominals associated with the Order of St. John are in reality used quite a bit "outside the Order" making the statement about them in this article not quite correct. A statement more to the point might read something like "The ranks within the Order of St. John do not confer official rank on the Scale of Precedence and, likewise, the abbreviations or postnominal initials associated with the various Grades of membership in the Order of St. John do not indicate precedence." 66.156.107.108

I'm aware that in reality recipients do use their post-nominals outside the order. I've inserted the text you suggested. Wiki-Ed 10:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and those uniformed Services, such as the Army, Fire, Police, etc, where they are awarded a grade of the Order of St John are entitled to wear the ribbon/appropriate medals along with any other decorations and use the post-nominal initials.

I know that in Canada the postnominal letters for the Order of St. John are only supposed to be used within the order itself, but occasionally they have been listed on things like parlaimentary biographies. Im not sure if that statues of the Order are different in the UK Dowew 05:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

order of the phoenix

Whats with the new order of the phoenix on this page? it links to the fictional order in harry potter. I always thought order of the garter was the highest, did some harry potter fan put the order of the phoenix in?

That was just put on by an anonymous idiot, who will be barred from Wikipedia if he tries it again, and it was removed as soon as it was noticed. -- Arwel 00:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite

Although this page is quite good there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. I've seen the content elsewhere online so it has either been copied from somewhere else or someone else is copying from it. It has also appeared on news websites so I think it behoves us to ensure that it is accurate. I am going to do a top-down rewrite to give it some structure and correct a number of inaccuracies. I will be using the Cabinet Office and Royal websites as a source if anyone has any queries... 12:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've re-ordered quite a bit of stuff today. It's mostly still there, just in different (more logical) places. I've only deleted a small amount which I feel it is dealt with better in the sections dealing with the specific orders. Still a bit more tidying to do - and some more detail on medals and decorations as these form an important (but overlooked) part of the honours system. Wiki-Ed 00:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I still don't understand

do all the orders confer knighthood? if not, which ones don't?

Most of the orders include knighthood (which is one of several ranks within the orders), with the exception of the Order of Merit, the Distinguished Service Order and the Imperial Service Order (1903). -- ChrisO 12:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And the Order of the Companions of Honour. Wiki-Ed 12:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
let's take elton john for example. he sports the post-nominals CBE which is Commander (third highest rank) in the order of the british empire yet the article on the order of the british empire says that Knight or Dame Grand Cross (GBE) and Knight or Dame Commander (KBE or DBE) (first and second highest) are knightly. is he some kind of honorary knight? also for the article of the british empire, it states that it is the most junior order of chivalry. but on the article British honours system The Order of the Companions of Honour, The Distinguished Service Order and The Imperial Service Order come after.
No, he is not a knight. CBEs, MBEs, and OBEs are not knights - only the orders which are knightly and have the word "knight" in the title make someone a knight. The others are just honours. john k 04:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I believe he was awarded a CBE and then made a Knight Bachelor - a separate appointment to the Order of the British Empire. The latter is the most junior in terms of age. However, some of the other orders do not have senior levels so I placed them after the Order of the British Empire on that particular list. However, I can see how that could be confusing - I'll change it around. Wiki-Ed 13:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
so the title "Sir" does not mean one is a knight?
It does. A knight in an order has the title "Sir" and post nominal letters, eg. Sir John Smith KBE would be a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire. A knight without post nominal letters is a Knight Bachelor, eg. Sir John Smith. Wiki-Ed 15:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Also, a knight with postnominal letters that don't confer knightly status is also a knight bachelor. E.g. Sir John Smith CBE. john k 15:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, it could mean one is a baronet. Proteus (Talk) 15:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
But don't baronets usually go "Sir Robert Peel, Bt." or whatever? ugen64 00:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Baronets are entitled to be addressed as "Sir" and their wives "Lady". And the title is, unlike the various types of knighthood, hereditary. I believe there have also been some Jewish baronets (unlike Disraeli who was a converted Christian and I believe his creation as Earl of Beaconsfield--offered by George III to Edmund Burke who declined it--was a life peerage. PainMan 23:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

idea for future development of the article

The British Honours System encompasses ALL medals, orders, decorations, etc - it is not just about knighthoods. The article needs the addition of a section or two, to cover those areas not covered, with links to the articles about the individual medal, order, etc, which should have the fine details. For the general scope look at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ceremonial/honours/wear.asp and a bit of light reading at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ceremonial/lists/ -- alexmb

Medals and decorations are both mentioned. They are massive topics and there is no way an article of this size could go in to exhaustive detail. Copying and explaining the entire order of wear in here would not improve the article. However, if there isn't a page on British medals (but I think there is) or bravery decorations (ditto) then feel free to make one. This article is about the general scope of the British honours system. Wiki-Ed 10:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Order of precedence

The list of the "Current orders of chivalry" (at present ordered chronologically) appears at odds with the order of precedence. The OM and CH are said to accord no special precedence yet the post-nominal letters list includes them at particular places in the sequence. From the list there, it appears that the correct order for the list in this article (and in the box on the British honours system) is:

  • The Most Noble Order of the Garter
  • The Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle
  • The Most Honourable Order of the Bath
  • The Order of Merit
  • The Most Distinguished Order of St Michael and St George
  • The Royal Victorian Order
  • The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire
  • The Order of the Companions of Honour
  • The Distinguished Service Order
  • The Imperial Service Order

This would mean quite a bit of shuffling around. Any thoughts? --Ross UK 23:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think someone brought this up a while back and I changed it because: The Order of Precedence is not relevant in this case because - as you say - the OM and CH are accorded no place. The Order of Wear (and list of post nominal letters) is relevant, but it's slightly more complicated that portrayed - check the table on this page [2]. What you're suggesting is to align them according to the highest honour in each order as worn. Although that might be technically accurate it makes more sense to the casual reader to place the Orders in chronological order of the date of institution, hence the current layout. Wiki-Ed 11:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
That is indeed what I'm saying. Would it not be of benefit to at least make some reference to an order of importance? Supposing a new order were created and placed at the top of the order of precedence; would we insert it at the bottom? There is also the question of the Box; perhaps two different orders could be used. --Ross UK 21:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll fiddle with the wording to make sure that it is clear that the list is in chronological order rather than the order of precedence or the order of wear (and link to them). As for your other question: What box? Wiki-Ed 08:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. For the box, follow the link for one of the orders and scroll to the bottom of the page; the box headed "British honours system" is also in chronological order. Sorry I don't know quite what these boxes are called! --Ross UK 05:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed section

"KBEs are often awarded as honourary knighthoods, but are occasionally awarded to British citizens. Creator of the world wide web Sir Tim Berners-Lee was awarded a KBE presumably because, as an American resident, his title would not be used in everyday life, so he may instead append "KBE" to his name. Actor Sir Alec Guinness received a KBE on recommendation of the Foreign Office, according to his memoirs, for quelling anti-British sentiments at an Argentinian film festival by making a witty speech in Spanish, having learned it by rote following the British ambassador's dictation."

The vast majority of KBEs are not honorary, the supposition about the TBL is just that it's common enough for leading scientists to get that award. Of course if someone can provide a citation then by all means. As to Alec G he was a Knight Batchelor (1959) and never had the KBE rather having the CBE (1955) Alci12 15:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Peerages etc

As a 'related topic' this section has expanded out of hand and now takes up at least a fifth of the article. There's far too much speculation with unverified and irrelevant material. Most of the subject matter belongs in the 'main' articles for each of the appointments mentioned. Unless anyone objects I'll prune this section shortly. Wiki-Ed 18:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I Agree. On the matter of "main" articles, isn't it unusual to link the subheadings, as they are here? I've never seen that anywhere else except talk pages. Perhaps the headings should be unlinked and Template:Main used at the start of the section instead. Then it's clear to people that they should read the other article for details. JRawle (Talk) 19:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes. -anskas 13:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Queen as sovereign

I know this doesn't actually relate directly with the British honour system, but can anyone explain how the Queen cannot be sovereign of certain state and provincial orders ? According to the article Jamaican honours system the Queen is not sovereign of the Jamaica orders, and as well it apears that all of the Canadian Provincial Orders as well. The National Order of Quebec I can understand, but otherwise the Lt Gov is Chancellor of the Provincial Orders, so why is the Queen not at all involved ? Can anyone explain how this came about ? Dowew 05:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Orders/Honours

This phrase is being inserted into the introduction: "Orders are used to award knighthoods". This is not correct. Why? An Order does not exist solely for the purpose of awarding knighthoods. Moreover, knighthoods are but one of the grades within an Order and they do not represent the majority of the awards made in any of the orders. The format of the introduction explains what each type of award recognises: orders are honours and the first sentence ("Honours are used to recognise merit in terms of achievement and service") already shows how honours differ from decorations and medals. The proposed sentence is incorrect and superfluous. Wiki-Ed 09:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Honourary

"Citizens of countries which do not have the Queen as their head of state sometimes have honours conferred upon them, in which case the awards are "honorary"."

Aren't all of these awards honourary, no matter where you come from? What's the difference?--Taitey 01:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

An error about the US Constitution

This section of the article:

[U]nder the US Constitution, American citizens require special permission from Congress before accepting foreign honours.

This is incorrect. According to Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States, and I quote verbatim,

" [N]o person holding any Office of Profit of trust under them [the United States government*], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign state."

Thus only elected or appointed Federal officials are restricted from accepting a present, Emolument, Office, or Title from a foreign sovereign of government without the permission of Congress.

  • I don't know if this applies to the officials of state (or local) governments. The Founders used the word "them" as the United States was referred to in the plural before the Civil War. After the Civil War, the usage changed from "the United States are'" to "the United States is".

My guess is that it does not apply to non-Federal officials.

Private citizens can accept such things legally. American citizens can inherit English peerages, be awarded knighthoods, or, theoretically, even be made a peer by the Monarch of the United Kingdom. Typically, the only way to lose one's American citizenship is to vote in a foreign election--unless one hold dual citizenship in that country and the US--or by swearing allegiance to a foreign government of ruler.

Therefore, I'll make the appropriate change in the text.

A retired grocery store clerk in central California, Robert Capell, is the heir to the Earldom of Essex since there are no English heirs. When the present holder dies, this American will inherent the earldom.

See: Californian in line for earldom

PainMan 23:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And Christopher Guest served in the Lords without his US citizenship being affected. There's still a line that says "the United States [has] laws restricting the acceptances of awards by foreign powers" -- should this be modified to indicate that it only affects elected officials? --Jfruh (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reason for changes in "Baronetcies" section

Cleaned up some awkward syntax and sloppy writing. The word "assumption" was used twice in one sentence, removed one instance and rewrote sentence.

Removed "insisted" after Margaret Thatcher's name regarding the creation of Viscounts Whitelaw and Tonypandy; this is clearly POV. Though these creations were obviously political rewards, what are life peerages, exception those for PMs, if not political? Lord Sainsbury isn't a lord because he's a nice guy, he's a lord because he's given buckets of money to the Labour Party.

Removed "after his election defeat" from sentence about Winston Churchill declining the offer of duchy of London after WWII. That he lost the '45 election is irrelevant to this article.

Noted some unsourced statements.

PainMan 00:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Forfeiture

If the 3 men listed forfieted their knighthoods, why are they called 'Sir' in this article? Grunners 15:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There's four now, I just added an Australian example. My guess is that they were "Sirs" at the time and are probably better known as Sir Whoever rather than plain Whoever. Peter1968 17:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Irish citizens

This press release from the British Embassy in Dublin says tha the "agreement of the Irish government was sought and granted" for the award of an honorary knighthood to Bono.

Leaving aside the merits of whether this should have been granted in the first place, it seems unthinkable for a foreign government to be allowed to potentially veto the award of a British honour. Is it just a matter of diplomatic protocol and would the Irish government also be "consulted" if the person concerned was living in the United Kingdom and/or also possessed British nationality? JAJ 04:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is it "unthinkable"? The US Constitution makes it quite clear that any US citizen who earns a living as a politician or a public servant requires Congress's approval to be awarded any honour or title fro ma foreign entity. What happens if the UK and US become enemies again? Or diplomatic relations cease or founder? Unthinkable, you say? Stranger things have happened in human history. Peter1968 17:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The British Government is not bound by the constitution of any other nation.JAJ 18:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
And? That has what to do with the Irish or Americans disallowing their citizens from receiving foreign honours? Absolutely nothing. A nation is well within its rights to decide if it should allow a foreign honour to bestoyed upon one of its subjects. Please stay on topic. Peter1968 07:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
So please tell me what right the Irish government has to prevent Her Majesty granting a British honour to whomever She sees fit to do so? The Irish government has no jurisdiction over Her Majesty JAJ 17:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The Irish gov does have jurisdiction over its own citizens though and the Queen cannot make appointments to people who are not her own subjects. An award to a foreign citizen is simply an honorary honour. However, to answer your question fully: Usually the consultation is simply a diplomatic nicety since most countries are happy to see that their citizens have been performing work of a kind which is seen as meritorious in another. In the case of honours with titles it is slightly different. For many countries titles are associated with class and since they like to think of themselves as egalitarian they don't grant titles within their own country (however they cannot be used so it's a moot point). However, since it might be seen to have an effect on the image of that country the diplomatic consultation is more of a necessity. In answer to your second question regarding dual nationals - the other country is merely "informed". In the past this has not gone down too well in the case of certain Canadian dual-nationals who were offered knighthoods. Wiki-Ed 12:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

But surely the Queen can still grant a British "honour" to whomever she sees fit, even if she cannot grant a substantive appointment to someone not one of her subjects? She cannot be bound by a foreign government's policy. Regarding Canadians, the situation is slightly different as the Queen is also Queen of Canada and hence is bound by advice from her Canadian ministers. But if Conrad Black for example had been a dual Irish/British rather then Canadian/British citizen, the Irish government would not have been able to veto his peerage in the way that the Canadian government did. JAJ 03:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure whether there are statutory regulations (for each order) covering this, but the internationally recognised convention is to consult the other government on the basis the home government would not want other governments freely offering "foreign collars" (as Elizabeth I put it) to its own people. Wiki-Ed 14:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Question of responsibilities

Do persons receiving the honour of knighthood have responsibility to the monarchy after their award, such as an obligation to office or service?

No. However, a working peerage is different and does carry a condition that the peer must contribute to the work of the House of Lords. Unfortunately this is not rigorously enforced. Wiki-Ed 16:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Life peerages -- only Barons?

Are life peerages really by law only restricted to Barons? Or is that merely the rank that has traditionally been given to life peers? --Jfruh (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's in the text of the act: [2a]: 'A peerage conferred under this section shall, during the life of the person on whom it is conferred, entitle him to rank as a baron under such style as may be appointed by the letters patent...' Craigy (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Life peerages can be granted at other levels of the peerage, but they do not confer the right to sit in the Lords (nor did they before 1999). Such peerages were given, for instance, to royal mistresses and the like. john k 01:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

renouncement

Can a knighthood be renounced by the bearer himself? I've heard that some people wrote letters to the Queen renouncing their knighthoods. Is that true??--220.246.192.189 19:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

He can return his insignia and cease to use the title, but officially they are still recorded as being a knight. Honours are only removed via forfeiture procedures. A number of people who have returned their honours sometimes have a change of heart and ask for the insignia back (eg. The Beatles' MBEs). Wiki-Ed 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your answer!--218.102.236.12 12:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Past Honours Lists

Does anyone know of a good source, on or offline, containing the full entries for past Honours Lists? Timrollpickering 12:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Honours lists are published in the London Gazette (or equivalent in other nations). Most of the records have been uploaded and are available online. The website is one of the external links at the bottom of the article: http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ Wiki-Ed 14:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Ceremony" inconsistency

"During the ceremony, The Queen enters the Ballroom of Buckingham Palace..."

However the paragraph above says the ceremony isn't always at BP, and that she isn't always there - I can't think how best to change the section though 129.67.125.194 00:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Honorary Awards

Although awards made to foreigners are often referred to as "honorary", I do not think this is correct, just that the title is not recognized in the recipient's native country. Does anyone have any sources for the information about "honorary awards"? Does the Palace make any distinction? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The award is "honorary" when the recipient is not a subject of Her Majesty the Queen, in right of at least one of Her Realms. The most obvious difference is that the holder of an honorary knighthood cannot use the title "Sir", not even in the United Kingdom. JAJ (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
They also require permission from the foreign government. Also, since the UK government has no power to confer titles or post-nominal letters to foreign nationals, they cannot be used (officially). Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as the UK government is concerned permission from the foreign government is not required but will usually be sought out of courtesy. (see discussion on "Irish citizens" above). Also the announcements are usually made through the Foreign Office. JAJ (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No this is not correct. Some countries strongly object to honours being granted to their citizens, particularly where titles are concerned. There are different procedures for different countries and for people with dual nationality. With certain Commonwealth countries where the Queen is head of state the UK Government would inform the other government as a courtesy, but in other cases permission would be sought. Announcements are made via the Diplomatic & Overseas Awards section of the London Gazette's half-yearly honours list, or occasionally, in supplements between the lists. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If the United Kingdom really wished to honour a foreign citizen then it can do so irrespective of that other country's government. There is absolutely no basis to support your assertion that a foreign government can veto the actions of the British government. Yes, in reality permission will usually be sought out of courtesy but under British law it does not have to be sought. JAJ (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. The UK government cannot change the legal title of the citizen of another country; the laws of the other country apply to that person, not the laws of the UK. Perhaps you are confusing foreign citizens with dual nationals? The UK government can ignore the other government's preference in those cases, but since this causes diplomatic incidents (eg. Conrad Black) they are always consulted. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think he's confusing anything, I think he's merely disagreeing with you in your analysis of the law. And I happen to agree with him. However difficult diplomatically it might be to give honours to foreign people without consultation (and I agree entirely that it would never happen in practice), whether a person holds a British honour is purely a matter for British law to determine, and cannot be influenced by whether a foreign state has given permission. (And of course it's not the Government that grant honours, its the Queen, so it would have to be the Queen who requires permission were that true.) Are you seriously suggesting that if the Queen went a bit mad and created Dara Ó Briain a life peer tomorrow, without asking the Irish Government's permission, and he tried to take his seat in the Lords the next day, he would be refused entry on the basis that the creation of his peerage was unlawful and invalid due to "permission" not being given? Because that is the necessary consequence of what you're saying. Proteus (Talk) 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you provide me a list of those countries (and the laws in those countries) which allow UK law to override their own national laws? I’ve already cited Conrad Black as an example of the problems within countries which do have the Queen as head of state. I’d be highly surprised if other countries have caveats in their laws allowing the UK to give their dogs foreign collars. What people style themselves in the UK, as I have said before, is up to them, but UK law (the statutes of the orders) does not make provision for honorary award holders to use the titles associated with that order. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This is where I think you've missed the point: what laws would such an action "override"? What countries attempt to control the honours their citizens are given by other countries? The UK certainly doesn't: it controls whether foreign honours are used in the UK (by the issue or non-issue of a Royal Warrant allowing such use), but it rightly recognises that whether a British citizen is a member of a foreign Order of Chivalry is a matter for the country in which that Order of Chivalry exists, and thus unable to be affected by any British law. Even the US, that most anti-honours of countries, doesn't attempt to say that foreign honours awarded to its citizens without permission are invalid. (It merely says that certain people - the holders of certain national offices - are not allowed to accept foreign honours without permission - i.e. the person honoured must ask permission to accept the honour, rather than the state honouring asking permission to offer it.) And you still haven't answered my question... Proteus (Talk) 14:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
And even if the UK did have laws to prevent British citizens accepting foreign honours, these laws could not be enforced over the actions of a foreign government. The only way the UK could "enforce" such law is to prosecute a British citizen for accepting a foreign honour, or revoke the British citizenship of such a person. The case of Conrad Black is a little different. In that case, Canadian ministers had the constitutional authority to advise the Queen not to grant the peerage to a Canadian citizen (even a dual British/Canadian citizen), as the Queen is also Head of State of Canada, and the Queen was rendered unable to act in the face of conflicting advice from her British and Canadian ministers. Had Conrad Black been an Irish citizen, for example, then there would have been no basis for the other government to veto his peerage. JAJ (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting interpretations of "law" here. One country's laws do not apply to another country. There is no need to have a law saying "another country's law is invalid in this country" - it goes without saying since its one of the principal factors determing what an independent country actually is. Leading on from this, the status of the citizens of that country cannot be altered by another country. That does not mean an individual cannot accept an honour, but it does mean that a substantive award is not recognised; honorary awards and medals have to be recognised by both parties, see here for an example: [3]. I am not suggesting someone would be arrested or exiled for accepting an honour, merely pointing out that it has no validity in the home country. There are lots of people with a bizarre panoply of foreign honours in the UK, but the UK Government will only recognise those bestowed by its Head of State. Peerages (and indeed MPs eg. Adams and McGuinness) are different and slightly more open ([4]). I'm not entirely sure it will stay this way - the current system is an obvious relic from the empire and the current government certainly has plans to overhaul it. I was using Conrad Black as an example of where one country has laws (or resolutions at least) regarding changes to the status of its citizens which are triggered even when that citizen is a dual national. I don't believe the Queen was advised either way - it was resolved at a lower level in Canada's favour. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's understood that foreign awards usually have no validity in home country, unless validated by home country authorities. It's also understood that usually a government of Country A would seek permission before conferring an honour (substantive or otherwise) on a citizen of Country B, although there is no legal obligation to do so. As for Conrad Black, I would think that Her Majesty was "aware" of the views of her Canadian ministers and would not seek to override them. But the situation with Canada and the UK is an exception to the general rule, not the norm. JAJ (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are "merely pointing out that it has no validity in the home country", then I agree with you entirely. But that, of course, doesn't mean it's not valid in the country that granted it, which was what was originally stated. I'm very glad we seem to have cleared this all up, though! Proteus (Talk) 13:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Stripping of honour and prerogative

Is it right that an award of an honour (like a knighthood) is an exercise of the Royal prerogative, and in that case, an honour could be revoked at the discretion of the prerogative too? Wikidea 12:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. For honours awarded by Ministers using the Royal Prerogative the decision to remove an honour would be taken by them. For honours awarded by the Sovereign using the Royal the decision to remove an honour would be made by the Sovereign. In both cases they would do so on the basis of advice provided by a Civil Service committee. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This is interesting. I wonder why it doesn't happen more often! Thanks.Wikidea 11:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I think there are at least a few forfeitures every year. However, unless it's someone famous it won't get much publicity. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Regarding recent edits to this article:

  • First point - the introduction lists the topics with a brief explanation of what each element means. The substance of proposed text is actually explained within the article. The Cabinet Office website is slightly out of date, but the Prime Minister does not and never has drawn up the list.
  • Second point - the edits on baronetcy are simply wrong. I've no idea why words like "Baroness" were removed or why "life peerage" was changed to "title". The title is a component of the appointment, not vice versa.
  • Third point - Military officers receive knighthoods in the Order of the Bath.
  • Fourth point - the cosmetic edits made the text read poorly. Without straining myself trying to understand them they don't appear to be accurate anyway.

I have reverted them all. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Can the Queen found a new Order?

I've been thinking. Is it currently possible for the Queen to create a new Order or Chivalry? Given that the Government 'controls' over half of the Orders' choice of admissions, I would think there will be much red tape to bypass if she decided to create one. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 15:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

She could, but there's no particular reason why she would. The Government would be more likely to (ask her to) do so if there was some sort of public demand for it, but there isn't really (the occasional z-list celebrity wittering on about the Order of the British Empire doesn't count). Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Knighthood to be avoided?

I have read that earlier than say 300 years ago knighthood was a condition to be avoided because the recipient moved into a high-tax bracket. Is this true?Eddaido (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

titles on articles

the term Sir, for example, is officially part of a persons name if they are knighted, so should that not be the article's main page (for example Sir Bobby Robson [RIP] or Alex Ferguson) and 'Bobby Robson' should redirect to the article Sir.., not the other way around? chocobogamer mine 00:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand your question. Article names do not carry any title held by the subject, be that Mr, Mrs or Sir (etc). Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
well its completely different from Mr/Mrs etc - Sir and Lady are (officially) supposed to be used when to referring to a person. that is common knowledge. on a news bulletin, in newspapers etc, they always usw sir/lady but don't say mr/mrs. therefore the articles should probably be mainly on the page with the title chocobogamer mine 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Even The Queen doesn't have her title - her article is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Titles are not used in the article names on Wikipedia. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Well they are sometimes. Lord Frederick Cavendish, for instance. Proteus (Talk) 18:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Post-nominals Honorary awards

More and more I see at Wikipedia sites that behind the names of foreigners who recieved a British honour (but which do not have the Queen as their head) are placed post-nominals like "Honorary KBE", "Hon KBE" or "KBE (Hon)", not simply KBE (of course without "Sir" in front of the name). See for example: Kofi Annan, Honorary GCMG or Li Choh-ming, KBE (Hon). Do they have other post-nominals than subjects of Her Majesty with substantive honours? Is this the correct spelling? Demophon (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If you see it, remove it. I don't know who your second example is, but I do know Kofi Annan and he's a good example because he has loads of awards (listed near the bottom of the article). There is no reason why the honorary British award should be mentioned in the intro. It implies (wrongly) that an honorary award bestows some sort of title and/or has primacy over other awards from other countries. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Your answer is not what I entirely meant, but I fount the answer on debretts: "When a foreign national receives an honorary knighthood of an Order of Chivalry, he is not entitled to prefix 'Sir' before his name, but he may place the appropriate letters after his name, eg Bob Geldof, KBE". So, just plain KBE, not "Honorary KBE" placed after their name. But whether whe should place post-nominals of honorary British awards after the names of foreign nationals at all in the intro, is a good argument but another discussion. Demophon (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Orders decorations and medals

Belatedly: Since the focus of this article has changed from the "British Honours System" to "Orders, decorations and medals" (and there are enough problems finding references as it is) I propose to remove the material on noble titles etc. This is covered in other articles. Any objections? Wiki-Ed (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, this is problematic. Really, this page should be titled 'United Kingdom Honours System' and detail at a high level all aspects of the UK Honours System - the nobility, orders of chivalry, non-chivalric orders, decorations and medals with links to pages detailing the individual aspects of the system in comprehensive detail. The anomaly is that in order to provide conformity of page naming with other countries (many of whom do not have a system of nobility), the page has been titled 'Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom when it doesn't just cover that. To have a separate page for the UK Honours system and this one doesn't seem to make a lot of sense as there would be significant overlap of material. Thus the options seem to be retain this page with its scope being larger than the title would imply (and with a redirect page from UK Honours System) or to change this page to 'United Kingdom Honours System' and have a redirect from the current title. Neither solution is particularly elegant, but I think that the later approach may be the better option. In any event, I do not think that the material on the nobility system should be separated from the other material on this page. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Whether we use the current title or "UK Honours system" information on hereditary or non-hereditary appointments does not really belong on page dealing with honours. This page is about meritorious awards governed by statutes and conferring no political privileges of any sort. Noble titles are (or were) given for political reasons (i.e. comparatively arbitrarily) and conferred political power. That they are seen to come from the same source does not mean they are the same thing. The material I propose to remove from this article is already covered by other (more appropriate) articles. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
My perspective on this is different. I take a historian's view based on the development of the system over several hundred years. Up until the 1800s, the peerage and orders of chivalry were the only elements of the system and both were awarded for a variety of reasons - some political, some to recognise meritorious service or single acts. Later, this evolved with military campaign medals awarded from 1810 and decorations from 1854.
This is an encyclopaedia and as such, it needs to capture, not just the current state of play, but also to reflect historical iterations. Whilst the UK Government Honours website explicitly states that peerages are not presently considered to be 'honours', never the less, the Royal Household's website strongly implies that it once was an integral part of the honours system. Moreover, even today there are still strong links - as evidenced by the fact that new peerages are regularly announced alongside honours appointments.
Creation as a peer continues to be awarded for both political reasons and for long and distinguished service; as does admittance to chivalric orders. Creation as a peer and admittance to chivalric and non-chivalric orders all confer precedence in the UK Order of Precedence. There have also been elements of progression in the system for continued high levels of service, often enshrined in custom (particularly for members of the civil and military services). Historically, it has not been unusual for individuals to initially be admitted at a lower level to one of the chivalric orders and, over time, to be admitted to progressively higher levels in the same or another chivalric order and eventually to be created a peer. The Duke of Wellington is an example, for his services in the Napoleonic wars he was initially created a KB and subsequently was elevated to successive levels of the peerage, ultimately becoming a Duke. There is little doubt that these were honours bestowed by a grateful government and King in respect of his achievements. In more recent times, Debretts distinguishes between 'hereditary peers', 'working peers' (essentially political appointments, such as Lord Sugar) and 'people's peers' (non-political appointments who are presumably appointed based on pre-eminent merit). The system has been characterised by change and may be expected to continue to do so, albeit very slowly, in order to meet the changing needs of UK society. To this end, we have seen significant developments in the last half century, including a move away from having separate decorations for officers and medals for sailors/soldiers/airmen and the creation of life peers with a diminished emphasis on the creation of hereditary peers.
Ultimately, my point is that issues of appointment, whether for merit or 'arbitrary' politics, are blurred across the entire spectrum. The honours system is a continuum that ranges from commemorative and long service medals through to the highest levels of the peerage. Separation of the peerage from the system is no more possible than separation of military decorations from the system; it is akin to describing an elephant without describing its trunk or tail - it is still a description of an elephant, just not a complete one.
I entirely agree that there are issues with the page as it stands. Given current offical descriptions, I am quite happy to see a reference to the current official distinction on the Honours System (capital 'h', capital 's), but I think it is important for the peerage system to remain on the page in order that proper historical context for the entire honours system (small 'h', small 's') can be established. The page should be overhauled to provide an overview of the entire system and its major sub-sets with each sub-set having its own sub-ordinate page (some of which already exist):
  • The peerage,
  • Chivalric and non-chivalric orders,
  • Decorations and medals for gallantry and distinguished conduct,
  • Campaign medals,
  • Jubilee/coronation/durbar medals
  • Efficiency and long service decorations and medals,
Any further detail would either need to apply across multiple areas or be moved to the relevant page. Thoughts? Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I disagree. Peerages and honours are not part of the same continuum. The former confers prestige and power; the latter only confers prestige. One can be a peer without having an honour or have lots of honours and never be made a peer (of any sort). I agree that articles should recognise the history of a system, but in this case honours have been devolved from appointments, not the other way around. Articles on appointments might cover how honours used to be linked to them, but articles on honours should not cover appointments which are not and never have been honours.
A disambiguation page of the sort you are describing could sit above this one, setting out different sorts of "UK state award", which could link out to peerages, honours (i.e. this page), church appointments etc. However, the fact we would need to change the title of this article to incorporate peerages indicates why they should sit apart, even if close together within the structure, or 'herd of elephants' to stretch your analogy. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Honours lists

I noticed that there was some inconsistency in the way that the separate articles on honours lists (or is that Honours Lists) have been set up. I have added Template:Honours Lists here, and changed some of the redirects that came into this article so they go to the separate articles on the different lists. For some reason, there are no separate articles on the New Year Honours or Coronation Honours (the former redirects to this article instead, as does Coronation honours).

Phew! Any more?

No doubt further changes could be made. Comments? Jttw (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

honours confired by british empire to its indian subjects

I am not able to find a list of honours/ awards confired by british empire to its indian subjects during its rule in India. Neither there is any information regarding names of the eminent persons to whom the british govt. honoured with the titles of Indian version like Nawab, Khawn Bahadur, Raja & Rai Bahadur ---etc. Such informations are extremely valuable for the students working on British Histiry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.185.193 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

confusing article

I came to this page to find out which is a higher honour, a CBE, MBE, OBE or "Sir" (Knighthood?). Despite there being pages and pages and pages of info, something as simple as this wasn't there to be found. 188.174.154.215 (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)D

Did you try something as simple as reading the section entitled "order"? Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a section entitled "order" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.83.108 (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I retitled it to "order of wear" since you missed it the first time. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I found the info I was looking for (on yahoo answers). The order is GBE/KBE (Sir)/ DBE (Dame), CBE, OBE, MBE. 93.104.180.170 (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

An additional column with numbers of holders?

Given the huge disparity in numbers of individuals today who have been awarded different honors, I think it would be useful to add an additional column to the "Current orders of chivalry" and "Decorations" tables to reflect how many living members there are in each class. For example, the Order of the Garter is limited to 24 full members, whereas there are currently more than 100,000 members of the Order of the British Empire. Quantifying the members would help give a sense of their relative size and exclusivity. Bricology (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice idea, but it could be difficult to get precise figures. Members of the larger orders are not replaced on a like for like basis (and change all the time) and for the lower classes the Statutes do not limit the total number of officers/members, although there is a limit on the number of appointments that may be made in any one year. If you've got a reliable source which gives indicative total figures then by all means insert the column and add the data. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Honorary Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath

An editor has proposed deleting both Category:Honorary Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath and Category:Annulled Honorary Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath.

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 13#Category:Honorary_Knigths_of_the_Order_of_the_Bath. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orders,_decorations,_and_medals_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1&oldid=1148677013"