Memorandum by Miles Irving (HON 66)
I see from the current edition of Chivalry,
The Journal of the Imperial Society of Knights Bachelor, that
you wish to receive opinions on the current system of awards given
through the honours system. It is right and proper that the system
should be reviewed at regular intervals to ensure that it is in
keeping with the times.
One particular point raised in your "issues
and questions paper" is whether the titles Sir and Dame should
be abolished on the grounds that that Britain is the only country
in the world where they are used.
I am fortunate through my work to travel widely
both within and out with the British Commonwealth. I can tell
you that throughout the world the British honours system is respected
and titles are acknowledged and used assiduously, nowhere more
so than in the USA. It is not true to say, as is said by some,
that equivalent titles are not used elsewhere in the world. It
is noteworthy that in South East Asia the equivalent titles of
Dato/Tan Sri are awarded for outstanding public service.
However, my main point in writing to you is
to caution against the abolition of the titles Sir or Dame on
the grounds that they are socially divisive. If this excuse is
used then all other ancient titles should be abolished on the
same grounds.
Examples of ancient titles currently in use
(with the dates of first use, taken from the OED,) are: Reverend
(1486), Father (1300), Canon (1205), Doctor (1303), Professor
(1517), Captain (1375), Colonel (1583), Bishop (1382) and Justice
(1172).
To abolish the Titles Sir/Dame and leave the
others untouched would be an act of discrimination, particularly
against those who have not had the privilege of a higher education
of one sort or another, for all the above titles come as a result
of qualifications earned through formal academic education or
professional training. Such an action would remove the one or
two titles that are attainable today through the currently politically
incorrect attributes of hard work, enthusiasm, and personal achievement,
often against great odds. It is a great credit to our country
that we can reward (for example) Bobby Robson, Garfield Sobers,
Vivian Richards, Richard Branson, and others who have (apparently)
made their own way to the top without the benefit of formal education
or training, with the same accolade as those who have distinguished
themselves through an accredited academic or professional route.
It is noteworthy that many of those who argue
for the abolition of titles are the same people who daily receive
world wide exposure and recognition through the media. To refuse
to accept or use a title that others proudly bear as a mark of
their achievement is condescending to say the least. It implies
that there is something shameful about their pride in a public
statement of what they have achieved which does not apply to those
who daily use the title doctor, professor, MP, or a column in
a newspaper, as a statement of who they are and what they have
achieved.
Finally I wish to comment on the effect of the
award of an honour of any sort on the community in which one works.
I received my knighthood after nearly a quarter of a century working
in one of the most deprived communities in the United Kingdom,
namely the city of Salford. Throughout that time I was supported
by a loyal and hard working group of Salford citizens who literally
slaved away to help me develop a unique unit for those afflicted
with a rare ,unpleasant, and largely ignored condition. The genuine
joy that my award brought to all those people in recognition of
what we had achieved through joint endeavour had to be seen to
be believed. That joy and pride persists in the memory, because
it revolves around individuals, far longer than a plaque on the
wall saying the equivalent of "unit of the year 1996".
March 2004
|
