History Main / KnightFever

3rd Feb '16 7:03:57 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message
These different Peerages historically (i.e. before the House of Lords Act 1999 revoked the inherent right of Peers to sit in the House) had different rights. Under the terms of the Union of 1707, peers in the Peerage of Scotland did not have an automatic right to sit in the House of Lords of the new Kingdom of Great Britain--the English thought that the kingdom had too many peers already without adding all of the Scottish lords, and on top of that Scotland had a ''lot'' of peers relative to its size. So the Peerage of Scotland elected sixteen of their number--termed Representative Peers--each Parliamentary term to sit in the Lords to represent their interests.
to:
These different Peerages historically (i.e. before the House of Lords Act 1999 revoked the inherent right of Peers to sit in the House) had different rights. Under the terms of the Union of 1707, peers in the Peerage of Scotland did not have an automatic right to sit in the House of Lords of the new Kingdom of Great Britain--the English thought that the kingdom had too many peers already without adding all of the Scottish lords, lords (there was frequent talk of doing ''something'' to trim the size of the English Lords, but nobody could be bothered to go beyond that and actually work out a plan), and on top of that Scotland had a ''lot'' of peers relative to its size. So the Peerage of Scotland elected sixteen of their number--termed Representative Peers--each Parliamentary term to sit in the Lords to represent their interests.
1st Jan '16 12:18:04 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message
* Win an election for the sitting government, apparently. The 2015-2016 New Year's Honours List drew a lot of controversy for, among other examples of suspected cronyism, awarding a knighthood to political strategist Lynton Crosby, who had masterminded the Conservative victory in the 2015 elections. Labour were quick to pounce on this as a case of being awarded more for services to the Conservative Party more than services to the country and bringing the whole system into disrepute. Of course, anyone who remembers the "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_Honours Cash for Honours]]" scandal might be inclined to point out that the Labour Party doesn't exactly have a lot of moral high ground in this situation.
to:
* Win an election for the sitting government, apparently. The 2015-2016 New Year's Honours List drew a lot of controversy for, among other examples of suspected cronyism, awarding a knighthood to political strategist Lynton Crosby, who had masterminded the Conservative victory in the 2015 elections. Labour were quick to pounce on this as a case of being awarded more for services to the Conservative Party more than services to the country and bringing the whole system into disrepute. Of course, anyone who remembers the "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_Honours Cash for Honours]]" scandal might be inclined to point out that the Labour Party doesn't exactly have a lot of moral high ground in this situation.to protest the Honours system being brought into disrepute.
1st Jan '16 12:16:49 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message
to:
* Win an election for the sitting government, apparently. The 2015-2016 New Year's Honours List drew a lot of controversy for, among other examples of suspected cronyism, awarding a knighthood to political strategist Lynton Crosby, who had masterminded the Conservative victory in the 2015 elections. Labour were quick to pounce on this as a case of being awarded more for services to the Conservative Party more than services to the country and bringing the whole system into disrepute. Of course, anyone who remembers the "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_Honours Cash for Honours]]" scandal might be inclined to point out that the Labour Party doesn't exactly have a lot of moral high ground in this situation.
1st Jan '16 12:03:26 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message
** Naturally, ''Series/YesMinister'' also satirised this; one episode where the Minister threatens not to approve his department's honours list unless they actually do something to deserve them sends shockwaves of horror throughout the entire Civil Service. It's pointed out that unlike the rest of the population, who actually have to do something of great significance to earn an honour (and then usually only a minor one), civil servants seem to get showered with all sorts of high-level honours merely for existing, with the clear implication that they are manipulating the system for their own benefit.
to:
** Naturally, ''Series/YesMinister'' also satirised this; one episode where the Minister threatens not to approve his department's honours list unless they actually do something to deserve them sends shockwaves of horror throughout the entire Civil Service. It's pointed out that unlike the rest of the population, who actually have to do something of great significance or of great public benefit to earn an honour (and then usually only a minor one), civil servants seem to get showered with all sorts of high-level honours merely for existing, with the clear implication that they are manipulating the system for their own benefit.
23rd Dec '15 8:07:32 PM Odacon_Spy
Is there an issue? Send a Message
* [[CorruptCorporateExecutive Sir James Manson]] of ''Literature/TheDOgsOfWar''.
to:
* [[CorruptCorporateExecutive Sir James Manson]] of ''Literature/TheDOgsOfWar''.''Literature/TheDogsOfWar''.
23rd Dec '15 8:07:13 PM Odacon_Spy
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
* [[CorruptCorporateExecutive Sir James Manson]] of ''Literature/TheDOgsOfWar''.
20th Dec '15 10:59:14 AM Morgenthaler
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added namespaces.
* Be a hugely popular and very long-lasting pop music phenomenon: Sir Music/CliffRichard, Sir [[PaulMcCartney Paul]] [[Music/TheBeatles McCartney]],[[note]]All Beatles earned an MBE, but only Paul was knighted[[/note]] Dame VeraLynn, Sir EltonJohn, Sir [[Music/TheRollingStones Mick Jagger]], Sir Music/TomJones, Dame ShirleyBassey... You won't find any of them using their title on an album cover except the latter, who is apparently subject to Ben Kingsley Syndrome: she must at all times be referred to as "Dame Shirley" or more puzzlingly "The Dame" (which seems to be approximately a case of confusing a damehood with a peerage: a man calling himself "the Knight" would sound very weird, wouldn't it?) -- most {{egregious}}ly her [[http://www.dameshirleybassey.com/ website]] not only uses "DSB" as her initials now, but has listed The Dame appearing alongside "Elton John" [[DoubleStandard shorn of his equivalent 'Sir']].
to:
* Be a hugely popular and very long-lasting pop music phenomenon: Sir Music/CliffRichard, Sir [[PaulMcCartney [[Music/PaulMcCartney Paul]] [[Music/TheBeatles McCartney]],[[note]]All Beatles earned an MBE, but only Paul was knighted[[/note]] Dame VeraLynn, Music/VeraLynn, Sir EltonJohn, Music/EltonJohn, Sir [[Music/TheRollingStones Mick Jagger]], Sir Music/TomJones, Dame ShirleyBassey...Music/ShirleyBassey... You won't find any of them using their title on an album cover except the latter, who is apparently subject to Ben Kingsley Syndrome: she must at all times be referred to as "Dame Shirley" or more puzzlingly "The Dame" (which seems to be approximately a case of confusing a damehood with a peerage: a man calling himself "the Knight" would sound very weird, wouldn't it?) -- most {{egregious}}ly her [[http://www.dameshirleybassey.com/ website]] not only uses "DSB" as her initials now, but has listed The Dame appearing alongside "Elton John" [[DoubleStandard shorn of his equivalent 'Sir']].
10th Nov '15 1:47:35 PM StFan
Is there an issue? Send a Message
** And in ''TransformersGeneration2Redux'', the Autobot Pyro was knighted for saving the Queen from a Deception attack. Bonus points for him actually being "born" in Great Britain, unlike Soundwave.
to:
** And in ''TransformersGeneration2Redux'', ''[[ComicBook/TransformersWingsOfHonor Transformers Generation 2 Redux]]'', the Autobot Pyro was knighted for saving the Queen from a Deception attack. Bonus points for him actually being "born" in Great Britain, unlike Soundwave.
1st Nov '15 4:11:45 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message
** It became something of a tradition by the mid-19th century to give retired Prime Ministers who were not already Peers earldoms once they retired from the House of Commons. The custom arguably began to form in the mid-18th century, when William Pitt the Elder was made TheEarlOfChatham upon becoming PM in 1766. A while later, HenryAddington was made Viscount Sidmouth upon leaving the premiership. For the next half-century or so, virtually every PM was a Peer, except two who died in office (UsefulNotes/SpencerPerceval and UsefulNotes/GeorgeCanning) and one who died while still in the Commons (Sir UsefulNotes/RobertPeel). Between 1861 (with the Creator/EarlRussell) and 1961 (by which point a peerage was more trouble than help), every former Prime Minister was given an earldom upon leaving the Commons except for those who were already peers,[[note]]except for the Earl of Rosebery, who although already a Peer was additionally created Earl of Midlothian late in life for some reason[[/note]] the ones who died before retiring from the Commons,[[note]]UsefulNotes/HenryCampbellBannerman and UsefulNotes/BonarLaw dying in office, UsefulNotes/RamsayMacDonald and UsefulNotes/NevilleChamberlain dying after leaving the premiership but while still [=MPs=][[/note]] declined elevation (the aforementioned Churchill) [[MyFriendsAndZoidberg or were]] UsefulNotes/WilliamGladstone (because [[UsefulNotes/QueenVictoria Queen Vicky]] personally loathed him). Also, UsefulNotes/MargaretThatcher gave UsefulNotes/HaroldMacmillan the Earldom of Stockton, since when he had taken office the custom was still in place; it has been speculated that she hoped to revive the precedent so that she would receive an earldom in due course.
to:
** It became something of a tradition by the mid-19th century to give retired Prime Ministers who were not already Peers earldoms once they retired from the House of Commons. The custom arguably began to form in developed slowly; the mid-18th century, when very first PM, UsefulNotes/RobertWalpole, was made Earl of Orford in exchange for his resignation; a few already-Peer [=PMs=] (and one, Henry Pelham, who died on office) later, William Pitt the Elder was made TheEarlOfChatham upon "formally" becoming PM in 1766. A while later, HenryAddington was made Viscount Sidmouth upon leaving the premiership. For the next half-century or so, virtually every PM was a Peer, except two who died in office (UsefulNotes/SpencerPerceval and UsefulNotes/GeorgeCanning) and one who died while still in the Commons (Sir UsefulNotes/RobertPeel). Between 1861 (with the Creator/EarlRussell) and 1961 (by which point a peerage was more trouble than help), every former Prime Minister was given an earldom upon leaving the Commons except for those who were already peers,[[note]]except for the Earl of Rosebery, who although already a Peer was additionally created Earl of Midlothian late in life for some reason[[/note]] the ones who died before retiring from the Commons,[[note]]UsefulNotes/HenryCampbellBannerman and UsefulNotes/BonarLaw dying in office, UsefulNotes/RamsayMacDonald and UsefulNotes/NevilleChamberlain dying after leaving the premiership but while still [=MPs=][[/note]] declined elevation (the aforementioned Churchill) [[MyFriendsAndZoidberg or were]] UsefulNotes/WilliamGladstone (because [[UsefulNotes/QueenVictoria Queen Vicky]] personally loathed him). Also, UsefulNotes/MargaretThatcher gave UsefulNotes/HaroldMacmillan the Earldom of Stockton, since when he had taken office the custom was still in place; it has been speculated that she hoped to revive the precedent so that she would receive an earldom in due course.
1st Nov '15 3:49:41 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Unlike in some countries, UK/Commonwealth coats of arms are not familial but individual (if inheritable), and are issued by the College of Arms; they are an early form of intellectual property, being a design which is the personal property of one person. There is no such thing as a "family coat of arms": Each coat of arms is held by one person. It's also important to note that the protection extends to the ''design'', as formally described in terms of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blazon blazons]] (the official technical language used to describe arms), and any particular artist's rendering of the arms is as valid as any other and must be authorised by the individual armiger if intended for official use.[[note]]In this sense, it's rather like the copyright a composer has in the sheet music of his/her compositions.[[/note]] The design can be passed on, but only to the senior heir (i.e. heir by primogeniture). Younger sons of armigers (armiger=person who owns arms) were expected to "difference" their arms--if, that is, they were entitled to arms--in some way, and even the eldest son was traditionally required to do so while his father lived. That's right--"entitled to arms". Not every BlueBlood in Britain actually has a legal right to use a coat of arms; if they aren't the heir to a title, or at least the heir of someone who has a title (e.g. the eldest son of a knight) they have to earn the right to arms by getting a title of their own. (The rules are of course different for the royals, because they're royal.) In the Middle Ages, this was usually done by doing the whole knight thing (riding horses and killing people); in the Early Modern period this was done by taking up a career in politics, the military, [[UsefulNotes/BritishCourts the Bar/the judiciary]], sometimes the sciences, or just schmoozing the King; and today, you earn it in the ways you see on this page. In any case, if you, younger son of armiger, actually earned a title (even a knighthood), ''then'' you could have your own arms--and because of social expectation, you would just use the "differenced" arms of your father.[[note]]This could get even more complicated, since there is both a hard-and-fast rule that arms must be distinct and a more flexible "rule" that "differences" would follow particular rules of "cadency"--i.e., certain symbols represented being a 2nd son, 3rd son, 4th, 5th, etc. So, if you were, say, a third son and English, you were expected to put a star on your father's shield, and that would be the "difference"--but not ''completely'' expected, because you ''could'' use a different design, so long as they weren't exactly the same as your father's (e.g.: if your mother was from a more prominent family than your father, you might use the quartered or impaled arms of their marriage to signal to everyone "Yes, my name is X, but more importantly I'm a Y on my mum's side"). (On the other hand, the rules were more closely followed in Scotland; if you were a third son and Scottish, you put a chequered blue border on the edge of your father's arms and that was that.) But what if, say, your uncle, your father's youngest brother and himself a third son, had ''already'' earned a title and ''also'' had the arms of the senior line differenced with a star (remember, the arms stay unchanged in the senior line)? Actually, that's simple: Just use stars of different colours (or, if all the colours are taken, in a different place). Incidentally, this story is taken, more or less, from the way things worked out between the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Ampthill Barons Ampthill]] and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Russell Earls Russell]] (yes, as in [[Creator/EarlRussell John]] and [[Creator/BertrandRussell Bertrand]]), junior lines of the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Bedford Dukes of Bedford]].[[/note]] That said, these rules were flexible; generally speaking the arms of the seniormost line were often informally regarded as a symbol of the "dynasty" as a whole.
to:
Unlike in some countries, UK/Commonwealth coats of arms are not familial but individual (if inheritable), and are issued by the College of Arms; Arms (in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) or the Lord Lyon King of Arms (in Scotland); they are an early form of intellectual property, being a design which is the personal property of one person. There is no such thing as a "family coat of arms": Each coat of arms is held by one person. It's also important to note that the protection extends to the ''design'', as formally described in terms of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blazon blazons]] (the official technical language used to describe arms), and any particular artist's rendering of the arms is as valid as any other and must be authorised by the individual armiger if intended for official use.[[note]]In this sense, it's rather like the copyright a composer has in the sheet music of his/her compositions.[[/note]] The design can be passed on, but only to the senior heir (i.e. heir by primogeniture). Younger sons of armigers (armiger=person who owns arms) were expected to "difference" their arms--if, that is, they were entitled to arms--in some way, and even the eldest son was traditionally required to do so while his father lived. That's right--"entitled to arms". Not every BlueBlood in Britain actually has a legal right to use a coat of arms; if they aren't in Scotland, only the heir to a title, or at least the heir of someone who has a title (e.g. is entitled to inherit his/her ancestor's arms, and although in England the eldest son rules are different, ''generally'' allowing all sons of a knight) they have an armiger to earn inherit the right to own arms, this changed from time to time and in general people entitled to register arms by getting under English law will not do so unless they hold a title of their own. (The rules or are of course different for in the royals, because they're royal.) In seniormost line (i.e., essentially the Scottish rules). Whether in Scotland or out, the way people who really wanted the prerequisites to get arms would go about this changed over time: the Middle Ages, this was usually done by doing the whole knight thing (riding horses and killing people); in the Early Modern period this was done by taking up a career in politics, the military, [[UsefulNotes/BritishCourts the Bar/the judiciary]], sometimes the sciences, or just schmoozing the King; and today, you earn it in the ways you see on this page. In any case, if you, younger son of armiger, actually earned a title (even a knighthood), ''then'' you could have have/would be fairly safe in getting your own arms--and arms. What's interesting about this is that no matter the source of your right to own arms (whether it be earning a title or for an English junior son just claiming it, social convention be damned), your arms would have to be unique: you cannot just use whatever arms your father used, because of social expectation, those are his personal property, and they will be passed on to your older brother when he dies. On the other hand, just choosing any random design you liked seemed disrespectful, and made genealogy (important in those days!) much harder. To solve this problem, they came up with the idea that you would just use the "differenced" arms of your father.father--that is, your father's arms plus an extra symbol or a minor change to make them legally "different" and therefore a unique design that a person could own in a meaningful way.[[note]]This could get even more complicated, since there is both a hard-and-fast rule that arms must be distinct and a more flexible "rule" that "differences" would follow particular rules of "cadency"--i.e., certain symbols represented being a 2nd son, 3rd son, 4th, 5th, etc. So, if you were, say, a third son and English, you were expected to put a star on your father's shield, and that would be the "difference"--but not ''completely'' expected, because you ''could'' use a different design, so long as they weren't exactly the same as your father's (e.g.: if your mother was from a more prominent family than your father, you might use the quartered or impaled arms of their marriage to signal to everyone "Yes, my name is X, but more importantly I'm a Y on my mum's side"). (On the other hand, the rules were more closely followed in Scotland; if you were a third son and Scottish, you put a chequered blue border on the edge of your father's arms and that was that.) But what if, say, your uncle, your father's youngest brother and himself a third son, had ''already'' earned a title and ''also'' had the arms of the senior line differenced with a star (remember, the arms stay unchanged in the senior line)? Actually, that's simple: Just use stars of different colours (or, if all the colours are taken, in a different place). Incidentally, this story is taken, more or less, from the way things worked out between the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Ampthill Barons Ampthill]] and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Russell Earls Russell]] (yes, as in [[Creator/EarlRussell John]] and [[Creator/BertrandRussell Bertrand]]), junior lines of the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Bedford Dukes of Bedford]].[[/note]] That said, these rules were flexible; generally speaking the arms of the seniormost line were often informally regarded as a symbol of the "dynasty" as a whole.
This list shows the last 10 events of 246. Show all.