>Interestingly enough, Jobs himself was also considered for knighthood by the Queen of the United Kingdom, but the proposal was blocked by a former Prime Minister because Jobs declined to speak at a Labour Party conference.
That's fascinating to me. As an American who has never paid much attention to British knighthood, I am not knowledgeable about the process for selecting whom becomes a British knight. Could someone with the requisite knowledge perhaps elucidate on whether or not ostensibly petty politics get in the way of these things with regularity?
It seems absolutely absurd that someone who is being considered for knighthood could be denied of that because of something as minuscule as declining to speak at a party conference.
Couldn't agree more with this comment - even better the genii behind The Thick If It have a new HBO series which I imagine will have an interesting take on US politics: Veep http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veep_(TV_series)
For a time you could simply buy your way to a knighthood. At least for the last 50 years they've been an almost entirely political construction, recommended by the government and rubber stamped by the queen.
The Victoria Cross and George cross however, are earnt on merit alone.
A lot of people have a say on the list of people to be honoured, but the Prime Minister is the most influential of the lot. Technically speaking the monarch could overrule any objection (afaik the process is not defined by any specific law or regulation, just built on convention), in practice it rarely ever happened with Elizabeth II. It will be interesting to see how this, like many other conventions established under her rule, will morph once we go back to having a male King who will be more popular than the political establishment, something that hasn't happened for a very long time.
She wasn't necessarily so when she "took office" and formed her views on what her role had to be. At various stages, up to the 80s, a large segment of the population would have happily done away with the monarchy, which is unthinkable today. In a way, her constitutional profile as a weak ruler was a way to sneak the institution past turbulent times.
The next ruler will probably find himself, from the very beginning, more popular than powerful. The temptation to wrestle back some power from an unpopular political class will be strong, and there are very little safeguards. This wouldn't necessary be a bad thing: the UK system values pragmatism over principles, maybe restoring some royal privileges could be useful to get us out of the current ideological rut.
I suspect that's because, for better or worse, a lot of people in the UK do as well. Personally, I'm always torn on the House of Lords. In principle, as an institution, the Lords is an anachronistic affront to democracy that obviously has no mandate and no place in legitimate government for the 21st century. Pragmatically, I can't help noticing that the elected representatives in the House of Commons often seem incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery or showing any empathy whatsoever for their constituents, while the Lords actually has a fairly respectable track record for getting in the way of bad legislation. I would much prefer a second chamber (or entirely new system) where everyone with any kind of power to act on behalf of the people also had a democratic mandate, but until such a system comes along, I suspect as a practical measure we're actually better off with the Lords than without.
Have you considered the that maybe one of the reasons the House of Lords works (and I believe most people are of the view it at least sort of does) is because they ARE unelected, and thus don't have to pander to any interest other than their own humanity?
Given the state of politics in the west, perhaps leaders in society should be appointed in a similar way to jury service.
I think there is potential in having a second chamber where the people making decisions serve a long term in office (possibly until they choose to retire) unless they are actively recalled. As you say, that puts them above the need to make decisions based on the worst kind of reactionary politics, as often happens to those serving for terms of only a few years who always have one eye on the re-election campaign fund.
On the other hand, I think getting into such office in the first place should be about more than buttering up the current PM. Rather like the US Supreme Court, if all you have to do to reach such high office is receive the assent of someone who may themselves be on the way out politically by the time they appoint you, there is a very real danger that too many bad apples get in and then can't readily be removed.
I've often mused idly over the jury service for politicians idea. For a while, I wondered what would happen if we ran a staged process where randomly selected citizens were invited to join the second chamber for one term of office, lasting quite a while (say 6 years), with a new intake every other year so you never have a chamber full of people who haven't figured out how things work yet. The difficulty I always run into is that like jury service, it probably has to be compulsory rather than an invitation if you're going to get a reasonably representative group, but unlike jury service it is clearly not reasonable to require people to give up several years of their lives for public service. And you can't really do it on shorter terms of say one year, because then the administration of the day can just wait out a hostile second chamber and hope for better luck next time before steamrollering through all the bad legislation it really wants in one favourable year.
I'm optimistic enough to believe that as technology increasingly eliminates most kinds of material scarcity, and human network effects & education continue to eliminate violence, then the question would be, well, really, why wouldn't you want to be in public service?
> Technically speaking the monarch could overrule any objection (afaik the process is not defined by any specific law or regulation, just built on convention)
The UK doesn't really have a constitution in the sense that the US, France, Germany, etc. have a constitution. Power changes all the time, and has gradually gotten more democratic over the last 200 years.
In theory, all power is from the Queen/King, which they give out to Parliament. In theory
In practice Parliament has the power, and if the Queen/King over steps their bounds it's either sorted out by war (Parliament vs. the Monarch (English Civil War in 1640s)), or Parliament kicks out the Monarch and gets someone else in (Glorious Revolution of 1688 when they got rid of the Catholic King and invited the Prodestant Willian of Orange in).
He's not popular with some people for what might be an abuse of power.[1] He's had a reputation of intervening in architecture projects that don't fit his ideal vision (ie. they're not traditional, Georgian style), leading to them being cancelled outright even at the late stages of planning.
See also Edward VII -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_vii -- Queen Victoria's oldest surviving male offspring, he had to wait 59 years for the throne. Reigned for nine years, then died.
Given the Windsor family medical history, Elizabeth II could well make it past her centenary. In which Charles will not get to place his bum on the throne until he's in his late seventies or eighties.
I'm fairly sure you have to either have British citizenship or citizenship in one of the Commonwealth nations to be knighted. Otherwise you receive an honorary knighthood. Also some Commonwealth nations don't allow their citizens to receive honours, for example Canada.
It has to be honorary for U.S. citizens because of the Constitution of the United States's Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8. A U.S. citizen cannot swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen and remain a citizen. That being said, there is a lot of wink-wink-nudge-nudge where the UK is concerned.
Isn't that just a restriction on people holding a political office of some kind?
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State"
America was founded as an egalitarian republic, free from the aristocratic tyranny of Europe. The purpose of that provision was to keep formal aristocracy out of America, and to keep the U.S. government from adopting similar ranks and privileges here.
I think “And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them …” is where the question is coming from. Who is them in that sentence? The United States? And if that is so it seems only those in the United States holding an Office of Profit or Trust (whatever that means) are exempted. Citizenhood doesn't seem to come into play.
In fact, should he even end up a British citizen (dual-citizenship, give up his US citizenship, or whatever else), he would automatically become a full knight.
If you have not seen Gary Hustwit's design documentary, "Objectified", I recommend it highly. Especially if you are not a professional designer (I am not a designer, and I know enough to appreciate good design, not produce it) [1].
In "Objectified", Dieter Rams (of iconic Braun fame) is asked if there is any company that really gets design today. He answers after a moment's pause: "Apple".[2]
[1] Ira Glass on the importance of having good taste before you can produce to the expectations of that taste
Incredibly well deserved. If we all learn one thing from Sir Jony Ive, it's that simplicity wins out every single time.
Really happy to see him get mainstream recognition, because he truly should be up there with all the other well-known genius Brit's like Branson and Dyson.
Its worth pointing out that Sir Jonathan went to a Further Education College and then a Polytechnic, and then went on to start his own small design agency?
This is an excellent example to others including my own students some of whom are on design courses here in the UK.
I'm not sure if he's been knighted yet. The honors come out in a long list at New Years, but I think the ceremonies are done bit by bit over a longer span of time. The Queen would probably get tired waving that sword around for so long.
Terry Pratchett's knighthood was announced in the 2008 New Years' list, but it was a couple of months before it was made official at Buckingham Palace.
Hmm, this got me thinking: An interesting loop occurs when you want to announce that person X has been knighted (what is the verb for women, "damed"?), i.e. is now Sir X (SX). The thing is you can't say "SX has been knighted" because that is a tautology. But saying "X has been knighted" sounds wrong because, you know, he's no longer X.
Spent a good ten minutes Googling this one. It would seem no separate word exists ('damed' is not a word), though one site suggested the use of 'daymed' (it's a pun. not very funny :)
I believe technically both men and women are knighted. One becomes a Sir, and the other a Dame. If you think it sounds funny, I supposed "made a dame" might be another way of phrasing it.
If memory serves, historically the verb "create" was used for high appointments. For example, the monarch would take Bill Smith and create him William, Duke of Somewhere. He would then formally be addressed as Lord Somewhere.
I don't know whether the same phraseology would ever have made sense for a knight, though, and I may well be a bit off on the details.
You can always cheat by referring to him indirectly ("design chief has been knighted") or simply claim that you are addressing him informally. The Sir is formal, I do not believe you are required to use it in casual conversation?
Well, we could put this another way and say that his name has not changed, in the same way as you might address me as Mr. John Doe OR John Doe OR Mr. Doe. Mr, Mrs, Miss, are all (classically) forms of minor titles.
Anything published in the press ( news etc ) is considered formal. Not that related laws are enforced much, these days; even the BBC routinely gets it wrong.
I think that the loss of the honorific is still entirely polite if it's ommitted from the sentence that describes the person gaining their honourific. You're not diminishing them in any way, so it's not impolite.
Yes, he is. The U.S. Constitution forbids U.S. citizens from receiving honors such as this, but, of course, does nothing to prohibit non-citizens from the same. It is a matter of courtesy to use someone's title, even in the United States. Even the U.S. government refers to people with their titles, such as The Right Honourable Stephen Harper when the Prime Minister of Canada visits the United States.
"Sir," especially in an instance such as this, is an earned title with which its owner is entitled to be addressed.
Actually the Constitution doesn't forbid US Citizens from receiving such honors. You might be thinking of the Titles of Nobility Amendment, which never was ratified by the required number of States.
Am I the only one who was under the impression that he was already knighted for his work on the iPod/iMac (even before the iPhone was announced)? I could have sworn I read something to that effect many years ago.
> The knighthood, which is for "services to design and enterprise," is a step up from his previous title of Commander of the British Empire, which was awarded in 2005.
I'm happy that Jony got awarded this honor. But when I read "Commander of the British Empire" I chuckled and thought to myself, it's 2012 and this really ought to say "Commander of the British Empire or what's left of it" ;)
This is as absurd as if he'd been given an honorary title by the Church of Scientology...
Am I the only one who sees this as a pitiful attempt by a government to rub elbows with someone who truly has merit, and by doing so to create the notion that there is some form of equality between the two?
I think any self-respecting person would decline knighthood. Though I can see in this case how his corporate responsibilities would lead him to accept it in order not to offend British subjects, since doing so might hurt sales.
One could make the same argument about the Church of Scientology. The knighthood is via the figurehead, monarchic part of the government which serves no actual purpose.
You are correct. I have nothing against the British government or the Church of Scientology, but I do think titles of nobility are bizarre and a reminder of our civilization's dark past.
You would have to be the biggest cynic in the world about democracy to think there is no difference between an elected senator and a monarchic (hereditary) title of nobility.
FWIW KBE's are not hereditary titles :-) he can't pass it on.
Here in the UK it is nowadays largely recognised as part of a larger (including OBE and MBE etc.) merit system recognising achievement. A national honour roll.
Now if we were talking about hereditary lordships...
I think there's been a historical shift in what the word 'Knighthood' means.
The knighthoods discussed here are earned and given for different public goods -- charity, business, entertainment, etc. Current Knights include Sir Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney, and Sir Richard Branson. It's not heritable or noble, although of course the origins of the word itself are.
(Interestingly, 'Senator' has undergone the same historical shift -- it refers originally to the hereditary nobles who ran the Roman Empire. It's just managed to get away from the aristocratic origins. As have terms like 'Drugs Czar')
It is the case that it's the Queen who awards these titles, but in the UK almost everything does, officially -- she's a symbolic figurehead -- the powerless root node of the tree of government, if you like.
Does the US have any kind of equivalent system of recognition? France has the Légion d'Honneur, for instance, which is a non-aristocratic, republican order of merit.
It's not a troll. Why do governmental institutions deserve an ounce more (or less) credibility than non-governmental ones like the Gates Foundation or the Church of Scientology.
We're all just in the habit of glorifying those who have power over us (or who once did) and treating nonsense like this as if it was a real honor. If you want to honor Ives, buy an Apple product.
Err... government props up your life as you know it. You drive on public roads. You engage in an entire economy stabilized by FDIC backing and various other tactics. You are kept safe by public employees- policemen, firemen, et al.
Yet you say we should find government no more credible than Scientology?
Not at all. The people who work in some government jobs benefit me, while others harm me.
Ironically, whenever anyone tries to defend government the first thing they mention is the roads, which are less than 1% of the budget and an even smaller percentage of personnel, and toward which the actual work is done by locally contracted private firms.
Sure, there are a lot of coordination problems that government tries (with varying degrees of success) to solve, but this doesn't put it beyond reproach. And it's certainly the case that even the US government has a fairly high degree of corruption, much of which diverts resources away from those in need toward those with political connections.
So in my view, governments derive legitimacy from their ability to solve coordination problems, adapt to changing circumstances, and stave off policies that incentivize corruption or put human rights at risk.
In the case of figurehead monarchies and the hereditary titles they grant, I think the best that could be said is that they offer nostalgia for a past era when such things mattered. In reality, vane humans strive to show status by meeting with royalty, since in spite of the monarchy's utter backwardness and absurdity, is still not something everyone gets to do, so the scarcity of the opportunity creates social value.
The reality of knighthoods past is that they were titles awarded to warlords in exchange for tributes (aka voluntary taxes) paid to a more powerful warlord (aka king) who granted privileges, land, etc., in exchange for those tributes.
This still happens today only w/o the pageantry: Imagine a US military truck with crates full of cash paying Afghan warlords for intel and mercenary troops. This is ugly business and there is no honor whatsoever in it.
No he didn't. Simplified, his statement reads "Ironically, those who defend government start by listing a thing provided by government that is a small facet of what they do".
There's no irony there, no juxtaposition, no opposite. He's trying to get across the gist of "why the hell is it always roads!?", but it's frustration, not irony.
It is ironic that the chief reason trumpeted by proponents of government action turns out to be a relatively part of their operations. It does the opposite of support their intention and presents a juxtaposition of what they think is a really good argument and what it actually amounts to.
It would be like if I claimed male authors were better than female authors, then cited George Eliot as my first example of a great male author. That would be ironic.
Your analogy doesn't work - because George Elliot is a woman. George Elliot isn't "a small part of the whole" of male authors, she's an exact counterexample.
Roads-by-government are "a small part of the whole" - they're not contradictory in any way to the idea that services are supplied by government. They're not a counterexample. It would only be ironic (and would also fit your example) if the roads in question were actually provided by private enterprise.
Well the roads are usually provided by private enterprise, though paid for by the state. But it is still ironic because the argument is not no government vs. big government, it's small government vs big government. Citing the roads is not a point in support of getting the government more involved in public life, because if maintaining the roads and other things like that were the only actions required by government, then the government would be miniscule.
What would not be ironic would be something like 'ironically, the defenders of government always mention the military as their first example - I mean come on people, have some imagination at least!' That would just be frustration.
Put simply, if there's a range of possible examples people can pick to support a given stance, and they always seem to pick one of the weakest/least-appropriate ones, then yeah, that's ironic. It's a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects.
I think you're just trying to salvage an incorrect application of the term, and I don't think we're going to get much further here.
As an aside to that, your last phrase a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects highlights a significant difference between British and American irony. In the US, you can choose to wear an ironic t-shirt. With British irony, you can't - irony is something that is unintentional (it can be known, just not intended). As soon as you intend to do it in any way, it's deliberate or expected and so becomes unironic.
I've heard British people claim that American's don't 'get' irony but i've never heard it claimed that there's a difference between 'American and British irony.'
In my experience the irony police are usually unwilling to consider the full subtext of someone's statement when they describe it as ironic. For instance people often say things like 'ironic, isn't it - beautiful weather all week and then when we finally decide to throw a barbecue, it rains. ' This is of course just bad luck, but people like to jokingly invoke some sense of fate conspiring against them. Or, someone might consciously wear an 'ironic t-shirt', and people consciously recognise the intent, but the unspoken subtext that maintains the irony is that there is some other observer or potential wearer who would be unaware of the incongruity.
the use of words expressing something other than their literal intention
Nope, doesn't qualify
A statement that, when taken in context, may actually mean something different from, or the opposite of what is written literally
Don't see how this works either.
I'll skip over Socratic irony and Dramatic irony- hopefully it is obvious this is neither.
I could be wrong, of course. The colloquial & popular use is so different from the actual meaning of the word, I am never quite sure I have the right of it.
I think that a government's legitimacy as an arbiter of anything depends on its overall credibility, which varies greatly between governments and within the institutions within governments.
The post was about honouring and giving recognition to a talented designer and craftsman. I personally dont see how appending anti-governmental sentiments to a thread like this are helpful.
Whilst we're on the subject, gaining legitimacy through association has always been human social trait rather than one limited to governments, its a lot more prevalent than i fear anyone likes to admit.
Why do we allow governments to control a scarce supply of "honor" that can be bestowed in circumstances like this?
Legitimacy through association, honor from titles, etc., is part of a desperate, dark-ages mentality that is completely opposite to creativity, novelty, and the democratization of technology.
Apple did not succeed b/c it made devices fit for kings, but because it made devices loved by normal people who use them to do actual work, not simply to inhabit a position enjoyed via birthright, etc.
The amazing design of Apple products is based on smart supply chain provisioning, clever design, and judicious use of materials. Contrast this to the stolen gold wasted to make medallions, crowns, etc. The two just couldn't be further apart, and so yes it tremendously disappoints me that Ives didn't scoff at the supposed honor.
Governments (decent ones at least) should be elected representatives of the people, surely that makes them the best body to supply honors? I personally wish the Queen would have total control in this area though in the UK, as she is technically still the head of state.
'merit' as a concept doesnt have to be in opposition to any of the qualities mentioned, i dont believe democracy is about abolishing hierarchy, as much as it is offering equal opportunity into it.
Ironically im more worried by Apple, which can manipulate customers left, right and center to make an extra buck:
- Overpriced hardware
- inconsistent pricing of products internationally
- making deals with telecoms companies locking iphone users to certain providers
- non-open platforms such as OSX and iOS
- taking the free out of freebsd
They are walking a close line themselves in promoting the anti-democratization of technology
That's fascinating to me. As an American who has never paid much attention to British knighthood, I am not knowledgeable about the process for selecting whom becomes a British knight. Could someone with the requisite knowledge perhaps elucidate on whether or not ostensibly petty politics get in the way of these things with regularity?
It seems absolutely absurd that someone who is being considered for knighthood could be denied of that because of something as minuscule as declining to speak at a party conference.