Many Americans have been awarded British knighthoods: Bob Hope, Norman Schwarzkopf [sp?], George Bush (the elder), Steven Spielberg, Colin Powell, to name but a few.
The UK and US media universally report that they are not actually allowed to “use” their titles.
But my reading of the US Constitution merely prohibits employees of the US govt from accepting such titles.
So is there any real US ban on this sort of thing? In the last Austin Powers flick, Austin introduces “Sir Steven Spielberg”. If Mr Spielberg decided he would like to swan around Hollywood as Sir Steven, would there be any legal ban on it in the USA (apart from laws banning affectation and pomposity)?
I’ve heard that the fifth Baron Harden-Guest of Saling, and his wife Lady Harden-Guest, have appeared in full regalia at the opening of the British Parliament. Others may know them better as Christopher Guest (Spinal Tap, Waiting for Guffman, Best in Show) and Jamie Lee Curtis. If they can do it, what’s the problem?
I’m confused on this, 'cos the BBC reported Mr Speilberg as receiving an “honorary” knighthood. So what’s the diff from a real one?
Enlightenment much appreciated.
It’s not the US Constitution that stops them being called “Sir Hobnob” or whatever, it’s the UK Constitution.
You can’t get an actual knighthood unless you’re a citizen of the UK or a Commonwealth country (so you’d be OK yourself, but Bob Geldof is only “Sir Bob” to the tabloids). You’re right about Jamie Lee Curtis showing up in the House of Lords a couple of times. Very smug she looked too.
The Brits award the lowest degree (“Member”) of the Order of the British Empire, which is technically a knightly order, much the way American institutions grant recognition to, say, a retiring Professor of Veterinary Medicine for “his lifelong contributions to veterinary science.” (Which is not to put down vets. – just to give an example of something that wouldn’t as a rule be accompanied by universal fame and praise among all sorts and conditions of men.)
But a M.B.E. is not a knighthood, does not entail a “sir” or an accolade (in the technical meaning, the “dubbing”), and has the same degree of significance as Congress unanimously passing a resolution praising the artistic genius of Slug Signorino.
And hence is in no way contrary to the Constitutional provision.
BTW, it’s important to distinguish between the aristocracy (those holding knighthoods and baronetcys and their families – it has a factual meaning in the U.K.), the nobility (those holding a peerage, who are, or were until the recent reforms, entitled to voice and vote in the Hosue of Lords), and the Royal Family. There are significant legal distinctions in English and Scottish law between the three (and, Grammar Police, no, I did not mean “among the three” – look it up!).
The Constitutional provisions on foreign gifts and titles are quite specific and found in the last paragraph of Article I, Section 9. But the courts have refused to take action when a “person holding [an] office of profit or trust” in our government is, as a result of his service to the U.S. in a common cause, recognized and awarded a distinction by a foreign government. General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower was recognized for his services towards the lasting peace of the world by everyone from the U.K. to Denmark to the U.S.S.R. before, during, and after his Presidency, and this was held not to be actionable under the Constitutional provision.
It would seem that even if you have had an honorary knighthood bestowed on you, you can “upgrade” it to a full knighthood, so long as you’re willing to change your citizenship. BTW, I hope the link works, it’s the first time I’ve done it on here!
I don’t think that’s the case - there’ve been lots of examples of the British monarch conferring knighthoods and titles on individuals who weren’t British or Commonwealth citizens.
For example, last year the Queen installed King Harald of Norway as a knight of the Garter, and the royal webpage lists other non-British holders of the Garter as being present: