This is a question mainly for British Dopers, or anyone else in the know:
Are there any well-renowned cases where it is fairly obvious that so-and-so should be knighted, but for some reason or another, that person has not been? Are there instances where popular opinion is heavily in favor of someone being knighted, but this selfsame person is kept from knighthood by politics, or something?
Have deserving people so denied ever been knighted posthumously, after the political winds have had time to shift?
Are there any contemporary cases as described above? How about going back, say, 200 years?
This isn’t quite what you’re looking for, but Air Marshal Sir Arthur “Bomber” Harris, chief of Bomber Command, was conspicuously overlooked for “promotion” to a higher royalty title after World War II. It is widely speculated that Harris was not given a lordship or other title because of his zeal for, and apparent pleasure taken in, carrying the war to German civilians through indiscriminate nightime fireboming of urban centers.
Knighthoods are in theory conferred at the discretion of the monarch, in practice at the discretion of the Government. So, there’s no set standard for whether someone “deserves” a knighthood. (But it’s possible to point to any number of undeserving cases who get them anyway.) Recently, steps have been taken to open up the honours system to the public - I think it was John Major who set up a system by which ordinary members of the public could nominate people for honours, and Tony Blair has made much of his recent creation of so-called “people’s peers”. Public opinion, though, is not usually a factor. (If it was, we’d have had things like “Sir David and Dame Victoria Beckham” inflicted on us by now… ugh)
The case of Bomber Harris is comparable… just about every other senior WWII military commander wound up with a peerage (not royalty, *Sofa King, you can only become royal by being born one, or marrying one, and sometimes even that doesn’t work). But, because of Harris’ campaigns, no Government wanted the possible public relations backlash of elevating him.
I hear that a lot of people think that Alan Rickman should be knighted for his contributions to the arts (ala Elton John and Paul McCartney) but that it will never happen because he’s spoken out so often regarding his distaste for the Monarchy.
FWIW - I’ve often heard the story that a knighthood was granted to Arthur Sillivan alone and not to his comic-opera collaborator, W.S. Gilbert in response to Gilbert’s satire of British institutions, politicians, and class culture.
Sullivan did write other works than the melodies of the Savoy operas and these were well regarded - at that time at least.
Gilbert also wrote (and directed) other plays besides his operas but these were also highly satirical, one of which was shut down by the government as it explicitly poked fun at PM Gladstone. (Gladstone, who talked with God, apparently was a very easy person to satirize.)
I’ve heard it said that when the Beatles were named MBE’s in the 1960’s (well, OK, that’s not exactly the same as being knighted, but anyway), that Brian Epstein was left out because of his religion (Jewish) and/or his homosexuality. Though the religion part I kind of doubt…after all, look at Disraeli.
The famous case in recent years was Sean Connery. It was widely believed that Blair had blocked his nomination for a knighthood and that he had done so because of Connery’s high-profile support for the Scottish National Party. The public outcry was so great, particularly in Scotland, that he was forced to back down.
Brian Epstein’s homosexuality may have been the reason for his omission, as, in theory, this could have been used in the 1960s as grounds for denying an honour. This was related to the idea that known homosexuals could not be presented at court. That said, both rules were more token gestures than rigorously enforced bans.
The Gilbert and Sullivan issue is easily explained. One can say with absolute certainty that Sullivan was not knighted for his composition of light operettas, satirical or otherwise. It was for his serious music, of which Queen Victoria was a big fan, that he was honoured.
There does seem little doubt that Harris was snubbed when he was not given a peerage in 1945. There was also the view that Alan Brooke had been snubbed, for no apparent reason, by being given only a viscountcy. The precedent of Haig in WWI suggested that an earldom was the going rate for the job.
Most other conspicious examples of people whom one might have thought would have been given a honour are probably people who have turned one down. The Order of Merit, which confers no title, is sometimes used to reward very distinguished individuals who don’t want a title.
To add to what APB said about Brian Epstein, there are plenty of Jewish peers, knights and so on and there is no evidence that it was Epstein’s Jewishness which stopped him getting the MBE.
Yes, the restriction has been dropped but rather more recently than one might imagine. I seem to remember that its formal abolition coincided with the knighting of Ian McKellan. Gielgud is probably the pre-eminent case in which it almost made a difference. He was lucky that his court case happened after, not before, he was knighted in 1953. There were lots of other cases in which blind eyes were turned (Anthony Blunt and Noel Coward are two which spring to mind). At one time there was a similar reluctance to honour divorcees.
Oh, BTW, I do believe that Gilbert was later knighted by Edward VII. I remember it being a Jeopardy question.
Well, Viscount Montgomery of Alamein was the preeminent British military hero of the war, so it may not have gone over too well to honor Brooke more. Especially since I’d never heard of him before.
Until recently, full honours (including peerages) could be given to most commonwealth citizens of countries where the Queen is head of state. Most countries have now withdrawn from this.
Citizens of other states may receive honorary kinighthoods which allow the letters after the name KCBE (Knight Commander of the British Empire)but not the sobriquet ‘Sir’.
Just a note about Sir Arthur Harris. While not elevated to the peerage, he was made a baronet. A baronet ranks below a baron but above all knights (except knights of the garter - and there’s only a couple dozen of those). Unlike a knighthood a baronetcy can be inherited.