Yes, he might – but without the gravitas of Pig Iron Bob (whom I once saw passing by, while I was a student).
This is small stuff. You guys would be better wondering why the Aboriginal people exist on the very margins of your society and doing something to make that better. Tasmanian Aboriginals were made extinct by European settlers. Even the Americans couldn’t achieve that.
Whataboutery. There is no reason why a nation cannot address its honours system while at the same time addressing other more important issues.
Sadly, not the Leunig version:
“I did but see her passing by, she passed me by quite fast.
I saw her passing by again when several years had passed.
And then at some much later stage she passed me by once more
And there were further passings-by and these I also saw.
I did but see her passing by, I don’t know what it means;
Perhaps it’s not my problem, but a problem of the Queen’s.”
Insignia: A drunk kangaroo punching out a koala! 
Seems like fairly small fry; the objection seems to be because knighthoods sound like monarchy.
But, Australia is a monarchy.
My point entirely
Do Australians really object to having a Queen, considering that she almost never comes around to pester them?
Most people are supportive or indifferent to the royals.
Politicians are disproportionately (small r) republican, maybe they all dream of being President one day.
Every time someone trots out the old “Tasmanian Aboriginals are extinct” line, I find it remarkable that it doesn’t seem to be considered racist to claim a people with living descendants are extinct just because there are none left with “pure blood”.
Thank you for your concern, Ken. As a nation, we have the ability to multitask and address multiple issues simultaneously. I, for one, care deeply about the human rights abuses on Manus Island, the attempts to demolish the carbon economy, the delisting of the World Heritage status of Tasmania’s forests to open them up for logging, the dumping of mining spoil near the Great Barrier Reef, the destruction of the NBN, and, yes, I care about seeing the lives of Indigenous Australians improved and their outcomes brought more in line with the rest of the population, but despite all that there is still room in my heart for irritation over this stupid knighthood thing.
The tale of Sir Tony.
Bravely bold Sir Tony
Rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to lie,
Oh brave Sir Tony.
He was not at all afraid
To be spilled in nasty ways.
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Tony.
He was not in the least bit scared
To mash wood into a pulp.
Or to have his rights gouged out,
And his unions broken.
To have his party split
And his wages burned away,
And his rights all hacked and mangled
Brave Sir Tony.
His pay smashed in
And his conditions cut out
And his leave removed
And his net unplugged
And his resources *****
And his land burnt off
And his pen–
“That’s… that’s enough music for now lads,
*** looks like there’s dirty work afoot*** ???.”
Brave Sir Tony ran away.
(“No!”)
Bravely ran away away.
(“I didn’t!”)
When science reared it’s ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
(“no!”)
Yes, brave Sir Tony turned about
(“I didn’t!”)
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking (“I never did!”) to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
(“all lies!”)
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Tony!
(“I never!”)
My understanding is most* Australians support a republic in theory but; a) disagree on how to pick a (ceremonial) president, and b) don’t think it’s that big an issue & that there’s far more important stuff to focus on. The failed referendum in 1999 likely killed the issue for a generation (at least until the Queen dies).
*Isn’t even theoretical support for a republic declining (more due to apathy than actual monarchism)?
Knight* is* an office that someone holds.
Can you provide evidence for this claim that the *only *requirement for these knighthoods is that “the politically powerful wish him to have a title to distinguish him from the hoi-polloi”.
I am guessing not.
In a free society, what is the practical difference between “required by convention” and “Not required in any way at all”?
Insofar as anybody who wants to can refuse to call a knight sir and there will be no repercussions whatsoever, I can’t quite see the distinction, much less why anybody thinks it’s an issue.
But all honours are titles by that standard. So you are now saying that you object to all honours.
Can you provide evidence for this claim?
Do you also believe that French Knighthoods also evoked the worst aspects of the British class system? If not, then why would Australian Knighthoods evoke such a thing?
You really do seem very confused on this issue. You claim not to object to honours generally, but then you claim that you object to any honour that bestows a title, which is all of them.
You claim that Australian Knighthoods evoke he worst aspects of the British class system, but you can’t seem to explain why it does this more than nay other honours.
You claim that people will be required to refer to a knight as sir, but then acknowledge that the acknowledgement is only socially required, and if anybody decides not to their will be no penalty.
Can you point to a single practical effect that this will have on anybody at all aside from the person being awarded? Will anybody be required to utter a single word they don’t want to, for example?
Because at this point I can not see a single way in which this differs from slightly higher level AC. Can you actually explain what the difference is?
-
There are living people today with part Tasmanian descent.
-
If you mean the elimination of the Tasmanians as a distinct people, lots of Native American groups were eliminated as a distinct group. In Canada, the United States, the Caribbean, and in South and Central America.
Well said and I don’t want to derail the discussion. No disrespect intended to any descendants either - we have the same tired arguments here about there being no “pure” Maori.
And they wear suits of armor, and joust against one another in tourneys.
Or at least, that’s how I understand it. If not, what’s the point?
Pray pardon my Yankee ignorance, but, in the UK, what other qualifying criteria are there for knighthood?