# US Citizens and Knighthood **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 24, 2001, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261 "2001-10-24T05:01:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Jongleur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Jongleur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jongleur)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/1 "2001-10-24T05:01:06Z")
Ok, this is probably a stupid question, but I was reminded of this when Rudolph Giuliani was appointed an honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. Now, I know that this is an honorary title, but according to the Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8: > [@](#): > > 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. Now, doesn’t this mean that anyone holding public office should require the Consent of Congress before accepting an honorary title? I mean, it’s kind of silly, but I’ve been on a Constitution kick lately and this just hit me. So, what do you think? ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/2 "2001-10-24T05:06:46Z")
They are honorary knights which isn’t really a title. It’s really an award of recognition like a Nobel Prize. The “knighthood” can’t be passed down to their children and they don’t get to be called Sir. Haj ---
**Author:** ![evilhanz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba8739/32.png) [@evilhanz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/evilhanz)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/3 "2001-10-24T05:11:15Z")
The title is honorary andh as no real value. It is not a title of nobility and carries no privileges or responsibilities. Congress automatically approves honorary titles if it is only a mark of courtesy. I’m sure this has been addressed in the past. Check the archives. ---
**Author:** ![Earthling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/90db22/32.png) [@Earthling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthling)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/4 "2001-10-24T05:15:42Z")
Sir John Templeton was born a U.S. citizen but was knighted by Queen Elizabeth, and yes, he gets to be called Sir. But he doesn’t hold any public office (that I know of), and I don’t know if he remains a U.S. citizen or not. See his bio [here](http://www.templeton.org/sirjohnbio.asp). ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/5 "2001-10-24T05:27:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hajario \* > \*\* The “knighthood” can’t be passed down to their children and they don’t get to be called Sir. \*\* Minor quibble - knighthoods are not hereditary in any event. ---
**Author:** ![Jongleur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Jongleur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jongleur)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/6 "2001-10-24T13:03:36Z")
I actually checked the archives before posting, but came up with nothing. It’s a pretty crappy search interface, though, so perhaps this HAS been addressed before. Anyway, I know what honorary titles are, but the Constitution is pretty clear in saying “of any kind whatever” which certainly does include honorary titles. However, if congress has passed some type of de facto legislation that automatically approves honorary titles, that would answer my question. Can anyone point me towards that? ---
**Author:** ![Labdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/439d5e/32.png) [@Labdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labdad)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/7 "2001-10-24T13:20:45Z")
According to [this article](http://slate.msn.com/Assessment/97-06-07/Assessment.asp), “The Templeton Prize helped its founder win a knighthood in 1987. In the '60s, Templeton had moved to the Bahamas–a tax haven–abandoned his U.S. citizenship, and become a British subject.” As I understand it, becoming a full-blown knight, and therefore entitled to be addressed as “Sir,” requires the recipient to swear fealty to the British crown, something a U.S. citizen cannot do without relinquishing citizenship. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/8 "2001-10-24T13:46:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jongleur \* > I actually checked the archives before posting, but came up with nothing. It’s a pretty crappy search interface, though, so perhaps this HAS been addressed before. Anyway, I know what honorary titles are, but the Constitution is pretty clear in saying “of any kind whatever” which certainly does include > honorary titles. You’re missing the point. Because it’s honorary it specifically _isn’t_ a title, thus the Constitution doesn’t apply here. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/9 "2001-10-24T18:05:04Z")
Another point: the mayoralty of New York is not a federal office, ergo the quoted passage from the Constitution does not appy even if the honorary knighthood was a “real” title. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/10 "2001-10-24T18:05:15Z")
1. A regular British knighthood is basically honorary. 2. So Guiliano, et alia, got an honorary honorary title. 3. Hello, Lady Opal! It’s weird how getting an honorary title is bad but getting an honorary honorary title is okay, constitution-wise. ---
**Author:** ![bmerton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/34f0e0/32.png) [@bmerton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bmerton)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2001, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/11 "2001-10-25T04:13:32Z")
It is not true that knighthoods are not hereditary. An hereditary Knighthood is called a baronet and the baronecy passes to the eldest son, who is allowed to style himself as ‘Sir’. The original American constitutional quote is interesting. From the British point of view, you are not meant to style yourself as ‘Sir’ unless you are a UK citizen. I say ‘not meant to’ because you can style yourself however you like but it will not be officially recognised. It is called an ‘honorary knighthood’ because you are not a UK citizen but, as was highlighted by Hajario, it is merely a form of paying tribute to aliens who have served Her Majesty. In the UK, a knighthood is not a peerage and, therefore, a knight (or baronet) is theoretically not an aristocrat. Until very recently a peerage entitled you to vote in the UK’s upper house (House of Lords). Ladbab raised a very interesting point. I am both a US and a UK citizen, having been born in the US but being entirely English by blood. Were I to inherit or earn the distinction of a title, would I therefore have to give up my US citizenship even though I am entitled to keep both now? I shall endeavour to find out. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2001, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/12 "2001-10-25T04:29:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bmerton \* > **It is not true that knighthoods are not hereditary. An hereditary Knighthood is called a baronet and the baronecy passes to the eldest son, who is allowed to style himself as ‘Sir’.** From the [Encyclopedia Britannica](http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=13601) > [@](#): > > **Baronet** > > British hereditary dignity, first created by King James I in May 1611. The baronetage is not part of the peerage, **nor is it an order of knighthood.** A baronet ranks below barons but above all knights except a knight of the garter. The baronetcy is inherited by the male heirs of a baronet. Knights and baronets are both called “Sir” but that does not mean that a baronet is a knight. ---
**Author:** ![bmerton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/34f0e0/32.png) [@bmerton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bmerton)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2001, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/13 "2001-10-25T04:42:16Z")
Fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2001, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/14 "2001-10-25T09:39:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ftg \* > \*\*A regular British knighthood is basically honorary…It’s weird how getting an honorary title is bad but getting an honorary honorary title is okay, constitution-wise. \*\* A ‘regular British knighthood’ may be an honour, but that isn’t the same thing at all as being honorary - as titles go, they’re as real as any other. The whole baronetcy thing is a side issue as they are now almost never granted to British subjects, never mind U.S. citizens. Apart from the baronetcy granted to Denis Thatcher in 1990, none has been awarded, IIRC, since the early 1960s. Whether a baronet is a knight is something of a vexed question which the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ article cited by **Northern Piper** doesn’t necessarily resolve. The baronetage is indeed not an order of knighthood, in the sense that the Garter, the Thistle and the Order of the British Empire are ones, but not all knighthoods are attached to an order. There is a very technical reason for saying that a baronetcy is not a knighthood, but that really would take us far from the OP. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bmerton \* > **Ladbab raised a very interesting point. I am both a US and a UK citizen, having been born in the US but being entirely English by blood. Were I to inherit or earn the distinction of a title, would I therefore have to give up my US citizenship even though I am entitled to keep both now? I shall endeavour to find out.** Not unless you hold an ‘Office of Profit or Trust’ and then all you would presumably be required to do is to surrender the office, not your citizenship. My reading of the clause is that it doesn’t bar the inheritance of titles, but I can see that a wider interpretation might be possible. Has this ever come up as an issue? There have certainly been plenty of cases of American citizens inheriting British and other foreign titles. In such cases, the holder is allowed to use the title in Britain. The British rules about accepting grants of foreign titles are in fact not entirely unlike those in the U.S. Constitution - British subjects are supposed to accept such titles only if they have permission from the monarch. In both cases, the reasoning is the fear that acceptance of a title might create a sense of loyalty or obligation to a foreign power. Of course, in both cases, this reasoning is now a bit out of date. ---
**Author:** ![Izzardesque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a9adbd/32.png) [@Izzardesque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Izzardesque)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2001, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/15 "2001-10-25T11:37:36Z")
As I understand it, while a knight is not necessarily a baronet, a baronet is ALWAYS a ‘knight’, as you have to be knighted in order to gain the title. Very little to do with the original post, sorry ---
**Author:** ![don\_willard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e57/32.png) [@don\_willard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_willard)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2001, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/16 "2001-10-25T12:57:28Z")
Above someone said that many Americans have inherited titles. What if such an American was a teacher, is this an office that gets paid with public remuneration, and therefore the person would have to resign his or her teaching post? I would hate to think that if I suddenly became the Count of Marmaduke or something, upon the death of fourth cousin Count Rodney that I would have to resign from my professorship at Mediocrity U. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2001, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/17 "2001-10-25T13:55:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by APB \* > **Whether a baronet is a knight is something of a vexed question which the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ article cited by Northern Piper doesn’t necessarily resolve. The baronetage is indeed not an order of knighthood, in the sense that the Garter, the Thistle and the Order of the British Empire are ones, but not all knighthoods are attached to an order. There is a very technical reason for saying that a baronetcy is not a knighthood, but that really would take us far from the OP.** **APB,** what’s wrong with totally side-tracking a thread? You’ve got me interested - what is the very technical reason? ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2001, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/18 "2001-10-25T15:52:14Z")
OK, **Northern Piper** , but I do warn you that it is very arcane. The only time when the question of whether baronets were knights has made any sort of practical difference was during the late 1620s when Charles I imposed fines on those gentlemen who had failed to present themselves to be knighted at his coronation in 1625. Not unreasonably, some baronets argued that they should be exempted from the fine because, as baronets, they had been knights already. My recollection is that this was overruled on the grounds that possession of a baronetcy was not the equivalent of a knighthood. Whether this ruling still applies is, of course, one of those questions that no one in their right mind would ever bother thinking about. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2001, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/19 "2001-10-25T16:39:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by don willard \* > \*\*Above someone said that many Americans have inherited titles. What if such an American was a teacher, is this an office that gets paid with public remuneration, and therefore the person would have to resign his or her teaching post? I would hate to think that if I suddenly became the Count of Marmaduke or something, upon the death of fourth cousin Count Rodney that I would have to resign from my professorship at Mediocrity U. \*\* Teahcers are not officers of the government, they are employees of it. ---
**Author:** ![don\_willard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e57/32.png) [@don\_willard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_willard)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2001, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261/20 "2001-10-25T17:28:29Z")
But the Constitution says no person holding office or trust, which in legal terminology and in those days meant any employe. I mean office in those days meant any position. I think… [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-citizens-and-knighthood/89261.md?page=2)