Obviously... The title still refers to the idea though. Sorry, but no, I don't have any respect for people ....
To some extent, this is the American Sickness.
We are raised very often to believe that we are everybody else's equal regardless of their accomplishments, and that we are each of us as individuals our own sovereigns.
We're taught that the world owes us, and that we do not necessarily owe anything to the society that is ours.
It's going to be our downfall, if we are not careful.
A knighthood is the society's recognition of your accomplishments. The people are saying, "We see you and appreciate you."
The Order of the British Empire is political. The nominations come from the government, and The Queen moderates them. She has very, very seldom removed someone from the list...but she is the moderator. It's almost always the government's decision whom to nominate for that order.
There are others that are less political.
The Order of St Michael and St George is more closely guarded and will go to retiring senior diplomats, the Cabinet Secretary, and military men and women of great accomplishment.
The least political is the Royal Victorian Order, because it remains in the personal gift of the Sovereign. Retiring Gurkhas might get into this, or spooks whose real accomplishments are known to only the ultimate authority.
But remember that The Queen is the moderator...she is
your moderator on
your behalf. It's just God's roll of the dice that has put
your Crown on
her head.
It's a form of ultimate democracy that will be difficult to explain to people educated to believe that nobody could ever possibly be any better than they are, even if their single greatest accomplishment is to provide the newest, greatest way to exemplify slothful lack of real accomplishment.
To say that you have no respect for people who are entitled to be called this or that is to say that you have no respect for your own society, for your own people.
----------
A bit like the idea of being a Senator then....
Sort of.
The House of Lords is almost entirely composed of peers for life, people who are elevated beyond a knighthood because of their great accomplishments, the highest judges in the land, and retired people who are still young enough to use their great skills and knowledge to review legislation.
I'll tell you one great strength of this kind of system when compared to the American system, too: You know ahead of time if a proposed statute isn't going to fly.
In the USA, you have to wait for somebody to have the wherewithal to get to the Supreme Court to realize that the Senate, the House and the President have wasted huge amounts of time passing a law that is about to be declared unconstitutional.
In the Westminster system, the Lord Chief Justice stands up in the House of Lords before your statute is passed and lets you have it in no uncertain terms, telling the world why your statute should not be passed. I've even heard a cabinet secretary refer to the fact that he'd just been given "a right bloody how dee do" in the Lords.
It's just another way of doing things.
Sometimes it's more efficient, sometimes it's less efficient that the American system.
But I guarantee you that the British, Australian and Canadian systems are
every bit as democratic as the US system, or even more democratic.
It is
you who are being elevated when somebody goes to the Lords.
It's a sign that hard work, education and intelligence, business acumen, social work and any number of other things will be recognized by your society, and that as you age you will
not be cast aside...you will rather continue to be used by your society to help govern and regulate that society.
