Sir Lewis Hamilton?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Mr Webber lived in the UK most of the time he raced in F1 and paid UK taxes...

As did Mr Vettel during his Red Bull days ... Don't think either of them will be getting Knighthoods any time soon.

[AdrianM]

For me the defining thing is to ask yourself would Mercedes have won any less WDC and WCC titles if Hamilton wasn't there? Replace him with any of at least ten and probably twenty other drivers and the number of titles would be the same. That's why it's not anything special in my book. The domination of the car is so extreme it would have been more amazing if he hadn't won the titles he did with them.

As for the tax side of things I always find it funny that the UK seems to have no end of keyboard warriors who go around paying more tax then they legally have to but, despite working and living at all levels of society over the years, I've yet to meet anyone in person who really does voluntarily pay more tax than they have to.

Finally I really don't get the fixation of supporting people based on accidents of birth. I support sports people based on many different factors. Which side of an arbitrary line they happen to be born on doesn't figure into it.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by AdrianM

For me the defining thing is to ask yourself would Mercedes have won any less WDC and WCC titles if Hamilton wasn't there? Replace him with any of at least ten and probably twenty other drivers and the number of titles would be the same. That's why it's not anything special in my book. The domination of the car is so extreme it would have been more amazing if he hadn't won the titles he did with them.

The answer is, we don't know if Mercedes would have won any less WDC and WCC titles if Hamilton wasn't there. However, we do know they did with him there.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chunder

He is international like Andy Murray, but he has not done anything unique or special, Murray did, he won Wimbledon as a Brit, achieved world No1, won the Olympics, helped UK win Davis Cup. All new achievements in recent history. Hamilton has done something achieved numerous times by numerous men and has no real other attributes. JYS campaigned for safety, that makes him a Sir alone away from his racing results.

Lewis has done nothing except win races and titles. His major one now is winning it 4 times.

I don't understand your rationale. Hasn't Murray done something achieved numerous times by numerous men?

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by AdrianM

For me the defining thing is to ask yourself would Mercedes have won any less WDC and WCC titles if Hamilton wasn't there? Replace him with any of at least ten and probably twenty other drivers and the number of titles would be the same. That's why it's not anything special in my book. The domination of the car is so extreme it would have been more amazing if he hadn't won the titles he did with them.

I won't bother going back any further in history than a few days, but the way things are looking Mercedes would not have won the WDC this year without Hamilton.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by AdrianM

For me the defining thing is to ask yourself would Mercedes have won any less WDC and WCC titles if Hamilton wasn't there? Replace him with any of at least ten and probably twenty other drivers and the number of titles would be the same. That's why it's not anything special in my book. The domination of the car is so extreme it would have been more amazing if he hadn't won the titles he did with them.

Using this criteria, they wouldn't have won this year. Vettel sits second, Botts third. So this year would've went to Ferrari. So the answer is yes, they would have won less.

But that's a very dangerous game to play. We can use this theory to start discrediting the greats through history.

Finally I really don't get the fixation of supporting people based on accidents of birth. I support sports people based on many different factors. Which side of an arbitrary line they happen to be born on doesn't figure into it.

It's not a fixation. It's a British honor for British people. Someone compared Lewis to other British sports stars and their achievements. That's not a fixation, it's just exploring how Lewis stacks up to others who have received the reward.

[ascarracinguk]

I’ve never understood the tax argument....

...I mean WHY would you pay tax for a country that you don’t live in. You don’t use the NHS, fire service, police, waste collection etc etc etc....this is why we pay taxes. Christ, does Monoco charge us all taxes for living in the uk? No! So why would someone living in Monoco have to pay taxes in the UK, other than work completed in that country.

As I understand it sports stars are taxed at point of source in the country that they compete....ie they get taxed on their earnings in the uk, if they race in the uk.

Really not sure why people are so bitter about the whole thing tbh!

[Mike Harte]

As far as I'm concerned, if receiving an honour is OK with the Big Yin, then it's OK with me also.

The aforementioned is Billy Connelly, a real socialist, who started his working life in the shipyards of the Clyde, before becoming a comedian and actor. He received his knighthood today from the Duke of Cambridge, Prince William.

[RWill2073]

This fascination with a "royal family" is fascinating to me. It's like the equivalent to the trumps/Hilton's/kardashians over here. Famous for being born with a certain last name or famous for being famous.

[AdrianM]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Using this criteria, they wouldn't have won this year. Vettel sits second, Botts third. So this year would've went to Ferrari. So the answer is yes, they would have won less.

But that's a very dangerous game to play. We can use this theory to start discrediting the greats through history.



It's not a fixation. It's a British honor for British people. Someone compared Lewis to other British sports stars and their achievements. That's not a fixation, it's just exploring how Lewis stacks up to others who have received the reward.

How do you work that out? You're assuming the other driver would be worse than Bottas?

Of course it's a fixation or don't you follow any social media. I've lost count of the number of posts I've read (and I know people personally who think the same) saying that all that matters is a British person is winning regardless of whether you like him or not.

If the establishment didn't think John Surtees worthy of a knighthood then there should be no chance of Hamilton getting one. Perhaps if the guy who designed the PU was British.....

[chunder]

Oh dear

If you read my post I did mention I am sure footballers and others also find ways of paying less tax and in motorsport most top earners do it obviously. Bike racers, motocrossers, speedway riders etc.

I have no issue with it, did I say I had? Merely stop waving flags around and being super proud of being a Brit when you don't live here and choose to live elsewhere. I get it, and I get why, but some of us see through it.

As for Murray, he was a Brit winning those things, first time that has happened in a generation, so far more worthy of a knighthood than Lewis who is simply winning a title many Brits have won in the last 30 years, let alone 100. OK he has won 4, but for me hardly worthy of a knighthood.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by AdrianM

How do you work that out? You're assuming the other driver would be worse than Bottas?

So I can't make assumptions, but you can assume they would be better?

I'm not actually assuming they're worse than Bottas. You could be better than Bottas and still lose the world championship. You have to be better than Bottas, and make up the gap from Bottas to Vettel, and do it consistently. So it's very possible to be better than Bottas, and still lose to Vettel. So it's quite easy to work out how to come to that conclusion.

You're making an assumption that any given driver on the grid would win the title in that car. Yet Vettel is ahead of Bottas, which suggests that isn't the case.

So to answer the statement of "the defining thing is to ask yourself would Mercedes have won any less WDC and WCC titles if Hamilton wasn't there" -it's quite easy. The current points suggests they wouldn't have won the 2017 WDC if Lewis was not there. If you jump into an alternate universe where Alonso drives a Mercedes then it might be different - but we don't live in that reality, we live in the one where Lewis is WDC and his team mate is currently not the runner up.

Of course it's a fixation or don't you follow any social media. I've lost count of the number of posts I've read (and I know people personally who think the same) saying that all that matters is a British person is winning regardless of whether you like him or not.

No I don't follow social media. However it's certainly not a fixation of this thread. It's only a topic because it's a British honour for a British sportsman, and his achievements compared to previous British sportsmen were compared.

If the establishment didn't think John Surtees worthy of a knighthood then there should be no chance of Hamilton getting one. Perhaps if the guy who designed the PU was British.....

As much as I believe John Surtees is worthy of a knighthood (but it's too late now - he's no longer active in his field), that isn't how it works. Person A not getting it when he should have does not exclude Person B from getting it. All that matters is the criteria set out -

'The honours system recognises people who have: made achievements in public life [...] They’ll usually have made life better for other people or be outstanding at what they do. [...] The person must still be actively involved in what you’re nominating them for. [...] Honours are given to people involved in fields including: [...] sport'

The only argument that can be made against Lewis in this regard is whether you consider his achievements to be outstanding. In order for them to not be outstanding, you do need to invert alternate situations in which Lewis may not have done well, or somebody else is Lewis position did do well. However that's literally just making up fiction to. Lewis can only deal with what actually happens, and so far he's done rather well at that.

I'm not a Lewis fan at all (more of a Vettee fan myself), but it's pretty hard to argue against Lewis fitting the criteria of a knighthood.

[steve_r]

I don't like the argument about the car. The fact is that Senna, Schumacher (not Ralf!), Prost, Lauda and any other multiple WDCs you mention drove either the best or at least very good cars because their performances earlier in their career meant that they were offered some of the best drives available.

You can argue that other drivers would have won the WDC in the current Mercedes (which is debatable), but the fact is that multiple WDC winners have previously performed to such a good level that they deserve to be given the best seats on the grid.

[GregUK]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

This fascination with a "royal family" is fascinating to me. It's like the equivalent to the trumps/Hilton's/kardashians over here.

Trumps? Hiltons? Kardashians?

How very dare you? Let me assure you that Her Maj is not in the slightest bit comparable with entertainers and Star Trek species!

I think a trip to the Tower may be in order.....

[Graz]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

As part of the requirement for nomination is that the intended recipient must still be actively involved in the field you are nominating them for, waiting until retirement is not necessarily an option.

And why should someone have to retire, before they can be recognised for achievement?

I didn't think they absolutely had to be still active but I stand corrected. I don't get the fixation with titles though, very imperial and colonial imo.

[GregUK]

Originally Posted by Graz

I didn't think they absolutely had to be still active but I stand corrected.

Being alive is a usual criterion....

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by GregUK

Trumps? Hiltons? Kardashians?

How very dare you? Let me assure you that Her Maj is not in the slightest bit comparable with entertainers and Star Trek species!

I think a trip to the Tower may be in order.....

I agree, no way are the royals as despicable as those that are mentioned. At least most of them

[chillibowl]

about the tax avoidance/issues with the British tax authorities aspect...why was George Harrison not offered a knighthood?

i seem to recall he refused some sort of honours but never got offered a knighthood like Mccartney.

anyways, is the status or validity of the British monarchy of issue here?

countries that dont have monarchies, like the USA, offer awards (Presidential Medal of Freedom i believe) to civilians that are every bit as laudable as a knighthood and countries like Canada have a hybrid system of honours and awards which have become increasingly more for Canadian specific achievements vs contribution to the realm.

countries honour their citizens in all manner of ways...so im not sure i see much difference between one offered by a monarch vs one offered by a duly elected official.

though, imo, i will say the use of Sir/Dame distinction for men/women seems antiquated to me.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by GregUK

Trumps? Hiltons? Kardashians?

How very dare you? Let me assure you that Her Maj is not in the slightest bit comparable with entertainers and Star Trek species!

I think a trip to the Tower may be in order.....

Trump's got Towers too!

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

about the tax avoidance/issues with the British tax authorities aspect...why was George Harrison not offered a knighthood?

i seem to recall he refused some sort of honours but never got offered a knighthood like Mccartney.

anyways, is the status or validity of the British monarchy of issue here?

countries that dont have monarchies, like the USA, offer awards (Presidential Medal of Freedom i believe) to civilians that are every bit as laudable as a knighthood and countries like Canada have a hybrid system of honours and awards which have become increasingly more for Canadian specific achievements vs contribution to the realm.

countries honour their citizens in all manner of ways...so im not sure i see much difference between one offered by a monarch vs one offered by a duly elected official.

though, imo, i will say the use of Sir/Dame distinction for men/women seems antiquated to me.

This about sums it up for me. It's an honour just like any other country, it just happens to have a title with it.

The title is quite old fashioned. But it's also harmless, and many enjoy it. So why not keep it, for the sake of tradition.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

about the tax avoidance/issues with the British tax authorities aspect...why was George Harrison not offered a knighthood?

i seem to recall he refused some sort of honours but never got offered a knighthood like Mccartney.

Possibly because he didn't have the public face that McCartney did when he received his knighthood in 1997. And he turned down an OBE or MBE in about 2000 because it wasn't a knighthood.

[BSchneiderFan]

Must have been an OBE he turned down; the Beatles all got MBEs in the 60s.

[Graz]

Originally Posted by GregUK

Being alive is a usual criterion....

That's what I had understood right enough 😀

[BSchneiderFan]

But you can lose an honour in the afterlife.

[ASCII Man]

Originally Posted by Hawkwood

Wildly off topic, but most of this thread has been I think.

You have the Belgian flag, so I'm going to assume you're Belgian, or at least live there?
Does the Belgian monarchy/government not have a system of honours and such to hand out?

Yes, they do. Nobody cares about it, except old cocky farts, as it should.
And those who stand on their pompous titles are rightfully mocked for it.