Sir Lewis Hamilton?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

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

John Lennon returned his MBE.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...yside-37787297

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

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.

But Belgian awards and titles don't confer anything like the level of status and merit that UK ones do, possibly because the country is not yet 200 years old and still rages internally about whether to be one country or two!
Still, it has produced moules frites and Spa, two things that are very close to my heart.

[S griffin]

The honours system is exactly what is says. It's an honour to receive a title from royalty. Shows you are valued highly

[ASCII Man]

Why is it an honor to receive a title from someone who is only in his/her position by right of birth rather than anything he/she accomplished?
To be honest, I have absolutely no respect for royalty, or nobility, and just consider them to be a relic from a past best forgotten.

I won't accomplish anything speaking sense about royals to royalist fans, so this'll be the last I'll say on the subject.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Why is it an honor to receive a title from someone who is only in his/her position by right of birth rather than anything he/she accomplished?
To be honest, I have absolutely no respect for royalty, or nobility, and just consider them to be a relic from a past best forgotten.

I won't accomplish anything speaking sense about royals to royalist fans, so this'll be the last I'll say on the subject.

The 'honour' is the paying of respect publicly for an achievement, not the fact that it is given by a monarch. The public are those who nominate, a committee decides entitlement then it is only down to the fact that the head of state happens to be royalty that it is given by a royal.

[ASCII Man]

Oh, I didn't know that. I guess I'll have to revise my opinion on the matter then.

But to tell you a secret, it's actually Lewis Hamilton that I really dislike.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Why is it an honor to receive a title from someone who is only in his/her position by right of birth rather than anything he/she accomplished?
To be honest, I have absolutely no respect for royalty, or nobility, and just consider them to be a relic from a past best forgotten.

I won't accomplish anything speaking sense about royals to royalist fans, so this'll be the last I'll say on the subject.

I'm not a royalist. I have no strong feelings on the royal family in either direction. I'm also not a Lewis Hamilton fan. But me not liking Lewis or not caring about the royals doesn't change his achievements and the criteria for the honours.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Oh, I didn't know that. I guess I'll have to revise my opinion on the matter then.

But to tell you a secret, it's actually Lewis Hamilton that I really dislike.

So that's what this is really about.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

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.

for sure McCartney is the more famous but during the late 90's there was a huge Beatles revival including some new songs and if memory serves most of their albums were charting again. they were all famous again...well except for poor Ringo.

so i cant help but wonder why the snub for GH, the guy who wrote 'Taxman', had a long standing battle with the taxman, and chose to live in the USA (where he ended up enjoying far more success as a musician then PM during their post Beatles careers).

conspiracies abound but for sure there is a political aspect to all of this as well...both for knighthoods and any other sort of non monarchy based honour systems.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Why is it an honor to receive a title from someone who is only in his/her position by right of birth rather than anything he/she accomplished?
To be honest, I have absolutely no respect for royalty, or nobility, and just consider them to be a relic from a past best forgotten.

totally off topic tangent (as if my last post was on topic lol)...

to some extent (and in some cases to a large extent) i agree about the concept of royalty, hereditary titles, and even opportunities based being born in the 'right' family.

i think this raises an interesting question vis a vis a growing trend of second generation athletes and/or athletes who have a significant advantage based on their family's wealth...perhaps something which is more common in top level motorsports more so then in other sports.

if lets say young Max or Stroll achieves four titles in their F1 careers is that less worthy of recognition then LH's four titles given their respective starting places in life?

i want to say 4 titles is 4 titles and the respect should be the same but surely our societies evolving definition of equality means i should view those accomplishments differently.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i want to say 4 titles is 4 titles and the respect should be the same but surely our societies evolving definition of equality means i should view those accomplishments differently.

Surely the starting point only gets you so far though. Stroll may have had the best starting point, but if he turned out to be terrible then he wouldn't have gotten to where he is. Surely there comes a point where the starting point no longer has any effect, and the rest has to be earned?

[Mike Harte]

Chilli, there is some confusion here about "Taxman".

It was written and performed originally at the time when the then Labour government had almost bankrupted the UK, and the government raised the top personal income tax rate to 83%. On top of that, they also introduced an unearned income tax of 15% which was charged on income such as share dividend payments.

They also introduced legislation that companies had to distribute at least 50% of it's profits annually, obviously after the company had paid corporate taxes on it's profits. This served to starve some companies of what would normally have been re-invested profits.

The Beatles, like many others in both industry and the arts, were badly affected by this punitive tax regime, and led to what became known in the UK as the brain drain, because so many artists and business people left these shores, some never to return.

Harrison wrote that song as a protest against the tax regime, and temporarily left the UK to live in the States. However, in the early 80s he returned to live in the UK, and bought an estate overlooking the Thames River near Henley, where he employed around 30 locals to look after the house and estate returning it to it's former glory.

He was not "overlooked" for a knighthood because of any relationship that he may have had with the tax authorities. I can only come to the conclusion that the Honours' Committee didn't feel that he was "worthy" of a knighthood, for whatever reason, and as it is almost unheard of for that committee to comment on such matters, it will remain a matter of conjecture and speculation.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

He was not "overlooked" for a knighthood because of any relationship that he may have had with the tax authorities. I can only come to the conclusion that the Honours' Committee didn't feel that he was "worthy" of a knighthood, for whatever reason, and as it is almost unheard of for that committee to comment on such matters, it will remain a matter of conjecture and speculation.

Firstly, someone needs to be nominated before they can be overlooked by the committee. Do we even know if he was ever nominated around the same time as McCartney received his knighthood?

Secondly, the individual still has to be actively involved (at the time of nomination) in the activity they are nominated for. At the time McCartney received his knighthood for services to music he was increasingly involved with the anthology project and releasing successful solo music. Harrison was distancing himself from the project and had no other public involvement with music so would not have been eligible.

[GregUK]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i want to say 4 titles is 4 titles and the respect should be the same but surely our societies evolving definition of equality means i should view those accomplishments differently.

But don't celebs usually get gonged-up for charity work?

I have no idea if Lewis does any of that.....

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

He was not "overlooked" for a knighthood because of any relationship that he may have had with the tax authorities. I can only come to the conclusion that the Honours' Committee didn't feel that he was "worthy" of a knighthood, for whatever reason, and as it is almost unheard of for that committee to comment on such matters, it will remain a matter of conjecture and speculation.

well if the committee doesnt comment on such matters then how can any potential reason, however conspiratorial, be discounted?

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

At the time McCartney received his knighthood for services to music he was increasingly involved with the anthology project and releasing successful solo music. Harrison was distancing himself from the project and had no other public involvement with music so would not have been eligible.

i would have to look at a time line, but GH' later years involved the hugely successful Travelling Wilburys, then with bandmate Jeff Lynne again for the Anthology project (2 new Beatles tracks), and then again with Lynne for his final album which was released posthumously i believe.

as far as i know he was recording music up until the end and in the early to mid 90's was far more successful and popular than PM.

anyways i dont want this taking on the element of a drivers thread...who is your favorite Beatle! i guess mine is pretty obvious lol

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Surely the starting point only gets you so far though. Stroll may have had the best starting point, but if he turned out to be terrible then he wouldn't have gotten to where he is. Surely there comes a point where the starting point no longer has any effect, and the rest has to be earned?

true true, at some point it comes down to what one has earned but that starting point can and often does have long term benefits and/or consequences even.

i do find the career paths of Max and Sainz of particular interest in that both had an early advantage (parent in the sport) but ultimately, i would think, it came down to who the team perceived to have more potential going forward....which i suppose is about as equal as one can expect anything to be.

also using LH doesnt make for a great example as his involvement with the Mclaren junior program no doubt also gave him an early advantage.

anyways, i've taken this thread too far off topic. thanks for indulging me on this tangent

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by GregUK

But don't celebs usually get gonged-up for charity work?

I have no idea if Lewis does any of that.....

Not usually no. Look at any honours list and you will find the majority of sports and entertainment recipients are for services to their field. Occasionally it will be the field and charity.

Lewis does a lot of charitable and philanthropic work - some of which is documented on his website under 'giving back'

[ASCII Man]

Does he really document it as 'giving back' on his own website....?



Oh, that cringe nearly snapped my spine...

[RWill2073]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Does he really document it as 'giving back' on his own website....?

Oh, that cringe nearly snapped my spine...

Yeah, isn't that what charity is all about? Advertising it for all to see to get all the credit for it? How else would the "royal family" hear about it?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

Yeah, isn't that what charity is all about? Advertising it for all to see to get all the credit for it? How else would the "royal family" hear about it?

A lot of the work he does is about more than just being charitable.
He works with a number of campaigns to promote awareness or support of certain causes including:
UNICEF,
Billy Whizz,
Invictus Games,
World Wish Day,
Starlight Children's Foundation......

As part of his promotion of these causes - he gives them a platform through his website to spread their message(s).
Should he not give them a publicly available platform for promotion? Is it wrong to support these causes and spread their message publicly?

[chunder]

That is all managed by his management team the charity stuff I guess, he will make a token appearance per year for them and in response he is allowed to use his profile to bump up theirs. Hardly charity work in the greatest sense of the word, but admirable nonetheless.

I do not follow the man n social media, don't follow anyone on it so would not know if his team make posts about it routinely.

Services to sport is interesting. F1 is a monied sport, he is not a sole competitor, he races with a team and could not win anything without them.

I use the Andy Murray example again. What has Lewis done recently other than win 4 world titles. That achievement is massive and deserves recognition. But winning races in f1 as a Brit is nothing new, he does not play the race card, so that is not a bona fide difference.

But, several Brits have won world titles, it is a sport we have been known to dominate.

Whereas tennis is a sport devoid of British winners for decades, Murray wins Wimbo twice, Olympics, World Number 1 for a while, Davis Cup, all thing that have not been won for a long time by a Brit.

I feel for Lewis in a way, he is achieving a lot without much recognition, partly due to being in a very dominant car, partly due to the general slowing of interest in F1, and partly because Brits winning stuff in F1 is old news. But does he deserve a knighthood? For me no, certainly not achieved as much as Murray did in recent years and moved past as many barriers to British tennis players as he has.

[Akrapovic]

Several Brits have won world titles. None have ever won 4. Ever. He's the most successful British driver ever in almost any way you measure it. I'm not sure what else he has to do for this to be am achievement?

And people criticising charity work and saying it's all managed token experienced. We have no evidence of that, so that just stinks of looking for reasons to hate Lewis. I've never liked Lewis but I have to admit this thread is adjusting my scale on how I feel about drivers because I'd never went to these lengths in an attempt to discredit Lewis achievements and charity work.

[chunder]

No-one is saying anything of this is fact are they?

I have never really seen any evidence of Lewis doing any charitable stuff that's all. Have seen Nando and Button and a few others doing stuff, just not Lewis, whether he does it full on or via a management team in some way doesn't matter, but from a guy who watches a lot of this stuff, I see little of him doing it, doesn't mean he does nothing!

And winning 4 titles? Somehow for me seems less of a deal, you can say what you like, but it doesn't mean much to me sorry. Not in the same way for some reason.

Just being honest, I don't dislike the man, don't really feel anything if he wins or loses, but for whatever reason he doesn't inspire anything in me, so for me has is no different to a Vettel or Schumacher.

In fact I probably warm to Danny Ricc or Webber more or even Seb as he has a sense of humour!

[Akrapovic]

So basically, when it comes to charity, Lewis is in a lose-lose situation. If nobody sees him do it, they say "Lewis doesn't do any charity, or at least I haven't seen him do it". And when he does it, people say "That's just his management team doing token events".

You could argue the fact that Jenson and Fernando are seen doing it more, they just have better management teams making it very marketable. Maybe Lewis is more genuine because he is not seen doing it, and is doing it anyway. It's pretty easy to flip this all on its head?

And winning 4 titles? Somehow for me seems less of a deal, you can say what you like, but it doesn't mean much to me sorry. Not in the same way for some reason.

Well you wanted him to do something no other Brit has done. Compared to British drivers he's won more world championships, won more races, won the most in a season, equal most consecutive wins, youngest winner, and most pole positions. Literally the only record he doesn't have is percentage of race wins, and in that he's second only behind Jim Clark. The only people who have more championships than him are Schumacher and Fangio. There is literally nothing else he can do to make it more of a big deal. If awards are only to those who are first to do something, then I guess we can do away with any sort of award now as all the firsts are gone.

----

On a separate note - crowd surfing is bad, but drinking from a shoe is fun. That's amazing.

[chunder]

I think you might be missing the point

IN the past those achievements were a big deal for those drivers, but because they have been reached already, someone else doing it is perhaps not as big a breakthrough.

I should add I think he will get a knighthood, that is the way this crap works unfortunately.

he has won more races because there are more races!! What is his win ratio? Any idea

[JamesH]

The Lewis hate is strong in this thread.

But the Lewis appreciation is also strong.

The Royal hate is strong in this thread.

But the Royal love is also strong.

The Honours hate is strong in this thread

But the honours appreciation is also strong.


(And just an FYI, my brother got an OBE for saving everyone in this thread who lives in the UK £30. That was appreciation for saving the country a metric f**kton of money, not for charity work, or being good at a sport. Just being really good at his job. He has always said he would have preferred a percentage over the honour. It was presented by Princess Anne)



As for LH getting a knighthood, I think he is a bit young. Once he has won a couple more championships, then he can have one.