Talk:British honours system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been cited as a source by a media outlet. See the 2004 press source article for details. "All the Queen's men and the tales of knights" (January 29, 2004). The Philadelphia Inquirer. [1].

Contents 1 Other countries = 2 Commander David Gilmour 3 Fame! Fortune! Success! Complete with mocking of British spelling! 4 Some things I don't understand 5 Ronald Searle - due for an honour before he dies 6 Order of St John 7 order of the phoenix 8 Rewrite 9 I still don't understand 10 idea for future development of the article 11 Order of precedence 12 Removed section 13 Peerages etc 14 Queen as sovereign 15 Orders/Honours 16 Honourary

[edit] Other countries =

Certainly there are other countries besides Britain that still grant knighthoods. And historically of course the term meant something besides the "British honour system". Howeever I can't undo the redirect. --rmhermen

Yes you can. Edit any page, and then in your browser's address bar remove the page name from the URL & paste in the name of the redirecting page, then load this new URL. -- Tarquin

Could knighthoods be withdrawn? -- wshun 20:26, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Commander David Gilmour

Can someone tell me which Order he is commander in and what might be the qualifications for being a commander.Does he have any ongoing responsibilities. Can he be contacted thru the British Empire. Does he answer to the people or Queen. Harrenstien@webtv.net

I had to do a Google to find out what you were talking about. Written like that it makes him look like a naval officer or senior policeman! If you're using the honour in his name, it's "David Gilmour CBE", and the article tells you which order this is. He was awarded it "for services to music", and no it doesn't imply any responsibilities to anyone whatsoever -- it's an honour, that's all. If you want to contact him, write care of Pink Floyd's record label. Arwel 00:32, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

____________________________________________

The link for the Order of Saint Patrick is, wrongly, linked to the page relating to Saint Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin. Philip Hurst 2 December 2003

[edit] Fame! Fortune! Success! Complete with mocking of British spelling!

See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_press_source

• "All the Queen's men and the tales of knights" (The Philadelphia Inquirer, United States, January 29) Article about Bill Gates knighthood; "The Wikipedia is a multilingual online encyclopedia being written by its own users, and is surprisingly good. The article on the British "honours" system has links for details on the various orders of chivalry, including the Order of the Garter and the Order of the Bath."

[edit] Some things I don't understand

The current article is a generally excellent introduction to a newcomer to the subject, but after reading and studying the article several times over the past several weeks, there are still a few things that I do not understand.

1. What does it mean to say that a particular honour (or grade of an order) "is not knightly"?

2. Which honours carry the title Sir (or Dame, where applicable)?

Are those the same thing?

Then let me go on with further questions. Within the Order of the British Empire is it true that the higher ranks (GBE, KBE/DBE) are "knightly" and thus carry the title "Sir", while the lower rings (CBE, OBE, MBE) do not? So a mere MBE is entitled to use the postnomials but not the title "Sir"?

All of that is what our articles seem to say, but I find counter-examples common on the web, for example a reference to "Sir Geoff Hurst MBE" or "Sir Jack Brabham, OBE".

We specifically refer to "Other orders, decorations, and medals which do not carry titles, but entitle the holder to place post nominals, e.g., OM, CMG, etc., after his or her name." But what about Sir Isaiah Berlin, O.M.? Jimbo Wales 20:42, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

One can be a knight in one order (or in none, as knight bachelor) and additionally hold a non-knightly rank in another order. Your examples are all knights bachelor, e.g. Geoff Hurst became Geoff Hurst MBE in 1977 and then was knighted in 1998 becoming Sir Geoff Hurst MBE. --Wik 20:54, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah; to show this he could be shown as "Sir Geoff Hurst Kt MBE", though those aren't necessarily official (uncodified things are wonderful, aren't they? ;-))...

James F. (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

"Kt" would be wrong as "KT" is the abbreviation for Knight of the the Thistle. Knights Bachelor do not have post nominals as they do not belong to an order of chivalry.

Wiki-Ed 12.43, Sept 15, 2004 (UTC)

"KT" is (rather obviously) not the same thing as "Kt". A Knight Bachelor's legal name (as would be used on legal documents and the like) is "Sir John Smith, Knight", and this "Knight" is sometimes abbreviated to "Kt" and used outside a legal context. Proteus (Talk) 13:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A knight bachelor is simply "Sir John Smith". The honour is an appointment and does not confer membership of an order. Therefore holders are not entitled to post nominals, nor do they have the right to put "knight" after their name. I've not seen "Kt" used in a legal context, but if it has been used this way then it's wrong. Check the Order of Wear in The London Gazette (17 March 2003) - that's the official line. Wiki-Ed 14:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're simply wrong, and I suggest you buy Debrett's Correct Form if you don't believe me. And I don't know where you got the idea that only members of orders are allowed to use post-nominals, because that's nonsense as well, as any Member of Parliament ("MP") or peer in the Privy Council ("PC") will readily tell you. Proteus (Talk) 19:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since when did Debretts decide honours policy? It is a commercial publication; The London Gazette is the Government newspaper. I suggest you check that. Alternatively write to the Cabinet Office or the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood and they will readily tell you what's what. However, to save you the trouble, I can assure you that if The Queen (or any official source) were writing to a knight bachelor they would be addressed as "Sir John Smith".

(NB Even Debretts do not agree with you [2])

I don't know where you got the bit about "only members of orders are allowed to use post-nominals" - I didn't say or infer that.

Oh dear: I've just found the "Knight Bachelor KB" stub. Hmmm. This section is generally good and informative but some work needs to be done to correct popular misconceptions (and a couple of factual errors). I'll have a go at it soon. Wiki-Ed 21:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I give up. If you want to believe the nonsense you do, go ahead. (However, you clearly need to learn the difference between a legal name and a formal style. The Duke of Norfolk's legal name is "The Most Noble Edward William, Duke of Norfolk", but his style is "His Grace The Duke of Norfolk", just as a Knight Bachelor's legal name is "Sir John Smith, Knight" and his style is "Sir John Smith". Legal names aren't used when writing to people, only when referring to them in legal documents.) At any rate, the Government isn't the highest authority on matters such as this - the Earl Marshal is. Proteus (Talk) 08:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Sovereign has always been the highest authority on honours matters and she is advised directly by the Committee on the Grant of Honours Decorations and Medals. The Earl Marshal (don't make me laugh) hasn't had a significant role in honours for quite some time. I'm glad to see you've given up on the "Kt" "KB" (etc) fallacy and I'm not going to pursue your facile contention about "legal names" as it is totally irrelevant to honours (i.e. this topic). However, if you're serious about it perhaps, as a challenge, you could provide some evidence of this alleged (mis)usage. Wiki-Ed 16:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Debrett's Correct Form, 2002 edition, page 12, section "Legal Documents": "Knights Bachelor are accorded 'Knight Bachelor' or 'Knight' after the name." I suggest you do some more research before you appoint yourself the world expert on matters such as this. The newsgroup alt.talk.royalty would be a good place to start. (Incidentally, KB is obviously wrong for Knights Bachelor, and I never said it wasn't, as it's the abbreviation for Knight of the Bath.) Proteus (Talk) 20:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll say it again: Debretts does not constitute an official source and it's not always correct. This is not "evidence" (perhaps you misunderstand what the word means?) - it is an opinion. Now I suggest you do some more research and preferably not in internet news groups (now you have made me laugh) or Debretts. As for experts - there are three people who have enough experience and access to Royal/Government records to legitimately style themselves that way. I work with one of them. I appreciate your amateur enthusiasm for the subject but there's only so much you can learn from the outside so stop contradicting me. Wiki-Ed 21:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear oh dear, high words and scorn indeed from Wiki-Ed. However, he is wrong and Proteus is right. For an example of King Charles II referring to "Sir Edward Walker, Knt." in letters patent under the Privy Signet and Sign Manual in 1673, see here. For a more contemporary example, of Queen Elizabeth II referring to "Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet, Knight" and "Sir Douglas Mawson, Knight" in a royal charter which she presented in person in 1954, see here. All three persons referred to in this way were (or are) Knights Bachelor. Chelseaboy 6 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)

I could point out your examples are over 50 years old, but the more relevant point is that the word "Knight" is not a post nominal, it's a description. People can call themselves whatever they like (and other people - including the Sovereign - can call them whatever they like too), but it does not mean that they have a right to that name as a title. The post nominals for each order of knighthood are in the warrants. Find the warrant for knights bachelor and show us the paragraph saying Knights Bachelor can append "Kt" "Knt" or "Knight" (etc) after their name. (It doesn't exist.) Wiki-Ed 6 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)

Is Hurst a knight bachelor, then? I wasn't aware that knights bachelor were still created. john 05:28, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, very must so - this is a list of Knights Bachelor created as part of the 2004 New Year's Honours.

James F. (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

In order:

• It's not a knighthood, and so a holder cannot be correctly called 'Sir' (or 'Dame').
• The knightly ones.
• Yes, they're the same.
• Yes, those honours are knightly, and yes, those ones aren't.
• Yes, a holder of an MBE isn't a knight.
• Those two articles need correcting; will get on it. (Thanks for the more detailed information, Wik!)
• The Order of Merit (OM) is not knightly (though it is a terribly high honour). Companionships of the Order of St. Michael and St. George (CMG), similarly, are not knightly.

HTH.

James F. (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

do all the orders confer knighthood?

[edit] Ronald Searle - due for an honour before he dies

Very few cartoonists are knighted. David Low comes to mind and a few others. But one cartoonist above all others deserved to be honoured, Ronald Searle. I think, along with Low, he is in the top five of world cartoonists/comic illustrators. Write to the powers that be before it is too late: he is now 84 I think. Britain was too late to honour Carl Giles: don't leave it too late for the great Searle. Richard Ahearn Failed cartoonist.

[edit] Order of St John

There is, furthermore, a semi-official Order, the Order of St John of Jerusalem. Its members can wear the Order's insignia, but do not receive any titles of Knighthood or use any post-nominal letters.

What about all that GCStJ, KStJ/DstJ, CStJ, OStJ, SBStJ/SSStJ, ESQStJ, etc. I see here and there. Isn't that postnominals associated with this order? Or is that with some other order with a similar name? —Gabbe 16:55, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

I believe they're for use within the Order only. Proteus (Talk) 17:02, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So, they should not be listed on pages like Louise, Princess Royal and Duchess of Fife, Princess Victoria Alexandra of the United Kingdom, etc. or what? —Gabbe 19:06, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

They aren't normally listed with other post-nominals, so probably not. Proteus (Talk) 21:39, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

First, the Order of St. John is not "semi-official." It is as official as any other Order, but its statutes state that membership in the Order do not confer any special precedence. Appointments in the Order of St. John are announced in the London Gazette, and the insignia may be worn on military uniform, just as with any other British Order. Knights of the Order are granted a knight's helmet when granted Coats of Arms, and Bailiffs are granted supporters, again as with any other British Order.

Second, the post-nominal initials may be used as appropriate, including in biographies like the ones cited, or, for example, in obituaries.

Membership in the Order of St. John is not considered to be merely a one-time honour, but is a long-term committment to support the work of the Order. I have revised the statements about these matters here. 66.156.107.108

PS That "semi-official" business originated with one of the several spurious or "self-styled" groups that mimic the genuine Orders of St. John. Another calumny they are fond of is that the Queen is merely the "protector" of the Order. In reality HM The Queen is the Sovereign Head of the Order of St. John just as with the other British Orders. 66.156.107.108

"Letters that signify membership of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem are not included after the name." (Debrett's Correct Form.) Proteus (Talk) 22:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The post-nominal abbreviations associated with the Order of St. John are not "for use only within the Order." As mentioned above, they may be used as appropriate. The distinction to be made about the various degrees within the Order is that they do not in and of themselves confer a specific social precedence; for example, a Knight of the Order of St. John does not, by virtue of his membership in the Order of St. John, rank higher in the Scale of Precedence than a Commander in the Order of the British Empire. Once again as above that "post-nominals are for use only within the Order" business is a calumny thrown at the Order of St. John by the "self-styled" groups. 66.156.107.108

"Self-styled" groups like the Government? Although it appears in the Order of Wear, the Order of St John is shown as a decoration. It does not appear in the list of official post-nominals and officials should not use them in correspondence. Wiki-Ed 10:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. The abbreviations are commonly used in obituaries; in entries in the peerage publications including Burkes and Debretts; in other biographies; and, as well, announcements concerning promotion to the various Grades are published in the London Gazette. Hardly "for use only within the Order."

The Statutes of the Order of St. John, Part Three, Section 32, paragraph 2, read: "The letters specified after each grade may be used by those to whom they apply to such extent as may be prescribed in the case of those borne on a Roll of a Priory by the Priory Rules of that Priory and in the case of those borne on the Roll of the Order by Order Rules but admission or promotion to any Grade of the Order or the privileges derived therefrom of wearing the insignia appertaining or belonging thereto shall not confer any rank, style, title, dignity, allellation or social precedence whatsoever." 66.156.107.108

This article is about state honours; the Order is not a state honour. Its status may be vague because it has statutes and has the Sovereign as its head etc, but at the end of the day it is not awarded by the state for the state. Hence "semi-official" - which explains the London Gazette (commercial publications can do whatever they like). The last bit ("shall not confer...") of the statutes which you quoted would seem to confirm that this is the case. Wiki-Ed 10:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The point about the London Gazette is that the Gazette is the journal in which official Crown notices are published. There is nothing at all vague about the status of the Order of St. John. You are quite correct that the Order of St. John is not a State Order; it is a Royal Order, with appointments at the discretion of HM The Queen. You are, however, still incorrect about that "use only within the Order" statement, which was obviously copied from one of the several half researched websites discussing Orders of Chivalry. 66.156.107.108

I doubt it came from a "half-researched" website but rather, I suspect, from the statute you quoted: "The letters specified after each grade...shall not confer any rank, style, title, dignity, allellation or social [read: state] precedence whatsoever." Surely that means, in other words, that they have no official status outside the Order? Wiki-Ed 14:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

We are going round and round in circles, and it's obvious to me that nothing I can say will change your mind, so this shall be my last posting about this matter. The only point I have attempted to make here is that the postnominals associated with the Order of St. John are in reality used quite a bit "outside the Order" making the statement about them in this article not quite correct. A statement more to the point might read something like "The ranks within the Order of St. John do not confer official rank on the Scale of Precedence and, likewise, the abbreviations or postnominal initials associated with the various Grades of membership in the Order of St. John do not indicate precedence." 66.156.107.108

I'm aware that in reality recipients do use their post-nominals outside the order. I've inserted the text you suggested. Wiki-Ed 10:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and those uniformed Services, such as the Army, Fire, Police, etc, where they are awarded a grade of the Order of St John are entitled to wear the ribbon/appropriate medals along with any other decorations and use the post-nominal initials.

I know that in Canada the postnominal letters for the Order of St. John are only supposed to be used within the order itself, but occasionally they have been listed on things like parlaimentary biographies. Im not sure if that statues of the Order are different in the UK Dowew 05:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] order of the phoenix

Whats with the new order of the phoenix on this page? it links to the fictional order in harry potter. I always thought order of the garter was the highest, did some harry potter fan put the order of the phoenix in?

That was just put on by an anonymous idiot, who will be barred from Wikipedia if he tries it again, and it was removed as soon as it was noticed. -- Arwel 00:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Although this page is quite good there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. I've seen the content elsewhere online so it has either been copied from somewhere else or someone else is copying from it. It has also appeared on news websites so I think it behoves us to ensure that it is accurate. I am going to do a top-down rewrite to give it some structure and correct a number of inaccuracies. I will be using the Cabinet Office and Royal websites as a source if anyone has any queries... 12:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've re-ordered quite a bit of stuff today. It's mostly still there, just in different (more logical) places. I've only deleted a small amount which I feel it is dealt with better in the sections dealing with the specific orders. Still a bit more tidying to do - and some more detail on medals and decorations as these form an important (but overlooked) part of the honours system. Wiki-Ed 00:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I still don't understand

do all the orders confer knighthood? if not, which ones don't?

Most of the orders include knighthood (which is one of several ranks within the orders), with the exception of the Order of Merit, the Distinguished Service Order and the Imperial Service Order (1903). -- ChrisO 12:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And the Order of the Companions of Honour. Wiki-Ed 12:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

let's take elton john for example. he sports the post-nominals CBE which is Commander (third highest rank) in the order of the british empire yet the article on the order of the british empire says that Knight or Dame Grand Cross (GBE) and Knight or Dame Commander (KBE or DBE) (first and second highest) are knightly. is he some kind of honorary knight? also for the article of the british empire, it states that it is the most junior order of chivalry. but on the article British honours system The Order of the Companions of Honour, The Distinguished Service Order and The Imperial Service Order come after.

No, he is not a knight. CBEs, MBEs, and OBEs are not knights - only the orders which are knightly and have the word "knight" in the title make someone a knight. The others are just honours. john k 04:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe he was awarded a CBE and then made a Knight Bachelor - a separate appointment to the Order of the British Empire. The latter is the most junior in terms of age. However, some of the other orders do not have senior levels so I placed them after the Order of the British Empire on that particular list. However, I can see how that could be confusing - I'll change it around. Wiki-Ed 13:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

so the title "Sir" does not mean one is a knight?

It does. A knight in an order has the title "Sir" and post nominal letters, eg. Sir John Smith KBE would be a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire. A knight without post nominal letters is a Knight Bachelor, eg. Sir John Smith. Wiki-Ed 15:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, a knight with postnominal letters that don't confer knightly status is also a knight bachelor. E.g. Sir John Smith CBE. john k 15:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, it could mean one is a baronet. Proteus (Talk) 15:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

But don't baronets usually go "Sir Robert Peel, Bt." or whatever? ugen64 00:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] idea for future development of the article

The British Honours System encompasses ALL medals, orders, decorations, etc - it is not just about knighthoods. The article needs the addition of a section or two, to cover those areas not covered, with links to the articles about the individual medal, order, etc, which should have the fine details. For the general scope look at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ceremonial/honours/wear.asp and a bit of light reading at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ceremonial/lists/ -- alexmb

Medals and decorations are both mentioned. They are massive topics and there is no way an article of this size could go in to exhaustive detail. Copying and explaining the entire order of wear in here would not improve the article. However, if there isn't a page on British medals (but I think there is) or bravery decorations (ditto) then feel free to make one. This article is about the general scope of the British honours system. Wiki-Ed 10:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Order of precedence

The list of the "Current orders of chivalry" (at present ordered chronologically) appears at odds with the order of precedence. The OM and CH are said to accord no special precedence yet the post-nominal letters list includes them at particular places in the sequence. From the list there, it appears that the correct order for the list in this article (and in the box on the British honours system) is:

• The Most Noble Order of the Garter
• The Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle
• The Most Honourable Order of the Bath
• The Order of Merit
• The Most Distinguished Order of St Michael and St George
• The Royal Victorian Order
• The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire
• The Order of the Companions of Honour
• The Distinguished Service Order
• The Imperial Service Order

This would mean quite a bit of shuffling around. Any thoughts? --Ross UK 23:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think someone brought this up a while back and I changed it because: The Order of Precedence is not relevant in this case because - as you say - the OM and CH are accorded no place. The Order of Wear (and list of post nominal letters) is relevant, but it's slightly more complicated that portrayed - check the table on this page [3]. What you're suggesting is to align them according to the highest honour in each order as worn. Although that might be technically accurate it makes more sense to the casual reader to place the Orders in chronological order of the date of institution, hence the current layout. Wiki-Ed 11:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed what I'm saying. Would it not be of benefit to at least make some reference to an order of importance? Supposing a new order were created and placed at the top of the order of precedence; would we insert it at the bottom? There is also the question of the Box; perhaps two different orders could be used. --Ross UK 21:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll fiddle with the wording to make sure that it is clear that the list is in chronological order rather than the order of precedence or the order of wear (and link to them). As for your other question: What box? Wiki-Ed 08:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. For the box, follow the link for one of the orders and scroll to the bottom of the page; the box headed "British honours system" is also in chronological order. Sorry I don't know quite what these boxes are called! --Ross UK 05:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed section

"KBEs are often awarded as honourary knighthoods, but are occasionally awarded to British citizens. Creator of the world wide web Sir Tim Berners-Lee was awarded a KBE presumably because, as an American resident, his title would not be used in everyday life, so he may instead append "KBE" to his name. Actor Sir Alec Guinness received a KBE on recommendation of the Foreign Office, according to his memoirs, for quelling anti-British sentiments at an Argentinian film festival by making a witty speech in Spanish, having learned it by rote following the British ambassador's dictation."

The vast majority of KBEs are not honorary, the supposition about the TBL is just that it's common enough for leading scientists to get that award. Of course if someone can provide a citation then by all means. As to Alec G he was a Knight Batchelor (1959) and never had the KBE rather having the CBE (1955) Alci12 15:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peerages etc

As a 'related topic' this section has expanded out of hand and now takes up at least a fifth of the article. There's far too much speculation with unverified and irrelevant material. Most of the subject matter belongs in the 'main' articles for each of the appointments mentioned. Unless anyone objects I'll prune this section shortly. Wiki-Ed 18:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I Agree. On the matter of "main" articles, isn't it unusual to link the subheadings, as they are here? I've never seen that anywhere else except talk pages. Perhaps the headings should be unlinked and Template:Main used at the start of the section instead. Then it's clear to people that they should read the other article for details. JRawle (Talk) 19:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. -anskas 13:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queen as sovereign

I know this doesn't actually relate directly with the British honour system, but can anyone explain how the Queen cannot be sovereign of certain state and provincial orders ? According to the article Jamaican honours system the Queen is not sovereign of the Jamaica orders, and as well it apears that all of the Canadian Provincial Orders as well. The National Order of Quebec I can understand, but otherwise the Lt Gov is Chancellor of the Provincial Orders, so why is the Queen not at all involved ? Can anyone explain how this came about ? Dowew 05:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orders/Honours

This phrase is being inserted into the introduction: "Orders are used to award knighthoods". This is not correct. Why? An Order does not exist solely for the purpose of awarding knighthoods. Moreover, knighthoods are but one of the grades within an Order and they do not represent the majority of the awards made in any of the orders. The format of the introduction explains what each type of award recognises: orders are honours and the first sentence ("Honours are used to recognise merit in terms of achievement and service") already shows how honours differ from decorations and medals. The proposed sentence is incorrect and superfluous. Wiki-Ed 09:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honourary

"Citizens of countries which do not have the Queen as their head of state sometimes have honours conferred upon them, in which case the awards are "honorary"."

Aren't all of these awards honourary, no matter where you come from? What's the difference?--Taitey 01:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)