|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
|
Articles |
Going for a GongDateline: 24th June, 2001 The first actor to receive a knighthood was Henry Irving in 1895. The first to be elevated to the peerage was Laurence Olivier, who became the Baron Olivier of Brighton in 1970. This, incidentally, was a life peerage, which means that, although he was called Lord Olivier and his wife Lady Olivier, his children were not entitled to be called "the Honourable", nor could they succeed to the title on his death. Olivier was knighted in 1947, the same year as Ralph Richardson. Since then there have been a string of theatrical knights and dames, including Olivier's contemporaries (and, in the first case, his great rival) John Gielgud (1952) and Michael Redgrave (1959). The Queen's Birthday Honours List of 15th June this year did not add to the list of knighted thespians, but did honour some theatre people with other awards. Eileen Atkins became Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (essentially the female equivalent of a knighthood) and David Bintley, Christopher Lee, Anthony Minghella, Dudley Moore and Googie Withers received the accolade of Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE), whilst Jane Birkin, Pauline Collins and Arlene Phillips were awarded the OBE (Order of the British Empire). The slightly lower award of Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) went to playwright John Byrne. Also on the List were large numbers of ordinary people who have made major contributions to society at a local or national level through their jobs or voluntary work: teachers who were recognised for exceptional "services to education", for instance, and a multitude of people who have given years of their lives to improve the lot of others. A fair number of the Ks (that's the civil service jargon: K = knighthood), however, in every honours list go to civil servants who have served their department for a particular number of years and have reached a particular grade. Rise to grade X, keep your nose clean and, when you retire (or even before), you'll get your K. What an odd assortment! Just what is the honours system for? Originally, way back in the times when the monarchy had real power, it was a way for kings to reward those who had done them some particular service, and when the power of the monarchy was curbed, the government would use it as a means of rewarding its supporters. In these more democratic times, the system's net is spread more widely, but there is still an strong element of political patronage. After the victory that swept Tony Blair and New Labour to power back in '97, the government used the honours list as a way of reinforcing the "Cool Britannia" message. That has changed with the latest list, probably signalling a move away from "Cool Britannia", for it has drawn considerable ridicule. However, there is no doubt that the selection of those who are to receive honours, especially those who are already in the public eye (like actors), is part of the government's (or, more precisely, the party in government's) image creation. And it is this very political side to the system which leads to my being uneasy about the whole thing. I have no qualms whatsoever about the honours given to the "ordinary" recipients, but I cannot help feeling that they are devalued by the clearly political awards and those which are given for longevity in the civil service. And should we really be giving special awards to those who are simply doing their job well? I don't know Eileen Atkins personally, although I do, of course, know and admire her work, but, in professional terms, there are quite a number of actors and actresses who are equally talented and equally well-known. Do they not deserve the same honour? And what about those who are equally talented but have not have the same "breaks" - for we all know that luck (or even just being in the right place at the right time) plays a major part in actors' careers? Are they not equally deserving? Or is it nothing to do with being deserving? Is it high visibility that is the criterion? The whole honours system is a typically British mishmash of tradition, accident, political manoeuvering and good intentions. In its favour is the fact that it is hundreds of years old, a link, not just with the last millennium but the one before that. On the other hand, many of the awards are pretty suspect, which, as I said above, does tend to devalue those which are richly deserved. Is it not time for an overhaul, or even complete replacement? (By the way - for those non-Brits who don't understand the title - a "gong" is World War II military (I think RAF originally) slang for a medal, and, by extention, any honour given by the state.) Articles Indices: |
|
|