British Honours Research Articles

From Servants of the Empire to Everyday Heroes: The British Honours System in the Twentieth Century. By Tobias Harper

At a time when the presence of controversial symbols of empire, such as statues, are increasingly questioned within British society as embodiments of exclusion and oppression, the similar public debates that have surrounded the British honours system appear more relevant than ever. As a state system originally designed, to some extent, to purchase the loyalty of colonial elites, British decorations were often ‘imperial’ in presentation, intent, and administration. Consequently, whilst emergent post-colonial nations cast off British awards as symbols of domination during the decolonization era, the system was also periodically criticized within Britain from the 1960s onwards as unrepresentative of the nation’s new post-imperial identity. The title of the Order of the British Empire, in particular, was questioned due to the extent of its distribution to people from all walks of life both at home and abroad. Despite the clear importance of the honours system for understanding a wide range...

Popular Music and the State: The British Honours System and its Treatment of Popular Musicians

This article examines popular musicians recognised by the British honours system within its first hundred years of operation (1917-2017). Through a statistical analysis of a unique dataset of the honoured musicians, compiled for this article, it will be asserted that to be worthy of an honour entails possessing certain non-musical attributes including economic worth and notions of a particular type of Britishness. The increasing importance of popular music to Britain’s cultural life, identity and heritage through the 20th century and early 21st century is vital for understanding why musicians are valued by the government through the conferral of awards. The volume of musicians awarded post-1997 will demonstrate a shift in the perception of popular music by the British government as the creative industries become increasingly important to the British economy and finally, further analysis will reveal that women are underrepresented in the honours system, a trend which reflects wider socio-cultural trends in the recognition of women artists.

The Order of the British Empire after the British Empire

The British government created the Order of the British Empire in 1917. In theory, the new order provided a unified trans-imperial system for marking both social status and the relative value of service to the state. It also borrowed from a late nineteenth century technology of imperial management, refined in India, through which the crown promised status and recognition to colonial elites and professional classes in exchange for a symbolic demonstration of their loyalty. From the 1960s, however, politicians and administrators in Britain downplayed the imperial character of this order. As governments of former colonies adopted national orders it was transformed into an almost purely domestic honour with a focus on local service. This essay examines the sometimes contradictory process by which the name survived even as the empire faded. It argues that from the 1960s the British honours system was simultaneously nostalgic and forgetful of empire. This is most evident in the fact that immigrants from the former empire were now celebrated as British citizens through an honour that retained the language and imagery of empire. Such people were asked to buy in to a system that was created in and named for the empire in order to be included as part of the nation. For some, this was a good deal. Others, most famously poet Benjamin Zephaniah, refused to “sell out.”

An ‘imperial hangover’? Royal Honours in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, 1917–2009

New Zealand ceased to award the titles of ‘Sir’ and ‘Dame’ in 2000, joining Australia and Canada in what looked like the end of a process of change that all three countries had been implementing in their honours systems over the twentieth century, albeit at varying speeds. In each case, imperial British honours had been gradually discarded in favour of homegrown national ones, and the practice of conferring knighthoods and damehoods had ceased. In 2009, however, New Zealand's newly elected National government announced that titles were to be reinstated. While not a restoration of imperial honours in place of the country's relatively young national ones, the move put New Zealand out of step with Australia and Canada in terms of honours. This article traces the shifting relationships that Australia, New Zealand and Canada had with imperial honours over the twentieth century, and the steps by which each moved away from British honours towards their own national systems. In all three settings, changes were accompanied by debates over nationalism, independence and the endurance of historic ties to Britain. Through the case study of honours, this article offers a contribution to scholarly consideration of the process of de-dominionisation and the end of empire in the British World, and of the new nationalism that arose alongside and as part of that process.

Doctors recognised by the British honours system: How do surgeons fare?

Doctors recognised by the British honours system: How do surgeons fare?

Doctors recognized by the British honours systems: A retrospective analysis of the last decade

The British honours system is one of the oldest in the world rewarding individuals, including those of the medical profession. The authors were interested to see if any particular specialty was honoured to a greater extent. We aimed to establish the number of those honoured, the duration of clinical practice involved, as well as additional factors. A retrospective analysis of doctors receiving honours (Knight/Dame, CBE, OBE, MBE) in the last decade was performed. Setting UK-registered doctors. Participants Doctors were identified from publicly available listings. Demographics of all honoured doctors, including number of years of service, specialty affiliation and the number of recipients holding professorial status were collected. Clinicians were stratified into four subgroups: General Practitioners, Physicians, Surgeons and Others. Data were analysed using parametric statistical tests. Four hundred and seventeen doctors were identified. Four hundred and two clinicians had a documented subspecialty affiliation. Of the 402: GPs (n = 142), Physicians (n = 100), Surgeons (n = 34) and Others (n = 126). The number of years in clinical practice from registration to conference of honours was significantly shorter for GPs when compared to hospital-based specialties (P < 0.05). The top 10 specialties of individuals honoured are tabulated. Professors constituted 30% (n = 131) of those honoured. These individuals were sub-divided according to specialty affiliation with a significant difference observed (P < 0.05). The most honoured specialty was General Practice. However, when corrected for total subspecialty population, the number one ranking specialty was Public Health Medicine. Academic clinicians are well represented. The findings may be of interest to the medical community.

Knowledge, lost in translation

The pursuit of knowledge is no longer enough for clinicians. We have to absorb it, communicate it and, most importantly, translate it. Typically, like other core skills that clinicians have never been taught properly, knowledge translation is something of a mystery. For a start, the definition of knowledge translation is problematic – is it even a worthwhile concept? A second dilemma is working out how long a knowledge translation process takes? Such inscrutable questions are predicated on an understanding of how to acquire the knowledge that requires to be translated. Clinical textbooks were once the knowledge resource of choice, synthesising the essentials and the minutiae of every specialty. But a textbook doesn't move at the speed of the Internet, where knowledge is formed and reframed in moments. Clinicians list online resources as important sources for updating knowledge in their specialties. Google is the first and most loyal friend of a clinician searching for a clinical answer. The Internet offers helpful solutions but poses challenges, foremost of which is how much we trust the information we are reading? A failing of medical journals is that an answer to any particular clinical question rarely resides within our rainforests of peer-reviewed pages and clouds of web archives. Clinicians therefore look elsewhere, at Wikipedia for example; we might distrust the web but in a moment of need we will give it the benefit of doubt. Is Wikipedia the most important knowledge resource in the world? Seventeen million articles in 262 languages, sixty-five million visitors each month to the English version, make a compelling case. A survey of junior physicians estimated use of Wikipedia at 70%. Yet anybody can edit Wikipedia, why would we trust it? The evidence is less damning than perception. Wikipedia is no less reliable than other encyclopaedias. A researcher deliberately introduced small errors into biographical articles on Wikipedia and 50% of these errors had been corrected by other people within 48 hours. As a result, David Metcalfe and John Powell encourage medical professionals to be actively involved with Wikipedia and help develop it (JRSM 2011;104:488–489). Wikipedia might help us with facts but facts are only one dimension of knowledge argue Trisha Greenhalgh and Sietse Wieringa (JRSM 2011;104:501–509). Aristotle described knowledge as being composed of facts (episteme), skill (techne), and practical wisdom (phronesis). Facts need to be placed in context – which requires tacit awareness – interpreted, and linked to further questions. With this broader definition of knowledge, medicine is neither a science nor an art. It is an uncertain, paradox-laden, judgement-dependent, science-using, technology-supported practice. Consequently, our current concept of knowledge translation is over-simplified, based on a false premise of a know–do gap that defines knowledge and practice as distinct entities. This is unsustainable conclude Greenhalgh and Wieringa. Knowledge translation as a precise term has outlived its usefulness – and presumably the clumsy concept of a know–do gap can go with it? But before JRSM considers a total ban on knowledge translation, a second review in this issue examines time lags in translation research. How long before original research is implemented? How long from drug discovery to commercialisation? Curiously, a frequent answer to such questions is 17 years (JRSM 2011;104:510–520). We will reap what we sow but we might wait two decades which helps explain why it takes over 30 years for doctors to be recognized by the British honours system. Bear this in mind as you impatiently wait for the publication of this year's honours list. If you fail you might wish to consider a New Year's resolution to transfer your expertise to one of the top 10 specialties for honours (JRSM 2011;104:521–524)?

The Orders of Knighthood and the Formation of the British Honours System, 1660–1760. By Antti Matikkala (Rochester, The Boydell Press, 2008) 470 pp. $155.00 The House of Lords in the Age of George III (1760–1811). By M. W. McCahill (Chichester, West Sussex, UK, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009) 475 pp. $49.95

<i>The Orders of Knighthood and the Formation of the British Honours System, 1660–1760.</i> By Antti Matikkala (Rochester, The Boydell Press, 2008) 470 pp. $155.00 <i>The House of Lords in the Age of George III (1760–1811).</i> By M. W. McCahill (Chichester, West Sussex, UK, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009) 475 pp. $49.95

Whistleblowing: An Issue of Social Policy

The topic of whistleblowing is achieving prominence as a question of social policy. Some influential voices are suggesting that far from whistleblowing — informing on organisations —, being socially undesirable, it may in certain circumstances be an activity deserving high praise. Inevitably it entails huge risks to the activist, and these risks need to be personally and carefully considered. John Banham, Director General of the Confederation of British Industry, wrote in support of the Social Audit report on the subject (Winfield 1990), and a committee established by the Speaker of the House of Commons has suggested the possibility of honouring whistleblowers in the British Honours system for their good corporate citizenship. There have also been landmark reports in America, Australia and Canada (Leahy 1978, Electoral and Administrative Review Commission 1990, Ontario Law Reform Commission 1986).

Whistleblowing auditors—The ultimate betrayal?

The topic of whistleblowing is achieving prominence. Some influential voices are suggesting that far from whistleblowing—informing on organizations, it may in certain circumstances be an activity deserving high praise. Inevitably it entails huge risks to the activist, and these risks need to be personally and carefully considered. John Banham, Director General of the Confederation of British Industry, wrote in support of the Social Audit report on the subject (Winfield, 1990), and a government-established committee has suggested the possibility of honouring whistleblowers in the British Honours system for their good corporate citizenship.