A lot of the discussion about National's decision to reintroduce knighthoods has fallen into the trap of discussing the merits of individual recipients. Colin Espiner's post on the subject is a case in point:
There will, I imagine, be no argument should Colin Meads decide to accept the title - although somehow I suspect he won't. But I'm not sure the same can be said for Sam Neill, or former privacy commissioner Bruce Slane, or Russell Coutts.But fundamentally this isn't about whether a former rugby player is more deserving of an actor or mercenary to be called "sir". Neither - contrary to John Key's claims - is it about "celebrating success". Our honours system already does that. Rather, it is about how we celebrate success - and in particular, whether we "celebrate" it by aping feudalism and importing foreign aristocratic titles which have no place in New Zealand. And that is something I am dead set against. While our business class may think differently, we are fundamentally an egalitarian country, not an aristocratic one. And our honours system should reflect that. As for self-important pricks who want to play at aristocracy and get everyone to call them "my lord", they can join the SCA...
Clarification: Just to make this clear, this is not intended as a dig at the SCA; those "self-important pricks" I'm referring to are the people who want "actual" knighthoods, not SCAdians who play at it for mutual amusement. The SCA is firmly egalitarian - everyone gets to be "my lord / lady" - and while they hand out "titles" and "peerages", they are awarded strictly on merit - unlike the NZ honours system. And somehow, I suspect most of the "business leaders" who want a knighthood wouldn't be able to get one from the SCA, because they're just not very good at beating people silly with a stick...
