The awards are meaningless baubles from the ridiculous royal family - there is no logic and its to do with who can be arsed to put a person up for an award - its not to do with merit
i have respect for the honour system but not for the people who they are dished out to.
i'm not necessarily against them being given out to sports people but only those who have excelled in their field ie bradley wiggins as opposed to kelly holmes who ok won 2 golds but only on the back of it being a crap field - no way does she deserve to be a dame infact its a joke. nothing against kelly btw its not her fault but i just dont think that just cos she won should equal a damehood.
The awards are meaningless baubles from the ridiculous royal family - there is no logic and its to do with who can be arsed to put a person up for an award - its not to do with merit
Pretty much. They try to justify it by saying that most of them do charity work. All very noble, but many are a bit too public about the work they do.
The awards are meaningless baubles from the ridiculous royal family - there is no logic and its to do with who can be arsed to put a person up for an award - its not to do with merit
You seem to be unaware of how the system works, its the Cabinet Office who rubber stamps who gets an honour not the Queen, she simply hands them out on the day. In the NY Honours list 72% of the recipients are ordinary charity workers and volounteers.
Their achievements are commendable but the award itself is worthless, a token by the unelected head of state. It's a rubber stamp of approval from a family who's only achievement in life was the luck of being born into a rich and privileged stock.
Their achievements are commendable but the award itself is worthless, a token by the unelected head of state. It's a rubber stamp of approval from a family who's only achievement in life was the luck of being born into a rich and privileged stock.
The Royal Family ceased to be pivotal in the honours sytem in the 18th century and stopped deciding who got honours in the 19th Century when it was fully taken over by government, now the Honours Commitee governed by the cabinet office decide from those nominated .
Their achievements are commendable but the award itself is worthless, a token by the unelected head of state. It's a rubber stamp of approval from a family who's only achievement in life was the luck of being born into a rich and privileged stock.
If you know someone more worthy, you can nominate them for a gong. If you can persuade enough people to say the same, there's a good chance of them getting it. Most awards are public nominations. Those 70 odd % of apparently unsung heros in particular. All nominated my their mates and work colleagues. The Queen has no say whatsoever.
Their achievements are commendable but the award itself is worthless, a token by the unelected head of state. It's a rubber stamp of approval from a family who's only achievement in life was the luck of being born into a rich and privileged stock.
Very few people turn them down, so they must be worth something.
Very few people turn them down, so they must be worth something.
Too many republicans associate them with Monarchy as opposed to what they are in modern times which is a thankyou from the country so basically from us as we the public nominate most of them . The Queen merely presents them as head of state on our behalf.
My main gripe with the whole dressage gold medal thing is that it's (I would suggest - not being an expert but knowing a little about horses) mainly the training and behind the scenes work which makes the difference rather than the performance on the day. It's more like say a West End performance than a sport. There's not really any strategy to it in the same way as a race or something.
I'm not meaning to demean it as it is very skillful. I just don't think it's the same kind of thing as other sports.
Plus whilst I can justify racing, jumping, eventing etc. as something a horse naturally does and likely enjoys, I'm not convinced by how much a horse enjoys dressage!
Pretty much. They try to justify it by saying that most of them do charity work. All very noble, but many are a bit too public about the work they do.
Wouldn't we all love to be able to AFFORD to do charity work. It does get e a bit miffed at times - they can do it because they have enough money to live on (or more) yet your average joe has to go out and work a 40 hour week to get by.
My main gripe with the whole dressage gold medal thing is that it's (I would suggest - not being an expert but knowing a little about horses) mainly the training and behind the scenes work which makes the difference rather than the performance on the day. It's more like say a West End performance than a sport. There's not really any strategy to it in the same way as a race or something.
I'm not meaning to demean it as it is very skillful. I just don't think it's the same kind of thing as other sports.
Plus whilst I can justify racing, jumping, eventing etc. as something a horse naturally does and likely enjoys, I'm not convinced by how much a horse enjoys dressage!
Dressage is the basis of going forward in all Equine events.
oldhag
Posts: 2,539
Comments
Not ridiculous at all. Your post is however.
Oh, I don't know. At least the horse does most of the work. That seems more sensible than knocking yourself out pedalling.
The wider point is why we hand out honours for doing well in a glorified school sports day but that's a whole other thread...:p
Sports days are more interesting.
Give them an egg to balance then see how they get on.
i'm not necessarily against them being given out to sports people but only those who have excelled in their field ie bradley wiggins as opposed to kelly holmes who ok won 2 golds but only on the back of it being a crap field - no way does she deserve to be a dame infact its a joke. nothing against kelly btw its not her fault but i just dont think that just cos she won should equal a damehood.
Totally agree with you.
I know one of the riders (well daddy) paid three million for the horse about ten years ago! But they did only get an MBE.
Pretty much. They try to justify it by saying that most of them do charity work. All very noble, but many are a bit too public about the work they do.
You seem to be unaware of how the system works, its the Cabinet Office who rubber stamps who gets an honour not the Queen, she simply hands them out on the day. In the NY Honours list 72% of the recipients are ordinary charity workers and volounteers.
The Royal Family ceased to be pivotal in the honours sytem in the 18th century and stopped deciding who got honours in the 19th Century when it was fully taken over by government, now the Honours Commitee governed by the cabinet office decide from those nominated .
If you know someone more worthy, you can nominate them for a gong. If you can persuade enough people to say the same, there's a good chance of them getting it. Most awards are public nominations. Those 70 odd % of apparently unsung heros in particular. All nominated my their mates and work colleagues. The Queen has no say whatsoever.
Too many republicans associate them with Monarchy as opposed to what they are in modern times which is a thankyou from the country so basically from us as we the public nominate most of them . The Queen merely presents them as head of state on our behalf.
I'm not meaning to demean it as it is very skillful. I just don't think it's the same kind of thing as other sports.
Plus whilst I can justify racing, jumping, eventing etc. as something a horse naturally does and likely enjoys, I'm not convinced by how much a horse enjoys dressage!
Wouldn't we all love to be able to AFFORD to do charity work. It does get e a bit miffed at times - they can do it because they have enough money to live on (or more) yet your average joe has to go out and work a 40 hour week to get by.
Brilliant news for me
Dressage is the basis of going forward in all Equine events.
Not really unless it was on an oldnag oldhag.