01/03/2015 – On a Dark and Stormy Knight

On 26 January, Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced that Prince Philip, the consort to the Queen of Australia for more than 60 years was to be honoured for his contributions to Australia and the world with an Australian knighthood. The response from criticism that erupted from the media, segments of the general public, and ardent republicans was vociferous, aggressive, and sustained. It was also mired in poor logic, outright bigotry, and false information.

The Liberal government of Australia announced the reinstatement of knighthoods in March 2014. Immediately, a range of people attacked the mood as anachronistic and a throwback to Australia’s colonial past. This might have been a justifiable argument if Mr Abbot had restored Australia’s use of Britain’s honour system, including the Order of the British Empire. However, all he had actually done was to restore the previously existing, top level of the Order of Australia, so that Australians could be honoured in their own country, by their fellow citizens, with a titular honour. The perception that “Sir” is a British title is simply wrong. The New Zealand Order of Merit, the Order of Barbados and the Order of the Nation (Antigua and Barbuda) all confer this title upon recipients at the highest level.

Members of the royal family have long been recognised for their service to numerous countries. In fact the Queen is directly associated with more than 50 honours in the 16 countries in which she is Queen. On top of this, she has received over 100 honours from other countries in which she has no constitutional role. These awards are presented out of admiration for the work the Queen has undertaken around the world, particularly in fostering diplomatic good will. This is not a feature limited to Queen Elizabeth, or to the monarchy shared by the Commonwealth Realms. The longest, currently serving head of state is King humibol Adulyadej of Thailand. He has received over 90 decorations from around the world over his term as head of state. It should also be pointed out that international honours are not bestowed only on monarchs. There is clearly a link between the length of time in which one serves as head of state and the number of honours received, and this obviously favours monarchs, but presidents receive many international awards as well. Fidel Castro was awarded approximately 75 state honours from nations around the world. Jaques Chirac received 28, and his current successor Francois Holland has so far received 9. Intriguingly, Angela Merkel, who is a head of government, a Prime Minister, and not the German head of state, has received 10.

Prince Philip received his first national honour from the Greek Royal family in 1941. In 1947, following his marriage to then Princess Elizabeth, he was inducted into Britain’s preeminent order of chivalry, the Order of the Garter. Since then he has received close to 90 other honours. Among them are the honours granted by the Commonwealth Realms. New Zealand paved the way in 1981 by making him an Extra Companion of the Queen’s Service Order. In 1988, Australia gave the Prince the highest level of the Order of Australia available at the time, the Companion of the Order of Australia. In 2005, Papua New Guinea awarded him the honour of Royal Chief of the Order of Logohu, a title which apparently comes with the prenominal title “Grand Chief”. In 2012, Prince Philip was made an Additional Member of the Order of New Zealand, granting him the highest award New Zealand can offer. In 2013, he was made an Extraordinary Companion of the Order of Canada, the highest award available there.

It is not surprising then that Mr Abbott believed that upgrading Prince Philip from Companion of the Order of Australia to the newly restored level of Knight would be uncontroversial. Philip has been honoured many times in many countries with the highest awards possible. Australia would be quite atypical in having failed to do this. Rarely reported during the melee that followed Prince Philip’s upgrade was the fact that Prince Charles was already a Knight of the Order of Australia. He had been made one in 1981 when the level had first been created. It was an oversight at that time that Philip had not also received the accolade. In the Order of Australia, Charles outranked his father for decades.

This is not to say that the Government is blameless in the fiasco that evolved, far from it. While the size of the response was understandably unexpected, the government offered very poor reasons for Philip’s knighthood. Aside from correcting an administrative oversight and recognising Philip’s lifetime of service to the world, the Queen of Australia, and to Australia itself, it would have been helpful to raise the value to Australia that this appointment held. Prince Philip is one of the most famous men in the world, his actions are followed by the media and the public. He is photographed and filmed whenever he is in public. For this man to be seen wearing an honour from Australia is a constant reminder of that nation. It is a way for Australia to stake its claim to the Prince and indeed all members of the royal family. In doing so, they draw the spotlight that follows the royals to Australia and world attention is focussed there, even if only for a moment. That is good for Australia. No doubt, republicans were angered because they could see that Philip would be wearing a more noticeable symbol of their nation and, unable (or unwilling) to see the benefits of this, immediately reacted with disdain. It is unfortunate that the current Leader of the Opposition in the Australian Parliament, Bill Shorten, has declared that his party will abolish Knights of the Order of Australia again when they are returned to power. Such a knee-jerk reaction is hardly the sound basis necessary for good policy. However, even if knighthoods were abolished again, there is no reason for those who support titular honours to fear the loss. Mr Abbott has demonstrated, if nothing else, that knighthoods can be restored at any time. One political party has the capacity to disestablish them, but they cannot prevent those in favour from restoring them. As long as the decision is never unanimous, the most that can be achieved by those who object to titular honours is a temporary hiatus.

Comments are closed.