Stephen Hawking Turned Down Knighthood

schliz writes "Professor Stephen Hawking has revealed that he turned down the offer of a knighthood over 10 years ago. The scientist has released correspondence showing that he was approached with the offer of a knighthood but refused it on principle. Professor Hawking has also revealed correspondence showing harsh criticism of what he sees as the UK government's mismanagement of science funding. He is particularly critical of the merger of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils."

Comments

Re:source of knighthood vs source of funding

[Richard_at_work]

Generally knighthoods and other honours are given out based on recommendations by ministers of the current government, the queen actually has very little say in the matter - she controls the Order of the Garter completely however.

Re:source of knighthood vs source of funding

[Allicorn]

Its the govt who decide who gets "honored". The monarch is pretty much just the person who makes the announcement. So, Hawking's "slap" was fairly squarely aimed at Blair and co.

Regarding who honors actually get dished out to, y'know the Darling brothers - Codemasters founders - got honored just recently? Its really not just celebs, musicians and sporty types.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/06/18/codemasters-founders-honored-by-queen-of-england

Re:source of knighthood vs source of funding

[giorgist]

Knighthoods also give recognition to the queen.

John Lennon's rejection when je was with the Beatles realy hutr the prestige.

So now they ask diplomatically. Steven Hawkins deserves the maximum recognition in the UK but it's great that he doesn't need one from the Queen.

Reading comprehension

[rgmoore]

It looks to me as though you're confusing two parts of the article. It's actually talking about two sets of correspondence, one about the knighthood and one about funding disputes. On the knighthood, it says:

"Professor Hawking does not like titles. In fact he dislikes the whole concept of them," a spokesman told The Times.

So he turned the knighthood down because he dislikes knighthood in principle. That seems like a reasonable position, and a willingness to turn down personal advancement on a matter of principle seems like an honorable decision. The arguments about funding were a separate issue and, apparently, one that came about some time after he turned down the knighthood.

Re:source of knighthood vs source of funding

[91degrees]

The Queen is just a figurehead. While the Queen is the ruler of the land and theoretically has a lot of power, she's only allowed to keep this power on the condition that she doesn't use it.

So, yes. The knighthoods are handed out by the monarch, but that's just a legal fiction. They're actually decided upon by the government of the day.

Re:What do you get with knighthood?

[thsths]

> In fact I have trouble thinking of an example that fits your claim. Basically the key to British (and most) fame is to be famous in your lifetime first.

What about Alan Turing? Of course he is still much better received abroad than in his own country, but he is a perfect example of an unrecognised genius. He was used to win the war, and then dumped like a hot potato.

Re:Good for him

[h4rm0ny]

It's all advertising. Hawking effectively calls more attention to his issues by rejecting the honour than by accepting.

It is not all advertising. He quietly refused the title ten years ago and this is the first we've heard of it as far as I'm aware. Everything points to this being a point of principle for him, not a means of gaining publicity. I guess you've shown that it sometimes is possible to be too cynical after all.

Re:Good for him

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Depends on the country. In the US (and in Canada, I'm pretty sure) the degree which allows you to practice medicine is indeed a doctorate (MD or DO.) I understand that in Britain it's actually a bachelor's degree (BM) and that MD is a title you only get if you do additional research work; the US equivalent is MD/PhD. But in any case, it is a shame that the work "doctor" is so inextricably associated with medicine is most people's minds. Medical doctors have to work very hard to earn their title; so do other kinds of doctors, and all of them should be recognized for it. If you need to make the precise distinction, the right word to use is "physician."

My grandfather, a retired professor of literature (with a PhD, of course) has a number of health problems and often has to call up new hospitals or specialty practices. He always leads the conversation with, "This is Dr. Hardy ..." Amazing how much red tape that can cut through.