Stephen Hawking Turned Down Knighthood 201
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."
Re:source of knighthood vs source of funding (Score:5, Informative)
Re:source of knighthood vs source of funding (Score:4, Informative)
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 [arstechnica.com]
Re:I hate when that happens (Score:1, Informative)
Yeah, I hate it when someone creates a PPARCCCLRC.
Re:source of knighthood vs source of funding (Score:2, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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:
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 (Score:2, Informative)
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:Good for him (Score:1, Informative)
He probably could have put his name on the door in a form similar to 'Bob Smith, PhD'.
I believe a lot of MD's business cards say, 'Joe Doc, MD'.
In a hospital, Dr. usually is assumed to imply MD. So it is confusing and if the hypothetical pharmacist uses PhD, no one's ego is improperly damaged.
Just for fun: IAADC (I am a doctoral candidate) :)
Re:What do you get with knighthood? (Score:5, Informative)
> 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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:1, Informative)
Medical Dr. vs Real Dr. is a fun one, as the majority of Medical Doctors, are not actually doctors (don't have a doctorate), and yet people often say that someone who is a doctor, but not a medical doctor, is a fake doctor, which in fact, it's the other way around.
Depends. The origin of the word doctor long predates the MD degree.
In Austria, the title for lawyers is Dr.
I am always amused by US lawyers with a JD who think they have a doctorate.
I was told a story about a Pharmacist in a hospital who had his name - 'Dr. Bob Smith' (example) on the door. Now, the hospital forced him to take the Dr off, despite him actually having a doctorate, unlike most of the doctors who have it on their doors in the hospital, because he wasn't a medical doctor and it'd confuse people. I, personally, think that's insane.
Not only would it confuse people, but in many jurisdictions that is the law. Where I live, any idiot can call themselves a Dr., but to call yourself Dr. in a hospital is restricted by law to licensed MDs.
A friend of mine is a licensed RN, and also has a PhD in nursing. When they work in the hospital, they can't use the title Dr., but when teaching classes at the affiliated university, they can use Dr.
Re:Good for him (Score:4, Informative)
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.