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."

Re:Ixnay on the Itlestay

[youthoftoday]

I reckon there's a difference between a title and a position. Yes, 'professor' is a title, but it's a professional one. 'Sir' isn't.

Re:What do you get with knighthood?

[Shemmie]

Only he wasn't ignored: he refused the honour.

I appreciate that now, the petition was conducted before this news broke.

Having said that, it is a norm for the UK to have less focus on rewarding people like Prof. Hawking, instead focussing on a popular celebrity - a New Labour way of showing that they are 'in touch' with the populace.

Re:Good for him

[smittyoneeach]

It's all advertising. Hawking effectively calls more attention to his issues by rejecting the honour than by accepting.
Much wisdom in that ravaged body.

Re:What do you get with knighthood?

[caramelcarrot]

Hawking is pretty much a "popular celebrity" - there are a lot of other just as smart physicists/scientists out there. This isn't to degrade his achievements, and it's in some way useful for there to be a popular point of contact/figurehead with advanced physicsts.

Re:Reading comprehension

[FurtiveGlancer]

Professor is used as a position vice a title. I would presume Hawking was referring to honorific titles such as those of nobility and knighthood, vice positions held. One could fairly refer to him as a fellow or professor, since he holds both positions as a research fellow and a professor. I've read he does not prefer the honorific of Doctor.

Re:He is using his knighthood

[silentcoder]

That may have been true if he had done so AT THE TIME. Hawking SILENTLY rejected the knighthood many years ago, but OTHER people have been calling for him to be knighted every year. These constant requests from the public ultimately led to Hawking choosing to end the suspense by just saying that it was HIS OWN decision not to be knighted many years ago and that they can stop pestering the UK government about it.

Re:What do you get with knighthood?

[Anonymous Coward]

'in some way useful' ? i would thinks its pretty 'useful' to science to make science popular

Re:What do you get with knighthood?

[h4rm0ny]

Only he wasn't ignored: he refused the honour.

And good for him. I already had a lot of respect for him and now it's gone even higher. It's a wise man whose sense of self-worth isn't influenced by titles he's given.

On a slightly related topic, a friend tricked me into going to see "Superhero Movie" last week (I thought we were going to see "Hancock" when she said a spoof superhero movie). It had few enough laughs to begin with, but when they started taking the piss out of Stephen Hawking, they stopped entirely. He really is an incredible person, both for his ability and his fortitude. I'm glad he decided not to lend his stature to the British Honours system. They need him more than he needs them.

Re:Ixnay on the Itlestay

[osu-neko]

Maybe he changed his mind. It does happen. If people's opinions were immutable, we'd be incapable of learning anything.

In America, if you're capable of learning, you're supposed to hide the fact. Demonstrating the capacity to learn is guaranteed to get to ridiculed for being a "flip-flopper". It's considered a sign of strength and character to never change you mind no matter what you learn or how circumstances change. :p

Re:Good for him

[Ian Alexander]

Monarchy totally did _not_ move European wars overseas. The stupidest and most wasteful European wars have been nothing more than petty spats between two feuding European monarchs. See the Hundred Years' War, The War of Two Peters, The War of the Roses and the English Civil War for just a few examples of idiots fighting for the monarchy (With the exception of the English CW, it was a fight to establish a commonwealth which degenerated into a protectorate). Monarchies just supersized the stupid wars.

Monarchs weren't even decent domestic governors. You can thank Ferdinand and Isabella for the Spanish Inquisition, which set back Spain by hundreds of years. Speaking of the Church, lots and lots of European monarchs were only too happy to waste untold resources and let untold numbers of their citizens die fighting stupid Crusades to "take back" Jerusalem, or kill the wicked Cathar heretics, or what-have-you.

In fact, you didn't see things settling down and stabilizing in Europe until people began to put checks against the power of the monarchy.

Re:What do you get with knighthood?

[RockDoctor]

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.

You forgot some important elements :

1. He was :
2. used to win the war;
3. accounted a security risk due to his being an unapologetic homosexual;
4. chemically castrated under order of the courts (the alternative being jail);
5. he started to grow breasts as a result of the "chemical castration" (a large dose of progesterone IIRC) ;
6. he started to lose control of his thinking and reasoning capabilities;
7. only then was his "dumping like a hot potato" getting properly into gear, so he decided on suicide as being his best option.

If, of course, it was suicide.