Jump to content

Talk:Order of the British Empire/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Reagan?

I seem to remember Thatcher giving Reagan one of these (in which case he should certainly be added) but I cannot find details. Perhaps I am mistaken, or can someone else find it? --BozMo|talk 11:17, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reagan was made a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath (GCB) (and is listed on that page). The Queen gives all honours incidentally, even if the list is compiled by the government. -- Necrothesp 22:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gravitational Beam Emmitter

Do we really need this? It would be better to move that section to the post-nominals page.

Yes we need this -- it is an expantion of anything that would be listed on the post-nominal letters page.

List(s) of recipients?

The article lists some "foreign" recipients. We should list at least a comparable number of Commonwealth recipients; if or when we do, we should have a clear link from this article (unless they are included in it, which is probably not desirable in the long term because a separate list of them could be of more value to an encyclopedia than, say, the list of New Zealand companies). Robin Patterson 06:02, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) -Agreed. Penwhale

Redirect

I made the redirect from GBE to this page into a disambiguation page for GBE and Gbe languages. strangeloop 11:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Never mind, I reverted because I discovered I just had to create a 'Gbe' page with a redirect to Gbe languages to stop 'Gbe' from redirecting to 'GBE' and to here.

Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire

According to [1], that's the title Bill Gates will be getting. Should there be a redirect page at Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire? Commander of the Order of the British Empire is already a redirect page to here. (By the way, are those two the same thing?)--Tokek 00:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, KBE is the grade above CBE. If Gates was a subject of the Queen then he'd be able to call himself "Sir Bill", whereas a CBE couldn't (since it's not a knighthood). KBE is the usual honour granted to foreigners getting honorary knighthoods. -- Necrothesp 01:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Tokey, that's right, "Most Excellent Order of the British Empire" is often shortened to "Order of the British Empire", but they're one and the same thing.
At your suggestion, I made a few redirects to here:
... which is enough for the time being, I feel. James F. (talk) 02:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Order of the British Empire Medals

R. Eaton asked the following question on the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous page: are the medals made of pure gold and silver or are they only plated in gold and silver ?

If you know that answer could you please provide an answer on that page and put verifiable information in the article. Thanks. Capitalistroadster 05:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Chapel

The material about stalls and helms (which is used in most other articles on the British orders of chivalry, almost verbatim) is not correct in this case - there are no crests displayed in the OBE chapel - MWNN. Honest - I've been there! - MWNN

Ah, sorry about that. --James F. (talk) 23:46, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A reliable and scholarly work on the British history, Never Had It So Good by Dominic Sanbrook, says that the chapel was dedicated in 1960, not 1969. I changed the date in the article yesterday. Mapple 13:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

When do you receive the title?

When do does the person receiving the title get to use it. Is it from the day the award is announced or when the Queen confers it josh 07:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The former. (It used to be that the letters could be used immediately but "Sir" could only be used after the accolade, but this proved too confusing for some and they changed it so both could be used as soon as the appointment was announced.) Proteus (Talk) 10:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The reason I asked was that I've just confirmed that Alfred Hitchcock got a full knighthood and not an honourary one as the article said. However, there is a curious entry in the London Gazette several months after his death confirming that his wife gets all the privliges of a knight. Was this 1980 before the change or just a bit of protocol?
The change was in 1971, so I'd imagine it was just protocol, ensuring that there was absolutely no doubt about Lady Hitchcock's status. Proteus (Talk) 12:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Cheers. josh 17:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Image tagging

I have reviewed this article and agreed that it is a Good Article. I was lenient on the image tagging criteria, but the second image does need its tag reviewing. —Whouk (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Other orders?

The article mentions that this order is "the most junior of the British orders of chivalry". What does that mean? I was completely unaware that there were other orders, but the word "junior" here is unclear: does it mean it's the youngest, or the one with the least gravitas? Maerk 10:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a carefully-defined (but highly arcane) order of precedence in the higher echelons of British society, starting with the Sovereign at the top, followed by the Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales, various other members of the royal family, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, the Archbishop of York, certain other officers (including the Prime Minister), peers (Dukes, then Marquesses, then Earls, Viscounts and Barons), and so on (Bishops rank just above Barons), then Baronets, Knights of orders of chivalry (of which the Garter is the most senior, followed by the Thistle, and the British Empire the most junior), then Knights Bachelor, after which it gets a bit hazy. Anyway, the point is that holders of a particular grade in the Order of the British Empire rank below holders of an equivalent grade (but above holders of lower grades) in the other UK orders of chivalry. Nicholas Jackson 22:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

Three references just isn't enough for this to be well-reference folks, it's a longish article, there should be much more here. Surely this entire thing wasn't gleaned from just those few references.... Homestarmy 17:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Lists of recipients

Hello. I am writing an article on Sir George Bailey Sansom, who I know to have been knighted in 1935, but I have no idea which rank he was - OBE, KBE, Knight Commander, Knight Officer, whathaveyou. Is there any way to find this out, outside of biographical sources, such as a complete list of all recipients online somewhere? Thanks. LordAmeth 19:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The official announcements of British honours are published in The London Gazette, which can be searched online at [2] (although the search function is rather idiosyncratic, and often doesn't give you a result even when you specify a full name and the exact edition you know the notice to be in, probably because it uses optical character recognition (OCR) on scanned versions of printed editions). To answer your question, Sir George Sansom was created a Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George (KCMG) on 3 June 1935 (Supplement to the Gazette of 31 May 1935, published 3 June 1935, p8, online version here.) He was previously appointed CMG (probably sometime between 1925 and 1930, but the search is not giving me the appropriate entry). Dr pda 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions

FYI, the New Years List 2006 has been announced. See the BBC article. Does a knighted person, i.e. George Shearing, become Sir George Shearing KBE? or Sir George Shearing? Seeing as he had an OBE, does he lose that and become Sir George Shearing KBE or Sir George Shearing KBE OBE etc. Thanks, RHB 01:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

He has been made a Knight Bachelor whch has no postnominal. Therefore he is Sir George Shearing, OBE. Had he been appointed a KBE (which he wasn't) then he would be Sir George Shearing, KBE as the KBE would trump the OBE. - Kittybrewster 11:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeal

Is it possible to repeal an appointment to this order? I see Vidkun Quisling was CBE...Inge 13:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Most (if not all) of the British orders have provisions for revoking someone's membership of the order. According to The Times, 13 June 1940, reporting the proceedings of the House of Commons the previous day, Quisling was stripped of his CBE. The relevant text is as follows:

Mr Mander (Wolverhampton E., L.) asked the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs the reasons for and the date on which Major Quisling was made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire, and whether he still remained a member.

Mr Butler (Saffron Walden, U.)— Captain Vidkun Quisling was appointed to be an honorary Commander of the Order of the British Empire — (laughter) — on November 22, 1929 in recognition of services rendered to his Majesty's government in connexion with the protection of British interests in the Soviet Union while serving on the staff of the Norwegian Legation in Moscow. He is no longer a member of the Order. (Cheers)

Mr Mander — When was this notorious traitor to his own country and the Allied cause removed from the Order?

Mr Butler — Very recently. (Laughter)

--Dr pda 22:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll add this to the VQ article. Do you have a link or other reference in addition to the Times? Inge 09:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, no. The online archive of the Times I have access to is subscription-only. I had a quick look in the London Gazette for an official notice but couldn't find one. Hansard could be quoted directly I guess if you could get hold of it. --Dr pda 17:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The announcement re Naseem Hamed:

Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood
St James's Palace, London SW1
12 December 2006
The Queen has directed that the appointment of Naseem Hamed to be a Member of the Civil Division of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, dated 31 December 1998, shall be cancelled and annulled and that his name shall be erased from the Register of the said Order.

Proteus (Talk) 10:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon

Shouldn't there be some mention of John Lennon under the repeal or controversy part? Skippiikai 01:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Skippii

Cites, please. Avoid (appearance of) personal views / original research

Removed this from the "Criticism" section, as it reads like the writer's personal views or original research: "Others argue that this is simply political correctness gone mad and that if people choose not to accept honours that is their choice. Furthermore, honours are deeply historic and to change names to suit modern-day attention seekers would undermine their correct and useful purpose in society." If we want to put this back in, let's get a cite from a reliable source. -- 201.51.231.176 19:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Sir" or "Dame" outside of Her Majesty's Realms

The article says "the title 'Sir' (male) or 'Dame' (female) before their name, so long as that person is a national of a realm where the Queen is Head of State. If not, the recipient may use the honour but not the title before their name."

But since the Handover of Hong Kong, people in Hong Kong who were given these titles seem to continue to be able to use them. Or are they using them falsely? Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sir Paul McCartney

Why is Paul McCartney addressed sir if he is "only" MBE? It states in the article that only the two highest grades entails a knighthood. Could someone explain this to me? --Law Lord 10:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Found my answer here. --Law Lord 12:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Awards to non-Britons who are citizens of Commonwealth Realms

I hope this isn't seen as a nitpick (it's not meant to be). The order is undeniably British, no argument there. But I'm not entirely sure about this sentence:

  • The British monarch is Sovereign of the Order and appoints all other members of the Order (by convention, on the advice of the Government).

That is certainly true for Britons awarded membership of the Order. But what about citizens of other Commonwealth Realms whose governments still recommend awards within the Order. These recommendations are not made to the "British monarch" by the British government, but to the (for argument's sake) Queen of Canada, Queen of Papua New Guinea, Queen of Barbados etc, by the relevant government. Australian governments no longer recommend British honours for Australians, but I think there are still some other Commonwealth realms that do make such recommendations for their citizens. Would making reference to this cause unnecessary confusion, or is there a case for it? -- JackofOz 09:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't appointments made by the Sovereign of the Order, who just happens to be Elizabeth II? 202.89.155.94 07:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you miss my point. Elizabeth II wears 16 different crowns, one for each of the 16 Commonwealth Realms. When she's having her regular weekly chat with Gordon Brown, she is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. When she visits Australia, or does any business on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister, or appoints Australians as members of the Order of Australia or any other order including the OBE - she is acting as the Queen of Australia, not as "the British monarch" (I've highlighted these words in the quote above). Same distinction for Canada, NZ and all the other 12 Realms. "The government" that recommends appointments to the OBE is not necessarily the British government. -- JackofOz 05:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I already noted that (please don't read too deeply into this comment; if I sound rude, its the Internet's fault :D) . I am most probably wrong, but my understanding is that while the "informal" recommendation/advice may be given by some government somewhere, the formal appointment to the order is an appointment under the Order's seal, and thus by Elizabeth II, in her capacity as Sovereign of the Order, as opposed to being Queen of X (in the latter case the appointment would be under the seal of a particular realm, which iirc does not happen). 202.89.152.154 06:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That makes a lot of sense. I accept that it's a British institution, and the Sovereign of the Order is the person who is the monarch of the UK, specifically the UK. That monarch just happens to be monarch of 15 other realms, and because it's technically possible (albeit extremely unlikely) that those other realms could opt for a different person as their monarch, it is therefore not the case that the Sovereignship of the Order is connected to any of the other 15 crowns. In that case, maybe the sentence should read:
  • "The British monarch is Sovereign of the Order and appoints all other members of the Order (by convention, on the advice of the relevant government)" (note small "g") - or, to make it absolutely unambiguous
  • ... (by convention, on the advice of the government of the relevant Commonwealth Realm ). Thoughts? -- JackofOz 08:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't say much since I'm only a casual reader on these topics, and I don't know on those specific details. Sorry if this is an obstacle to editing (I am just an anonymous IP after all...) 202.89.152.154 02:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
PS. Check out the London Gazette for appointments to Order of the B.E., iirc they all start with something along the lines of "The Queen, on the advice of her Somewhereland ministers, is pleased to make the following appointments to the Most Excellent Order..." (I can't remember the wording atm). The point being, that the honours lists always make sure to point out whose advice is being taken, even if they are appointments to just one order. 202.89.152.154 02:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

revocations

Who chooses which revocations are listed here? And why does the main page start in the 20's? What about Francis Bacon, or Roger Casement? Both are even mentioned in ref. 12 for this article, why are they omitted? +Hexagon1 (t) 05:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusing

The article states that only the two highest orders can use the prefix "sir," but we routinely have people who are CBE listed as sir - Alex Ferguson and Matt Busby are the two I just found. I'm sure there's a subtlety that I as an uncouth American simply don't grasp, but in any case, the article as it reads now is clearly misleading or wrong. What is the correct wording? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ferguson is Knight Bachelor in addition to his CBE, don't know about Busby though. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Royal Knights"?

Does this Order have "Royal Knights", like some of the others (Garter, etc)? Or do members of the Order who are also members of the Royal Family count towards the numerical limits in the same way as other members (apart from honorary members)? 195.92.40.49 (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nomination process?

I looked on this page because I was wondering what the nomination process was like and how it is decided who will be made part of the Order. Where can I find info on this Dowew 21:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. I feel there should be at least a small mention of what achievements make one a candidate for these titles. Is it for service? Achievement? Patriotism? 203.143.238.76 (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Doctor/Professor

If one obtains a Professorship or Doctoral degree, in which order should they be addressed, for instance, Professor (Dr.) Sir James Bond, KBE, B.Sc., Ph.D., or in some different order. I am just curious; but as the article mentions clergy, it might be something interesting to add to the section. User:Ade1982 02:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Professor Sir James Bond KBE, Ph.D, B.Sc. The Professor ship includes and trumps the doctorate on the pre-nominals. As does the Barony trump the knighthood when he gets promoted to Professor the Lord Bond, KBE, Ph.D, B.Sc. You work up hill and then downhill in order of "importance". - Kittybrewster 09:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Aren't academic post-nominals listed in the order they are achieved? Proberton (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the common usage, certainly, but officially titles emanating from the Crown (or the Church) replace titles emanating from lesser institutions (like universities), and so if Professor James Bond is knighted (or succeeds as or is created a Baronet) he becomes "Sir James Bond", losing the "Professor", and likewise with peerages. Even membership of the Privy Council trumps it — he's "Professor James Bond" or "The Rt Hon. James Bond", but not both together. (As to the order of post-nominals, some universities like to list degrees in ascending order (James Bond, Esq., BSc, MPhil, LLD), but the order of precedence for post-nominals lists them in descending order (Sir James Bond, Bt, KG, OBE, DL) and so when listed together with "official" post-nominals degrees are always listed in descending order.) Proteus (Talk) 10:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I seem to remember a obit not so long ago for something like a knighted officer (general/Brig) who on retirement became a reverend and I fear something else producing one of the more odd combination of style and titles I've seen. I had a quick google but only turned up The Most Reverend Grand Chief Geoffrey David Hand KBE GCL MA which was not the man. Alci12 13:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Another interesting case is Paul Reeves, the former Archbishop and Governor-General of New Zealand. He received a knighthood on appointment as GG, and due to a mixup at the investiture actually received the accolade, which as a clergyman he shouldn't have, making him the Rt (or possibly Most) Revd Sir Paul Reeves. Recent changes in New Zealand mean that he is entitled to the style 'The Honourable' for life, as a former governor general, making him The Honourable The Right Reverend Sir Paul Reeves. He's got a couple of honorary doctorates as well! Dr pda 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
"Honourable" and "Reverend"-type honorifics confuse matters even further, because neither of them trumps the other, and they are combined rather than just stuck next to each other (the religious style preceding the temporal style no matter what grade they are). So he'd be "The Right Reverend and Honourable Sir Paul Reeves, [post-nominals]". Proteus (Talk) 18:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The implications of American elites gaining Knight Commander status

When people such as Alan Greenspan, George Bush sr and Colin Powell get knighted by the British Sovereign, what does that suggest about their allegiences? Do Americans not find this abhorrent? That their apparent "public servants" are being rewarded by the inbred aristocrats of the "British Empire"?

Sorry, I'm just curious. Seems rather bizarre to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.40.3 (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody ever said aristocratic in-breeding was ignoble. --Jonathan Drain (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir Ranulph Fiennes OBE

The article says that only KBE and GBE may use the title 'Sir', but BBC News refers to Sir Ranuph Fiennes, who is titled 'OBE'. I'm confused! --Jonathan Drain (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Fiennes is the third of the Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes Baronets. The KBE and GBE are the only awards in the Order of the British Empire that carry knighthoods but there are many other knighthoods. All of the "Sir So and So MBE/CBE/OBE" cases have a knighthood for separate reasons. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced section removed for discussion

If one is awarded a higher award in the same division, one must return one's medal in exchange for the upgrade and and cease using those post-nominal letters. Some however have been appointed to both divisions, such as Kelly Holmes who has been awarded an MBE military division and an DBE in the civil division, and is therefore known as "Dame Kelly Holmes DBE MBE".

I can't find any references for the insignia of the lower rank being returned. The only references to them being returned is when people have done so in protest. The reliability of the statement has to be questioned as the insignia are not "medals", an MBE isn't "awarded" (the person is appointed an MBE) and "an DBE" is obviously incorrect (presumably a typo). JRawle (Talk) 23:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

but it is true, nevertheless. Read her book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.190.213 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 27 August 2008

In which case, it would be helpful if you could give us a page reference (I haven't read the book myself). The point about returning insignia of lower ranks when one is promoted to a higher rank in the order is at least plausible, because one is promoted. (Analogously, one cannot be, for example, a Captain and a Major in the Army at the same time.) But we really need a proper reference confirming this practice - I'll see if I can find one, but if anyone else knows of one then that would be great. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, this would be a very interesting fact if it was properly referenced as it must be a fairly rare occurence (at least amongst people notable enough to be in Wikipedia). JRawle (Talk) 20:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Please can you give the title of the book you have read. If you no longer have it, I can try to find it and find the complete reference. I'd be interested to hear from another source whether anyone ever has to return an insignia when being appointed a higher class. JRawle (Talk) 21:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's in her book (Kelly Holmes Autobiography) when she is awarded MBE by the queen for running for the Army and then a bit later on after she's left the army the queen awards her the DBE as well as the MBE. It'll be in your libraries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.220.18 (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Numbers": another confusing sentence

In the lead paragraph, "do not contribute to the numbers restricted to that Order" is incomprehensible.

Much later in the article there is a discussion of the limits on how many members the order may have. If this is what the writer intended to say, I suggest they say it. Perhaps the following would be clearer: "are not counted against the limits on how many members the Order may have." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billfalls (talk • contribs) 15:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sir Paul?

The Paul McCartney article calls him 'Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE' and we've all heard him called 'Sir Paul' by the media. Yet the Wikipedia article Order of the British Empire explicitly states 'Only the two highest ranks entail admission into knighthood, an honour allowing the recipient to use the title "Sir" (male) or "Dame" (female) before their first name.' Perhaps the MBE is his award from the 60's (the one Lennon gave back) and McCartney has since got KBE? If so article should be changed. Can someone please clarify this situation? --Boston (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

He's not a KBE, he's a Knight Bachelor, hence 'Sir James Paul McCartney MBE' is correct. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the clarification. --Boston (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oath??

What sort of oath of loyalty/fealty do people who are made knights of the British Empire make? Does anybody have the wording verbatim? 86.42.119.12 (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am quite sure there is none, though I'll need a source to say for sure. It was my understanding that in addition to any insignia a "warrant" (document formally effecting the honour) was issued. That is not extraordinary for an honour; most countries present some kind of certificate along with the physical prizes.
The wording of the warrant is much of the same kind as used on other official documents (Elizabeth the second by the grace of God etc.) 118.90.6.61 (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Taylor

She's from United Kingdom, not from United States —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.120.183 (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it states in several sources that Elizabeth Taylor is not an honorary Dame. She is entitled to use Dame because she has not renounced her British citizenship status. She still holds a British passport. 82.24.127.21 (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Losing knighthood

If someone who was knighted later became a citizen of a non-commonwealth county, like the United States, would they not be allowed to use the Sir/Dame title anymore? TJ Spyke 17:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It would depend on whether they lost their original citizenship or not. If they lost it, then they would revert to an honorary knighthood: they could still use their KBE or whatever postnominal, but could not use "Sir". If they retained their original citizenship via dua citizenship, nothing changes. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Conflicts

Okay, Bill Gates is an honorary KBE. So, can he or can he not use the post-nominal abbreviations? This is very confusing. Cleanups? Penwhale 02:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he can use the post-nominal letters. No, he can't use the pre-nominal "Sir". He is Bill Gates KBE. It says that in the article, doesn't it? -- Necrothesp 11:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since Bill Gates is not a citizen of the UK nor of the British Commonwealth, theoretically he can not be called "Sir Bill" (or Sir William). -Kbot

Note that citizens of Commonwealth countries that do not recognise Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State (most of them) are also not entitled to use the "Sir" or "Dame". --Necrothesp 02:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Just curious on an old topic - if Bill Gates got his UK or Canadian or whatever citizenship today, would he be permitted at that point to be Sir Bill Gates? TheHYPO (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. See Sir Terry Wogan, honoured when he only had Irish citizenship but subsequently took British citizenship. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sir = KBE?

I do know that Paul McCartney, MBE was knighted; does that make him a KBE? Is it possible to be knighted without changing rank in the Order? I ask this because David Gilmour is a CBE (higher in 'seniority'), but he is not referred to as Sir David Gilmour. Just curious...

Order of the British Empire states that only KBEs may use the 'Sir'/'Dame' prefix.

I do know however that Dame Maggie Smith is a Dame Commander. She was awarded a CBE in the early 70's, and then in 1990 accepted a DBE, so because she has both the Commander Of The British Empire and Dame Of The British Empire titles, she can be referred to as a Dame Commander, super-seeding a woman with just a DBE. I would imagine that the same applies for Sir Paul Mccartney --Joshk 04:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sir Paul McCartney, MBE, is a Knight Bachelor, which means that he was knighted without being given appointed to one of the knightly grades in any of the Orders of Chivalry (such as the Order of the British Empire). Being made a Knight Bachelor is the lowest form of knighthood - he would have had to have impressed the Government even more to have been made a KBE or a GBE (or a knight in one of the other Orders). Many people are knighted without being members of any Orders, and are thus known simply as Sir John Smith, with no post-nominal letters at all. Hope this helps. Proteus (Talk) 10:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is this the same case with Sir Elton John? From what I've read, he's a CBE, but he was also knighted. Thanks, --JT 14:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article says KBE but this may not be correct. It's unusual for British citizens resident in the UK to obtain a KBE as opposed to Knight Bachelor. Another question mark lies over whether James Molyneaux is really a KBE or a Knight Bachelor JAJ 23:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Sir Elton John CBE is a Knight Bachelor. See the New Years Honours list 1998 here.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead is a KBE. See his Lords introduction here. JRawle (Talk) 17:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

But as for DBEs who were formerly CBEs superceding women who were appointed straight to DBE, the answer is NO. A DBE subsumes any earlier and lower appointments to the order. We sometimes see death notices or resumes of "Mary Smith, MBE, OBE" because she was first made an MBE then later an OBE. But that's wrong. The higher level (OBE) subsumes the lower one (MBE). An army officer who's promoted from sergeant to lieutenant to brigadier to general is NOT referred to as "Sergeant Lieutenant Brigadier General Smith", just "General Smith". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is only the case if the recipient is promoted within the same division. For example, Dame Kelly Holmes was made an MBE in the Military Division in 1998 and then a DBE in the Civil Division in 2005. As such Dame Kelly is permitted to wear both insignia and use both sets of post nominal letters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.182.10 (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Knights Commander of the British Empire

I was originally going to add Andrew Wiles to the list of KBE's when I noticed that there are Wikipedia pages (lists) for Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire, Dames Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire, and Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire, BUT there doesn't seem to be an article for the Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire. If there's an article for the dames, then there should logically be one for the knights. Could someone else make such a page since I'm a noob with little free time? Occamsrazorwit (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

logic?

I'm just curious if there is a form of logic behind this whole system. Is there a premise behind why Paul McCartney (and the Beatles) are only MBE, but he has been justified for knighthood (knight bachelor)... and yet Sting has been deemed CBE (two levels above), but apparently has not been deemed worthy to be a knight bachelor? While Elton John has received both CBE and knighthood... It seems illogical that someone two orders down should be knighted before someone two orders above...

Perhaps someone can add this tidbit to the article, but is it taboo to "promote" someone once they've entered the order? (IE: to promote the beatles beyond MBE)? I notice that some articles on GBE members (the only ones that indicate anything) seem to indicate that people who received GBE honours were not previously in the Order at all... so they started at the highest level... so is one declared at a particular level and stays at that level forever dispite future contributions? TheHYPO (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No. There are all sorts of possible permutations. People can be appointed MBE, then CBE, then KBE. Or KBE then GBE. Or OBE then GBE. Or straight to KBE. Or straight to GBE. Or OBE and stay there forever. Or ..... Being appointed to one level does not preclude you from later being appointed to a higher level, but neither does it guarantee it. Btw, Knight Bachelor has nothing to do with the Order of the British Empire. One can be a Knight Bachelor and also a Knight of the Order of the British Empire. And also a Knight of various other orders. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand they are unrelated. What I'm asking is, if all of these people are inducted into all of these orders for their contributions to society, doesn't it stand to reason that if someone has contributed enough to be deemed worthy of MBE, and also worth of being a knight bachelor, that someone who is superiorly worthy enough to be a CBE, should also be at least worthy enough to be a knight bachelor as well? Do two different groups assess OBE and knight bachelorhood? Are there different listed criteria? I just find it curious that one honour rates Sting higher than Paul McCartney (MBE vs. OBE) yet another rates McCartney higher than Sting (knighthood for the former). Does someone have to really achieve notable additional contribution to society to advance to a higher order? I just find it odd that, if not any of the Beatles, at least Paul McCartney should still be "stuck" at the lowest order while other subsequent musicians surpass him to become OBE. TheHYPO (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Brian May

Brian May, Astrophysisist and Rock star, is listed here as holding an honory Membership (He's the bottom of a list at the bottom called Notable honorary Knights and Dames, yet he is British (His nation of origin is listed as UK next to his name) Is this a mistake? I was under the impression that only Foriegners got honorary membership or is he a weird case? I won't remove him now but I might do at a later date, if anyone knows for sure either way, please leave a note here and act accordingly.(94.9.217.47 (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC))

Image

The image at the top of the artical didn't have an alpha layer. I changed this. 2 miniut job, but uploading to commons was not. Complete pain. After 45 minuits I have given up. Lost interest. The file is here. Use if you wish. No change to the original licence on the image it was derived from. Ben Robbins (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

St Paul's Cathedral

There is a comment in a news item today that holders of the CBE are entitled to be married at St Paul's Cathedral, presumably in the order's chapel. --jmb (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Date of establishment?

"The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire is an order of chivalry established on 4 June 1917 by George V of the United Kingdom" Is this 1917 a typo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.128.242 (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is correct - see for example the current ref 1. I will add another ref since others may be surprised it is a relatively recent order. Mirokado (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviations should be spelled out in full

The introductory paragraph does not address the issue of common misrepresentation of the meaning of DBE, MBE etc: For example the BBC News, who should know better, today referred to DBE as "Dame of the British Empire".

I propose that the formal title of each grade should be spelled out unambiguously. The existing text is:

  • Knight Grand Cross (GBE) or Dame Grand Cross (GBE)
  • Knight Commander(KBE) or Dame Commander (DBE)
  • Commander (CBE)
  • Officer (OBE)
  • Member (MBE)

As in the "see also" paragraph, this should be:

  • Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire (GBE) or Dame Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire (GBE)
  • Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (KBE) or Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE)
  • Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE)
  • Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE)
  • Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE)

I also propose adding an explanation, something like:

It is common usage (but formally incorrect) to omit "of the Order" and other important words not implied by the acronyms. This makes rather a mouthful, but is relevant since although the British Empire no longer exists as a formal entity, the Order of the British Empire does. Furthermore "DBE" is commonly misrepresented as Dame of the British Empire instead of the more impressive Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire.

Any suggestions? GilesW (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. All though if we are going to take it to the n th degree, the full form is Dame Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. Happy for the suggested changes (your short form proposal) to be implemented, although I think the explanation belongs in its own section on 'Stylings' along with information on the full form vs short form style. The explanation is not appropriate in the lead. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, I have done it. I am not sure where to put 'Stylings', but it seems best to put it at or near the top. Please rearrange if you see fit. GilesW (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm somewhat concerned that having this section at all sort of gives an imprimatur to say and write things like "Dame of the British Empire". And the closer to the top the section is, the more licence people might be given.
In any case, the wording needs considerable work: it starts out about how it's common for some words to be omitted. Then it says this makes "rather a mouthful" (a most unencyclopedic expression in itself) - when the effect of such omissions is to make less of a mouthful, not more. The final sentence, commencing "furthermore", is simply a recap of the foregoing, not anything new as "furthermore" would suggest. Saying "Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire" is not "impressive", it's correct.
None of the material is sourced.
The whole thing needs to be withdrawn, and not reintroduced until and unless we get some consensus here on the talk page. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I re-read & revised the paragraph before seeing this, addressing some of your comments. By all means edit it further as you see fit. GilesW (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
All right, let's have a look at what we've got. The final sentence still purports to introduce new material (Furthermore, ...) but it covers exactly the same ground as the first sentence. It is at best a waffling and pompous repetition, at worst a misrepresentation, and so it must go.
The first sentence has the wrong emphasis. It acknowledges and to a degree approves common usage such as "Commander of the British Empire", but parenthesises (i.e. downplays) the incorrectness of that usage. That's virtually saying it's OK to say stuff like this - but it isn't, and we should not be seen to be giving support to it, even passively.
It is not our place to be apologising for the length of the name. We did not create the order, and we take no responsibility if some people may think the full title is "rather a mouthful". We are not a branch of Buckingham Palace Protocol Office, we are a totally unconnected organisation writing an encyclopedia.
So, what we have left after removing these offending bits and doing a little wordsmithing is:
  • It is incorrect to omit "of the Order" and other important words not implied by the initials. The British Empire no longer exists as a formal entity, but the Order of the British Empire continues.
If we really must have words such as these, they warrant no more than a small-type footnote at the bottom of the page, not the pride of place they currently have. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 15:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I think that your changes strike a more appropriate balance for an encyclopaedic article. Such media bastardisations are a bug-bear of mine. The Australian media loves refering to people being awarded the 'Order of Australia' (instead of being appointed to one of the three most senior active grades or awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia). In today's example a number of news agencies stated that Olivia Newton-John was in town to be presented with her 'Order of Australia Medal' (whilst the postnominal is OAM, the medal's title is Medal of the Order of Australia, notwithstanding this, she was actually appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia, two grades higher). Everytime they do this, they reveal a complete absence of fact checking - either the offical Its an Honour website or the Wikipedia article would have provided accurate details for them. AusTerrapin (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, AusTerrapin. Don't get me started about the cluelessness of the media (well, of individual journalists, more to the point) about these sorts of matters. Their low point is when someone like Bill Gates is awarded an honorary knighthood; they didactically point out that he can use KBE (or whatever) as a postnominal, but he's not entitled to use "Sir". But then, in the same breath, they'll tell us the latest news about "Sir Bob Geldof". (counts to ten, slowly) I once had an email exchange with a journo who wrote this. Her final position was that she was perfectly aware Geldof is not formally entitled to be called Sir Bob, but that because "everybody" calls him this, it would be inappropriate not to follow suit. So there you have it. He's a Sir by popular acclaim. Has anyone told the Palace yet? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the changes to the article in principle, but the applicability of footnote 3 to classes other than GBE is easily overlooked. To make the point more clearly I suggest incorporating the wording of the footnote into the Precedence and privileges section, and spelling the abbreviations in full, e.g.:
'Knights and Dames Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire use the post-nominal "GBE", Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire "KBE", Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire "DBE", Commanders of the Order of the British Empire "CBE", Officers of the Order of the British Empire "OBE" and Members of the Order of the British Empire "MBE". The post-nominal for the British Empire Medal is "BEM". Note that it is incorrect to omit "of the Order" and other important words not implied by the initials. (Although the British Empire no longer exists as a formal entity, the Order of the British Empire continues.)'
Any comments? GilesW (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Honorary appointments below Knight/Dame

Is there a list of honorary CBEs, OBEs, MBEs etc (not to mention honorary CBs, CMGs, CVOs, MVOs ...) and are these appointments often made? I ask because sometimes we see CBE, say, after some foreigner's name, but it's hard or impossible to track down when and why they were given this award. My latest find is the Hollywood film producer Hal B. Wallis, who is shown as CBE in various sites, including our own. I've raised a question at his talk page, but it would be good if we had a list of such people - with readily checkable sources. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought these kinds of awards would be published in the London Gazette, which has a seach facility - but I've just spent ten minutes failing to find Wallis's award. Opera hat (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I very strongly suspect it's an error. It arrived in Wallis's article in 2008 courtesy of an anon user, and unsourced. I've asked the user to provide a source, but they may have been just copying from somewhere else, equally unsourced. Or maybe it got here first (i.e. vandalism) and other sites have been mirroring us. IN any event, I can't imagine what Hal B Wallis did for UK-American relations or whatever to merit such an award. Surely it would have received coverage at the time, or in his obituaries, but I can find zero ghits about it apart from the alleged fact of the postnominals.
But just on the general question, when was the last honorary CBE, OBE or MBE appointed? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about the OBE, but Monty Roberts was made an honorary MVO dated 8 June 2011[3]; clearly such awards are still made. If there is a register of honorary grades in orders I assume it would be held by the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood the Registrar of the order. Opera hat (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sir Winston Churchill declined order?

I'm not very familiar with british orders. However articlestates that only by accepting (higgest two?) orders, the person officially may call himself "Sir" + christian name. Article also states that sir Winston Churchill declined his order. This is confusing to me. Could someone with insight in these matters enlighten me reguarding Churchill, please. (article refers him as a "sir" that declined his order) Boeing720 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where it says that Churchill declined the Order of the British Empire, but he was a Sir because he was a Knight of the Garter. Opera hat (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Order of the British Empire and British Empire Medal

I know the two are separate (but use same ribbon) I was just wondering if anyone knew if someone was awarded the BEM and later the MBE, do they still use the BEM after their name? eg. 'Martha Heelan, MBE, BEM' or do they just use the 'MBE' post-nominal? Regards Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 08:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are a number of people who were both MBE and BEM, and they all kept both postnoms. Which makes sense given that the BEM is not formally a part of the Order of the British Empire, but merely affiliated with it. In that sense, appointment as MBE (or a higher grade of the Order) is not an advancement from BEM, but a separate award (cf. MBE and CVO). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 08:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Cheers. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 09:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sub-dividing recipient categories

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#Sub-dividing honours categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

next Grand Master?

I know this may seem imprudent, but since the Duke of Edinburgh is nearing the end of his life, who may be appointed the next Grand Master of the Order? There have only been three: the then-Prince of Wales (future Edward VIII), Queen Mary and now the Duke. Since it is supposed to be the next most senior member of the Order, will the person be a royal or non-royal? Who is considered next in seniority? I don't think Charles, Anne, Andrew or Edward are members of the Order. Any thoughts? 74.69.11.229 (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The same question could be asked about Prince Charles, who's Great Master of the Order of the Bath, and whose mother is a lot closer to her end than her beginning. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 05:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Speculation is usless since the appointment come from the sovereign. Although I would dare say that Prince Edward will be a Grand Master of either the British Empire or the Bath since Buckingham Palace have already stated he'll be the next Duke of Edinburgh. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 07:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

List of members of the Order

At the moment, the article contains a list of current Knights and Dames Grand Cross, and a (shorter) list of honorary members which, by its positioning, is at present a subsection of the former. Both lists occasionally get names added to them which are not GBEs - being either lower-ranked members of the Order, members of a different order, Knights Bachelor, or erroneously claimed to be GBEs or similar (there's some character who calls himself "Lord Linley OBE" who kept fraudulently adding himself a while ago, but who thankfully seems to have given up). Yesterday an anonymous editor added Edward Kennedy to the honorary list: Kennedy's appointment as an honorary KBE was announced in the last few days. Do we want to extend the honorary list to cover non-GBEs too? Extending the main list to cover non-GBEs isn't feasible (there are too many) but there are presumably fewer honorary appointments, so it might just work. What do other people think? -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think most articles on "orders" of this kind (that is, outside WP) list only the Grand Crosses of an order plus its functionaries. Unless we're talking about singularly exceptional, name-droppable people (e.g. Gandhi) I think we should stick to GBEs only. 118.90.35.155 (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is The Baroness Butler-Sloss listed twice, in 2005 & 2007? Is this an error? T-bonham (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani received an honorary knighthood in 2002. Should this be mentioned in the article? --98.246.156.76 (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The article does not venture into the listing the second class recipients, and since he is only honorary I personally would suggest against starting such a mammoth task in writing such a list.Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 05:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
But they are listed at List of honorary British knights and dames. MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Age at knighthood: John Alcock

Is there a listing sorted by the age at which the recipient was knighted? And would John Alcock (RAF officer) be at or near the top of the list, being knighted at age 26? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dont think we have a list, we cant really create lists for every criteria and also the British system has a number of different knighthoods. That said it is an interesting question perhaps if nobody here comes back with an answer try one of the reference desks like Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous who have editors who like a challenge. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop entering nonsense in non-British people biographies

Stop entering this nonsense KBE, MBE, GBE, LBE, SBE on non-British people biographies next to their names. That is POV. Keep it with British, but don't be entering a persons name and putting that gibberish KBE, MBE next to their names. They are not British subjects, they don't want be associated with British aristocracy and to most non-British people this order don't mean anything. 67.177.203.207 (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

'they don't want be associated with British aristocracy' They accepted the honour, so actually, yes they do want to be associated with the British honours system. If they didn't, they would have rejected the honour (like many people have) - VJ (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I think they just accepted it as a sign of respect. He/she gave it to me, so be nice and accept it. It is kind of disrespectful not to accept it in other words. That's all there it is to it. They didn't want it, someone gave it, and they said ok. I think you are reading to much into it. This doesn't necessarily that they are proud and happy about it and want CBE, LBE, BBE next to their names. Also this order is basically a way of keeping the British monarchy relevant. If the queen doesn't hand out these orders, her support would weaken and she would be less relevant. Why is there over 100 thousand awardees is because its main goal is to keep the monarchy in place. Also how is this relevant in this modern age when the "British Empire" is no more. This is an archaic order that is handed out by the monarchy to keep themselves in power basically. The recipients accepted to not look rude, but in truth it doesn't really mean anything. That's all there it is to it. 67.177.203.207 (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
And you think it's Wikipedia that has a POV issue? Proteus (Talk) 13:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that British/Imperial postnominals should not be added to non-British/Imperial recipients. To do so would be Anglocentric. Opera hat (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
No offence but this makes no sense to me. Are we to say that Nobel prizes should be mentioned only in cases in which the recipient is Swedish?Tillander 02:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not a case of not mentioning the honour at all. It's enough to say that they were awarded the honour and were entitled to use the postnominal if they wished - but most did not wish. We never see "Steven Spielberg KBE" or "Franco Zeffirelli KBE" or "Ronald Reagan GBE" or whatever else.
The only exception I would countenance is "Bob Geldof KBE", if only to counter the incredibly ignorant practice of calling him "Sir Bob Geldof". The music world is the most anti-establishment group of people imagineable, yet they, almost to a person, have this uber-obsequious attitude to Geldof's knighthood by treating it as a substantive award, when they have absolutely no right to do so. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 21:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
We don't decide how people are referred to, we follow reliable sources. We would also need a reliable source if mentioning someone's opinion about an honour they had accepted (or declined for that matter). --Mirokado (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
And thus before entering British (or other Commonwealth) post-nominals to non-Commonwealth citizens, perhaps a reliable source is required to show that they actually use the post-nominals? Especially in those countries where post-nominals associated with honours are not conventionally used. AusTerrapin (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
And yet these are honours they are entitled to, so unless they have formally rejected the award they retain them, even if they don't generally use them on their business card. The fact that they have been honoured by a head of state is certainly notable. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Said to stand for "Covers Bloody Everything" etc

I think this needs a citation. I assume this is a humorous interpretation. Is it common? Still, should probably have some kind of citation if this is to be included. Ileanadu (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In case we might add "Other buggers effort" and "My bloody effort" for the OBE and MBE, if only we could find a citation, as per the equivalent section for Mick & Gerorge. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability of MBE recipient?

This is not directly about this article, but can I ask editors if they have an opinion: how much Wikipedia notability does an MBE bestow on a person? Is it enough to be the main support of a biography about the recipient? Has this kind of question ever been discussed and decided? I also asked the question at WikiProject Awards. Invertzoo (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Should this article be moved? The lead seems to think so

The lead has long described the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire as

Often, if incorrectly, shortened to the simpler "Order of the British Empire"

I'm not knowledgeable about this topic (or even British). But if it's wrong to refer to the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire as the "Order of the British Empire", then it's wrong for Most Excellent Order of the British Empire to redirect to Order of the British Empire. As it currently does. Either this article should be renamed "Most Excellent Order of the British Empire", or that bit of snark about incorrectness should be removed from the lead. Or both.

An article named "A" which is just a redirect to "B", which in turn says that "B" is the wrong thing to call "A" is . . . confusing. If they're different things, give them different articles. TypoBoy (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME dictates how articles are named. If there is snark in the lede, I would suggest improving that before moving an article. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Only the most unreconstructed arch-pedant would insist on the full formal name. The name we have now is just fine. I have removed the offending words from the lede, so problem solved. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Comparison with replacement orders

Last night, I added information on the similarity between the Order and its replacements in various Commonwealth realms. This was reverted (not undone!) by User:MilborneOne, with the comment "not sure it is relevant to this Order". I maintain that it is highly relevant, as is shows the influence the Order has had on its replacements, in particular focussing on the way the levels of the Order are reflected in the new orders which have replaced it. The previous paragraph simply said that the order had been replaced, with no further details. This implies no continuation - quite the opposite, in fact - suggesting that the old system has been completely revamped by these countries. It is only by adding the information showing that these countries have continued to use the levels of Member, Officer, Commander/Companion, Knight, and Knight Grand that it becomes obvious that there is a continuation with the former Imperial system, and that therefore the Imperial system still leaves its mark in the countries which formerly used it. This, I feel, is important information which was missing from the article. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Still dont think it is that relevant, that said perhaps it should be moved out of Styles and Honorary Knighthoods where the whole paragraph is unrelated to further down the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
good point - I was simply attaching it to the previous one sentence mentioning the successor honours. I've moved it further down and madeit a little smaller and more compact - see whether you think it's better now. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Lot better now it has been moved but could do with some references. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability of DBEs

Debate relevant to this article going on here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Small correction to the "Composition" section

In the section labeled "Composition," paragraph 3, sentence 1, clause 3 reads: "and so the rank of Commander of the Order is the lowest rank of being a dame"; however, that wouldn't appear to be the case, as it's "Knight Commander" that is the lowest rank of being a dame, with Dame Grand Cross being the highest. Ergo, should it not read: "and so the rank of Knight Commander of the Order is the lowest rank of being a dame"? Balarick (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Your Semi-correct. 'Knight/Dame Commander' would be better and I have changed it. Also, the section refers to the Knight Bachelor being the lowest grade of knighthood, this is correct but the highest level of damehood would be that of a Lady of the Order of the Garter which is equally the highest for a male. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 13:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Which is the most junior: OBE or MBE?

The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (often shortened informally to "Order of the British Empire") is the most junior and most populous order of chivalry in the British and other Commonwealth honours systems.

REFERENCE: "Order of the British Empire". The Official Website of the British Monarchy. The Royal Household. Retrieved 24 August 2009.

It seems the MBE is the most junior. Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.227.6.17 (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That sentence isn't talking about the seniority of the different classes within the Order of the British Empire; it is saying that the Order of the British Empire is junior to the other orders of chivalry in the British system (such as the Garter, the Bath, and the Order of St Michael & St George). --David Biddulph (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps some confusion in that OBE is Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire not an abbreviation for the order itself. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

add Tedd Briggs to recipient list?

Ted Briggs, his page lists him as a "Member of the Order of the British Empire" and thus should be credited for it on this page. Just wanted to mention this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.235.245 (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't list MBEs, or OBEs, or CBEs, or DBEs, or KBEs. The numbers would make such a list impracticable. The only recipients who are listed are those of the highest grade of the order: GBEs (and even then, only the currently living ones). --David Biddulph (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Benedict Cumberbatch CBE

He just recieved his CBE from The Queen today (Nov 10). Benedict Cumberbatch receives his CBE from the Queen at Buckingham Palace --Andy Howard (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Order of the British Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Order of the British Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

MOS names within an infobox

Apologies if this should be somewhere else or has previously been dealt with elsewhere but here goes. Just looking to query whether MBE, OBE, etc should or should not be the full name within an infobox, where the infobox does not specify birth name. Cheers.Theanonymousentry (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Honorary awards - post nominals

I am surprised to read that honorary recipients can use post nominals. If there is authority for honorary recipients using post nominals it should be included as a footnote. Anthony Staunton (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It's undoubtedly true. If only the media would understand this, then maybe we could see references to "Bob Geldof KBE", and not "Sir Bob Geldof". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
If the warrant for the award, the Order of Wear, the Gazette notice or some other authority states that honorary recipients may use post nominals then it should be included as a footnote. Anthony Staunton (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:DBE (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Page width

Not sure what is causing it, but something on this article is causing a horizontal scrollbar to manifest in my browser. It doesn't occur on other pages. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I can guess. (See next talk page section) CapnZapp (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
CapnZapp, I mean the article, not the talk page. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah. I tried Firefox, Chrome and Internet Explorer. Article looks proper in all of them - I could not get a horizontal scrollbar no matter my zoom level. CapnZapp (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

civil and military divisions

This isn't actually explained anywhere on the page. What is the differences, are both divisions equal in every way, and so on. CapnZapp (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The divisions represent the purpose of the award, and the only difference is the ribbon. This is similar in the Order of Australia. When someone is awarded an OBE military and a CBE civil they'd wear both ribbons in accordance with the order of wear but only use the postnominal of the CBE. Hope that helps. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 23:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
It helps if its explained in the article. By "The divisions represent the purpose of the award" you mean simply that one division rewards military personnel, the other rewards civilians, and that's it regarding differences? (Plus: what does "only use the postnominal" mean?) Would you have a source we could use to reference what you just said? CapnZapp (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
If you're awarded two different grades within the same order, you only use the postnominal of the highest level you receive, that's globally standard. As for the divisions, without a reference, I couldn't say, to be appointed to the military division you have to be a member of the armed forces and the work specifically has to be military-related, so you probably could argue that there is slightly different criteria. The Order of Australia has a similar setup and uses different criteria.

Knight/Dame (AK/AD) General Division: "Extraordinary and pre-eminent achievement and merit of the highest degree in service to Australia or to humanity at large". Military Division: Not awarded in the military division.

Companion (AC) General Division – 'Eminent achievement and merit of the highest degree in service to Australia or to humanity at large'. Military Division – 'Eminent service in duties of great responsibility'.

Officer (AO) General Division – 'Distinguished service of a high degree to Australia or to humanity at large'. Military Division – 'Distinguished service in responsible positions'.

Member (AM) General Division – 'Service in a particular locality or field of activity or to a particular group'. Military Division – 'Exceptional service or performance of duty'.

Medal of the Order of Australia (OAM) General Division – 'Service worthy of particular recognition' Military Division – 'Meritorious service or performance of duty'. .Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 10:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Could you summarize this, the difference in purpose, in the article? And is the existing sources adequate to verify such a summary? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

layout and archiving

This talk page is currently formatted to accommodate a long table of contents (on screens wide enough). A better approach is to autoarchive old discussions which enables a standard layout (TOC coming before and above discussions). I'll sort that out shortly. CapnZapp (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"TOC right" removed, automatic archiving implemented. Note: the archive bot will not run until tonight, so please hold off any comments until tomorrow. I'll be back then to check everything worked. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorted. CapnZapp (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Styles and honorary knighthoods - use of Sir/Dame

In the article, it says "The senior two ranks of Knight or Dame Grand Cross, and Knight or Dame Commander, entitle their members to use the title of Sir for men and Dame for women before their forename".

However, in the next paragraph it says "Honorary knighthoods are appointed to citizens of nations where the Queen is not head of state, and may permit use of post-nominal letters but not the title of Sir or Dame".

It seems they both can and cannot use the title Sir/Dame. Do those two sentences contradict each other or am I missing something? Vpab15 (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Never mind. I have rephrased the second sentese a little to hopefully make it more clear. Vpab15 (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

KBE wearing a sash ?

I am confused: the person speaking at 10:00 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJytnqBDSGc?t=600 is Jacques de Larosière, who is according to wikipedia and others (academie), a Honorary Knight Commander but he is wearing what looks like a sash. The article says only Grand Cross could have a sash. Any clue? Sovxx (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Precedence and privileges

Wives of knights may prefix Lady ... but no such privilege exists for spouses of knights ...

Most spouses of knights are presumably wives! Is this trying to say that male spouses of knights, ie in same-sex marriages, have no such privilege? If so, it should be explicit. Mdrb55 (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

... and similarly should refer to 'spouses' of dames, not 'husbands' to cover both cases? Mdrb55 (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_British_Empire/Archive_1&oldid=1224624542"