Sir, The disrepute into which the honours system has fallen, including MBE appointments for one-off cricketing success, and knighthoods or peerages for pop stars and political donors, should, one would think, have served to provide yet another nail in its coffin.

Jeremy Goldsmith (letter, Jan 19), however, feels that the abolition of automatic knighthoods for ambassadors and high commissioners sets a dangerous precendent, and that honours should be available to those who work hard on behalf of Queen and country, often “for very scant financial reward”.

I venture that most of us, even those with only a slight idea of the salaries and perquisites available to ambassadors and captains of industry, will find his observations risible. If the salary, promotion and satisfaction that go with a job well done are insufficient, then perhaps a career change might be indicated. Honours, if kept at all, should be in the gift of the monarch, not the grubby hands of politicians, and should be given sparingly to those who have provided truly exceptional public service in the face of personal risk or danger. The currency is in danger of being terminally debased.

TONY ADAMS
Deal, Kent

Sir, Jeremy Goldsmith rightly lamented the changes that have occurred to the honours system, and in particular, the abolition of automatic knighthoods for British ambassadors and high commissioners, while captains of industry continue to be so honoured.

Much has been made recently of the breakdown of the “contract” between the country and our Armed Forces. It used to be said that one would never make any money in the Services, nor could one dabble in politics. However, in exchange for what General Sir John Hackett called “the contract of unlimited liability” was the prospect of a knighthood for those servicemen and women who reached the top of their profession by attaining the rank of vice admiral, lieutenant general or air marshal. Now our Armed Forces are deployed in extremely dangerous situations and their commanders probably bear even weightier responsibilities than their predecessors during the more stable years of the Cold War. Yet the disparagement of our once legendary Armed Forces continues with the abolition of automatic knighthoods for our “three-star” generals.

It seems mean and iniquitous that this reward should now be withheld from such noteworthy senior officers as field army commanders, other commanders-in-chief and those for instance who bear the heavy responsibilities of deputy chiefs of the defence staff.

CLENDON DAUKES
Signet, Oxon

Sir, Jeremy Goldsmith regrets that knighthoods are no longer automatically awarded to holders of certain official posts, such as ambassadors. His argument surely raises the question: why does a mature society feel the need for titles at all? Perhaps we should remember that titles first sprang from medieval roots, operated by the king as a cost-free mechanism to bolster his authority and reward service to him. By their public nature titles are intentionally socially divisive.

How is it that other countries of strong national identity and every bit as successful in terms of social cohesion and economic success as Britain do not feel the need to adorn selected citizens with baubles of status? We all have our personal heroes, but every society produces people of talent and distinction who shine brightly in the constellation for all to see.

ROD BRANGWYN
London SW5

Explore Letters

• Feedback