Tell Me :
Talk
"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"
Stoneage: All the rest is true enough, but the younger Stones are not in any sense draft-dodgers. The compulsory two years of national military service was abolished for all British teenagers just in time for Mick, Keith, Brian and Charlie: Bill did do his simply because he was a few years older. Not having done any military service was an accident of timing, not deliberate avoidance.
I believe Keith 'WOULD HAVE' accepted it in a heartbeat IF he had been approached for it before Mick. Now that Mick's received it, and given his reaction, of course, he never would accept now.
The man is petty and has some serious man-love for Mick...it's a little icky.
He rebelled against the post=War society/mentality of Britain...that has changed, he was successful in his participation in causing that change, so therefore, the knighthood makes sense.
HUH ? WHAT ? Keith Richards started a thread here on IORR Tell Me about that issue ? Oh darn, I missed that one. Which thread is it ? I did a search but I cannot find it. Please help.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Now that is what I call very philosofical
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
never ,, ever,, and there is nothing petty,, and there is no man love,, there is nothing after the failed attempt of MIcks to be a solo artist with sub par music,,
In the 60s there probably wasn't much to choose between them in the public mind as far as disreputableness went - and Mick at that time was the better known of the two. But by the time Mick was being considered for the knighthood, he had been successfully playing down his anti-establishment image for a long time, where Keith had been adding to his. What notoriety Mick still has these days is related to his womanising reputation, and the British establishment isn't as bothered by that as the News Of The World is.
I don't think Keith is jealous of the knighthood itself - although I think he might have enjoyed the opportunity to be offered one and to turn it down loudly and publicly! Since he didn't get the chance to do that, he had a go at Mick instead. As far as we know, Mick is the only Stone to have been offered the honour, and if it was specifically for "services to music" then I think that ignoring the rest of the band was unjust (all of the Beatles got OBE's). That suggests that he had been discreetly letting it be known in the right circles that he'd like to be a Sir, and that kind of canvassing and cosying up to the powers-that-be probably didn't sit well with Keith's somewhat biased view of the situation.
Keith, despite his essential Englishness, has been in practice either an American resident or a "citizen of the world" for much of the last thirty years. This might have been a factor in his not being offered an honour, as well as his spectacular reputation and his apparent indifference to getting one. Mick takes the trouble to read the papers and keep in touch, but Keith, like many exiles, probably has an outdated view of what the British social and political scene is like, and acts as if the Establishment that attempted to disgrace and jail the Stones in the 1960s is still alive and scheming forty years later. (If you read EddieByword's post, maybe it is....)
I dont know how they could conceivably enforce that, though.
Bowie turned down a CBE in 2000 and a knighthood in 2003 (although quite why he would have been offered a knighthood having earlier declined a 'lesser' honour is a bit of a mystery)
[www.bowiewonderworld.com]
Other stars who have turned down honours -
[articles.cnn.com] (this info comes from a leaked document, though)
I think Keith would just like the notoriety for image purposes of turning it down, anyway. I doubt anyone would have ever offered him one as he'd publicly made clear his comments on the whole business over the years, so the whole thing was a bit of a moot point. There was a bit of a fuss over Mick being awarded one - the Thames would have overflooded had Keith got one too due to the likes of the Daily Mail's staff collectively wetting their knickers.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-07 20:40 by Gazza.
Point well taken Stoneage and I was not trying to judge either. It is just that Mick has always been seen as more of the social climber, intellectual and the stuff from the past or the womanizing has not "stuck" to him in the same way as the drug thing has with Keith. I love them both!!
Well, with a user name like yours, you'd be the best authority on this!
I remember saying that at the time, MKJan. Very good point.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-08 02:55 by Gazza.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
sweetcharmedlife
()
Date: December 6, 2010 18:01
Without Adam and Eve,none of us would be here.Quote
Rolling HansieQuote
Edith Grove
>>Without Mick in his life, where would Keith be today?<<
Without each other, where would they be today?
Without each other, where would we be today?
"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
Edith Grove
()
Date: December 6, 2010 18:08
Quote
sweetcharmedlife
Without Adam and Eve,none of us would be here.
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
georgeV
()
Date: December 6, 2010 19:31
I actually think Mick's comment about Keith not be a happy person was pretty cutting. It goes beyond saying he was jealous about the Knighthood.
And, as if they would ever even consider knighting Keith due to his well documented history with drugs.
And, as if they would ever even consider knighting Keith due to his well documented history with drugs.
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: December 6, 2010 20:59
Well, George V, I don't think Sir Mick would withstand much more moral scrutiny than Keith: He has seven children with three different women, married twice; sentenced once for drug-related crimes, a known tax exile; doesn't believe in the institution of marriage; known for a promiscuous sexual life-style; has done no military service for his country, etc, etc... .
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: December 7, 2010 00:17
Quote
Stoneage
Well, George V, I don't think Sir Mick would withstand much more moral scrutiny than Keith: He has seven children with three different women, married twice; sentenced once for drug-related crimes, a known tax exile; doesn't believe in the institution of marriage; known for a promiscuous sexual life-style; has done no military service for his country, etc, etc... .
Stoneage: All the rest is true enough, but the younger Stones are not in any sense draft-dodgers. The compulsory two years of national military service was abolished for all British teenagers just in time for Mick, Keith, Brian and Charlie: Bill did do his simply because he was a few years older. Not having done any military service was an accident of timing, not deliberate avoidance.
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: December 7, 2010 00:40
National Service was abolished in the UK in 1960. As Green Lady correctly points out, the Stones (apart from Bill) were too young to be called up.
With regard to the knighthood, while I dont have a problem with someone being honoured by their country for outstanding service (and its the government who deals with the nomination, not, as some seem to think, the monarch), personally speaking I find the notion of entertainers being elevated to the same platform as the likes of Churchill, Montgomery etc a bit ludicrous and it's become some normalised now to the extent where the honour has become somewhat meaningless.
I dont see it as a class thing either (to me its no different in terms of status as a Legion d'Honneur or a Kennedy Centre award - its simply a pat on the back for distinguished achievement), and the notion of most people involved in the music industry in the 21st century rejecting it on the grounds that 'its not very rock n roll' or 'its against everything we stand for' is bordering on the nonsensical. The music industry hasnt been genuinely revolutionary for decades and the Stones certainly havent been - Mick pretty much made it apparent he wanted a knighthood, and with the right connections, he eventually got his wish. The Labour government gave honours around like confetti anyway (and it certainly helped if you made a sizeable donation) so knighthoods have become somewhat devalued in the last decade.
Anyway, as far as I'm aware Mick was the first (maybe still the only) person to be knighted exclusively for services to music. Those who preceded him, Elton, Macca, etc, were knighted primarily for charity work.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-07 00:41 by Gazza.
With regard to the knighthood, while I dont have a problem with someone being honoured by their country for outstanding service (and its the government who deals with the nomination, not, as some seem to think, the monarch), personally speaking I find the notion of entertainers being elevated to the same platform as the likes of Churchill, Montgomery etc a bit ludicrous and it's become some normalised now to the extent where the honour has become somewhat meaningless.
I dont see it as a class thing either (to me its no different in terms of status as a Legion d'Honneur or a Kennedy Centre award - its simply a pat on the back for distinguished achievement), and the notion of most people involved in the music industry in the 21st century rejecting it on the grounds that 'its not very rock n roll' or 'its against everything we stand for' is bordering on the nonsensical. The music industry hasnt been genuinely revolutionary for decades and the Stones certainly havent been - Mick pretty much made it apparent he wanted a knighthood, and with the right connections, he eventually got his wish. The Labour government gave honours around like confetti anyway (and it certainly helped if you made a sizeable donation) so knighthoods have become somewhat devalued in the last decade.
Anyway, as far as I'm aware Mick was the first (maybe still the only) person to be knighted exclusively for services to music. Those who preceded him, Elton, Macca, etc, were knighted primarily for charity work.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-07 00:41 by Gazza.
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 7, 2010 00:46
Quote
northernale1
Knighthood,, i agree with keith,, bullshit,, should have never accepted it,,
and anyone who he would if keith got the call he would accept,, to hell he would,,
keith is Rock & Roll ,, mick has become the & ,,
just like if the stones ended now,, keith would have a rock career,,
mick may be able to have a career as one of those mix and scratch DJs
I believe Keith 'WOULD HAVE' accepted it in a heartbeat IF he had been approached for it before Mick. Now that Mick's received it, and given his reaction, of course, he never would accept now.
The man is petty and has some serious man-love for Mick...it's a little icky.
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 7, 2010 00:52
Quote
Stoneage
Rockstar knighthood is an oxymoron. You can't pretend to rebell against society and then accept accolades from the same society. It simply looks ridiculous. I suppose next one in line is Johnny Rotten?
He rebelled against the post=War society/mentality of Britain...that has changed, he was successful in his participation in causing that change, so therefore, the knighthood makes sense.
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: December 7, 2010 01:03
Quote
riverrat
Mick and Keith are two totally different people. They have the same likes in music, both like to travel, but they have little else in common. People have said they are opposites.
Keith says sometimes he "misses his friend", but Mick is the same guy as in their younger days who just developed the same interests he always had. Maybe they weren't as noticable back then, but they were surely there. Keith acts like Mick is a totally different person, but he's really not.Quote
True, I don't get where Keith Mick changed. in that respect. The Stones, including Keith and Brian, were court jesters in the Swinging London, aristocratic set, distinguished guests to all these young heirs and heiresses....
Keith didn't have a problem with it then, mainly because that scene was drug-soaked and part of the new generation of English kids "rebelling" against the establishment. But the Ormsby-Gores, Guinesses were aristocrats, star-@#$%& the Stones. Jagger always loved those pretensions. Keith could probably have lived without it, he was the shy kid with a chip on his shoulder. So I don't think Keith is "jealous" of the knighthood, he likely sees it as an empty gesture rooted in the British class system. He would be correct - Im not British, but the idea of a Knighthood is slightly ludicrous. Mick loves the pretentions....Keith sees it as bullshit.
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: December 7, 2010 02:08
Doxa: I understand your point: The times are a changin, as Dylan said. You are always very eloquent. Perhaps the silly thing with Jagger's knighthood isn't the knighthood itself but the fact that he was really striving for it?
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: December 7, 2010 02:32
Thanks for the correction, Green Lady. I kind of knew that, I was just overstating my facts to make a point! The thing I was trying to say is that Keith certainly has lead a more self-destructive life than Mick but I wouldn't say a morally lesser life (than Mick).
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: December 7, 2010 02:51
Quote
DoxaQuote
Rolling HansieQuote
swiss
the "Keith vs Mick" talk is getting to be as boring as Woody vs Taylor threads...
Thank you. Now I know I am not the only one
Well, I guess you two can send your thank yous to Keith Richards for making this issue such a central one now.
- Doxa
HUH ? WHAT ? Keith Richards started a thread here on IORR Tell Me about that issue ? Oh darn, I missed that one. Which thread is it ? I did a search but I cannot find it. Please help.
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: December 7, 2010 02:53
Quote
sweetcharmedlifeWithout Adam and Eve,none of us would be here.Quote
Rolling HansieQuote
Edith Grove
>>Without Mick in his life, where would Keith be today?<<
Without each other, where would they be today?
Without each other, where would we be today?
Now that is what I call very philosofical
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
riverrat
()
Date: December 7, 2010 03:38
Charlie should most certainly be knighted. He deserves it, he's perfect for the role and he'd appreciate it.
Absolutely! How could a Rolling Stone stay married for that many years and apparently stay faithful?! That alone deserves some major character award. Charlie is one classy guy. He should definitely be knighted! Wonder if he'd like it....I bet he would...
Absolutely! How could a Rolling Stone stay married for that many years and apparently stay faithful?! That alone deserves some major character award. Charlie is one classy guy. He should definitely be knighted! Wonder if he'd like it....I bet he would...
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
northernale1
()
Date: December 7, 2010 03:55
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
northernale1
Knighthood,, i agree with keith,, bullshit,, should have never accepted it,,
and anyone who he would if keith got the call he would accept,, to hell he would,,
keith is Rock & Roll ,, mick has become the & ,,
just like if the stones ended now,, keith would have a rock career,,
mick may be able to have a career as one of those mix and scratch DJs
I believe Keith 'WOULD HAVE' accepted it in a heartbeat IF he had been approached for it before Mick. Now that Mick's received it, and given his reaction, of course, he never would accept now.
The man is petty and has some serious man-love for Mick...it's a little icky.
never ,, ever,, and there is nothing petty,, and there is no man love,, there is nothing after the failed attempt of MIcks to be a solo artist with sub par music,,
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
riverrat
()
Date: December 7, 2010 03:57
Without each other, where would they be today?
One can only speculate, of course, but I would expect that Mick would be rich, since he's hardworking, intelligent, and has that X-factor, is a great entertainer, has a great voice, and has an amazingly widespread appeal. However, he probably wouldn't be AS rich, because he's got the right chemistry with Keith. Keith is a man's man, and Mick is a woman's and a man's man! lol So Keith really balances Mick out, and is necessary, IMO, besides the great song-writing potential when they actually do work together.
Keith admits to not being hard-working. I'm not sure where Keith would be, but my guess is that he would not be as rich. Mick and Keith, born in the same hospital, found their destinies. So fortunately for us, we don't have to figure out the answer. But, Yes, they need each other to maximize their gifts.
Are you listening, boyz?!?!? Tomorrow....at that meeting......kiss and make up! Do it for your fans!!! (and the financial reward, of course...
>
<)
One can only speculate, of course, but I would expect that Mick would be rich, since he's hardworking, intelligent, and has that X-factor, is a great entertainer, has a great voice, and has an amazingly widespread appeal. However, he probably wouldn't be AS rich, because he's got the right chemistry with Keith. Keith is a man's man, and Mick is a woman's and a man's man! lol So Keith really balances Mick out, and is necessary, IMO, besides the great song-writing potential when they actually do work together.
Keith admits to not being hard-working. I'm not sure where Keith would be, but my guess is that he would not be as rich. Mick and Keith, born in the same hospital, found their destinies. So fortunately for us, we don't have to figure out the answer. But, Yes, they need each other to maximize their gifts.
Are you listening, boyz?!?!? Tomorrow....at that meeting......kiss and make up! Do it for your fans!!! (and the financial reward, of course...
><)Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: December 7, 2010 05:03
From what I've seen and heard him say Keith Ricahards seems to have a severe chip on his shoulder about the British establishment which it seems he carries to this day. He resents the fact that Mick Jagger has 'kow-towed' to that said establishment even though as Doxa pointed out things have changed a lot in Britain since the 60's (although I have to concede not always for the better by any means).Tony Blair who gave him the award used to play Stones covers with his own band in the 70's.(Again as Doxa said - fans in high places) The problem for me with Keith Richards point of view is that I fear that chip is born of delusion about his own self importance. Keith Richards has stated on many occaisions that the Establishment saw the Stones as a threat and tried to do for them but........ "The Stones are tough bas*%:ds and we had a couple of notables rooting for us, (William Rees Mogg et al). The Stones survived and the rest is history"........ This is as I've read and heard Keith Richards' take on events. Where is the delusion in this ? I suggest that if the Establishment had (Notwithstanding the hysteria whipped up by the News of the World) seriously considered The Rolling Stones to be any sort of significant threat then they would certainly have been dealt with, (One doesn't spend 6 years dealing with a threat like @#$%& and not learn a trick or two about disposing of undesirables efficiently), I suggest that if they'd been considered a serious problem they would have ended up somewhere like at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean in concrete coffins and now the likes of us would just be living our lives and might wonder; 'What did happen to that Keith Richards ?' (The lower authorities would draw a blank and in fact their obstensive lack of knowledge would be true as only a tiny amount of people would have been involved - think weopons inspector David Kelly & Princess Diana, 70% of British don't believe the official version about either of these.) I suggest the powers that be probaly did have 'a chat' about it and concluded that not only could this youthful rebellion be absorbed without too much disquiet but the department of trade and industry probaly suggested there was most likely a lot of money to be made and jobs to be created from it. (And of course they would have been right). Don't get me wrong, I'm no Monarchist and did laugh at Keith's comment about "Not letting that family near me with a big stick let alone a sword" but as I said I don't take too much of what he says about his "War" with the establishment to heart because I think his stating point is born of delusions of grandeur. With regard to the Establishment I believe Keith Richards survives by the grace of it and not as he believes in spite of it.
About Mick Jagger's acceptance of the knighthood I have wondered how he squares it with the lyrics of Saint of me......"They'll never make a saint out of me."....( but a knight....well...O.K....).....the only thing I could come up with was this...Contary to some comments earlier about a Knighthood being a ludicrous and empty gesture (Not a criticism of the author btw), a knighthood although recomended by the Government is at the pleasure of the Monarch, the Monarch is the head of many things in Britain including the Freemasons. The Freemasons open doors previously closed to even millionaire rock stars and afford protection to those who incur the Monarch's pleasure and their close relatives. (Unless some obviously abominable and indiscreet crime is committed, Jack the Ripper excepted of course). I'm not saying Mick Jagger is a Freemason although he may well be but you can be sure that as he is a Knight they will have his back. Mick Jagger knows he won't be here forever and the chances are his offspring will live on when he's gone, he'll be aware of benefits of being knighted especially with regard to his children and I'd bet anything he'll be far more comforted by that than any approval bestowed by Keith Richards with it's very limited implications.
Specifically, regarding the title of the thread, I don't think Keith Richards is jealous of Mick jagger's knighthood...rather I think he is enraged that Mick Jagger would rather declare himself a subject of the Queen than of Himself (ie. The true leader of the Rolling Stones and all they stand for - sic ) The impression that's been left on me by Keith Richards is one of a spurned and bitter lover rather than a coveter.
Having said all that......bring on the next Stones album 'cos they sure know how to get 'you' up and dancing...For what it's worth....EddieByword
Edited 13 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-07 13:36 by EddieByword.
About Mick Jagger's acceptance of the knighthood I have wondered how he squares it with the lyrics of Saint of me......"They'll never make a saint out of me."....( but a knight....well...O.K....).....the only thing I could come up with was this...Contary to some comments earlier about a Knighthood being a ludicrous and empty gesture (Not a criticism of the author btw), a knighthood although recomended by the Government is at the pleasure of the Monarch, the Monarch is the head of many things in Britain including the Freemasons. The Freemasons open doors previously closed to even millionaire rock stars and afford protection to those who incur the Monarch's pleasure and their close relatives. (Unless some obviously abominable and indiscreet crime is committed, Jack the Ripper excepted of course). I'm not saying Mick Jagger is a Freemason although he may well be but you can be sure that as he is a Knight they will have his back. Mick Jagger knows he won't be here forever and the chances are his offspring will live on when he's gone, he'll be aware of benefits of being knighted especially with regard to his children and I'd bet anything he'll be far more comforted by that than any approval bestowed by Keith Richards with it's very limited implications.
Specifically, regarding the title of the thread, I don't think Keith Richards is jealous of Mick jagger's knighthood...rather I think he is enraged that Mick Jagger would rather declare himself a subject of the Queen than of Himself (ie. The true leader of the Rolling Stones and all they stand for - sic ) The impression that's been left on me by Keith Richards is one of a spurned and bitter lover rather than a coveter.
Having said all that......bring on the next Stones album 'cos they sure know how to get 'you' up and dancing...For what it's worth....EddieByword
Edited 13 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-07 13:36 by EddieByword.
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: December 7, 2010 13:24
Quote
Stoneage
Thanks for the correction, Green Lady. I kind of knew that, I was just overstating my facts to make a point! The thing I was trying to say is that Keith certainly has lead a more self-destructive life than Mick but I wouldn't say a morally lesser life (than Mick).
In the 60s there probably wasn't much to choose between them in the public mind as far as disreputableness went - and Mick at that time was the better known of the two. But by the time Mick was being considered for the knighthood, he had been successfully playing down his anti-establishment image for a long time, where Keith had been adding to his. What notoriety Mick still has these days is related to his womanising reputation, and the British establishment isn't as bothered by that as the News Of The World is.
I don't think Keith is jealous of the knighthood itself - although I think he might have enjoyed the opportunity to be offered one and to turn it down loudly and publicly! Since he didn't get the chance to do that, he had a go at Mick instead. As far as we know, Mick is the only Stone to have been offered the honour, and if it was specifically for "services to music" then I think that ignoring the rest of the band was unjust (all of the Beatles got OBE's). That suggests that he had been discreetly letting it be known in the right circles that he'd like to be a Sir, and that kind of canvassing and cosying up to the powers-that-be probably didn't sit well with Keith's somewhat biased view of the situation.
Keith, despite his essential Englishness, has been in practice either an American resident or a "citizen of the world" for much of the last thirty years. This might have been a factor in his not being offered an honour, as well as his spectacular reputation and his apparent indifference to getting one. Mick takes the trouble to read the papers and keep in touch, but Keith, like many exiles, probably has an outdated view of what the British social and political scene is like, and acts as if the Establishment that attempted to disgrace and jail the Stones in the 1960s is still alive and scheming forty years later. (If you read EddieByword's post, maybe it is....)
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: December 7, 2010 13:42
>> although I think he might have enjoyed the opportunity to be offered one and to turn it down loudly and publicly! <<
isn't it part of the deal that one agrees not to ever mention it publicly if one turns down an offered knighthood?
not that Keith would necessarily go along with that - but i think an uneasy awareness
that someone might enjoy loudly and publicly refusing would also tend to discourage anyone from ever offering.
i too don't think Keith was/is jealous of the knighthood.
i agree with Green Lady that it was wrong to single out one Stone to honour for the whole band's accomplishments ...
but if it makes the Mick smile ... [sigh!] ... okay, i guess i'll allow it
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-07 21:01 by with sssoul.
isn't it part of the deal that one agrees not to ever mention it publicly if one turns down an offered knighthood?
not that Keith would necessarily go along with that - but i think an uneasy awareness
that someone might enjoy loudly and publicly refusing would also tend to discourage anyone from ever offering.
i too don't think Keith was/is jealous of the knighthood.
i agree with Green Lady that it was wrong to single out one Stone to honour for the whole band's accomplishments ...
but if it makes the Mick smile ... [sigh!] ... okay, i guess i'll allow it
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-07 21:01 by with sssoul.
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
cc
()
Date: December 7, 2010 20:27
was the rationale for mick's award really based on his "services to music," and specifically with the Stones? That really is absurd. I had assumed it was, at least on paper, for charity work/fundraising (probably the impetus for his starting up the Dartford Centre), and in reality, for celebrity.
his, and the band's, tax-dodging would be the thing to make the knighthood a bitter pill for me to swallow, were I British. Thanks, guys.
his, and the band's, tax-dodging would be the thing to make the knighthood a bitter pill for me to swallow, were I British. Thanks, guys.
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: December 7, 2010 20:37
Quote
with sssoul
>> although I think he might have enjoyed the opportunity to be offered one and to turn it down loudly and publicly! <<
isn't it part of the deal that one agrees not to ever mention it publicly if one turns down an offered knighthood?
not that Keith would necessarily go along with that - but i think an uneasy awareness
that someone might enjoy loudly and publicly refusing would also tend to discourage anyone from ever offering.
I dont know how they could conceivably enforce that, though.
Bowie turned down a CBE in 2000 and a knighthood in 2003 (although quite why he would have been offered a knighthood having earlier declined a 'lesser' honour is a bit of a mystery)
[www.bowiewonderworld.com]
Other stars who have turned down honours -
[articles.cnn.com] (this info comes from a leaked document, though)
I think Keith would just like the notoriety for image purposes of turning it down, anyway. I doubt anyone would have ever offered him one as he'd publicly made clear his comments on the whole business over the years, so the whole thing was a bit of a moot point. There was a bit of a fuss over Mick being awarded one - the Thames would have overflooded had Keith got one too due to the likes of the Daily Mail's staff collectively wetting their knickers.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-07 20:40 by Gazza.
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
The Sicilian
()
Date: December 7, 2010 20:44
Gazza still a Whig never a Tory.
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: December 7, 2010 20:52
>> I dont know how they could conceivably enforce that, though <<
either one is too cultivated to dream of disclosing something embarrassing to the crown,
or else they just splat ya :E
either one is too cultivated to dream of disclosing something embarrassing to the crown,
or else they just splat ya :E
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: December 7, 2010 20:54
Lock 'im in the Tower!
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
georgeV
()
Date: December 8, 2010 00:55
Quote
Stoneage
Thanks for the correction, Green Lady. I kind of knew that, I was just overstating my facts to make a point! The thing I was trying to say is that Keith certainly has lead a more self-destructive life than Mick but I wouldn't say a morally lesser life (than Mick).
Point well taken Stoneage and I was not trying to judge either. It is just that Mick has always been seen as more of the social climber, intellectual and the stuff from the past or the womanizing has not "stuck" to him in the same way as the drug thing has with Keith. I love them both!!
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: December 8, 2010 01:20
You are right, George V. The "bad boy" image hasn't wore off Keith as it has, to some extent, with Mick.
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: December 8, 2010 01:22
Quote
georgeV
I actually think Mick's comment about Keith not be a happy person was pretty cutting. It goes beyond saying he was jealous about the Knighthood.
And, as if they would ever even consider knighting Keith due to his well documented history with drugs.
Well, with a user name like yours, you'd be the best authority on this!
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: December 8, 2010 02:02
I was happy Mick got this if only for that great photo of his beaming dad at the ceremony.
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: December 8, 2010 02:18
Had the same feeling about that photo too, MKjan. Maybe he did this for his father? Well, bless his heart then!
Re: Mick's theory that Keith is jealous of his knighthood
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: December 8, 2010 02:25
Quote
MKjan
I was happy Mick got this if only for that great photo of his beaming dad at the ceremony.
I remember saying that at the time, MKJan. Very good point.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-08 02:55 by Gazza.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Aquamarine , BeastyBurdeny , chris girard , DGA35 , dishevelmentblues , emotionalbarbecue , HardRiffin , hockenheim95 , Irix , Nankstone , S.T.P , SonicDreamer , TheBluesHadaBaby
Guests:
1675
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10