Not sure the law still applies but in my reading about the Plantagenets and Tudors, monarchs were quite fond of "Attainder", whereby they could strip a title and/or lands and/or property from someone guilty of a crime that "tainted" that title (it was usually treason but not exclusively so) and give it to someone else (or keep it).

We still have a monarch ... so come on Brenda, shift yerself ...

That's what you call style.
Five times ... but still they thought they could tempt him, eh?

In fairness though it was never suggested Lowry had anything against the honours system or the awards in principle. The only thing I can find is an explanation attributed by his "friend and fellow artist Harold Riley": Quote:... explained the painter did not have “anything against the system”. He said: “He indicated he didn’t wish to change his situation by something being latched on to him.” Speaking after the list was revealed Riley said Lowry was a “very private person” and may have wanted to protect his privacy. BBC article

In fairness though it was never suggested Lowry had anything against the honours system or the awards in principle. The only thing I can find is an explanation attributed by his "friend and fellow artist Harold Riley": Quote:... explained the painter did not have “anything against the system”. He said: “He indicated he didn’t wish to change his situation by something being latched on to him.” Speaking after the list was revealed Riley said Lowry was a “very private person” and may have wanted to protect his privacy. BBC article

I was thinking more along the lines of receiving one (in absentia of course) and then doing a "Senior"

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:In fairness though it was never suggested Lowry had anything against the honours system or the awards in principle. The only thing I can find is an explanation attributed by his "friend and fellow artist Harold Riley": BBC article Yes, he's always been quoted as saying that "he didn't want to change his position", not that he said that publically of course, the list of those who have refused honours (and who are now dead) was only released a few weeks ago after a Freedom of Information request http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/26/roald-dahl-cs-lewis-writers-refused-honours

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:In fairness though it was never suggested Lowry had anything against the honours system or the awards in principle. The only thing I can find is an explanation attributed by his "friend and fellow artist Harold Riley": BBC article Yes, he's always been quoted as saying that "he didn't want to change his position", not that he said that publically of course, the list of those who have refused honours (and who are now dead) was only released a few weeks ago after a Freedom of Information request http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/26/roald-dahl-cs-lewis-writers-refused-honours

1955, 1961, 1968, 1972, 1976

I just like the idea of The Queen sitting there trying to up the stakes each time, "Well the little turd wouldn't have an OBE, or a CBE, bung him a knighthood this time, I bet the little shit won't turn that down..."

And then trying twice with a Companion of Honour

That depends if you consider it simply a prize or something more which elects you to a kind of institution. I think it is the latter and that being a convicted of a serious criminal offence should put your membership of that institution in doubt regardless of why you got to join the club in the first place.

It's just an Honours list, no more, no less. It is of course an establishment award, and I'd agree that if you refuse to be or be seen as part of that establishment, then refuse.

I also don't dispute that being convicted of a serious criminal offence should bring your award into question, on the contrary, it is entirely reasonable that it should. Where we seem to differ is you seem to think Piggott should have expected to be automatically stripped of his OBE as he was jailed for a fair stretch, whereas I say that given his offence had nothing at all to do with what he was honoured for, they should have let him keep it.

The issue is simple and very clear cut, though. If you accept that the decision is discretionary, dependant on the facts of the case, then it becomes a simple and uncomplicated question: Would Piggott retaining his OBE have brought the honours system into disrepute?

To my mind, the answer to this question is a very clear "no".

In the case of Goodwin, the exercse of that discretion seems perfectly clear. I don't know why the issue of "no conviction" even arose with him (and isn't he a lucky boy) but if he is not a man who has been "censured, struck off etc by the relevant professional or other regulatory authority for action or inaction which was directly relevant to the granting of the honours" - then who is?