UKH

Capt Tom has received a knighthood. For somebody who has done more than all the shallow "celebrities" put together to boost the morale of the nation at this awful time it is an honour richly deserved.

In reply to mypyrex:

I don't begrudge him the knighthood but I do think his sainthood has been rather overplayed. He got sponsored to walk around his garden a few times and because he's old and a veteran, people seized on it and it "went viral". He didn't actually do anything more deserving of recognition than millions of others who have collected sponsorship for charity, the stars just aligned for it to take off in a big way at a time when people were looking for good news and feeling patriotic.

All credit to him. He did a good thing for a good cause. But I'm not sure the way he became a figurehead for the whole country necessarily makes him extraordinarily virtuous. He's just a genial veteran.

But give him a knighthood if it keeps the country feeling good about itself. His basic human decency certainly sets him apart from many who've received knighthoods for being rich and powerful rather than particularly well-endowed with moral character.

In reply to Luke90:

I understand what you say but I can only reiterate that if he's lifted the spirits of so many people, not just in this country but around the world, then it's well deserved.

In reply to Luke90:

I think it's great he's been recognised in this way, and more deserving than many others, but I agree that there will be many, many people who have put in a lifetime of service without getting this level of publicity.

Congratulations to him though! 

In reply to mypyrex:

Bread and circuses 

In reply to Luke90:

Agreed and I imagine he's the type who is very embarrassed by it.

In reply to mypyrex:

Fair play to Captain/Colonel/Sir Tom but Boris is running out of distractions from the omni-shambles he's (nominally) in charge of, I'm sure Sir Tom will be promoted to a member of the royal family when the next cock up is revealed,

In reply to mypyrex:

I'm not sure why you dismiss all 'celebrities ' with the same broad brush ? After all, Captain Tom only achieved what he achieved during the crisis simply because he became a celebrity. 

In reply to GrahamD:

I think I referred to "all the shallow celebrities" rather than "all celebrities"

In reply to mypyrex:

'shallow celebrities' - I think if you look at it dispassionately there's surprisingly few of those. 

In reply to nikoid:

I think he wanted to be the second Sir Thomas Moore, after the Chancellor to Henry VIII, and that is the reason he got it.   Good for him.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Isn't the definition of a celebrity more or less "someone who is famous for being famous". By that definition all celebrity is shallow. If they have actually done anything of substance to become famous, they are not a celebrity.

Edit: Thinking about this a bit more, a person might have done something of substance but their fame might then have mushroomed entirely out of proportion. In which case they could be said to be, say, 90% celebrity and only 10% substance.

In reply to David Riley:

Very strange reasoning here.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I would argue that as soon as you are in national media, you are a 'celebrity' whatever else you have done or not done.

In reply to mypyrex:

Why single out shallow celebrities as opposed to anyone else ?

In reply to GravitySucks:

Yup, very much deserved on his part. However it continues to normalise the view that the NHS is a charity to be funded by donations. The vast majority have already done that via taxation.

In reply to Robert Durran: No.

In reply to The New NickB:

He muttered Sir Thomas Moore to himself with a bit of a giggle in an early interview.  I'm sure that's what he was thinking.   Wouldn't you though ?   If you spent a lifetime hearing of one of the best known historical figures, Sir New NickB,  and people making jokes about it,  laugh about the idea of getting knighted yourself ?

I bet he loves it.

In reply to wbo2:

So how would you distinguish between the sort of fame that, say, Nelson Mandela had and the sort of fame that Jade Goodey had? I would argue that for one it was about 10% celebrity and for the other about 90% celebrity. I think the word "celebrity" is just a way of distinguishing the fame of a person generated by the media for media's sake from fame due to a person's actual substance. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Looking at your edit - would that be the person's fault, and should it diminish their achievements? Elizabeth Taylor and Grace Kelly were solid talented Oscar winning actresses but it seems that by your reckoning, they became "celebrities" and therefore deserving of mypyrex's accusation of shallowness. 

In reply to Luke90:

100% agreed. 
 

In reply to Luke90:

I will not mention Captain Sir Tom (I don't dare for fear of getting my head bitten off)

But I will mention who I am grateful for - I am grateful to those who donated their own money. And also / in addition, talking about celebrities and the wealthy, some of them have donated a lot of money

In reply to Blue Straggler:

No, of course it should not diminish their achievements. I am just saying that only some of their fame reflects their achievements and that the rest is mere celebrity. The proportions of substance and celebrity in people's fame will vary. In my other post I gave Nelson Mandela and Jade Goodey as fairly extreme examples at opposite ends of the spectrum.

In reply to Robert Durran:

OK, if Taylor and Kelly's achievements are not diminished, do you think of them as "celebrities" (famed for glamour and marriage(s) ) or as actresses? 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Both. Maybe in roughly equal proportion. Even Nelson Mandela had an element of celebrity in his status. There are, of course, other actresses whose fame is mostly celebrity rather than a reflection of their actual acting achievements.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Marilyn Monroe? Where does she fit on your spectrum? (no sniggering at the back.)

In reply to :

I believe that this is nothing more than yet another smokescreen that Bojo has come up with in order to produce a good PR moment. This is so that questioning his abominably incompetent stewardship of the country will, for a short period at least, be put on the back burner. Meanwhile he will bask in the reflected glory of someone who outshines him in just about every way possible.

There's also the worry that with the Queen and Captain Tom meeting for the investiture, both of whom have been in isolation due their exceedingly advanced age, an infection of CV-19 may occur from one of the many people who would be involved. Does anyone really want both of their lives to be put in jeopardy ?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I'm not sure how good an actress she really was. Maybe 30% substance, 70% celebrity?

In reply to Robert Durran:

I'm sorry but I don't get that at all - look at the following celebrities:

Tom Cruise - famous for making loads of good movies, and being a great actor

Michael Jordan - famous for being so good at basketball, + winning so often

Elvis Presley - famous for being such a great singer, + loads of number 1 hits

These 3 aren't "famous for being famous" - they're famous for their achievements - lots of substance, or am I missing something, anyway I'm not trying to argue with you!

In reply to profitofdoom:

Yes, you are missing something. I am saying that it is possible to have a substance component of fame AND a celebrity component. I have had a stab at the relative proportions for a few people. Note that these have not been absolute measures which can be compared with others. For instance, to take a footballing example, David Beckham might be 30% substance and 70% celebrity while Paul Scholes might be 90% substance and 10% celebrity, but this does not mean that Scholes had three times more substance as a footballer than Beckham. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

I see, and thanks, Robert