Should Roald Dahl be given a posthumous knighthood?

I also don't agree with knighting a dead person. Makes absolutely no difference to anything. Why don't we just knight shakespeare as well whilst we are at it...
 
I say yes he wrote some amazing books which I grew up reading and which kids still continue to enjoy now .. wether he's alive or dead makes no difference to the excellence of his work he was a fantastic author.
 
Basically YES YES YES YES YES YES! Best author for adults and children of the 20th century. Doesnt matter if hes dead, id happily change a bank holiday to Roald Dahl day as i think that highly of his books :D
 
Dahl always felt that comments he made about Jews prevented him from receiving a knighthood.

Although talking specifically about Israel he said:

"we all started hating Jews" and

"There's a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity . . . I mean there is always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason."

also:

shortly before his death in 1990 he admitted to the British newspaper The Independent that he had become anti-Semitic, not just anti-Israel.
source:
http://en.allexperts.com/e/r/ro/roald_dahl.htm
 
While I'm a fan of much of Roald Dahl's work I'm not sure he should be posthumously knighted, although I can think of some people who've arguably done less and been knighted I don't think it is particularly persuasive that he should be knighted on that basis.
 
bakes0310 said:
Dead since when i loved his books when i was a kid, James And The Giant Peach, The ****s, The BFG just to name a few:(
Click to expand...

Pretty sure you've misspelt something there!

I'd say his contribution to children's books warrants it. The question is more whether we should knight dead people.
 
Ricochet J said:
I'll remember that next time you become worthy of something.
Click to expand...
Look what you've just done did! You've invalidated the point of your own thread! :rolleyes:

I can't quite understand the point in knighting some one after they've died.

Despite the fact that a knighthood only means as much as the receiver values it, I just see no sense in doing this.

If some one hasn't been knighted while they're alive, then end of.

They're dead, but they've got their legacy, knighthoods don't mean much anyway in my opinion.

People should also be given the choice whether to accept or not too, if he were still alive now, he may not agree with getting a knighthood anyway.

Don't give knighthoods to people who aren't able to decide if they want them or not.
 
kylew said:
People should also be given the choice whether to accept or not too, if he were still alive now, he may not agree with getting a knighthood anyway.

Don't give knighthoods to people who aren't able to decide if they want them or not.
Click to expand...

Having read some of the link above that footman provided it would seem that he was rather keen on getting a knighthood but I would generally agree. However it also raises questions about whether posthumous pardons should be granted as well perhaps since by definition the person isn't alive to benefit from it.
 
semi-pro waster said:
Having read some of the link above that footman provided it would seem that he was rather keen on getting a knighthood but I would generally agree. However it also raises questions about whether posthumous pardons should be granted as well perhaps since by definition the person isn't alive to benefit from it.
Click to expand...

I would think that a pardon would be in a different category really, the family of the deceased would (so I suspect) still be alive and would benefit from a pardon of some sort.
 
kylew said:
I would think that a pardon would be in a different category really, the family of the deceased would (so I suspect) still be alive and would benefit from a pardon of some sort.
Click to expand...

Possibly but then again why do the family benefit more from a pardon than they do from a knighthood? It's largely an issue of formalities either way, I'm not decided on the question but it's interesting to think about.
 
semi-pro waster said:
Possibly but then again why do the family benefit more from a pardon than they do from a knighthood? It's largely an issue of formalities either way, I'm not decided on the question but it's interesting to think about.
Click to expand...

I would make a distinction between some one being accused of something that would potentially disgrace their name and their family, then being pardoned, and being given a knighthood post death.

Being acquitted of something terrible and given a knighthood are two wildly different things in my mind.
 
Whilst I think that he deserved one, he's dead now so I don't really see the point, it's not as if it's an inheritable title.
 
semi-pro waster said:
While I'm a fan of much of Roald Dahl's work I'm not sure he should be posthumously knighted, although I can think of some people who've arguably done less and been knighted I don't think it is particularly persuasive that he should be knighted on that basis.
Click to expand...

Quoted as it was exactly what I was going to type.
 
I haven't read every post but Roald Dahl was not English so therefore doesn't qualify for a Knighthood.

However I did meet him on a few occasions as I lived in the same small town as him and he was always lovely to us children and allowed us to use his swimming pool with him acting as lifeguard!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom