Sir Stephen Harris?

Re: Sir Steven Harris?

____no5 said:
I didn't mention Beatles as many don't consider them a rock band
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks the Beatles were not a rock band has their head so far up their ass that major surgery would be required to remove it. What the fuck else could they have been - a string quartet?!?!?
 
Re: Sir Steven Harris?

SinisterMinisterX said:
Anyone who thinks the Beatles were not a rock band has their head so far up their ass that major surgery would be required to remove it. What the fuck else could they have been - a string quartet?!?!?
Click to expand...

I don't know....regarding the first 5 albums one could say a pop band with rock elements
...anyway who needs definitions ? the Beatles were the Beatles, pioneers almost everywhere -and maybe just because of it is so difficult to be defined
 
"Pop" is not a style of music. "Pop" is a label that gets applied to music when it becomes popular. The Beatles played rock music, which can also be called pop music only because it was popular.
 
Deano said:
weren't Knights supposed to be defenders of the realm, slayers of dragons, etc. Again, just my possible misconception, I really don't know.
Click to expand...

Not really. Knights were a little more and a little less than that, if you understand what I mean. Classic knighthood was based on a superior -usually the king during the middle ages- granting a certain amount of land to a noble person, who would be in charge of it, govern it, and if necessary, defend it. This person was a knight, and he had almost full control over this land. In return, he was supposed to pay tribute to the king, and serve him as a councellor and a soldier. Our common image of the knight derives from the fact that knights were usually wealthy enough to afford a horse and a full body armour, thus usually forming the heavy cavalry in the king's forces. They were also free enough to go out adventuring or prove their manliness at tournaments, though in the strict sense, they were still servants to the king.
Knighthood was granted for outstanding service for king and country (although usually, knighthood was hereditary). When the military element of knighthood gradually became obsolete in the age of gunpowder, the focus shifted more on the element of being part of the king's council, which in Britain evolved into the Parliament, with the knights sitting in the House of Lords. More or less, this happened with all European countries, but of course, most monarchies got abolished, so in countries like Germany, nobles can barely distinguish themselves as being owners of great properties or being traditionally wealthy. The UK, however, has preserved this element of its political system, even if knighthood is not as privileged as it used to be.
 
Besides the UK:


There are several other subcategories to the Orders of Knighthood:

Orders of knighthood of Australia
Orders of knighthood of Austria
Orders of knighthood of Belgium
Catholic chivalric orders
Orders of knighthood of Denmark
Orders of knighthood of France
Orders of knighthood of Germany
Order of the Golden Fleece
Orders of knighthood of the Papacy
Knights Hospitaller
Orders of knighthood of Hungary
Orders of knighthood of Iceland
Livonian Order
Orders of knighthood of Luxembourg
Orders of knighthood of Malaysia
Military orders
Orders of knighthood of the Netherlands
Orders of knighthood of Norway
Orders of knighthood of Poland
Orders of knighthood of Portugal
Orders of knighthood of Russia
Orders of knighthood of Spain
Orders of knighthood of Sweden
Teutonic Knights


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:O ... knighthood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_knighthood

There are several subcategories within the subcategories.

E.g., taking my own country, The Netherlands. You'll see its pretty diverse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:O ... etherlands

Jus a few examples:

Winston Churchill is of the category "Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Dutch Lion"
Charles, Prince of Wales is of the category "Knights Grand Cross of the Order of Orange-Nassau"

Order of William:
The Military Order of William is the oldest and highest honour of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Order's motto is Voor Moed, Beleid en Trouw (For Conspicuous Bravery, Leadership and Loyalty). The chivalry order was established in 1815 by King William I and was presented for feats of bravery on the battlefield and as a meritorious decoration to senior military officers. Comparable with the French Légion d’Honneur but far less awarded, the Order of William is a chivalry order of merit open to everyone regardless of rank and nobility, and not only to Netherlands military but also foreigners. To date the Order is extremely rarely awarded and only for bravery in battle.

Two foreign military units received the Order of William:
The U.S. 82nd Airborne Division for gallantry at Nijmegen, during Operation Market Garden in 1944;
The Polish 1st Independent Parachute Brigade for gallantry at Arnhem, during Operation Market Garden in 1944.
edit: coming back to the subject -->

"..the list of honours"

A bit vague. What honours? Maybe all those other bands have been in this list for ages.
 
Perun, Forostar, thanks for the lesson. I knew it was not much more than a title nowadays and that it had a lot more to do with service to the monarch other than military. Very interesting stuff. Just wanted to mention something along the same lines but not completely on topic with this thread. I know that military service in many European countries is mandatory for a certain amount of time. In a discussion with a friend here in America yesterday, we were discussing the merits of implementing that policy here. I think it would be benificial as it instills a better sense of maturity and responsibilty into young people. Think I'll write my congressman and suggest this. ..... Kinda like Knighthood but without all of the financial benfits.  :)
 
Deano said:
In a discussion with a friend here in America yesterday, we were discussing the merits of implementing that policy here. I think it would be benificial as it instills a better sense of maturity and responsibilty into young people. Think I'll write my congressman and suggest this. ..... Kinda like Knighthood but without all of the financial benfits.  :)
Click to expand...

I agree to an extent. I am a conscientious objector, so according to German law, I had to do a civil service. And I am glad I did it, because during that year, I learned more about life than during the preceeding 14 years at school. It doesn't matter what you do, provided you do something. I know a few people who used every available trick to avoid both, and they are still quite immature.
 
That's great that you did that and it is exactly what I meant. Here in America, as I'm sure you have some inclination; many people don't do anything and become a burden or downright detriment to society. Military experience helps but so does being involved in any program that instills responsibility and a sense of self-worth.
 
Mexico has an military of peace which mostly deals with riots or rebellions like those in Chiapas and Oaxaca due to the fact that we don't have a "national guard" and we are a neutral country thus don't really have any enemies. We do, however, have obligatory military service of a year and the only thing that gets you off is being flat footed, having to use glasses or any other major disability. However 5 years ago they addes something akin to what Perun did, civil/social service. Teaching illiterate adults to read, teaching indigenous people Spanish and the like, thus that way more people could actually do something (like all the glass wearing flat-footed "disabled' people haha). I was exempted, because I still am studying abroad. I would have done civil service, not for being a conciencious objector (which I am), but because of my accident and my having to use glasses.
 
Well, well, well. I don't really have an opinion either way, but judging by the number of people who have signed the petition (788 or something) I think it very unlikely that 'Arry will receive an MBE (or whatever it's called). I have to say that what displeases me about this whole thing is how the individual is being raised above the music (which is what matters). Steve (much as he's a hero) didn't write all of Maiden's music himself. If Steve should be honored then so should the whole band. And that goes for McCartney and the Beatles as well, imo. Wait, maybe I do have an opinion after all?  ::)
 
Well, Steve wrote by far the most songs.

songs (co-)written by:

Steve: 120 (of which he wrote 57(!) by himself)
Bruce: 43
Adrian: 30
Janick: 28
Dave: 25
Blaze: 11
Nicko: 5
Paul: 4
Clive: 2

But he's a very modest guy, so he might not even feel comfortable with such a title.
 
unfortunately, i dont live in the uk.  (lucky you :devil2: )  if i did, though, hed have my vote.  unless im mistaken, ozzy osbourne is technically sir ozzy osbourne.  somebody sign, with me in mind.
 
Somehow, I find the thought of Sir Stephen Harris un-Maidenish and un-Steve-ish; I'm not even sure he'd accept such a title.
 
I don't know. He just seems to be such a modest guy that I just can't imagine him accepting such a title.
 
I don't find the stones so amazing.
The Beatles have been the biggest infulence in music since they began, to this day.
Lennon and Mcartney wrote the Stones' first single aswell - 'I wanna be your man'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top