A curious email offering to help 'upgrade' a royal honour has cast a new light on the age-old controversy surrounding the UK's honours system, echoing a scandal from a century past.
The Modern-Day 'Upgrade' Offer
One Guardian reader, who wishes to remain anonymous, recently received an unsolicited email proposing assistance in attaining a royal honour. Intrigued, the reader provided evidence of having received a CBE nearly two decades ago. The response was startlingly direct: "Looking closer I see your CBE was awarded nearly 20 years ago, so surely you deserve an upgrade. If you are interested, we would be delighted to assist." The reader chose not to pursue the offer.
This communication arrived just as the newspaper published a piece by Stephen Bates detailing the historical activities of Arthur Maundy Gregory, who was infamous for his role in selling honours in the early 20th century. The timing highlighted enduring public fascination and scepticism about how such accolades are obtained.
A Radical Proposal for Equitable Sales
In response to this modern intrigue, another reader, Dr Orest Mulka from Snarestone, Leicestershire, has put forward a provocative suggestion. Noting the current Labour government's need for public funds, Dr Mulka proposes a return to selling honours—but with a distinctly equitable twist.
His model would tie the cost of an honour directly to an individual's wealth. For instance, an MBE could be purchased for 1% of one's total wealth, while a knighthood might cost 10%. Crucially, all proceeds would be directed towards supporting the NHS and helping people in poverty. As Dr Mulka wryly notes, such a system would also allow more members of the public to meet the royal family.
Echoes of History and Future Implications
The juxtaposition of a contemporary 'upgrade' offer and a satirical yet serious proposal for reform underscores the persistent debates around transparency, merit, and privilege within the British honours system. While the anonymous offer highlights a potentially exploitative commercial interest in titles, Dr Mulka's idea frames the concept as a potential tool for socialist wealth redistribution and public good.
These letters, published in The Guardian, invite reflection on whether the system's integrity can withstand modern pressures and creative, if controversial, ideas for its future. The discussion continues to intertwine monarchy, political funding, and social equity in a uniquely British conversation.
