Jump to content

Knight Commander Bill Gates

Dude_Doc
 Share

Recommended Posts

EWS

EWS

Posted
Posted

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/01/25/knighthood.gates/index.html

Pretty funny. Gates name is now Bill Gates Knight Commander of the British Empire.

It is still funny... I mean, he is an American, how come British knighthood can apply to it's "previous" colonies? I mean, after the revolution and all that?

It's a shame then that America isn't a former British colony.  It is an honourary knighthood and so can be given to anybody the Queen wishes.  I think the guy deserves it, I mean what exactly has he done wrong?  In my eyes he really is a genius and has done so much for our world that without him we would be in quite a pickle.  It's not as if he is getting paid anymore now is it?

Mahdi

Mahdi

Posted
Posted

I'm pretty sure it's illegal for an American to accept a title like that.

But, I guess when you've got like $80 billion dollars that doesn't mean much.

Mahdi

Mahdi

Posted
Posted

If you call a person the World's potato protector it won't change a thing. I fail to see how a Knight title is relevant anymore.

It may have no power but I'm pretty sure it's against American law to accept a title like that.

Scrinlord

Scrinlord

Posted
Posted

No, its not against American law.  It is an honorary title, but that is all it is, a title.  No one HAS to call him a knight, and he does not have to swear fealty to the queen.  THAT would be against the law, but as it is, it is just an honor.(And a cool one at that.  I wish I could be knighted  :D )

Mahdi

Mahdi

Posted
Posted

Ok.  I had been under the impression that all noble titles were outlawed in the states, as it violated the "classless society" and "all men are created equal except people who arn't white, (they're only 1/3 human) and woman" constitutional ideals.

Scrinlord

Scrinlord

Posted
Posted

lol, no not really.  It would be illigal for him to be a knight in the "real" sense of the word ,because then he would have duel loyalties, which is not allowed, but he can accept an honary title, I believe.

Acriku

Acriku

Posted
Posted

It is unconstitutional for officials to have titles of nobility, where it is law to call them as such. This is not such a case. Also, he's been donating millions of dollars to Africa to get rid of AIDS. I think that merits an honorary title.

Mahdi

Mahdi

Posted
Posted

It is unconstitutional for officials to have titles of nobility, where it is law to call them as such. This is not such a case. Also, he's been donating millions of dollars to Africa to get rid of AIDS. I think that merits an honorary title.

Officials?  By that, do you mean civil servants?

I wasn't questioning whether or not he deserved it, I sjut didn't think he was allowed to have it:)

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

I wish his fortunes to be similar to those of his fellow aristocrat, Nicholas II Romanov. ;)

Ok.  I had been under the impression that all noble titles were outlawed in the states...

Nope. They just call them "businessmen", "entrepreneurs", "CEO's", etc. And every four years, the nobles get to appoint a new king.

...as it violated the "classless society"...

That's the COMMUNIST ideal, silly. You know - one of those evil commie things (such as equality, freedom, civil rights, etc.) that True American Patriots like the good senator Joseph McCarthy have fought so hard against.

Mahdi

Mahdi

Posted
Posted

Edric, lay off, we arn't trying to start another capitalist/communist thread.  If you want to talk about that, go post in one of the thousand other threads in this forum dedicated to that.  You know what I meant.

nemafakei

nemafakei

Posted
Posted

Interesting. A Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empireis the second-lowest ranked specific form of knight (above Knights Bachelors and below Knights Commanders of the Royal Victorian Order). Other than knights, he ranks immediately above Serjeants at Law, County Court judges, and Masters in Lunacy, and Companions of the Bath. This excludes the extra ranks available in Scotland.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

Oh come on Mahdi, surely you see where I'm coming from: An uber-rich capitalist gets an aristocratic title... giving communists TWO reasons to despise him... :)

And besides, it was all in the spirit of political humour, you grumpy anti-gobist insurgent! ;)

EWS

EWS

Posted
Posted

I say welcome to the big man.  I think he is a legend, and the things he has done for this world are brilliant.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

Yes, Bill Gates has certainly made great contributions to the world. But have you considered the cost? How many possible innovations were squashed by the Microsoft monopoly? How many brilliant minds are being used for making profits instead of being free to benefit Humanity with their intellect? Bill Gates has donated to charity, but how much money has he taken AWAY from the poor in order to accumulate his immense fortune? (money represents a percentage of the world's total wealth - in order for some to have more, others must have less)

Acriku

Acriku

Posted
Posted

Mahdi, I just said that Bill Gates was allowed to take such a title. And then I gave my opinion as to whether or not he deserved it.

Edric, you cannot be serious. You're purely speculating. And money given to the Microsoft Corp. wasn't given at the cost of poor people having that money! If the people didn't have Microsoft Corp. to buy their software from, do you think they'd go to the local charity? Hell no. They'd buy their software from somewhere else. You're trying to undermine his contributions by speculating at what could have been done with so much money Microsoft Corp. obtained, and that's insane.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

Edric, you cannot be serious. You're purely speculating.

Of course I'm purely speculating. But so is anyone who claims that Bill Gates or Microsoft has been a great contribution to the world, without considering the costs. And when I say "costs", I'm not only talking about what might have happened if Microsoft didn't exist - I'm talking about the direct negative influence of Microsoft on the software industry. The ideas they have stolen, the companies they have bought and diverted from their original course, the rabid prosecution of everyone they don't like, the overwhelming power to squash all competition and innovation.

Saying that Bill Gates has been purely a force for good means closing your eyes to a lot of things.

SurlyPIG

SurlyPIG

Posted
Posted

The cost is nothing more than that the money is in his pockets instead of spread around various other software companies.  As a supporter of fair trade and the protection on invention, *I* don't like it but I don't see why it would bother you.  It's probably better off in his hands than lots of other big-business types.  He'll actually give it all away to charity over the course of his life, and there are a lot of people out there who wouldn't.  He's not THAT bad a guy compared to a lot in his kind of position.  He's a genius when it comes to business, but that's not a knight-able deed IMO.  On the other hand, personally donating literally billions to charitable organizations is.  I think you just don't like to see that sort of thing coming from the type of man your political views tell you is completely selfish and does nothing that isn't for himself.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.