Arise Sir John!

Former prime minister John Howard could be in line to join one of Britain's most prestigious orders.

Speculation is mounting that Mr Howard has been personally selected by Queen Elizabeth to receive the Order of the Garter, the most senior and oldest British Order of Chivalry.

A spokeswoman for Buckingham Palace refused to confirm or deny the speculation.

"We have made no announcements on that whatsoever and we wouldn't speculate on who is in line to receive one," she said.

"It's a great honour and a rare one."

Mr Howard will have to wait until April 23 to discover if the Queen has chosen anyone to receive the order this year.

If he is successful, the former prime minister will be invited to a special induction ceremony at Windsor Castle in June.

The Order of the Garter was founded by Edward III in 1348 and counts among its elite members 24 knights plus Royal knights.

Recipients of the Order are usually people who have held public office and "contributed in a particular way to national life or who have served the Sovereign personally", according to Buckingham Palace's website.

The death last month of New Zealand mountaineer Sir Edmund Hillary has created a vacancy in the Order, sparking speculation Mr Howard could be in line for the honour.

If chosen, Mr Howard would follow in the footsteps of former Australian governor-general Sir Ninian Stephen and former British prime ministers Winston Churchill, Baroness Thatcher and Sir John Major.

Each June, the Knights of the Garter meet at Windsor Castle and witness any new knights take the oath as they are invested with the insignia.

A spectacular lunch is hosted by the Queen before the knights, wearing long blue velvet robes and black velvet hats with white plumes, attend a service at the historic St George's Chapel.

Each of the knights are also required to display a banner of his arms in the Chapel, along with a helmet, crest and sword plus an enamelled stallplate.

When a knight dies, the items are taken down and the insignia returned to the Queen while the stallplates remain as a memorial.

AAP

A spectacular lunch is hosted by the Queen before the knights, wearing long blue velvet robes and black velvet hats with white plumes, attend a service at the historic St George's Chapel

Sounds like something Alexander Downer might enjoy .....

bodyline wrote:Former prime minister John Howard could be in line to join one of Britain's most prestigious orders.

I can just imagine the majestic man running around saying Ni

G.Wood wrote:

bodyline wrote:Former prime minister John Howard could be in line to join one of Britain's most prestigious orders.

I can just imagine the majest man running around saying Ni

Or Sorry.

From Dear John to sir John in just ten short weeks.

The Republic of Australia inches ever closer.....

Fred Nerk wrote:From Dear John to sir John in just ten short weeks.

The Republic of Australia inches ever closer.....

The little fecker can't call himself Sir John for gawd's sake can he, would he?

The Republic? It's a matter of whether group responsible for posing the question want it to happen.

Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't, personally I doubt it (at least not straight away), but you can bet your last Warnie stubbie-holder the Andrew Bolts and Piers Akkermanns and Bodylines of this world would make a point of it just for the sake of the child-like pleasure they get in being bloody irritating.

Sir John Howard of Kirribilli . . . has a nice ring to it.

Order of the Garter...bunch of old Torries wanking off at the Queen...perfect place for the little ******.

Turnbull wants a republic (I think - haven't checked lately) but he'll never darken the ARM's door again, J Bishop is also a member of ARM and will be the first to call security if she sees Mal approach the building, I gather most of the younger Libs are in favor, not sure about Nelson but who cares anyway - he'll be well gone by the time anything happens.

"Sir John Howard of Kirribilli . . . has a nice ring...."

I'll take your word for it.

....but you can bet your last Warnie stubbie-holder the Andrew Bolts and Piers Akkermanns and Bodylines of this world would make a point of it just for the sake of the child-like pleasure they get in being bloody irritating.....


What happened to freedom of speech? You're turning into a cyber subi.

HTF is this a 'freedom of speech' issue?

It might nto be such a bad thing. It may mean the lying little rodent is tucked away in some backroom in London for substantial periods of time. Meaning we won't have to put up with him bleating about how things were better under him, and I don't think those days are too far off...

Fred Nerk wrote:HTF is this a 'freedom of speech' issue?

spoken like a cyber-subi ...

Zat wrote:It might nto be such a bad thing. It may mean the lying little rodent is tucked away in some backroom in London for substantial periods of time. Meaning we won't have to put up with him bleating about how things were better under him, and I don't think those days are too far off...

...as opposed to the Krudd/Goose bleatings that it's all Howard's and Costello's fault (unless it's good news)

Don't suppose there's any chance of Capital Hill becoming an extraordinarily active volcano during the opening of parliament tomorrow?

embee wrote:

Zat wrote:It might nto be such a bad thing. It may mean the lying little rodent is tucked away in some backroom in London for substantial periods of time. Meaning we won't have to put up with him bleating about how things were better under him, and I don't think those days are too far off...

...as opposed to the Krudd/Goose bleatings that it's all Howard's and Costello's fault (unless it's good news)

............ & it's feckin time for it to stop & talk in absolute terms about how they intend to stem the dark forces.

tac wrote:Sir John Howard of Kirribilli . . . has a nice ring to it.

Huzzah.

Whereas Howard stopped blaming Keating, when?

By my calculations, if if was any time after about 18 May 1996, your bleat above is shot to hell.

And I'm still waiting to hear how my post on the last page violated anybody's freedom of speech.

Fred Nerk wrote:Whereas Howard stopped blaming Keating, when?

By my calculations, if if was any time after about 18 May 1996, your bleat above is shot to hell.

It's SOP for any new govt ...I just wish they'd get on with fixing the problem rather than telling us whose fault it is ...

Sage.

Fark me, torries sook almost as good as subis.

Fred Nerk wrote:Whereas Howard stopped blaming Keating, when?

By my calculations, if if was any time after about 18 May 1996, your bleat above is shot to hell.

If you're talking to me Fred then I say "shut up and get on with it" because I believe most reasonable punters have all had a gutfull of blame gaming. They know that whatever "problems" exist today weren't created yesterday. Fill the sound bites with something constructive.

skully wrote:

tac wrote:Sir John Howard of Kirribilli . . . has a nice ring to it.

Huzzah.

You gotta stop pouring tequila on your breakfast cereal skull