Political analyst raps UK honours system as imperialistic

British political researcher and historian Peter Rushton has described the Queen’s yearly honours as an old habit of England’s ancient imperialistic rules, which are politically controversial.

In an interview with Press TV’s political program ‘The Monarchy’, Rushton said the history of the Queen’s honours could be categorized in two aspects.

“One aspect”, he said, ”is the military medals (the military honours) that everybody understands all the way round the world. People are given medals for bravery in battle for serving in particular military campaigns”.

“The other aspect though, really is this business of the word empire that comes in a lot in these medals”, he added.

Rushton explained that the Queen’s honours are “decorations and classifications” that date back as far as the Roman Empire and represents a statement for the honoured people that they are loyal to the rulers of that empire.

The historian also mentioned that the honours awarded to people on the higher part of the list are politically more controversial and they are connected to the right sort of political interests, including funding the British government.

Rushton’s opinion was followed by monarchy critic and Lyceum political Think Tank director Adrian Thurston, who said that the old tradition of a monarch honouring people was to award those who “contributed substantially to the culture and the tradition and the history and the wealth of this country [England].”

Thurston went onto explain that the honours system has been “perverted over the past 150 years and absolutely perverted in the past 40 years. It’s been politicized and the award of honours has been given deliberately to people who are really not worthy of these honours.”

Moreover, the Queen is expected to resist any attempts to end the use of imperial titles, in a move which proves her excessive interest in the UK’s imperialistic history.