"IS DAVID Beckham worthy of a knighthood?" asked a Radio 5 phone-in a few weeks ago. There was something bizarre about the ensuing debate that took me a while to work out. Then I realised: some thought him fitting of the Sir moniker; others did not – but only because of his footballing ability. Beckham isn’t fit to lace the boots of Sir Stanley or Sir Bobby, went the detractors. But all appeared united on one thing: as a man, he was entirely deserving of the honour.
Why does Beckham shuold be placed on the same lofty pedestal as Isaac Newton, Christopher Wren and Laurence Olivier? His supporters listed a few of his virtues: he seems to love his children; his forays into the land of moisturiser and sarongs have subverted the macho culture of football; he mouths a few platitudes about charity. In short, the Radio 5 listeners said, “he’s a good role model”.
Beckham is not the most reproachful human being on the planet. But my argument against his case for a knighthood – notwithstanding reservations about the merits of an honours system overseen by an unelected head of state in the first place – is simple. Beckham, as we saw at his wedding, is one of the world’s most conspicuous consumers. This debate comes at a time when even Tony Blair has said that the scientific evidence of global warming is "overwhelming" and its consequences would be "disastrous". If we don’t get our act together, in forty years, our offspring will look at the water lapping round their feet and say: “Sir David? They really did have their heads rammed in the sand.”