Post by p***@hotmail.comOne should remember that during the Vietnam War, many tens of thousands
of men avoided military service by continuing their advanced higher
education. The effect of this was that the US had very large numbers of
men with doctoral degrees of every type, many of whom sought careers in
the universities. I suppose that if the UK had a draft policy similar
to the US, most every lecture that you attended would have been given
by a holder of a doctoral degree.
So one should consider that the majority of Professor Doctors were draft
dodgers? I would point out that the UK did have "national service" until 1960
and that British servicement post WWII were engaged in the occupation of Germany
and Austria, in India, Burma, what is now Pakistan and Ceylon (Sir Lianka), with
the British Mandate authority in Palestine, in the Korean War, the Malaysian
insurgency, the Aden rebellion and various actions in both West and East Africa.
I do not believe this led to any explosion in the number of grants of PhDs.
In my own experience of the holders of PhDs, there is a vast (and I mean really
vast) difference in the quality of the doctorate granted depending on the
institution which awarded it. I have interviewed a number of holders of Phds in
the fine arts who have written their theses on European paintings or sculpture
over the years and have been amazed at the astonishing ignorance displayed of
the discipline (history of art) in which the doctorate was awarded. While my
survey was completely unscientific, the differences between PhDs in any history
of art subjects awarded by most US universities (with the notable exception of
perhaps half a dozen universities such as Harvard, NY University Institute of
Fine Arts, and Columbia), and those awarded by the handful of UK institutions
which award PhDs in the history of art, suggests very different levels of
knowledge. While the US students knew very well the actual subject of their PhD
thesis, they were surprisingly poorly educated in the general subject of
European art.
This may be a peculiarity of the study of history of art and may not apply in
other disciplines; however I suspect that the relative quality of PhDs does
depend considerably on the institution which awards them. But is it really
necessary for those with advanced degrees to insist upon their use, whichever
institution awarded the degree or distinction? I know of several individuals who
are regulars on this forum and hold such advanced degrees but I do not see them
demanding any special form of address.
I have never thought that anyone holding a PhD should be given some special
respect when the subject on which they are writing is different from that of
their PhD thesis. As I recall from the time when Professor Dr Lindgren wrote a
series of ad hominem attacks on me on this forum, he referred then to his PhD
and it was not granted for any study of heraldry, particularly of Portuguese
heraldry.
Why should polite questions regarding the details of his awards not be
explained, since he was the one who volunteered the initial information here?
Why should the Portuguese questioner not be given a courteous public response to
his politely framed questions? I know very little about Portuguese heraldry and
the authority of the Crown, of royal institutions or of their post 1910
survivors to regulate arms and was reading this debate with considerable
interest for that very reason. I do not know of any other examples of the heads
of non-reigning houses granting arms, other than the special distinction granted
by the late Prince Rainier of the Two Sicilies (as claimant to the headship of
that House) to the late Achille Di Lorenzo. King Umberto II of Italy granted
arms along with new titles, but that practice ended with his death. Perhaps
Grand Dukes Kyrill and Wladimir of Russia granted arms with the handful of
titles thbey conferred, I do not know.
If Dom Duarte does not want these matters discussed (as Mr pritchard avers) then
perhaps he should ask the recipients not to publish them and request that they
keep their diplomas, etc, as confidential, private documents, whose existence
should remain such; it is not the responsibility of the participants on any
internet forum to agree to silence when publicity to the grant is given by the
recipient either here, on a personal web site, or any other register (such as
the Burke's Armorial register). Someone who publishes their achievements -
armorial or otherwise - can expect questions or comments. Why should these be
such a huge problem?
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
