In defence of Stanley Johnson’s knighthood

The news that Boris Johnson intends to give his father Stanley a knighthood fails to send me into an uncontrollable fury. I admit that I initially baulked at the appointment, but it now leaves me quite inert.

I cannot fathom, try as I might, the anger of professional uplifters and guardians of public morality who protest that a father cannot receive an honour from his son. A Prime Minister, or in this case a former one, is entitled to bestow honours, with certain caveats, on anyone he or she chooses.

There is a long history in this country of ennobling relatives. Our monarchs have been doing it for the past 500 years and are still at it today, raising sons or cousins to Earldoms and Dukedoms. Were the proposed honouree a proven scoundrel or the holder of a criminal record, there would be justifiable cause for complaint. But unless fathering Boris is now a criminal offence, and I concede there are many who think it should be one, honouring this 82-year-old seems unremarkable. Indeed, there is a sound argument that Stanley Johnson is one of his son’s more deserving and least controversial nominees. Far better to knight an amiable wrinkly than some vulgar celebrity or oligarch. Stanley, after all, has a long career of public service, and began grindstoning for the Tory party back in 1969. He has been an MEP and member of the European Commission, and is the author of works on the environment and a series of novels, one of which was turned into a film with the cream of British acting, including John Hurt. Stanley has also achieved something his son had never done; he has only had two wives and has succeeded in remaining married to the second since 1981. I admit I have a personal interest in his elevation. I’m fond of the old cove, and in the past he has paid me pretty compliments.

Moreover he cannot be accused of doing Boris any favours. It is well known that their relationship has been chequered, and that their politics has often diverged, particularly on Brexit. Stanley is a Remainer and has been loud and vocal in his views. He also cares about the environment more than his son, who, on one occasion while driving with me in the country, threw empty champagne bottles out of the car window. Stanley may be a champagne environmentalist, but at least he recycles.

As for charges of nepotism, they are palpably absurd. Better to be the beneficiary of historic patronage than a cog in the wheel of a dull meritocracy. The honours system has rarely operated on the principles of equity and social justice. But I am also for Stanley because of the puritans and bombastes furiosos who are against him. Left wing newspapers have described his inclusion on his son’s resignation honours list as ‘shameless’, ‘grotesque’ and ‘ridiculous’.

Listen to Sir Keir Starmer, who received his own knighthood aged a mere 52; he of the death mask face, the dark suit and the creepy barrister vowels. Sir Keir is essentially the man who opens the door of the Gothic mansion to the unsuspecting travellers seeking refuge from a storm who then find themselves in a novel by Edgar Allen Poe. The ranks of our knights need fewer Starmers and more Falstaffs. Stanley Johnson is definitely of the Falstaff variety, with a cheerful look and a pleasing eye. It is only in this country that family loyalty is derided, and one must either pretend to have no relatives or at best, to despise them. This is particularly true of elderly ones, which makes me think Stanley is a victim of ageism. It would be instructive to remember that our honours system is based on the hereditary principle. It seems, therefore, perfectly reasonable for a son to give his father a knighthood, and quite in keeping with Biblical teaching which says ‘honour thy father’. At any rate, ties of blood should not prevent a person from rising in the world. For once, both Johnsons emerge with their reputations intact.