Did Mr. Goodwin deserve to lose his knighthood? I sympathise with both sides of the argument. On the one hand, He received it for services to banking, which seems a little ironic since he subsequently steered RBS into the biggest banking crisis in British history. Then again, the move does seem petty, tardy and unnecessary. As one commentator said, it does rather look like the actions of a "lynch mob on the village green".
But why stop at the deknightation - a word I made up to fit the occasion - of Mr. Goodwin? If Fred deserved to lose his gong, there are other equally culpable banker-types who should suffer a similar fate. If Fred must be royally humiliated, lets go through the list of knighted financiers.
Why stop with Fred's gong? This knighthood wasn't the only award he received before RBS blew up. In December 2002, Forbes named him "Businessman of the Year", describing him as"an original thinker with a fast-forward frame of mind who had transformed RBS from a nonentity into a global name." For three years in a row - 2003 to 2006 – Scotland on Sunday's listed him number one in their Power 100. In December 2003, he was named "European Banker of the Year". He was also awarded an honorary doctor of Laws by the University of St Andrews and an honorary fellowship by the London Business School.
Should he not lose these illustrious titles? For what it is worth, I don't think so. He does us a belated and minor service by keeping them and reminding us how vain and unimpressive these awards are.
Returning to the lost knighthood, I have two questions; did he get a sword when the Queen knighted him? If so, does he now have to hand it back?