Individual no sporting hero and others you mention fall into any award situation with myself, but dames and knights create a superior being, as mentioned by another writer, why should the wife of a sir become a lady, they normally have done nothing for society and do not deserve that title. Once a title of lady is given, a woman will do her utmost to retain that title of superiority, an actual case lady Renouff . Titles belong in the rubbish bin.

Ojnab,
I agree, like those "honourable Members" or should that be members honing the members of honeable members ?

JKUU
'Regarding the restoration of the peerage in Australia' ? There is not nor ever has been a peerage in Australia. The odd peer has occasionally taken refuge in the colonies but that's the limit of it. We do not have Dukes, Earls, Viscounts and others of that ilk. We are so far beyond awarding titles in Australia that most people don't have a clue about the correct way to describe or address the titled few.

candid/said..<<..We are so far beyond awarding titles in Australia that most people don't have a clue about the correct way to describe or address the titled few.>.

thats a great point
when my ancestors came here in the 1600's..we couldnt find any chief
so in the end we had to leave..[once george warrumpies mob achieved concensus..and they took us to task..

yes we have no chiefs..[had no use for them/as we each had our elders
we often however had troubles..these we simply put the mark.of cain on and outcast

its these outcasts..who the colonizers assumed to make into kings
they formerly cast out/rejected..accepted and prospered..they happily became the parts they were required to play

anyhow..to be clear here..we dont need leaders..who can claim to own 'land'..or give away..our stuff rights inheritance CULTURE ETC

WE DONT LIKE LEADERS..down under
but its the way of the colonizer to/do deals
to seemingly share the illusions.of power..even if they only hold titular or fax powers..they have the guns the court the laws and the media..[ITS ON PAPER]..THEY SIMPLY MIRROR CREATION..[ON PAPER]..THEN ALL THE PROOF THEY need is documented..it looks right/but i dont recall giving away..implicit right..

[rule..only by consensus..is our true birth right.]

those not under consensus..simply get cast out
TO FORM THEIR[OUR]..OWN CONSENSUS..[not further abused by fine fee or revenue raising ..nor free labor]

IF WE HAD CONCENTRATES AS THE DIVIDING LINE
then you could vote which POLIE GETS WHAT..BASED ON WHAT THEY CONTRACTED TO DELIVER

THE HIGHEST TITLE IS 'volunteer' public service..
then the tax paying MAN...THEN THE SELF MADE MAN
then the self supporting man..THEN THE FREEMAN

EACH CAN INCLUDE OTHER TITLES
OTHER HONORS/BUT FIRST WE NEED RATE..THE QUALITY OF THE MAN..MAAAM

AND ITS NOT LENGTH BREADTH GIRTH NOT WIDTH
NOR BONING THE BONEABLE MEMBER

Candide, 'odd' as a numerical or other descriptor?

"The odd peer has occasionally taken refuge in the colonies but that's the limit of it."

Only twice has it worked the other way (sort of), as in to the House of Lords... Baron Casey, of Berwick in the State of Victoria and the Commonwealth of Australia, and of the City of Westminster preceded by the fabulously titled and unnecessarily enumerated 1st Viscount Bruce of Melbourne.

Both their biographies would make great viewing as television mini-series.

"We are so far beyond awarding titles in Australia that most people don't have a clue about the correct way to describe or address the titled few."

Agreed. I shudder to think that a Brisbane lad who started life as Richard Casey and merited becoming The Rt. Hon. The Lord Casey KG GCMG CH DSO MC KStJ PC, was ever informally addressed as Lord Dick.

Candide:

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_peers_and_baronets

Whether you want/do not want to include knighthoods in peerage is up to
you. My objection to the restoration is based on the notion of privileged individuals - a distinction rooted in class. An egalitarian society should avoid this, IMO.