Keith puts Mick to the sword over knighthoodOriginally posted by j2k4@25 January 2004 - 18:21
Nothing against Sirs Mick, Elton, Paul, et. al., but I think Keith Richard had a point about Mick.
If Mick is good for a Knighting, why not Keith?
Is it because of Mick's sterling character?
On the whole, if the Brits are going to go to the trouble of stipulating native-born status, I'd rather they just Knighted those genuinely deserving of it; Bill Gates be damned (nothing at all against Mr. Gates).
Again-the lads are tops, but Knighting?
Puhleeeeeze.![]()
REUTERS
6:18 a.m. December 4, 2003
LONDON – Keith Richards is not amused.
The legendary Rolling Stones' guitarist has flown into a rock and roll rage against Mick Jagger over the singer's decision to accept a knighthood, the ultimate nod from the British establishment.
"I don't want to step out onstage with someone wearing a coronet and sporting the old ermine," Richards told British music magazine "Uncut" in an expletive-rich interview.
"I told Mick it's a paltry honor... It's not what the Stones is about, is it?"
The Stones, still rocking after 40 years, made their names with crunching rock classics including "Satisfaction," "Street Fighting Man" and "Brown Sugar."
A 1967 Stones' album was entitled "Their Satanic Majesties Request."
Despite his near spotless rebel credentials, Jagger, 60, is scheduled to become "Sir Mick" at a Buckingham Palace ceremony on December 12.
He will join British musicians Paul McCartney and Elton John who have already been knighted by Queen Elizabeth with a touch of the sword.
Richards' own chances of arising Sir Keith, already thought slim after 59 years of hard living, will have receded even further.
Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/feature...ple-jagger.html
Bookmarks