Arise, Sir Mick - about time too

This is a bad time for the mad majors tucked away in the shires. If the Beatles caused uproar on the occasion of their award of royal gongs back in the Sixties, then there is no telling what the reaction will be to the granting of a knighthood to Michael Philip Jagger, the lead singer of the Rolling Stones and a man whose mouth alone is widely considered to be an affront to common decency. Civil unrest must be a distinct possibility. The majors will be on the march. Consider the evidence. Jagger's life story is told through headlines, and none of these are the stuff of which knights are made. The Rolling Stones in their heyday were the very model of depravity. Jagger and his cohorts kept the forces of law and order on their toes for years. Even when they were not actually indulging, they looked as if they were taking drugs. The women that attached themselves to the group were wanton, ruined angels. Jagger deliberately associated himself with devil worship to keep up the outrage factor, and appeared in the film Performance wearing eye make-up and lipstick and very little else.

Since those heady days of the Sixties, Jagger has not mellowed. He is currently characterised as the dirtiest old man in town, thanks to his widely reported dalliances with a number of women, some of whom are younger than his own daughter Jade. There is also the matter of paternity. Whatever secrets Mick has learned in more than 40 years of carousing, the basic principles of birth control are not among them. The official reckoning is that he has fathered seven children by four different women. Some of these kids he readily accepted, others he did not. During his separation from Jerry Hall, his partner with the greatest stamina for life with Mick, he was widely criticised for ungallant behaviour after suggesting that their rather unconventional marriage ceremony was not worth the paper it was not written on.

So this is the figure that will have the sword laid upon his shoulder. Doubtless, there are those that would like to see said blade put to more effective use. Here we have an ageing lothario, a helplessly addicted womaniser whose vanity and libido have combined to make him a monster of the modern age. In the Sixties, a newspaper headline famously asked the question: "Would you let your daughter go out with a Rolling Stone?" The answer to that question, all these years later, is still no, and yet Mick still keeps getting away with it, because the daughters keep saying yes.

And this is why there will be voices raised against Jagger's honour - he is perceived as a man who has spent his whole life getting away with it. Somewhere deep in our puritan bones, we do not like the scamp who gets the girls and scoops up all the money. There is something dear to us called the work ethic and Mick Jagger is not perceived as adhering faithfully to its tenets. Those lascivious lips, forever caught in a pout or cheeky grin, are simply an affront to a decent way of life.

I should like to take issue with the mad major tendency, and suggest that Mick Jagger is well worth his knighthood. As role models go, they don't come more impressive than this. A chance meeting with Keith Richards on a train station, when a shared interest in ancient R&B was discovered, led to a long-lasting career as the greatest rock 'n' roll band in the world. The Rolling Stones went on to give great pleasure to millions of people-all over the world. Mick Jagger acts as an unofficial ambassador for this country in a way that is given to few others, and he performs that task exceptionally well. The accent may slide around from time to time, but there is no doubting the fact that here is a great Briton.

Since his trials and tribulations of the Sixties - when William Rees-Mogg made his famous comment about breaking a butterfly on the wheel - Jagger has kept well away from trouble, other than that in the female department. By the standards of the rock star, he leads a sober life. It is also well documented that he remains friends with Jerry Hall, and is a good father to his children. Having met him a couple or more times, I can also add that he reads books, appreciates art, and generally behaves in a way that would confuse Ozzy Osbourne terribly. It is probably not the done thing to mention it, but we also share a tailor.

There is another aspect to this whole business of honours, which is that it is terribly old-fashioned to persist in the belief that rock stars are inherently unworthy of receiving them. Just a casual glance at the recipients of royal favour over the past couple of decades would throw up a good few names whose ennoblement has subsequently been revealed as something of a mistake, foremost among these pretend politicians. It would be idle to suggest that Mick Jagger was the sort of bloke Chaucer had in mind when he wrote of the verray gentil parfait knyghte, but compared to some of those who have shared the accolade, he looks to me like a relatively stainless specimen.

The question that needs to be answered is exactly what Mick Jagger's knighthood has been awarded for. The notion that it is the result of political gamesmanship is patently risible. The old chap may be many things, but he is not a honeypot for the casual voter. It has also been suggested that Jagger should be disqualified because he keeps a low profile on the charity front - even that his hand and wallet are but distantly related - but no one really knows what he does with his time and money, and there are enough self-aggrandising do-gooders around anyway.

What is important is that Mick Jagger has given many people a considerable measure of enjoyment. He bucked up my young life and continues to do so. When he is finally retired, we will miss his prancing and preening. Jagger has added to the gaiety of nations, this one in particular. For that, he is entitled to commission himself a coat of arms. The only question that remains is, when will it be Keith's turn?

Cartoon: What a knight!
Vote: Does Jagger deserve a knighthood?