Article from MSN regarding this award, titles "WAS MACCA ROBBED"
Last night's Greatest Britons awards was a curiously muddled affair. Despite attracting proper A-listers like Dame Helen Mirren and David Beckham, they could only stretch to Kate Bloody Thornton as host. That's like having the Queen over for dinner and ordering in pizza.
Similarly, some of the decisions were downright bizarre. Without wishing to denigrate his achievements in the slightest, why on Earth did 63-year-old explorer Sir Ranulph Fiennes win in the sports category?
Poor old Joe Calzaghe could barely manage a smile when the result was announced. Under-appreciated his whole career, the man's only been a world champion for 10 years. Strange.
Still, things were looking up as far as music was concerned. Amy Winehouse beating Sir Elton John and Take That was a victory for good judgement over sentimentality. Yes, Elton's a legend and Gary, Mark, Jason, and Howard are four of the nicest blokes, well, ever, but neither could touch La Winehouse's achievements over the last year.
All of which boded well for the main award, The Greatest Living Briton. Or so I thought. As far as I'm concerned, of the 10 short-listed candidates (see below), Sir Paul McCartney was the only one deserving of the title. Instead, with depressing predictability, the 'great British public' voted for The Queen. Worse still, they made Robbie Williams and Margaret Thatcher second and third respectively, with Macca nowhere to be seen.
Don't get me wrong. I'm no raving Republican and, even if I were, this wouldn't be the place to air such views. The Queen seems like a perfectly nice old lady who has given a lifetime of dutiful service to the country. She is certainly an admirable figure, but the greatest living Briton? I don't think so.
Sir Paul McCartney is the most successful songwriter in popular music history with 60 gold discs and sales of 100 million singles. His song Yesterday is also the most covered ever, with more than 3000 recorded versions.
Statistics are only a small part of it though. Quite simply, his songs, and those he co-wrote with John Lennon, have provided more comfort, joy, and sheer pleasure to more people around the world than those of any other musician. Furthermore, they were the soundtrack to the 1960s and forever established Britain as equal partners with America in the field of rock and pop.
He's been no slouch when it comes to charitee either, having lent his services to causes such as animal rights, anti-landmines, Make Poverty History, and many others. He's also, lest we forget, about as down to earth and likeable as it's possible for someone of his fame and fortune to be.
Strangely enough, the Queen's victory may have had something to do with the recent Oscar winning film about her. Having glimpsed her humanity (albeit via Helen Mirren's brilliant performance), there's been a groundswell of public affection for her. It's certainly done wonders for her popularity in the States.
Sympathy voting shouldn't play any part in this sort of award though, but inevitably it does. How else do you explain Robbie Williams coming second? But even on this score Macca should have come up trumps given the horrible time he's had of it lately and the dignified manner in which he's conducted himself.
Ultimately though, perhaps Sir Paul should have been in contention for a different title altogether because, by any reasonable measure, he's one of the greatest people, alive or dead, that the world, let alone Britain, has ever produced. Let it be.
