Awarded or Won? - The discussion continues

I have usually used 'won' until reading on a forum one shouldn't. https://www.awm.gov.au/blog/2014/09/03/why-it-not-incorrect-speak-winning-victoria-cross/


Edit: Changed title to make the post title a little clearer.

 

I would imagine we have been using Won for a long time and it is hard to change

 

I prefer the term "earned" when referring to the awarding of a medal for valor.

 

I've decided to use 'awarded' whenever I touch on gallantry medals and the like on my website. This is because all these decorations are given out generally at the discretion of those in authority above the recipient and after a period of consideration.

 

On use of the word "won" in connection with the Victoria Cross, the author states that this makes some people uncomfortable and "it is often asserted" that this is disrespectful and inappropriate. Which people feel uncomfortable about this? I've never met any. And where is it asserted that this is inappropriate?

Seems to me the article has been written to address a problem that doesn't exist.

 

For me it's awarded, that's only because on my Father's documents/paper work it says he was Awarded.
I do not think it makes much difference really it's a matter of personal choice.


David

 

I prefer to use the phrase "Awarded" for all medals, regardless, and rely on others to know whether or not it has been awarded for valour or simply because of the area of combat in which the recipient served.

Ron

 

How can it be anything other than awarded? Although I'm sure the likes of the Daily Mail et al will prefer the incorrect 'won'.

 

Surely you win the lottery not a medal? They are usually hard earned and as a recognition of that an award is made.
Having said that I use both terms!!

 

Isn't this whole thing more to do with local dialect/preference and context etc rather than any 'fixed' convention?

Surely all that matters is the meaning and not how it's said. It's what it is and not what you call it.

 

Purely personally? And having met two holders of the Victoria Cross...

I actively dislike the term "won". It is not a competition. It is not a lottery (well, there is a PhD in there which I might address after finishing the one I am doing). My father, an infantry officer in NWE, also dlsliked the term. So I do not like "won".

 

Individuals awarded military medals are medal recipients, not medal winners.




PUT

 

Interesting that the OP hasn't returned, simply lit the touch paper and sat back to see how heated the "discussion" could be.

Some VC's were issued (see what I did there, perhaps another topic for discussion) to a unit that had all distinguished themselves but lots were drawn.
So one chap may have done enough to deserve it but it was "won" by someone else, perhaps equally, more or less deserving....
The chap with the VC might say he was awarded it, his fellows might say he "won" it....

Does it really matter which term is used?

 

Puttenham - is it possible for a dead person to receive something?

 

I have returned just not commented, but reading what others thought.

As far as I have read/understood it the VC was referred to as won, and the other gallantry medals awarded and received. I like the idea of phrasing it as "earned the relevant award through their actions", but that is verbose, but works on the PC front.

I wasn't looking for a heated discussion but what people honestly thought of how things should be worded, thank you to everyone for your input.

Mark.