Jump to content

Talk:Order of chivalry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Chivalric order)

why are these aristocrats allowed to wear all the medals from low ranks to the highest ranks without even being anywhere near the battle fields??!

Miscellaneous

[edit]

Can someone post information about the Monarchial Order of the Holy Spirit in France? And the Sovereign Military Order of the Dragon in Serbia ==> http://www.redzmaja.org/?lang=en

The link to the Order of St. George goes to a Russian decoration, not the Hungarian chivalric order that this page describes. --68.41.122.213 16:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd question the inclusion of the Kappa Alpha Order on this page. Not only does it seem irrelevent the page it links to is hardly wiki worthy, with neutrality issues and tons of pointless information.--68.231.168.20 12:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article

[edit]

I just posted this article: Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George. It's a new article and I'm hoping for experts to expand it. Where does it fit in this article? --Ashley Rovira 13:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Considerable parts of this article were lifted without attribution from Franc,ois Velde's Heraldica website, linked at the bottom. J S Ayer 00:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency of Classification

[edit]

I don't see why orders created by the Duke of Burgundy (Golden Fleece) and the Count of Savoy (Annunziata) are considered monarchial, orders created by the Duke of Bavaria (St. Anthony) and the Margrave of Brandenburg (Swan) and several others are considered princely, and an order created by the Duke of Bar (St. Hubert) is considered baronial. Any takers? J S Ayer 01:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the criterion is that the Duke of Burgundy wound up King of Spain and the Count of Savoy wound up King of Italy, while the King of Bavaria and the King of Prussia wound up having their own armies and ambassadors while still owing some homage to an emperor, and the Duke of Bar always remained a subject. J S Ayer 14:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Please add sources for the given creation of all orders. See WP:TORIGRS. The article would also benefit of a mention of the evolution or relation of orders vs soldities JennyLen 10:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Ormus

[edit]

Order of Orsmus does not exist, its only hoax or joke. Author of article give link to one article about Vatican secret archives, where is nothing about this "order" and as reference book cited Boulton´s Knights of crown, where is nothing. Of course nothing about this order is in Burke Word orders, van Duren Orders or any other book. Yopie 12:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

on pseudo-chivalric orders

[edit]

I added a new brief section on pseudo-chivalric orders. It was not meant to be comprehensive, only to introduce the idea into the current article. It is expected that a very comprehensive new article (titled Pseudo-chivalric orders) will cover the topic in substantial detail. Please feel free to expand, modify, move under a different heading, or otherwise change what I have added to the article at this point. I feel that I expressed an overly sympathetic view towards the myriad fake and pseudo-chivalric "orders" that are out on the Web today, but I also tried to maintain something of a NPOV on the topic. Would adding (listing) some of the current pseudo-chivalric orders of the day to the present article be too controversial? I suppose that listing some old pseudo-chivalric orders can be safely done without bringing a vicious edit war down on this article. At the very least, those organizations calling themselves chivalric orders should be described as they are -- generally without an internationally recognized fons honorum at the least. I look forward to the separate new article that should cover this topic in more detail. -L.Smithfield (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! I tried before six months article "Pseudo- order", but now is deleted, because I added listings of pseudo-orders and every member of this "orders" furiously deleted this article. I can help you with this vandals. Yopie 11:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
I did not know that you had written the article Pseudo-chivalric orders previously, and that it got deleted! But I am not surprised. I know that many of these so-called chivalric orders will get very animated when they are listed out in the open for what they really are. I think that an article like Pseudo-chivalric orders is both needed and useful to the public. I think that the article should list both the older and now extinct pseudo-orders as well as the various current ones that are known, and at least the current ones that have some sort of presence on the web. These latter ones are probably most visible to the public due to their web presence. I don't really know the situation with all of these pseudo-orders, but I am willing to help out with an article on it as best as I can (I'm time-limited also). Also, I am not an expert on the topic. Thanks for your previous efforts in this area. -L.Smithfield (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how to categorize these types of "orders"?

[edit]

Although this is more a discussion for the new article (yet to be written as of this time) Pseudo-chivalric orders I will put his here for consideration. I just came across an "order" of knighthood that I had not seen before. The "order" is:

Although I did not see that this "order" claims to be chivalric (but I didn't spend the time to read through the whole of the web site since it is fairly extensive) it clearly is not a normally recognized order of knighthood as the idea is generally understood. After examining this "order" briefly and seeing that it is largely or principally sponsored by a one Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland it appears to be a part of a network of related websites that were probably first identified on the talk page of the Wiki-article Almanach de Gotha. I just realized that this Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland has a host of realted web sites dealing with royalty, nobility, knighthood, and heraldry. Some of these web sites are (and there may be more yet):

Some of these were listed over on the Almanach de Gotha talk page but I didn't see that they were all connected until now. This guy (Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland) has been very busy! His various web sites are fairly extensive and are likely to be quite confusing to various visitors who may not (probably do not) know who this Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland is. So the question is how should these types of "orders" he handled? In what sort of article might they be listed? Should these sorts of "orders" be listed at all? They are not normal internationally recognized orders but neither may they claim to be chivalric. -L.Smithfield (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, one can see here His Imperial and Royal Highness Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland? or | Charles VIII of Germany and Fake German Prince's chivalry site. It is hoax. Yopie 23:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
In my haste, I neglected to list above two web sites of HI&RH Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland (from the Almanach de Gotha talk page). The two web sites are:
The first of these partly pertains to my question above (Should pseudo-orders not claiming chivalric character be listed in an article someplace?). This site (Almanach de Chivalry) pretends to list orders of chivalry of which it lists its own The Imperial Order of The Teutonic Knights of St. Mary's Hospital in Jerusalem as being one (an order of chivalry). So, as far as this particular "order" is concerned, it is indeed a pseudo-chivalric order. But there are still many "orders" out there that are fake but do not claim to be chivalric. Should there be a separate article on those? Or just group them together into a single article anyway (and differentiate them as necessary there)? -L.Smithfield (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By my opinion, if fake "order" do not claim chivalric tradition, should be in separate article. But I don't know any self-styled order, who don't claim to be "chivalric". Self-styled Benedictine sounds weird... For inspiration you can look to NL wiki.--Yopie 01:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

Looked at your comments, so do you have actual official evidence that he is a fake and that aforementioned websites are run by the person in question or is it hearsay on your part quite tired of people making semi official statements without actual evidence, being produced at the time of the statement being made, whereas, producing official evidence would not be just showing or producing further hearsay and comments by others unless they are made by an official body or person ie government or likewise, to many so called experts who do not hold, bear or enjoy any sort of official standing, make sweeping statements about the rights or standings of others without showing evidence to their comments, just a thought for all.

Inconsistency between "late medieval monarchical orders", "post-medieval monarchical orders" and "modern current orders"

[edit]

To me it is quite vague why the Danish Order of the Elephant (founded in 1693) is classified as a modern current order, and on the other hand the Order of the Thistle (founded 1687) and the Order of Saint Joseph (founded 1807) as post-medieval monarchical orders, although the Danish order is also quite old. When does the post-medieval period begin and does it stop, and does the modern period begin? Furthermore, also a lot of European monarchical chivalric orders are missing, like the important Danish Order of the Dannebrog (founded 1671) or the exclusive Dutch Order of William (founded 1815). Demophon (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Columbus and similar orders.

[edit]

Would not the Knights of Columbus and similar orders fall under the Self-Styled Chivalric Orders?

Because they don't claim chivalric status. --Yopie 09:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The fundamentals

[edit]

This is a fine list of chivalric orders you have compiled, but from an encyclopedia, one would at the very least expect an explanation of what the purpose of a chivalric order actually is..

"Orders of Chivalry" and "Orders of chivalry"

[edit]

It's strange and misleading that "Orders of Chivalry" redirect to Military order and "Orders of chivalry" redirects to Chivalric order. --79.20.253.233 (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That has been changed. I will also open up a discussion about the name of the article relevant to your inquiry, please see below. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of medieval orders incomplete

[edit]

I've just added the order of the Star and the Order of the Band, but I'm sure there are some others missing. Unfortunately I have no copy of Boulton's work at hand. Can someone check their copy and add those which are still missing? 145.53.0.242 (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in article

[edit]

This article currently states: 'After the crusades, the memory of these crusading military orders became idealised and romanticised, resulting in the late medieval notion of chivalry which is reflected in the Arthurian romances of the time.' Yet according to the linked article on The Crusades, they happened in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries. According to the linked article on Arthurian romance, it is dated to the 5th and early 6th centuries. Can somebody clarify what, if any, link exists between both? 89.101.41.216 (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that I completely understand your question here but I will try to give some response. Although the events of the Arthurian legends (real or imagined) occurred during the 5th or 6th centuries, they did not become the stuff of legend (mostly by word of mouth) until the 11th and following centuries. Further (and I am not really very knowledgeable in this area), Arthurian stories and literature really began to increase in the 14th and 15th centuries and following. What is now-a-days referred to as a Chivalric Order came about starting in the 14th century and following. This time in history roughly coincides with the increase in the Arthurian legend and romances in popular culture. The Chivalric Orders were (not to be too disingenuous) a sort of attempt to bring back the glory and feel of the prior Military-Monastic Orders of the previous centuries. The idea of Chivalry itself as we now know it (or think that we do) -- variously dating its start from between 800 AD and about 1100 AD (depending on what sources are referenced) -- was incorporated into the Arthurian romances even though King Arthur and his knights would not have strictly had such a code during their own time. In other words, the Arthurian romances of the 14th century and beyond (whether oral or written) reflected the chivalry that was embodied in the new Chivalric Orders of the same time period. I hope that this is helpful in some way to correlate these various historical periods together for you. Could the article be enhanced to clarify these relationships somewhat? Yes, maybe. But not all of this material rightly belongs in this article either. A combination of articles on Chivalry, Charlemagne and the establishment of his European empire (later called the Holy Roman Empire), the Crusades, the Military-Monastic Orders, King Arthur and Arthurian legends and romances, should all be referenced in order to get a more complete picture (if Wikipedia even covers these subjects well enough). --L.Smithfield (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the definition of "self-styled orders"

[edit]

Under "Distinction: Based on Boulton...:Chivalric orders by purpose", it states "Self-styled orders: self-proclaimed imitation-orders without statutes or restricted memberships". I find two problems with this. First, because "self-styled" is not a purpose; it's an assessment by those outside of the group (no group likes to think of itself as "self-styled"). And second, because it misstates what a self-styled order is. Self-styled orders can indeed possess statutes, and they can have restricted memberships. As the Wiki Self-styled orders states, they "...are organizations which falsely claim to be chivalric orders", who lack a proper fons honorum, lack recognition by other, legitimate orders or by states or monarchs, etc. I'd like to change the description to reflect this reality, to something like "Self-styled orders: self-proclaimed imitation-orders without a legitimate fount of honor or recognition by legitimate orders or authorities" (changes bolded). It's a little longer than I'd prefer, but perhaps someone could suggest a way to express the same information in a more condensed fashion. Brevity has, alas, never been my strong suit. Bricology (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 November 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chivalric order → Order of chivalry – For WP:Consistency as per International Commission on Orders of Chivalry and more, and in line with order of merit. Of course chivalric order, knightly order and order of knighthood should be kept indicated as common other names in the lead section. See also: Talk:Order_(honour)#Terminology. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — Music1201 talk 16:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chivalric order. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Royal" Confraternity of Saint Theotonio

[edit]

There is an anonymous user with an apparent agenda to promote the quasi-chivalric group as if it were an order of chivalry and keeps reverting my edits. I requested the he or she discuss it in this talk page but apparently, they are not open to discussion (as is usually the case with these sorts of things). The group is 1) not an order, 2) not royal (it was created by the younger brother of Dom Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, claimant to the Portuguese throne), and 3) not equal to anything else on the list it is on. If it is listed under a section where such groups as the modern Order of St. Lazarus would be, then fine. To the anonymous user who has so far declined to discuss the matter, please bring it here to avoid edit warring. --Kimontalk 13:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Order of chivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadhiidinaa

[edit]

Nadhiidinaa 196.191.50.155 (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_chivalry&oldid=1212116293"