Talk:Dynastic order

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Orders, decorations, and medals Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of orders, decorations, and medals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Orders, decorations, and medalsWikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsTemplate:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsOrders, decorations, and medals articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Genealogy

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genealogy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genealogy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GenealogyWikipedia:WikiProject GenealogyTemplate:WikiProject GenealogyGenealogy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

wikified

I just wikified the article, adding a bunch of links. I also did some quick fact checking to see see if the work was correct and also tried to see if it was a copywrited entry, finding that the article was both correct and at the very least not taken verbatim from something google can find.

Jacob 03:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob (User_talk:Jrideout • contribs)

Russian order of St. John

For anonymous. Russian order of St. John is not dynastic, because is not bestoved by Head of House on her own right (is not her property). Dynastic orders of Romanov House are St. Stanislaus, St. Anna,St. George and St. Catherine, but St. John is not. Please, first read some books, as World Orders of Knighthood and Merit, before make some spurious and amateurish statements. Yopie 04:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations

This is an interesting article, but it could do with some citations. Also, and perhaps relatedly, I'd like clarification within the article of an assertion made throughout the article: it says that when a sovereign ceases to be head of state they take their fons honorum powers of their dynastic orders with them but not their state orders (the real Order of the Octopus, or whatever, is something that is awarded by the von Smith family, and so even if they're not still kings of Ruritania they can still give it out). Fine. But the article goes on to say They cannot, moreover, found new Dynastic Orders. Why can't they? Who is making this rule, and what will happen to the von Smiths if they decide to do it anyway? (And relatedly, if there's no penalty for the von Smiths to make up new dynastic orders, is there any reason other people shouldn't too?) The Wednesday Island (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There probably is a proper citation for this (perhaps in some introductory material to a book like Burke's or whatever) but IMO (note, opinion, so don't put this in the article) its because old orders gained their legitimacy from the fact that it was a king of some society which founded them. Orders founded by kings in exile don't have the respect of the people. 118.90.7.227 (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, almost two years with no movement on this! :) I am going to fact-tag "They cannot, moreover, found new Dynastic Orders." and if it doesn't gain a reference, or at least some supporting argument or explanation, I think it should come out quite soon. Cheers. DBaK (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Dynastic Orders

There are many more dynastic orders not currently listed. I would like to work with a fellow Wikipedian on this topic. Please contact me.

Prof. Carl Edwin Lindgren (celindgren@panola.com)

Royalhistorian (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear professor, I will be happy to assist you. Yopie 19:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

Rename to a shorter alternative

I suggest "House order" but "Dynastic order" is at least where the page should be. "House order", to get away from the British-centrism. 118.90.25.253 (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name is OK, we not need shorter. --Yopie 14:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Examples in intro

Don't house orders appoint members based on the authority of the controlling house? That is, that they are/used to be of sovereign rank at the time of the order's creation? 118.90.35.155 (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--193.40.110.66 (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth realms orders

Why does this article state that the Orders of the Garter, and Merit and the Royal Victorian Order are dynastic orders when there is nothing that suggests that they belong to the "patrimony of a dynasty". That they are in the monarch's own gift does not make them dynastic. If the Orders of the Garter and the Thistle were dynastic they would have descended with the Jacobite succession and could not have been conferred by later British monarchs. The statutes of the Order of the Garter have atleast in the past stated that the "Kings of England, shall be forever more Sovereigns of the said most noble order",(MacKay, Frederick William (1814). The Statutes of the Most Noble Order of the Garter. London: T.H. Coe. p. 3.) not the head of a dynasty, so obviously it is not a dynastic order. Björn Knutson (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. The definition of "Dynastic Order" as used in the article is somewhat problematic. Strictly speaking, only a few of the orders on the list are deemed to belong to a dynasty rather than a sovereign. The Order of the Gold Lion of the House of Nassau being the clearest example. Otherwise, in the case of the orders granted by reigning monarchs, the term is used to describe orders that are deemed to be in the personal gift of the monarch (i.e. they are awarded without the advice of the elected political leaders of the state) and/or which are given out for services to the monarch and the royal family whether than as a reward for merit or services to the nation. With regard to other orders, "Dynastic Order" is being used to describe those orders that the former monarch and/or his heir continue to award after losing the throne. The rationale for the continued award of orders by exiles families varies from case to case. It is claimed that the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of St. George, for example, was created by papal authority and that the Pope granted the grandmastership to the head of the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies independently of the crown of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies so that the order and the rights of the grandmaster survive the end of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies because of the Pope's authority. It is questionable whether the situation of the Constantinian Order is best described as the "patrimony of a dynasty" instead of as a religious order of knights with an hereditary grandmaster. In contrast, the Romanian Order of Carol I looks like a state merit order which former King Michael continued to award under a government-in-exile theory on the basis that his deposition was unlawful. Somehow the Order of Carol I was transformed into the private property of King Michael by right of his status as a former monarch. Now Michael claims the right to revise the order of succession and pass his status as dynastic head onto his daughter and then his grandson. Presumably, the Romanian royal orders will pass to the future heads of the Romanian royal family. Ultimately, the problem begins with the fact that in the Middle Ages monarchs actually owned the state so there was no separation between that which belonged to the monarch as sovereign, that which belonged to his dynasty, and that which belonged to the state. (To look at it another way, a medieval English monarch would not comprehend how Windsor Castle could be deemed property held by the Queen in trust for the nation while Sandringham House is considered Elizabeth II's private property.) Since ex-monarchs and their families rarely survived their deposition for long, there was little need for medieval minds to consider the rights of former royal families. Johnwilliammiller (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of the Garter was awarded on the advice of the Prime Minister until 1946 and the Order of the Thistle until 1947.("Select Committee on Public Administration Fifth Report". UK Parliament. 13 July 2004. Retrieved 8 November 2006.) Those facts raise the question of whether the Garter and the Thistle would still be "dynastic" orders if the Prime Minister was still advising the monarch on the awards. Of course, what one prime minister does another can undo so that the potential exists for a future prime minister to take back control of the Garter and the Thistle. Before someone argues that the Garter and Thistle would still be dynastic even if the Queen only awarded them on ministerial advice please remember that the main difference between the orders classed as dynastic (Order of the Garter, Order of the Thistle, Order of Merit, and Royal Victorian Order) and the other orders award by or in the name of the Queen is whetehr they are in the Queen's personal gift or awarded on the advice of the political leads. Johnwilliammiller (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the Opening Paragraph

As of 27 November 2012, the first two sentence read "A dynastic order of knighthood is an order belonging to the heraldic patrimony of a dynasty, often held by ancient right. These differ from military, religious, and orders of merit belonging to a particular state, having been instituted to reward personal services rendered to a sovereign, dynasty, or an ancient family of princely rank." Hyginus Eugene Cardinale's "Orders of Knighthood, Awards, and the Holy See" contains the following "Dynastic Orders of Knighthood are a category of Orders belonging to the heraldic patrimony of a dynasty, often held by ancient right. These differ from the early military and religious Orders and from the later Orders of Merit belonging to a particular State, having been instituted to reward personal services rendered to a dynasty or an ancient Family of princely rank." (Cardinale, Hyginus Eugene (31 December 1985). Orders of Knighthood Awards, and the Holy See. Chester Springs, PA: Dufour Editions, Inc. p. 119. ISBN 978-0-905715-26-1. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)) As the opening of this article is virtually identical to Cardinale's (without citation), I am rewriting the opening paragraph. Johnwilliammiller (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.casarealportuguesa.org/dynamicdata/Ordem%20NS%20vila%20vicosa.asp
Triggered by \bcasareal(deportugal|portuguesa)\.org\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 November 2016

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 (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dynastic order of knighthood → Dynastic 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 possibly dynastic chivalric order, dynastic knightly order and dynastic order of knighthood should be kept indicated as common other names in the lead section or under the terminology section. See also: Talk:Order_(honour)#Terminology. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — Music1201 ^talk 16:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: per WP:PRECISE, technically not all orders of chivalry confer the status of knight upon an appointee. For example, only the two highest of the five grades which constitute the Royal Victorian Order entitle the appointee to use the title Sir/Dame. Ebonelm (talk) 21:37, 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.

Requested move 6 December 2016

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. (non-admin closure) KSFT ^C 16:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dynastic order of chivalry → Dynastic order – WHile the above move was an improvement, after closer investigation, this article is not merely about dynastic orders of chivalry but rather about dynastic orders in general, including both dynastic orders of chivalry and orders of merit. On a further note, definition and overview of chivalric orders is more suitably collected at order of chivalry. Thus this article should most probably, in accordance also with the category Category:Dynastic orders, be renamed as proposed. See also article names in other languages, which well corresponds with this proposal. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)--Relisting. RGloucester — ☎ 17:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dynastic 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, 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) 07:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Dynastic 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, 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) 07:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 May 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dynastic order → Dynastic decoration – If "decoration" (or equivalent term) can be said to include orders. Compare equivalent discussion on Talk:State order. PPEMES (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. qedk (t 桜 c) 14:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Dynastic orders are awards like the Order of the Garter and the Order of the Golden Fleece: high honours granted as a mark of esteem by a head of state. Decorations are awards like the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross and the Purple Heart, usually for a specific act deemed worthy of recognition. Opera hat (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2019 (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.

@Opera hat:, @Necrothesp: Confused. Please see Template:Phaleristics for an overview illustration. Do you see the section "Fount of honour"? Doesn't this regard not only orders, but medals in general? Isn't that why article State decoration is called like that? So why shouldn't there be any Dynastic decoration? PPEMES (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is the common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, when there is no other article for the subject as a whole. Don't we need that then? PPEMES (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping list to those with Wiki articles

I am trying to keep the list of orders to just those with a Wiki article. Otherwise, everyone will try to post their orders (legit or otherwise) to this list. If the order you want to add is important enough to be added, then it should have its own Wiki article. Kimon^talk 13:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]