Talk:Order of chivalry

message: 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)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright problem 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Consistency of Classification 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Order of Ormus

message: 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)
thread_title: Inconsistency between "late medieval monarchical orders", "post-medieval monarchical orders" and "modern current orders"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Knights of Columbus and similar orders. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Orders of Chivalry" and "Orders of chivalry" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lists of medieval orders incomplete 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Contradiction in article

message: 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)
thread_title:  the definition of "self-styled orders" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090614210437/http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/OrderoftheGarter/OrderoftheGarter.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/OrderoftheGarter/OrderoftheGarter.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Royal" Confraternity of Saint Theotonio 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505023021/http://www.turkishmedals.net/decorations.htm to http://www.turkishmedals.net/decorations.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Nadhiidinaa 196.191.50.155 (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nadhiidinaa