Talk:Order of the Golden Fleece

message: Someone be a member of both is he is a catholic and a noble? Arthurian Legend (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  can you be a member of both orders? 

message: The list of knights of the Austrian order includes both "Graf Czernin v. Chudenitz" and "Franz, Count of Czernin of Chudenitz."  These two appear to be the same man.  Does anyone know otherwise? J S Ayer (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not same man see :de:Liste der Ritter des Ordens vom Goldenen Vlies, there are listed five Czernins.--Yopie (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent doublet 

message: Did King Amadeo makes awards of the Golden Fleece during his brief tenure as King of Spain (1870-1873)?  Or was Alfonso XII considered to be head of the order during this time period? john k (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Amadeo awarded Golden Fleece, probably illegally. See Burkes World Orders of Knighthood and Merit for more, or directly .--Yopie (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be mentioned in the article, no? john k (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Amadeo 

message: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill reportedly has an honor society called the Order of the Golden Fleece.  I set up a link to that at the top of the page, replacing a red link, and this link has twice been removed.  My thought is that someone trying to find out about that organization will likely wind up at this page, and it is simply courteous to provide a link to it.  What do others think? J S Ayer (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapel Hill honor society 

message: There are inconsistency in the article List of Knights of the Golden Fleece: Francisco de Borja Bazán de Silva, 1th Marquis of Santa Cruz 1th is not the truth. It may be 1st or it may be 4th, 5th ... It is possible that the number is wrong, or the “th” is wrong. I do not know what of that is wrong or true. Please check it. --Diwas (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Inducted 1877.  The tenth Marquis of Santa Cruz was made a member of the order in 1821, and the thirteenth in 1927, so this must be the eleventh or twelfth.  The same error occurs in the German list, and the other languages do not extend so far. J S Ayer (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  inconsistency  

message: far too many "citation needed" comments appearing all across wikipedia these days,
this one seems frivolous
Spanish Order
In 1812 the acting government of Spain illegally[citation needed] awarded the order
it was obviously illegal on two grounds as explained elsewhere in the article,
1. the sovereign is the only one who can appoint members to the order - the government cannot do so.
2. the order is closed to heretics - Wellington, as a protestant, could not be appointed to the order.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.214.153 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: citation needed RE: Wellington  

message: Was there not a French OotGF in prerevelutionary France? It is mentioned in one or another of the Hornblower novels. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: French Order?

message: Guillaume Machaut was dead by the 15th century. I think what is meant is Pierre Michault. Total guess. But definitely not Guillaume de Machaut.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.231.155 (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guillaume Machaut was dead, no? 

message: Napoleonic gallantry award. Merging of the Spaniard and Austrian orders plus a new French branch, with Napoleon, rather unsurprisingly, as Great Master. Never fully developed.
:"http://www.france-phaleristique.com/3toisonsor.htm"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I apologize.  Napoleonic France, though, not pre-revolutionary.  I still don't remember the Hornblower reference. J S Ayer (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't apologize. I wasn't referring to the Hornblower reference. I was just mentioning in passing this little-known and short-lived Napoleonic decoration.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of the Three Golden Fleeces (1809-13) 

message: Someone has added Kubrat, Prince of Panagyurishte as a Knight in the Austrian order.  Since he is a prominent surgeon is Spain, I suspect he is a member of the Spanish order.  Can anyone supply a hard fact? J S Ayer (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This paper  lists him as a member.  It seems to be specifically about the Habsburg/Austrian branch.  Though it is interesting that his Wikipedia article does not make mention of this honour.  Cheers.  EricSerge (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Now it is in his Wikipedia article. J S Ayer (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Kubrat of Bulgaria 

message: This name has been added to the list of members of the Austrian order, here and in the list of members.  I searched Google for this name, and came up with only this Wikipedia listing.  I searched for Prince Andres del Pindo, and came up with a website for the Duchy of Carniola, which describes itself as a micronation and seems to have eight members, claiming no eminence.  This posting appears to me to be a hoax, and I intend to remove it tomorrow unless some documentation appears. J S Ayer (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andres, Prince of the Pindus 

message: Several requests to delete articles entitled "Line of succession to the former throne of X" (e.g. Württemberg, Tuscany, Two Sicilies) have recently been proposed for deletion from Wikipedia by Pat Gallacher. Although Wikipedians from various projects are being notified of these requests for removal, I think those who monitor this page may also appreciate being notified. FactStraight (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of articles naming heirs to founts of honour 

message: I have not been able to find any verification for the date 1961 applied to several dozen living Austrian knights by User:Mr._D._E._Mophon on May 24, 2011.  In one case, Archduke Georg, it is clearly wrong - since he wasn't even born until 1964. In several other cases it is unlikely considering the youth of the recipients in 1961 (e.g. the Prince of Liechtenstein and Mariano Hugo, Prince of Windisch-Graetz).  I think that the possible source might be this webpage  - but here it says "depuis 1961" (since 1961).
I have removed the dates.  If dates are verifiable, they should be added with a citation.Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing dates of induction for current Austrian knights 

message: Regarding the last edits:
The user editing them from an Austrian IP address is swapping the order of everything, always with the Austrian point of view first. The Habsburg branch is NOT NECESSARILY more legitimate as it was not the originator of the order (the House of Valois-Burgundy was). The order is not property of any family, and keeps changing according to the throne that has been granting it (Spain for the last half a millennium). King Charles II gave all his succession rights to Philip V, a Bourbon, passing the Grand Mastership to the kings of Spain (regardless of the house). 
If that were not enough, Austria is a republic, Spain continues to have a constitutional monarchy where the Order of the Golden Fleece is officially recognised. 
Furthermore, the fact that all the constitutional monarchs (Queen Elisabeth, Emperor of Japan, Kings of the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Tsar of Bulgaria etc...) are knights of the SPANISH ORDER of the Golden Fleece undermines the Austrian. 
Lastly, I can see where the IP user is coming from when he says the Austrian order has continued with its tradition of granting the fleece ONLY to Christians, whereas the Spanish hasn't. This however does not mean the Spanish order has developed into an order of Merit per se. If you look at the members, all except 4 are/have been/will be kings (certainly not merit, but condition of royal birth).
With all this being said, I don't intend to not include the Austrian branch, which has absolutely got arguments in favor of its legitimacy, but it is bluntly evident that the article should follow an order of relevance, and so the Spanish branch should be the first mentioned. Throughout history, I'm certain the Spanish branch has been the "most desired" and most recognised (Duke of Wellington, Napoleons, British Royal Family etc...) whereas the Austrian has been granted mostly between the Habsburgs and the minor Germanic princes (which by the way doesn't make it better or worse, its simply a fact).
--Cantabrucu (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl von Habsburg-Lothringen is not an agnatic descendant of Maximilian I or Charles V. He descends in paternal line from Francis, Duke of Lorraine, who had no valid claim to the Grand Mastership of the Order of the Golden Fleece. The direct agnatic line descending from Maximilian I became extinct following the demise of Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor, and, at that point, even if you want to invoke Art.65, the Grand Mastership would have fallen upon the most senior cognatic line descending from Charles V and that is the Bourbon line via Maria Teresa of Austria, daughter of King Philip IV of Spain and wife of Louis XIV of France. Not to mention that Charles II of Spain in his will bequeathed all his dynastic rights, which include the position of Grand Master of the Golden Fleece, to Philippe d'Anjou, later King Philip V of Spain. Of course, Karl von Habsburg-Lothringen, on top of all of above, is not a reigning sovereign and, therefore, has no authority to award honors, unlike the reigning King of Spain and Grand Master of the Order of the Golden Fleece, Philip VI.187.73.191.2 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue regarding edit war 

message: This article has been reverted by a series of IP editors based in Austria (who might all be the same person). A complaint was filed at ANI.  I have semiprotected the article for one month because there are so far no comments here from the IPs. Please join the discussion here and try to agree on a version of the article that gives proper attention to both the Austrian and Spanish branches of this order. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I Think although the IP user might be right in some aspects, we generally mention one or the other on the basis of relevance. I think it is indisputable that the Spanish fleece has always been the most relevant to Western European culture. Yes, it has evolved to granting the fleece to non-catholics which the Austrian hasn't, but it is perhaps this that has made it more relevant and up to date with more modern times. If the important monarchs of the world are knights of the Spanish Fleece, then I think it would be wise to say "Toda, two branches of the order exist, namely the SPANISH and the Austrian (Habsburg) Fleece". Furthermore, as I said, the fact that it is an official order of Spain (a constitutional monarchy) strengthens this view. I think that is the main dispute here. What do others think? --Cantabrucu (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Having no feedback, I proceed to restore the page as it was before with the justification of being a longer-standing member of the Wikipedia community than the IP user. I will add sources.--Cantabrucu (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sorry to say Cantabrucu is not right. Today's Spanish Order has had no continuous continuity since the Burgundians founded it. However, today's Spanish order has cultural and traditional roots in the Burgundian foundation and is of course to be mentioned in the article. The treasure, archive, etc. of the Burgundian order is now part of the Habsburg branch, which is more important in terms of cultural history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.175.224 (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: According to our list of Fleece-Knights, the Borbon kings of Spain conferred the Golden Fleece every year from 1701 onward, while the Order was only instituted in Austria in 1712, so in practical terms it appears to me that the Spanish order has more continuity—but I don't think the Wikipedia should take part in any squabbles about which is the real one, or the better one.  Both are real, and highly prestigious, and I think we should describe them and not pronounce any judgments. J S Ayer (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The order is a Burgundian foundation and has its own constitution. According to this constitution, sovereignty fell to Maximilian von Habsburg after the death of Charles of Burgundy. Then the rights under this constitution remained with, for example, Charles V or his successor, who were also Spanish kings. The last Spanish Habsburg king died childless in 1700. And according to the then existing statutes of the order (according to Art. 65) the rights to the order remained with the Austrian Habsburg branch and not with the new Spanish royal family. The new Spanish kings then defacto founded a new order based on the one their Hapsburg predecessors held. Therefore, the great treasure, archive, etc. is owned by the Habsburg branch and has never been claimed by the Spanish branch.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.164.148.56 (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

text: A version of the article that gives proper attention to both the Austrian and Spanish branches of this order: Yes, both exist, and I don't think the Wikipedia should get sucked into any argument about which has the purer pedigree, especially since the two heads do not squabble.  List them as we have: Burgundian order, Spanish order, Austrian order. J S Ayer (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree J S Ayer! I have restored biased views. --Cantabrucu (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please get consensus here on the talk page 

message: Since this is a recurring problem, I point out that according to this article, section Austrian (Habsburg) order, subsection Officials, the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna is Grand Chaplain, and Gregor Henckel-Donnersmarck, priest and scion of a noble German house, is the chaplain, as his article in the German Wikipedia confirms. J S Ayer (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I shouldn't rely so far on my memory.  The German article on the Order of the Golden Fleece says that the Cardinal Archbishop is grand chaplain, and Abbot Gregor is the chaplain.  The German article on Abbot Gregor says that his position is almoner. J S Ayer (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Habsburg chaplaincy 

message: Please remove the links to Kubrat, Prince of Panagyurishte, as the article has been cut. 73.110.217.186 (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Will someone please explain to my ignorance why the article on Prince Kubrat has been deleted? J S Ayer (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per discussion at :Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kubrat, Prince of Panagyurishte.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2020 

message: "The two monarchies, namely the kings of Spain and emperors of Austria, have ever since continued granting the Golden Fleece in relative peace."
This statement seems out of date by a century or so.  Austria hasn't had an emperor since 1918 or so.   How about 'heads of the house of Hapsburg' instead of 'emperors of Austria'?
DlronW (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say! J S Ayer (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  slightly out of date 

message: According to the following reference   El Toisón de Oro: De Felipe III "el Bueno" a Felipe VI,  Doctoral Thesis, Luis Fernando Fernández Sánchez, Universidade Complutense de Madrid, 2017 , the Chancellor of the Spanish branch of the Order of the Golden Fleece is the chaplain of the Royal Palace (who, I believe, is currently the Archbishop of Madrid) whereas the "greffier" or clerk of the order is the undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, see p. 198. Should that information be included in the article?
Other relevant information from the same reference: the Spanish Golden Fleece is currently awarded by Royal Decree published in the State Gazette (Boletín Oficial del Estado) and countersigned by the Spanish Prime Minister. However, see also the next reference,   LA GRACIA REAL. CONCESIONES DEL COLLAR DE LA ORDEN DEL TOISÓN DE ORO OTORGADAS
POR S.M. DON JUAN CARLOS I (1975-2014)  whereas appointments to the Order of Carlos III and to the Order of Isabella the Catholic are published respectively in the sections of the Gazette corresponding to the PM's Office (Presidencia del Gobierno) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, appointments to the Order of the Golden Fleece are published in the section corresponding to the Office of the Head of State (Jefatura del Estado) indicating that, unlike the civil orders, the Golden Fleece is awarded on the personal discretion of the monarch, albeit with the concurrence of the Council of Ministers. I believe that should be also explained in the article.187.73.191.2 (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Officers of Spanish Golden Fleece 

message: In this section there is a heading "Coats of arms of current Knights of the Spanish Golden Fleece" followed by images of current members with their coat-of-arms including the Golden Fleece.  Are these arms actually displayed someplace (e.g. a chapel of the order)?  Or are these merely the coats-of-arms of these people IF they displayed them with the Golden Fleece?  If its the former, that is fine.  If it's the later, then that amounts to original creation and they should be removed. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the non-Spanish recipients (mostly foreign royalty).  If anyone can provide evidence that any of these coats-of-arms have been used, then please restore those parts. Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Armorial of the Spanish Golden Fleece

message: Unfortunately, Queen Elizabeth II is no longer with us. The Queen is dead, long live the King.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:8B00:C19F:9BE:7B7B:CA46:4C6A (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Current knights of the order

message: Change 'Current knights of the order include Queen Elizabeth II, Emperor Akihito of Japan, former Tsar Simeon of Bulgaria, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, amongst 13 others.' to 'Current knights of the order include Emperor Akihito of Japan, former Tsar Simeon of Bulgaria, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, amongst 13 others.' to remove the late Queen Elizabeth II from the list, as she is not currently alive. 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61585886 Twattock (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2022 

message: Remove Queen Elizabeth II from the list of current awardees, because she is no longer living. 140.82.214.2 (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2022 

message: Please remove Constantine II of Greece from the living members section, as he is now deceased. 2601:249:9301:D570:8D29:A3EF:A5EE:4FB2 (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2023