Talk:Sovereign Military Order of Malta/Archive 1

message: The official link was pointing to one, out of the four local chapters in the United states. Replaced it with the link to the official site of the order.
*http://www.smominfo.org - Official site
*http://www.smom.org - Local chapter
However there seems to be sufficient reason to believe that this might change at some point in the future. / Mic 08:47 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)
http://www.smominfo.org/ now redirects to http://www.orderofmalta.org/ - I'm changing the link to point to http://www.orderofmalta.org/index.asp?idlingua=5 which is the English version of the page. Arwel 02:20 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)
Hmm, oughtn't this page be merged with Knights Hospitaller? john 23:09, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

message: :Why on earth has this page been redirected to Knights Hospitaler? The official name of the the organization is the "Sovereign Military & Hospitaler Order of St John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta". If anything, Knights Hospitaler should redirect to the that. --Centauri 15:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been a redirect since 2004! In June 2006 someone made an article about it, which I later noticed and added content to, not knowing that the former redirected article exists. I would agree that the article should be here, however, this article should remain a redirect until the article is formally moved through a move request. Otherwise content will be added in both places and it will be difficult to merge it later. I already went through this once. Gimmetrow 22:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to merge anything. We are talking about 2 entirely separate subjects. SMOM is a stand-alone entity that has diplomatic relations with about 70 countries. It is deserving of its own article as a unique sovereign organization. Knights Hospitaler is a generic description of many different organizations - one of which happens to be SMOM. The 2 articles should remain entirely separate. --Centauri 02:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As most of the content of Knights Hospitaler is actually about SMOM, that content should be moved here - perhaps with a 1-paragraph summary of the other Orders of St John appended. Knights Hospitaler should provide a brief intro to SMOM as well as details of the various other St John orders/organisations. --Centauri 23:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This should not be done by a cut-paste move, given the edit history at Knights Hospitaller. I think a move request (of the entire article) would be better. Gimmetrow 11:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SMOM 

message: I'm not an expert at all on the subject of knights, but a friend of mine (not a Wikipedian) pointed out that there seems to be an issue with the "loss of Malta" section.  Specifically (emphasis mine):
: ... rather than Grand Masters in the period 1805 to 1879, when Pope Leo XIII restored a Grand Master to the Order. This signalled the revival of the Order's fortunes as a humanitarian and ceremonial organization.
followed immediately by:
: In 1834, the revived Order ...
Now, there may be a perfectly logical reason for this, but I thought I'd just point this out so someone who knows up from down on this subject can fix it or tell me to shut my proverbial hole. --Jemiller226 04:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline issue 

message: The conflation of the historical Knights of Malta and the present day organisation is confusing, even deliberately misleading. See Fort St Angelo where both the historical organisation and the present incarnation are both referred to, but resolve to the same page since I cannot refer into the presently too long article.
I would prefer that the original seperation be restored, or better an evan a smaller division created with an overall article to link them togeather, since the organisation that fell to Napolion was substantially different to that which was kicked out of Rhodes, or which fought off the Turks. And the section on the Grand Masters of the order would be better as a seperate article, so that it can be referred to directly, rather than being a footnote on a rambling article that tries to be all things to all men. I'm working on a series of articles on the fortifications of Malta, and will probably want to expand the entries on the Grand Masters of the order as a consiquence. The list of Grand Masters is a reasonable start on this.
--Shoka 23:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: :SMOM has formal diplomatic relations with 93 states (many of which are non-Catholic)
The preceding phrase is found in the article, in the section describing the Order's international status. However, the terminology used is not accurate, as there exists no such thing as a "Catholic state," definitely not since Vatican II in the 1960s (even if some Catholic theologians had once held that there ought to be ). I suspect the writer was trying to express the notion of a traditionally Catholic country, but this must be clarified (See Roman Catholic Church#Worldwide distribution). --Dpr 05:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The above phrase is quoted from the SMOM's official website . I think the SMOM is trying to describe those states with majority Catholic population as "Catholic states" instead of using the term to refer to those with Catholic as state religion. DD Ting 10:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. Do you think it should be clarified, however? Thanks. --Dpr 02:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how you define "Catholic states".  For me, I'd prefer maintaining status quo. DD Ting 11:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: "Catholic states", I propose, is an undefined term. They do not exist. The term is not widely used and should not be used here--it would be an idiosyncracy. Nonetheless, it's worthwhile to examine the following: State religion#Roman Catholic...there are 11 or so states which do hold Catholicism to be the state religion. Nonetheless "Catholic state" is still an irregular term. --Dpr 02:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Catholic states"

message: The Latin name is the official name of the order, while the 'anglicised' version is the name of one of the protestant orders related to the original order. The normal English name is the one used in the title of the article - hence I reversed here. Refdoc 09:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglicising Latin name

message: Hello Refdoc, I noticed your revert of my anglicization of the latin in Knights hospitaller.  The reason I anglicized "ordo militae etc" is because there is a bogus order run by a fake german prince that uses the latin name.  SMOM uses the latin translation of "SMOM" and this isn't it. Since nobody officially uses this version of the latin name besides the bogus order, I thought I should anglicize it to the more common usage which also includes the legitimate "Johannitter" orders in Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands.  I will be changing the latin back to english shortly. Ordrestjean 21:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of St John of Jerusalem 

message: There is something wrong with the following sentance from the article:
:In 1023, merchants from Amalfi and Salerno in Italy were given permission by the Caliph Haroun el Raschid of Egypt to rebuild the hospice in Jerusalem.
Fatimid dynasty, the egyptian caliphs of the time, has no such fellow and Harun al-Rashid was much earlier. Anyone know the actual details? MeltBanana 16:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Caliph chasm

message: Why is this entry not named after the shortened name that the organization uses itself: the Order of Malta. Shortened from the proper name (in English)  Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta. []. Why would we disregard Wiki policiy here?. DocendoDiscimus 22:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of Malta

message: Where the article read, "The hospice ... took in Christian pilgrims traveling to visit the birthplace of Jesus," I substituted "traveling to visit the site of the crucifixion of Jesus."  I suppose many Christian pilgrims might have traveled on to Bethlehem as well, but Golgatha was the chief reason for traveling to the Holy Land, and certainly the reason for going to Jerusalem.  Please correct me if I'm mistaken. Joel Bastedo 06:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early History 

message: Spain did not even exist in the year 1565. The relief arrived from the Ancient Reign of Aragon--Paco ✉ 07:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knights of Malta 

message: An organization is either sovereign or not. There's no dispute there! You cannot just claim sovereignity, other organizations/nations must recognize that sovereignity. You have to prove it's PoV (how about reading the relevant WP:POV article for starts?) not just decide that it's PoV. Please provide a source to your claim (as I asked to do in the edit summary) instead of simply starting an edit war like some who's right kid's game. └ VodkaJazz/talk┐ 18:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sovereignty 

message: This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Although references are provided, the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 10:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: I have added a few facts to the SMOM section - size of membership, name of current Grand Master etc.  For the sake of clarity the heading of the section on the Venerable Order has been amended to give its fuller title. One or two other small edits for style which I trust will be helpful.
Jallason 22:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Additions 

message: Should "Maltese falcon" in the article really link to the movie? Is there another meaning of the word "falcon" I'm not aware of, e.g. it's the name of a coin in Malta? Or did the Knights really tithe one falcon a year?
: Actually, I do not find real informations about any Maltese falcon (the statue)... except in Hammet book ! Are you really sure it is not a book plot, rather than a true fact ??? I think we should remove :
:: "Their annual fee for the island was a single Maltese falcon, which they had to give annually on All Souls Day to the Viceroy, who acted as the King's representative."
:--WithNuts 17:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maltese Falcon 

message: I propose splitting off the list of Grand Masters into Grand Master of the Knights Hospitaller or List of Grand Masters of the Knights Hospitaller. The article is getting long (34K), and the German, Czech, French, Dutch, Polish, and Slovak have such articles separated. It would also provide a clearer link for succession boxes for the people on the list, and a main article for the :Category:Grand Masters of the Knights Hospitaller. Any objections? Rigadoun  (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me, if there is an appropriate link to the list.Cosal 23:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I added a link in the "See also" section. If you can think of another place, go ahead and add it. Rigadoun  (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is the correct flag. It is also very similar to the first flag used by the Holy Roman Empire. Legend states that the Flag of Denmark fell from Heavens to a Danish army in Estonia in 1219. People that don't believe in this legend have often explained the flag as simply a "standard" crusader flag. Now you know why. :) Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 14:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split off list? 

message: The individual nation branches of the order were called Langues from the French "tongue". This is what I have read in one or two articles, but there is, I believe, another meaning of the French word, namely "strip of land". I think the Order term may derive from this being some reference to the holding of land by the Knights.
Robert Hill
:No, it was based on the geographic/cultureal/linguistic origin of the knights. Cosal 23:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "Langue" 

message: Howdy Y'all,
I just added: "Linked to the S.M.O.M. by historical tradition and particular agreements are four other Orders of St. John. These Orders of Knighthood have formed the Alliance of Chivalry of Hospitallers of Saint John of Jerusalem based in Basel, of which the President is Bernd, Baron Freytag von Loringhoven and the Secretary is Mr. Ehringer-Krehl. The Members of this Alliance are:
1) Die Balley Brandenburg des Ritterlichen Ordens Sankt Johannes vom Spital zu Jerusalem (the Baliwick of Brandenburg of the Knightly Order of St. John of the Hospital in Jerusalem, otherwise known as the Johanniter Order). The Herrenmeister (Master of the Knights) is H.R.H. Wilhelm-Karl, Prince of Prussia, the membership is divided into Knights of Justice or Honor and it is based in Bonn. It is recognized as an Order of Chivalry by the Federal Republic of Germany and has Finnish, Swiss, French, Austrian and Hungarian Commanderies. The members of Johanniter Order resident in the United States have formed two sub-Commanderies, which have jointly created Johanniter Aid Association in North America Inc., based in New York.
2) The Grand Priory of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, of which H.M. Queen Elizabeth II is Sovereign Head and H.R.H. the Duke of Gloucester the Grand Prior. The Grand Priory headquarters are at St. John's Gate, Clerkenwell, London EC1M 4DA, and it has Priories in Scotland, Wales, South Africa, New Zealand, Canada and Australia and Commanderies in Northern Ireland and Western Australia. The Lord Prior is Lord Vesty and the Hospitaller is Dr. Noel Rice. The U.S. Priory is composed of United States citizens and British subjects resident in the U.S., who have been admitted to the Order.
3) Johanniterorder i Sverige, which is under the High Protectorship of H.M. the King of Sweden is an Order of the Swedish Crown divided into Knights of Justice or Honor. The Commander is General Fredrik Lovenheim and the Chancellor is Baron Lagerbielke. The headquarters are in Stockholm
4) Johanniter Orde in Nederland, is an Order of the Dutch Crown divided into Knights and Dames of Justice or Honor under the Protection of H.M. Queen Beatrix, who is Honorary Commander. The Landcommandeur is her father, H.R.H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and the headquarters are in the Hague.
"
:*I pretty much copied it word for word from "The Priory In The United States of The Most Venerable Order of The Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem membership directory 1999."  I apologize in advance if any of those people are now dead... Captain Barrett 17:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allliance of Chivalry of Hospitallers of Sant John, etc 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#In Support Strongly. - The organization is complicated enough as it is. SMOM is used most frequently in literature. Captain Barrett 05:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #In Support Strongly. - The organization is complicated enough as it is. SMOM is used most frequently in literature. Captain Barrett 05:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: Are not they also known as 'Johanites'. Harry Potter
:No. The Johanniters (not correct spelling) are members of a different chivalric order, the Brandenburg Bailiwick of the Knights' Order of the Hospital of St John in Jerusalem aka Knights of St. John in Germany. Please see Johanniter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.80.244.204 (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: How does this look for a possible template to be used to navigate between the various orders of saint john:

I'm not sure how best to list each order's name and there obviously a lot of red links, but any suggestions are more than welcome.--Eva bd 18:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Navigation Template

message: Where is the section #Mimic Orders ? Did it ever existed ?
If you find it, revert my modification. 82.124.211.240
I just deleted link to nice "mimic order" (h**p://www.orderofsaintjohn.info/), where is "Grand master" John Grady from Tennessee.  I hope, that this link never rise again :-) Yopie 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sovereign Military Order of Malta#Mimic Orders]] 

message: The Montevideo Convention says that a country should have a permanent population, but this article doesn't give a figure. Does anyone know the figure?--ML5 (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the population?

message: I maintain another order which has a list of "notables." This is tough to maintain since everyone wants their Dad on there! (It was handed out rather indiscrimately in many cases). Anyway, just ran across a Knight of Malta, William Casey. Was about to enter his name but didn't find a place. Since most of my editing on this other article is to delete some good-faith addition of a non-notable, I can see why you would want to avoid this. Is there any general direction that would enable me to delete the section in the article I'm maintaining? Or were you just lucky?  :)   Student7 (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notables?

message: --Certh (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they don´t claim Maltese territory. SMOM have as extra-territorial one castle in Malta, as gift from Maltese government. Yopie 21:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So can it be described "government in excile" or not?--Certh (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in the slightest. GIE makes it seem like they were forcibly removed from malta.--Jakezing (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And SMOM was also forcibly removed from Malta by Napoleon, wasn't it?--Certh (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But is SMOM still activley claiming to be the goverment of malta?--Jakezing (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, why? The are sovereign as order, not as rulers of Malta. Yopie 22:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much of a GIE, since neither do they, or any other nation/group/order, claim that the SMOM is one.--Jakezing (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does it claim Maltese territory? 

message: Was the SMOM affected by World War 2?  Did the Germans force their way inside the building occupied by the SMOM?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.159.125 (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: World War 2

message: for internet identification the SMOM has not sought, nor been granted, a top level domain (such as .com or.uk), while Vatican City uses its own domain
With very few exceptions indeed, ccTLDs are only granted based on ISO 3166 two-letter country codes. SMOM does not have an ISO 3166 code assigned, therefore they also cannot (could not) get a ccTLD. Conversely, if you are on the ISO 3166 list, there is a ccTLD reserved for you, whether you use it or not. It typically has nothing to do with seeking a ccTLD. You can't do that, afaik. --80.101.191.11 (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. How should this be reworded or should it be deleted? "A country code has not been assigned to SMOM"? (and how important is it that they haven't?) Student7 (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ccTLD citatation needed 

message: I am proceeding to remove the photo placed in the Military Corps of the Order section as it is wrongly described as portraying "High officials of the SMOM" and therefore doesn't belong there.
These are not "High officials of the SMOM" they are instead Italian Army Warrant Officers or NCOs (Specifically two Primo Maresciallo Luogotenente ("higher" Sergeant Major), one Primo Maresciallo (Sergeant Major) and one Maresciallo Capo (Master Sergeant) all NATO OR-9 equivalent) of the Corpo Sanitario Esercito (Medical corps of the Army) 
Stemel (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of irrelevant image 

message: Hi; I was looking for material on the Russian ukases of 1799 and 1821 re the history of the Pacific Northwest and found something very interesting, maybe, to authors/editors here.  The article I found, which is on www.orderstjohn.org so maybe you're already aware of it, concerns the Emperor Paul I of Russia's creation of the status of hereditary knights, apparently in relation to the reliquary of the hand of St. John the Baptist.  I don't know too much more about it but thought someone here might find the article linked useful for expansion of this article.Skookum1 (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply strange web of bogus, self-styled order. Nothing useful for article about SMOM. --Yopie 19:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Skookum, Pay no attention to Yopie - he is a troll.  The pages you note were developed by Dr Michael John Foster of the United Kingdom, the foremost authority on this subject. Tipi Tiki (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian ukases and "hereditary knights"

message: There are various conspiracies related to the Order of Malta, I was wondering if it was a good idea to mention them in any kind of formal way.  ADM (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? If there is not any real basis, is not necessary mention these theories. --Yopie 09:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy theories

message: See here:  for the Military aircraft insignia of SMOM. Alinor (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft Marking (Roundel) 

message: Missing currently:
* Flag of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta 
* Coat of Arms of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta 
* Heraldry of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta Alinor (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag, Coat of Arms articles 

message: If this entity has no territory, why would a map be needed in the right table
and especially, LocationVaticanCity.svg !? ^-o
unless im missing something, can someone explain or does anyone else agree this should be corrected?
67.80.156.50 (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Map was added, because HQ of the Order is in Rome. Name of image does not pretend anything. --Yopie 12:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the Order has no 'territory' in the usual sense, it does have sovereign territorial jurisdiction over its own two headquarters properties in Rome - they are extra-territorial from normal Italian jurisdiction. As such, the current map is appropriate. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 15:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Indeed, and the answer to your question is also "yes". It does benefit the article reader. you and I may know exactly where we are talking about, but there is no reason to assume that the article reader knows where we are talking about. SMOM is headquartered in Rome, and that is why the map in question was employed. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 12:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of the Vatican? 

message: I have simply just been glancing at the Knights Hospitaller Page and have noticed a few errors here and there. the years are missing their subfix of B.C. or A.D., i made the changes in the first paragraph, but noticing this seems to proceed throughout the page, i want to be sure the changes are correct, so i have ceased editing. it would only make sense though that the years are A.D. and therefore, after Christ was crucified.
I also noted that when the Knights of Malta were invaded by the ottomans, all that is stated is: "Accordingly, they assembled another massive army in order to dislodge the Knights from Malta, and in 1565 invaded, starting the Great Siege of Malta."
OK, so the ottomans invaded what? what area? a specific city? a fortress? yes there is a link for "the Great Siege of Malta", but i think the location should be inserted after "invaded,".
This article does get the general concept and history of the Knights Hospitaller, but i still think there needs to be some work done here and there.
--Killerbicycle
:They invaded Malta, obviously. And why would the years need AD after them? Surely no one would be confused by that... Adam Bishop 21:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: B.C. is a suffix. A.D. is a prefix, it never goes after the year number, but rather before.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.230.106 (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years and general editing 

message: This page is a mess. 
The contributers have confused the Order of Malta (), the Knights Hospitallers () and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (), to name only those I immediately noticed. They are all _very_ different organizations with, unfortunately for Wikipedia,  very similar roots. They schismed a few times, long ago, much like Anglicans, Protestants, etc. did from Christianity, and for many of the same belief-founded reasons. You'll even note that the Grand Masters are different on some places, and this can be used, actually, to trace the aforementioned splits in the different Orders, for example.
This will be very difficult to resolve, and there is nothing offendingly wrong with the "overview" currently available under the "Knights Hospitallers" article name. Just know that, for one, the Grand Masters list is incorrect (the current Grand Master of the Knights Hospitallers is actually Count Joseph Frendo-Cumbo of Malta, whereas Willoughby Ninian Bertie is of the Sovereign Order). There are other factual differences as well, most of which might be sorted out eventually by someone more wiki-proficient than I. But know this: it's gonna be quite confusing if you're striving for complete accuracy and precision.
For those so inclined, the "Self-Styled Orders" section of the Sovereign Order's website (English, ) may help a little. This only helps for those calling themselves the Sovereign Order, however: when it asserts that many "fake" organizations have cropped up around the world, it is specifying those organizations that attest to being the True Sovereign Order of Malta and not, for example, the Knights Hospitallers (the military hospitallers and knight hospitallers are, again, different)
I know it sucks, but it had to be said. Hopefully one day, someone will get bored enough to rearrange it but for now, like I said, it'll do.
Grazzi hafna =)
:Joseph Crendo-Cumbo is the head of a fake order that only gained confusion when it was recognized by the exiled King Michael of Rumania.  It's an offshoot of the Paterno Order which itself was created by a self-titled "prince". .  Bertie, and now Festing, are the only heads of SMOM.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicalyak (talk • contribs) 20:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many different sects 

message: How does one exactly become a citizen of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta?--CafeDelKevin (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is answered in the previous section (above). Citizenship of the SMOM comes automatically for those who are admitted to the grade of Knighthood within the Order, or for SMOM diplomats in its various embassies around the world. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 10:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, thanks for answering.  I know that Wikipedia is not a forum, but I believe this should be added to the article.--CafeDelKevin (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  citizen 

message: *List of diplomatic missions of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta
*List of diplomatic missions to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta 
*list of delegations of SMOM to international organizations: 
*list of diplomatic relations with SMOM: 
*list of diplomatic missions of SMOM to countries: 
*MISSING: list of diplomatic missions to SMOM
Most of the independent countries and also some unrecognized countries and the EU have such articles. As SMOM is a sovereign entitiy engaging in diplomatic relations with states maybe there should be articles for its missions too? Alinor (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing [[List of diplomatic missions ]] articles about SMOM 

message: I added link in See also to The Alliance of the Orders of St. John of Jerusalem (covering SMOM/Catholic and the Protestant orders).
But what about an "Orthodox Order of Saint John"? (such as this).
I think this is related to the above issue of states recognizing SMOM - the european states that don't have diplomatic relations with it are mostly the protestant ones and Greece/Turkey ("home" of the Eastern Orthodox Church). Alinor (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other orders of St.John/[[Knights_Hospitaller|hospitallier]] 

message: Near the end of the page, it says that the order has recently returned to Malta. However, at the top it says that the order is currently headquartered in Rome, Italy. The order's official site confirms that the order did move back to Malta. As this is the case, I think that anything in the article about current headquarters should be switched from Rome to Malta. If nobody sees anything wrong with this in five days, I'll fix the page. David815 (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: NO! Absolutely not. The Order remains headquartered in Rome. The Magistral Palace (official residence of the Grand Master) and the Villa Malta, together with the SMOM Post Office, Library, Archive, & Military Corps Headquarters, all remain in Rome (geographically speaking - though legally, of course, they are extra-territorial, and therefore not part of Rome or of Italy). The Order has indeed returned to Malta, and has a 99-year lease on its property there, which also has extra-territorial rights from Malta. However, this is not a transfer of the Headquarters. The article remains correct as it stands. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 17:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Tim. This is a fine line, but there is no need to change the page. Outback the koala (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return to Malta 

message: I have moved the history section from the bottom of the page to the second subsection.  When I encountered this page I found it confusing to be reading about the international status of an organization before learning how that organization was formed.  This move formats the page in a similar fashion to other pages I have encountered.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that makes sense. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 21:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: history section

message: Any news about Ecuador-SMOM relations? Japinderum (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecuador 

message: On June 6, 2012 SMOM and Cyprus established diplomatic relations - see here. Gugganij (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diplomatic relations established with Cyprus 

message: The article gives the following established events: Established Circa 1099; Loss of Malta 1798; Headquarters in Rome 1834. It seems that SMOM was established only in 1834 and (at best) claims to be the successor of the order that held Rhodes and Malta. However, the article confuses the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (Rome) with the Order of St. John (Rhodes, Malta). These are not the same body. 
The article is also confusing. Are the ties between SMOM and Malta (the country) recent? I quote the article: "SMOM has had no sovereign territory (other than Fort St Angelo in Malta and a few properties in Italy with extraterritoriality) since the loss of the island of Malta in 1798". 
The citations provided in the article are by SMOM's own members. 
Therefore the article fails: (1) fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view, (2) original research, (3) citations for verification. (4) All in all, there are multiple issues. 
Please clean up the article to conform to Wiki standards. Humble observer (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  SMOM claims to be the same order, but it is it? 

message: Souvereign Military Order of Malta still points to the Malta-article, but probably should point to this article here instead. As i don't know all background details about this article title's handling, i'll leave that decision to the main editors. GermanJoe (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I don't see any reason why it should point to Malta so I've gone ahead and redirected it here.  TDL (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect from "SoUvereign Military Order of Malta"? 

message: We have the list of ~100 countries recognizing SMOM as sovereign, established diplomatic relations, etc. But are there other states, that do not recognize SMOM as sovereign entity?
#According to this  list the following countries do not have diplomatic relations with SMOM: Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Canada (for Canada see also  - I think it should be changed to orange on the map). They have "official relations" instead of diplomatic. 
#Monaco and Russia have a different type of "diplomatic special mission". 
#Also, here, page30-31, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Switzerland, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Greece do not accept SMOM diplomatic passports (Germany on the other hand accepts both diplomatic and service SMOM passports).
#some of the rest ~100 that have no formal relations with SMOM, especially the European and Mediterranean states (like UK)?
As the SMOM status is unique, it would be good to have such info in the article (like we have the "states do not recognize Israel as a state" - there the list of countries with no "established relations/suspended relations/withdrawn their recognition" is separate from the list of countries that do not recognize it "as state"). Alinor (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada's status is correct on the map per this source I found. Outback the koala (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The map as updated (Canada-orange) is correct, yes. Alinor (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Maybe Monaco/Russia have diplomatic, but special, relations, because SMOM is sovereign, but not state - in contrast to the cases of "official instead of diplomatic" relations. Alinor (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

text: "[T]he clear territorial separation of sovereign areas that exists between the Italian State and the State of Vatican City does not exist between the Order of Malta and the Italian State, but neither can it be said that the treatment given to the headquarters of the Order (Aventine, Via Condotti) is, simply, that reserved for the headquarters of diplomatic missions accredited to the Italian State.  In fact, the headquarters of the Order have diplomatic extraterritoriality (authoritarian acts of any kind – executive, acts of inspection, judicial – cannot take place inside), but in addition, the Italian State recognizes the exercise, in the headquarters, of the prerogatives of sovereignty. This means that Italian sovereignty and Maltese sovereignty coexist without overlapping, because the Order exercises sovereign functions in a wider area than occurs in the diplomatic missions of the States for, although [those diplomatic missions] enjoy extraterritoriality, the guarantees deriving from the privilege of immunity are constrained to a purely administrative area; the Order, instead, makes use of extraterritoriality to meet the very acts of sovereign self-determination that are the same as the States (legislative, judicial, administrative, financial acts)."
Jeff in CA 18:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  sovereignty recognition? 

message: Does the order authorise members to use post nominal letters in each language? Garlicplanting (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post Noms 

message: The article states that new Knights of Malta are "expected" to become armigerous. Please document or cite this expectation; expected by whom? What rule? They are certainly allowed to become armigerous, and the order provides for armorial addiaments--but there are many knights, particularly in the category of magistral grace, who are not armigerous.
I would anticipate the "are expected" being changed to "may" if a source is not cited.
167.80.244.204 17:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Armigerous

message: Security company with police powers <Gial.be> blocking online contacts (twitter / email / Facebook) with the Order of Malta. Jeopardize contacts with the Order of Malta, the securite /safety Brussels City?
Militant Espine?
Officer jaque (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Espine ? 

message: Magaly Arocha’s paper is very detailed and nuanced. The author not only includes many arguments in favor of the proposition that SMOM sovereignty is equivalent to other States, but also argues convincingly that a claim of territory is not relevant and that the existence of extraterritoriality cannot be discounted. It pointedly addresses many of the concerns raised on this talk page. (This translation was performed by a human, not a machine.)
The Order of Malta and Its Legal Nature
http://www.analitica.com/vam/1999.05/sociedad/01.htm
Magaly Arocha, First Consul of the Consulate General of Venezuela in Naples
Some historical data
The Order of St. John was founded before the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 by the armies of the First Crusade. It began as a monastic community dedicated to San Juan Bautista, which administered a hospice-infirmary for pilgrims to the Holy Land. In the beginning it was linked to the Benedictines, and under the Blessed Gerard became an independent organization.
With the Bull of 15 February 1113, approved by Pope Paschal II, the foundation of the Hospital of St. John became an Order exempt from the Church.
The political situation after the founding of the Kingdom of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, forced the Order, under its second leader (and the first to be called Master), Friar Raymond du Puy, to assume military duties for the protection of patients, pilgrims and the Christian territories that the Crusaders had recovered from the Muslims. Thus the Order of the Hospital of St. John acquired the character of an Order of Chivalry.
The Knights were all subject to the three religious vows of obedience, chastity and poverty. Thus it became a mixed person, a religious-military Order. It has two fundamental goals: serving the poor and the defense of Christianity (protection of the faith).
In 1291, Acre, the last Christian stronghold in the Holy Land fell, and the Order settled temporarily in Cyprus.
The independence of the Order from any other State, under papal documents, and its right to maintain armed forces and fight wars, formed the basis of international sovereignty. With the occupation of the island of Rhodes, the Order also acquired territorial sovereignty.
Rhodes became a bastion of Christianity in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. The Order was ruled by the Grand Master and Council, minted its own money and maintained diplomatic relations with other States. The Grand Master was Sovereign Prince of Rhodes and then of Malta.
In December, 1522, the Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent attacked Rhodes, and the Knights were forced to capitulate, and in January 1523, they left the island. For the next seven years the Order, even though it retained its international sovereignty, was without territory until, by assignment of the Emperor Charles V (in his capacity as King of Sicily), it obtained the islands of Malta, Gozo and Comino, as well as Tripoli in North Africa, as a sovereign fiefdom.
On 26 October 1530, the Grand Master Friar Philippe de Villiers de l'Isle Adam took possession of Malta with the approval of Pope Clement VII. The Order was to remain neutral in wars between Christian nations.
In 1607 and again in 1620, the title of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire was united with the rank of Grand Master, and in 1630 became equal to the rank of Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church with the treatment of Eminence.
In 1798, Bonaparte, during his campaign against Egypt, occupied the island of Malta and expelled the Order. The Knights again found themselves without territorial headquarters. There followed what has been called the Russian coup (1798-1803).
The Emperor Paul I of Russia, proclaimed himself Grand Master (de facto, not de jure) through a small group of Knights, in the place of the Grand Master Friar Ferdinand von Hompesch, who had been forced to leave Malta in French hands.
This proclamation was not recognized by the Holy See (a necessary condition for legitimacy). His successor, Alexander I, however, helped the Order to return to a legitimate government in 1803; Friar Giovanni Battista Tommasi was elected Grand Master.
The British had occupied Malta in 1801 and, although the Treaty of Amiens (1802) recognized the sovereign rights of the Order on the island, it was never possible to enforce them.
Having had provisional seats in Messina, Catania and Ferrara, the Order finally in 1834 settled in Rome, where it now enjoys extraterritoriality in the Palace of Malta (at 68 Via Condotti) and the Villa of Aventine.
The Order was ruled by Lieutenants from 1805 until 1879, when Pope Leo XIII restored the Grand Master to the office of Cardinal and associated honors. The hospital work was again the main objective.
Structure of the Order
The Order of Malta, a supranational institution, without abandoning the defense of Christian ideals, their energies and resources devoted to humanitarian and social assistance, is the only religious order of the Catholic Church to be both a Catholic Order and Cavalry.
It is unique in possessing Professed Knights, called Justices, who are direct descendants of the founders of the Order and among whom is elected Grand Master and most members of the Sovereign Council.
The sovereignty of the Order is exercised by the Prince and Grand Master, who is the Chief Justice, and the Councils (the Sovereign Council, the General Chapter and the Complete Council of State).
The General Chapter is the Supreme Assembly of Knights, which normally meets every five years and elects the members of the Sovereign Council, while the Complete Council of State is convened for the purpose of electing a Grand Master or Lieutenant.
Both the General Chapter and the Complete Council of State include representatives of the Grand Priories, Priories, Sub - and National Associations, bodies to which the Order is divided in different countries.
The Grand Master receives the treatment of Eminence and Highness (or Eminent Highness) corresponding by precedence to a Cardinal, and therefore Prince of Royal Blood, as well as for the rank of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire (recognized by Austria and Italy) and still reigning ex-Prince of Rhodes and later Malta, and is also internationally recognized as head of state with corresponding sovereign honors.
The Grand Master governs the Order assisted by the Sovereign Council, chaired by him and consisting of four senior officers (the Grand Commander, Grand Chancellor, the Hospitaller and Receiver of the Common Treasure), four directors and two alternate directors, all elected by the Chapter General among the Professed Knights or on exception among the Knights in Obedience.
The pope appoints as his representative a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, who has title Cardinalis Patronus; the latter is assisted by the Prelate of the Order, also appointed by the Supreme Pontiff.
The life and work of the Order are governed by the Charter, approved by the Holy See and the Code de Rohan, promulgated by the Grand Master Friar Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in the eighteenth century.
Legal issues of concern to the Order are considered by an advisory technical body called the Legal Council, appointed by the Grand Master with the consent of the Sovereign Council.
The Order has its own Courts of First Instance and Appeal. Appeals against the judgments of the second degree of the Courts of the Order may be filed with the Court of Appeals of the State of Vatican City, which in such cases acts by delegation of the Order and serves as the Supreme Court.
The Order has diplomatic relations, according to public international law, with the Holy See, which is based on the religious Order but is independent of the chivalric sovereign Order, and with 71 countries in Europe, America, Asia and Africa (data from 1996-97).
The Order accredits Representatives or Delegates in Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Monaco, Germany and Greece and the European Commission. Since 1994, the Order enjoys Permanent Observer status to the United Nations and in that capacity maintains permanent delegations in New York, Geneva, Paris, Rome and Vienna.
THE "STATUS" OF THE ORDER IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
The Order of Malta is presented with full international legal personality. This personality is evidenced by:
:* the existence of a right of active and passive legation, of the jus contrahendi, the right to issue passports, privileges and immunities enjoyed by the Grand Master and external representative bodies,
:* the existence of an internal organization that gives life to legal entities recognized on par with foreign legal entities,
:* the existence of its own legal jurisdiction as an alternative to territorial jurisdiction or membership, and the power of conferring decorations [of diplomatic honor].
The Order occupies its own place in the scope of the international community no differently than other entities, contributing as others do to forming customary rules – States do not have a monopoly over this – although, from a purely quantitative point of view, fewer in number.
The Legal Nature of the Order
The Order in its centuries-long life is presented as independent of any State. It is not an organization or a governmental institution. It has affirmed, in Constitutions that have been produced over time, its own sovereign quality, an affirmation of great importance in assessing its independence.
The international community, through the behavior of States, has recognized the right of active and passive legation. There are few doubts expressed about the period before 1798, when the Order exercised territorial sovereignty in Malta and neighboring islands.
The problem arises in the nineteenth century, the most difficult stage for the international position of the Order, given the vacancy of the Grand Master (1805-1879), a period in which the Order was ruled by Lieutenants General.
However, the study of international relations in this period shows that the loss of possession of the Maltese archipelago did not affect the right of active and passive legation for the Order, which is legally important for checking the absolute continuity of international status regardless of the territorial possession of Malta.
One can say that there is continuity between the Order as currently structured and as recognized by the international community and the Order as it was when exercising powers deriving from territorial sovereignty.
The only differences are obviously the lack of territory and non-institutional citizens, but in this respect it should be reiterated that this condition is not a limitation of the peculiar characteristics of the Entity, as developed over time, because the exercise of territorial sovereignty was not, nor is today, one of the purposes of the Order, nor does it need a territorial basis to exercise its sovereignty. This exercise was a means to achieve its objectives, of a highly spiritual nature.
However, it is undeniable that the absence of territory deprives the Order of unquestioned independence. This peculiar situation may account for the gradualness with which States agree to diplomatic recognition, the same gradualness expressed in relation to States that are recently created or not yet very stable, but it carries no weight in framing the Order's legal nature, unless one wants to conditionally weigh the territorial element that no longer exists or one does not want to acknowledge the importance of recognition by a subset of States.
It is worth asking how one can justify afterward the continuity of international and diplomatic relations (in the nineteenth century) when during that time span, the International Community did not know other sovereign Entities distinct from the States, and moreover, the same international doctrine precluded the existence of regulatory ordinances outside of States’ legal relations.
The independence of the internal organization, always reaffirmed, was precisely the quality that legitimized the persisting international personality of the Order, admittedly with the peculiarities arising from the absence of a sovereign territory, as well as its particular relationship with the Holy See. The Order, in its entirely individual characteristic, anticipated the phenomenon of recognition by non-state Entities.
The number of States with which the Order maintained diplomatic relations increased in the twentieth century. Without doubt other Governments appreciated its work during the two world wars on behalf of war victims as well as their fight against disease and hunger, especially in Africa and Central-South America.
States recognize its sovereignty even in the absence of a territorial base and in spite of the inability [perceived by those States] in some way to set up the existence of a State for its internal organization’s independence, because they understand that full recognition of the international status of the Order and the consequent establishment of normal diplomatic relations is an indispensable tool to fulfill its mission.
The supranational structure of the organization is manifested in the existence of peripheral agencies working in the field of those national territories in which the Knights are present.
Internal sovereignty of the Order of Malta
As sovereign as the Order is in international relations, it is also in its own internal law. If one reviews the manifestations of the internal sovereignty of States, it is evident that, with the necessary adaptations, they are present in the Order of Malta.
The first element is the existence of a governing power that is not derived from any other power (non recognoscens superiorem) and is never imposed by force on its subjects.
The Order has a government constituted by the Grand Master and Sovereign Council that exercises the executive power with full autonomy in relation to members of the Order and the institutions of the latter (Priories, Sub-priories, National Associations, Delegations, Bailiwicks, Parcels).
The second element is the existence of a system of legal rules that has in itself its own justification; a part of legal doctrine that speaks to a "native legal system."
The Order of Malta has a complex legal system represented by its own Constitutional Charter, by the Code, by other laws and regulations governing the internal organization of the Order, the functioning of its institutions, the rights and duties of its members in relation to legal relationships that are constituted as a result of their membership in the Order.
The third element is the existence of a judiciary that decides the application of the rules of law in case of controversy. The Order has a judiciary made up of the existing courts before the Grand Magisterium.
The point is that the sovereignty of the Order of Malta is a historical social and political reality.
The Order maintains political and legal relationships with many of the States, meets and has played a role in the international community with full autonomy and exercises supreme power over its own members.
The legal formulas that explain its existence are: 
:* the theory of a native legal system of non-state character, 
:* the theory of sovereignty as a tool for religious and humanitarian purposes of the Order,
 
:* the theory of the existence of an international norm of jus singular that attributes sovereignty to the Order as an international subject sui generis.
Relations of the Italian State with the Order
For the purpose of studying the international position of the Order of Malta, the posture of the Italian State in whose territory, since 1870, the Grand Master of the Order is based, is very important.
Italy would be the state that would have more interest in contesting the sovereignty of the Order, because of inevitable limitations on its recognition arising from Italian sovereignty (the extraterritoriality of the Palace of Via Condotti and the Villa del Aventino in Rome, where the Grand Master and the central functions of the Order have their residence).
The sovereignty of the Order is recognized after the establishment of the Kingdom of Italy (1861) and before its union with Rome (1870). A government commission to study the knightly orders in the various Italian States concluded in 1868 that "the Order of Malta as European public law is concerned, has not ceased to be sovereign."
The question then arose regarding the implementation of the decree of 7 July 1866 (in fact until 1929, when the Concordat with the Holy See was signed) abolishing "orders, corporations and religious congregations." By decision of the State Council of 2 August 1869, application of this decree to the Order of Malta is excluded, in consideration of its particular legal status.
The decree of 28 November 1929, with diplomatic relations between Italy and the Order still not existing, established that "the representatives of the High Magisterium of the Sovereign Order of Malta, regularly accredited and expressly delegated by the Grand Master," were present at public ceremonies immediately after the Diplomatic Corps.
The international character of the Order and its sovereignty are explicitly recognized by the Supreme Court of Appeals in several judgments (from 1913 onwards). In particular the Supreme Court found that:
:"The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Malta is a sovereign international subject, although deprived of territory, equivalent to a foreign state, with which Italy maintains diplomatic relations, so there is no doubt, as the Court of Appeals has already advised, that it is premised upon the legal treatment relative to foreign States and therefore also the jurisdictional exemption limits already mentioned, i. e., the activity related to the attainment of its public purposes."
In 1948 the Foreign Minister gave provisions to the Prefecture of Rome so that the Grand Master was reserved, in each circumstance, the treatment intended of foreign sovereigns.
After World War II Italian courts have reaffirmed the sovereignty of the Order, extracting all the legal results of this recognition. Thus the Court of Rome, in a June 1947 ruling, held that the Order should be equated with foreign states for the exemption of executive acts.
So, when in 1956, Italy and the Order decided to establish diplomatic relations, it was simply assumed as the logical result of a situation of well-defined and consolidated law and fact.
Relations with the Holy See
As seen, the peculiarity of the position of the Order at the international level is due in part to the absence of territory and non-institutional citizens, and in part, the bond of dependence in relation to the Holy See because of the remaining differences between canonical law and Maltese law.
In fact, special links between Maltese law and canonical law can be demonstrated, because of the decision of the Knights – autonomously organized in the institution – to impose religious rule and to place themselves under the protection of the Pope.
The Apostolic Letters show that S. S. Benedict XIV on 12 March 1753 declared the Order subject to the protection of the Apostolic See, and immune to any other jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Order of Malta has a dual legal personality: in international law and in canonical law.
The Holy See confirmed the most important sources of Law of the Order: the Constitutional Charter and the Maltese Code, to verify the religious orthodoxy, as well as approve or ratify the election of the Grand Master, treating him as an eventual religious Lieutenant Grand Master, as in the past and as provided in the Constitution.
These approvals, however, establish character but no verification nor decrease in the self-determination of the Order, because they conform to the traditional relations that were established with the Church, after the Order assumed the characteristics of a "Religion," and should consider that – until the last century – the Maltese organization being exclusively centered around the professed Knights (First Class), the need for ecclesiastic interventions was clearer.
The sovereignty of the Order led the Holy See to attribute, from the canonical point of view, a very special position of respect for the legal discipline of other religious orders.
The link with the Holy See comes from the fact – mentioned above – that some members belonging to the First Class (inside of the Order the Knights are distinguished by class, based on the nobility of blood, the issuance of religious vows or the promise of obedience (they tend to the perfection of Christian life)). Those in the First Class are Knights of Justice, who profess religious vows and Conventual Chaplains, who are ordained priests.
It is evident that not everything is about a religious profile of assuming vows, and that Maltese law is detached from canonical law, and it is clear that Knights of the First Class only depend on the Holy See within the limits and with respect to the profession of vows.
The Constitution and the Code of the Order include numerous rules of Special Canon Law, which, by repealing Common Canon Law or citing it, discipline the obligations of a canonical nature of the members of the Order, especially those providing religious vows. Under this profile the approval by the Holy See of the Constitution and the Maltese Code was necessary.
The link between the two Entities does not preclude a wide sphere of autonomy of the Order, within which it has the possibility of sovereign self-determination, arising autonomously in its relations with other States, in view of its own institutional purposes.
In international relations, it is ruled out that the Order act in the name and interest of the Holy See, but it is true that the dependent relationship is presented to the outside in the form of "protection" as several historical circumstances demonstrate.
This situation of "dependency," or alleged limitations on the sovereignty of the Order, is not derived from constitutional law or international law, but has its origin in the nature of religious order assumed by the Institution, by the professed vows by the highest ranks of the Order – as noted – and for typically persecuted Christian purposes."
The Grand Master of the Order of Malta is unique among the heads of religious orders in that he has a right to the title of Eminence and to the honors for the Cardinals.
The Order of Malta is the only religious order that has a representative of the Pope, who must be a Cardinal (Cardinalis Patronus), with "the task of promoting the spiritual interests of the Order and its members and to foster relationships between the Holy See and the Order itself."
But in the aspect of religious order, the Order has a particular position, different from that of other religious orders, so much so that even the religious aspect is covered by the Order of Malta in its own legal rules (Constitutional Charter and Code) and, only via an extra channel to establish it, under the Canonical Law.
If we study the issues of a religious nature that the Order has over its sovereignty, it must be noted that such sovereignty has never been put into question by the Holy See and has instead been reaffirmed in the most solemn ways.
The Holy See accepted a diplomatic mission of the Order until 1834 and from 1930 onwards; in the interim period diplomatic relations were suspended simply because, with the Grand Master based in Rome, the existence of a legation in the same city seemed useless.
On 30 October 1921, Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, in his capacity as Secretary of State, declared that:
:"The Holy See recognizes the Order of Malta as an independent international order with sovereign privileges."
The Order cannot be mistaken for a religious-monastic order, either by the presence of lay members or by the absence of a requirement of common life, which is one of the most typical monastic characteristics.
In this regard, we should recall that in December 1951 a controversy arose that originated in the pretense of the Sacred Religious Convention to monitor and investigate the institution of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem as a common religious order.
In these circumstances, the Grand Master made use of ancient prerogatives that claimed the privilege of the Order of not recognizing "another bishop as superior that was not the Pope" and filed a request directly to the Pope asking for a trial, which was conducted by a Tribunal of Special Cardinals instituted by Pius XII.
In the judgment of 24 January 1953, relations between the Holy See and the Order were defined and the characteristics of "sovereign" and "religious" determined, as well as respective areas of competence.
About the "Nature of the quality of religious rule of the Order," the statement said that "the Jerosomilitana Order of Malta, as composed by the Knights and Chaplains, is a Religion and more precisely a religious order, approved by the Holy See;" it further stated that "the decorations of the Order and their associations depend on it ..."
On 12 March 1953, the Order informed the Secretary of State, through diplomatic channels, of the acceptance of the judgment "conditioned" on the acceptance of a "specific interpretation" in three points, of which the second affirmed that "the religious nature of the Order is limited to the professed Knights and Chaplains who compose it," and that the judgment precluded any interference by the Secretary of State in the diplomatic activity of the Order. The Holy See communicated as always through diplomatic channels, it "has taken note."
"Taking note," without rejecting or contradicting the proposed interpretation, has meant the improvement "of an international interpretative agreement, reached by the parties concerned, on some controversial points, setting a definite position."
However, the most solemn reaffirmations of the sovereignty of the Order are contained in the Constitutional Charter approved by S.S. John XXIII on 24 June 1961. Article 1 affirms that "the Order is a legal entity formally approved by the Holy See. It has the quality of a subject of international law."
Article 3 states that "the intimate connection existing between the two qualities of a religious order and a sovereign order do not oppose the autonomy of the order in the exercise of its sovereignty and prerogatives inherent to it as a subject of international law in relation to States."
It also provides for a diplomatic mission of the Order to the Holy See and the appointment of the Cardinalis Patronus. It further provides (Article 12) that "the Grand Master is the Supreme Commander of the Order. Incumbent upon him are special prerogatives and sovereign honors under the rules in force."
In short, the current situation is no different – in law – from what has been consolidated historically, so that one cannot assert the non-existence of a sphere of self-determination of the Order in its relations with any State, nor may one assert the right of interference of the Holy See in international affairs of an institutional character, because the protection afforded by the Holy See to the Order does not mean protectorate, nor can one speak of allegiance.
The distinction between Vatican diplomacy and diplomacy of the Order is so clear that in none of the States with which the Order has diplomatic relations, is the representation of the latter entrusted to the Apostolic Diplomatic Missions. The Holy See is not involved in any way in the international conventions of the Order.
From the point of view of internal organization, there is no interference of the Holy See in the elections and appointments to the offices of the Order, unless canonical dispensation (permission) is needed, in some cases, for the appointment of non-professed Knights to offices for which the Constitution of the Order requires them to be professed.
The Prince Grand Master is also head of a religious order and as such, his election ought to be confirmed by the Apostolic See.
The Order of Malta, within the limits that are compatible with its actual position as a subject deprived of territory, is in the international community, a sovereign entity on par with the States, and the Prince Grand Master is comparable, from the point of view of international law, to the Heads of State.
This report is based on the book written by Prof. Aldo Pezzana entitled, Il Fondamento giuridico e storico della sovranita 'dell'Ordine Gerosomilitano di Malta, 37 pages, and the books by Prof. and Attorney Francesco Gazzoni entitled, L'Ordine di Malta, Milan, 1979, 137 pages; A. Pecchioli, Storia dei Cavalieri di Malta, Editalia, Rome, 1978, 125 pages; and in the Annuarie, 1996/1997, Oedre Souverain Militaire Hospitalier de Saint-Jean de Jerusalem de Rhodes et de Malte, Rome, 1996, 142 pages ("Feast of the Patron of the Order, San Juan Bautista," Annuarie, 1996/1997, Oedre Souverain Militaire Hospitalier de Saint-Jean of Jerusalem de Rhodes et de Malte, p.21-23).
It is worth remembering that accredited Maltese representatives to the States enjoy immunities and privileges not as international officials, but rather in their capacity as diplomatic officials, with the rank of Ambassador or Minister plenipotentiary. On the one hand, the clear territorial separation of sovereign areas that exists between the Italian State and the State of Vatican City does not exist between the Order of Malta and the Italian State, but neither can it be said that the treatment given to the headquarters of the Order (Aventine, Via Condotti) is, simply, that reserved for the headquarters of diplomatic missions accredited to the Italian State.
In fact, the headquarters of the Order have diplomatic extraterritoriality (authoritarian acts of any kind – executive, acts of inspection, judicial – cannot take place inside), but in addition, the Italian State recognizes the exercise, in the headquarters, of the prerogatives of sovereignty. This means that Italian sovereignty and Maltese sovereignty coexist without overlapping, because the Order exercises sovereign functions in a wider area than occurs in the diplomatic missions of the States for, although [those diplomatic missions] enjoy extraterritoriality, the guarantees deriving from the privilege of immunity are constrained to a purely administrative area; the Order, instead, makes use of extraterritoriality to meet the very acts of sovereign self-determination that are the same as the States (legislative, judicial, administrative, financial acts).
(end of paper)
Jeff in CA 18:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "La Orden de Malta y su Naturaleza Jurídica" (English translation) - detailed, expert perspective 

message: "founded circa 1048 in Jerusalem, Kingdom of Jerusalem, by Gerard Thom"
1048 can't be right. Thom was born in 1040, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem wasn't founded until 1099. -- Kendrick7talk 00:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  1048 doesn't make sense, the stated founder would have been 8 years old 

message: It says that the Military order of Malta is considered sovereign under international law, what other organizations or groups are considered sovereign under international law? Where is there a list on wikipedia of such organizations? DopeyBoB (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In the sense of a nation which persists, despite no longer holding its territory? The Central Tibetan Administration comes to mind, although they are not recognized by the UN, rather being part of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. The Knights of Malta are fairly unique as they have no plans to actually retake Malta. Perhaps similar aid organizations such as the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, etc. are likewise considered sovereign? -- Kendrick7talk 20:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What else is considered sovereign under international law 

message: The Title of the Grand Master under his photo here should not be "Sir" but "H.M.E.H. Fra Matthew Festing" meaning "His Most Eminent Highness" since this is the historic style of the Grand Master of the Order derived from in part from the Holy Roman Emperor and in part from the fact that the Grand Master is the only layman in the Roman Catholic Church that holds the rank of a cardinal and ranking below a cardinal in precedence. This should be corrected by a more experienced user. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of Grand Master under his photo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Sovereign Military Order of Malta. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20141119024945/http://www.mfa.gov.mt/TreatyDetails.aspx?id=1469 to http://www.mfa.gov.mt/TreatyDetails.aspx?id=1469
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141119024832/http://www.mfa.gov.mt/TreatyDetails.aspx?id=464 to http://www.mfa.gov.mt/TreatyDetails.aspx?id=464
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130929132257/http://www.orderofmalta.int/the-order-and-its-institutions/310/the-knights-of-malta/?lang=en to http://www.orderofmalta.int/the-order-and-its-institutions/310/the-knights-of-malta/?lang=en
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151004080755/http://www.orderofmalta.int/the-order-and-its-institutions/46143/the-nuns-of-the-order-of-malta/?lang=en to http://www.orderofmalta.int/the-order-and-its-institutions/46143/the-nuns-of-the-order-of-malta/?lang=en
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120722020236/http://www.orderofmalta.int//catalogue/stamps/35675/associate-countries/?lang=en to http://www.orderofmalta.int/catalogue/stamps/35675/associate-countries/?lang=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: CStJ refers to a Commander of the Order of Saint John (chartered 1888) and should be redirected to that page as well as any other of its post-nominals. It was chartered by Queen Victoria and is not to be confused with this lay Catholic Order Sovereign Military Order of Malta. The Order of Saint John is responsible for the St. John's Ambulance Brigade etc around the world and is the British Order referred to by this post nominal.
See both different Wikipedia pages for full explanation of the different Orders. The British Order to which the decoration post nominal CStJ etc applies is Order of Saint John (chartered 1888) - details can be found on the post nominals in that entry - but It has been confused and erroneously redirects to the Catholic lay order Sovereign Military Order of Malta. They are two entirely different Orders. 
The names are easily confused but this needs clarifying.
Dear Editor can you kindly correct this mistaken redirect to correctly at the Order of Saint John (chartered 1888) from, the incorrect re-direct to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta ? I imagine both Orders and any confused readers would be grateful.
 
Many thanks. All of you do a wonderful and much appreciated work.
William Macadam (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  CStJ should not be redirected here. There is an ERROR in Wikipedia doing so. Two separate Orders have been confused here

message: The source for this is the Tablet, which does not itself give any source.  I suggest the article should have something like "it has been claimed that" or "According to the Tablet" to clarify that this is not being presented as a fact, but a claim reported by a third party. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Our source is Lamb, writing in The Tablet. That's a sufficient source. If he said "anonymous sources tell me" or "my sources" or "sources I'm not going to reveal" that would more explicit on his part, but still good enough for us, because he and The Tablet are a reliable source even when he/they do not specify the sources for their information. In fact, Lamb provides one source, a letter from the Procurator of the Grand Priory of Bohemia, which does not mince words.  Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Several senior officials of the Order questioned ... and called for ...." 

message: According to an Associated Press story (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_VATICAN_KNIGHTS_OF_MALTA?SITE=AP) former archbishop of St. Louis Cardinal Raymond Burke (sort of) and ex-leader Festing (definitely) told Boeselager that the Pope wanted him to resign.  The Pope said that he had not done that.   Raymond Burke is presently Cardinal to the Knights of Malta, which seems not to be mentioned in the article.  Motivations for animosities aren't hard to figure, but BLP rules apply, I suppose.  Just the facts, please. 173.20.148.109 (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to be less than civil discussing this. And BLP is no issue here, and Burke's role vis-à-vis the Order is mentioned elsewhere in the entry. It takes time to tell the full story and I've just started on this affair. It actually all goes back to a meeting between Francis and Burke in November, which incidentally makes the Order's claim than this is an internal affair untenable. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's coming along nicely.   BLP is never not a concern, you know, if living people are subjects, but I hear your expectation that BLP will stay out. - 173.20.148.109 (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  little fib? 

message: I have trouble with the notion that the infobox says that the office of Prince is "sede vacante". The Order's Constitution and Code don't refer to the notion of sede vacante after the Prince's death or resignation. All they say is that if such resignation, death or incapacity occurs, the Lieutenant ad interim steps in until the Council Complete of State elects a new Prince and Grand Master. Additionally, he's not a priest or other holy figure, so he doesn't occupy a holy "seat" as a bishop or Pope. --The Historian (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's odd in that the role is filled by a Lieutenant ad interim who is not Prince ad interim. No one holds the title of Prince at present. But there's no reason to use Latin. (I don't even like sede vacante for a bishop/diocese. English does the job and I see no reason to use a term of art that makes a simple fact obscure to most readers.) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sede vacante? 

message: Someone suggested the Festing resignation be made a separate WP entry, but didn't suggest a name for that new entry and hasn't started a discussion. I've just done the admin work to support that suggestion. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing the admin work. I'm not the best person to suggest something here, but possibly something like "Vatican–Order of Malta contraceptive dispute". Banedon (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather, Knights Hospitaller should be renamed History of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta most importantly, and possibly said content could be moved there. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split proposed  

message: Is it really true that since the 1990s members of the first class do not have to be of noble lineage anymore? This would be contrary to all the news reports at the moment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrmiS (talk • contribs) 18:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you reference a news report or two? From what I see, there are 55 members of the professed class (first). Of that group, only a dozen are of sufficiently noble lineage to be elected Grand Master. That suggests 43 are not noble (or sufficiently noble).KNIGHTS OF MALTA PREPARING FOR SHAKE-UP AS LACK OF SUITABLE NOBILITY PUTS LEADERSHIP IN DOUBT, The Tablet, 17 February 2017 Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noble lineage? 

message: whoever inserted this template should have started a discussion about it here. I can't find it. Did I miss something? Wefa (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't missed anything. I made the same point to the editor who inserted that tag, who nevertheless added the tag back saying it was self-explanatory. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

text: You basically wiped it out, which I find excessive. Just mentioning it instead doesn't do any good here. You also blithely ignored the role of Burke and his subsequent effective deposal by the Pope - he is Patron of the Order only in name now(if at all), all his functions and duties have been transferred to Archbishop Giovanni Becciu. This is part of the order's history and should be represented. I would have appreciated you discussing that change here before massacring such a long and extensively sourced text, and I'm seriously thinking about reinstating it. Oh, and please sign what you write in talk! Wefa (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue Weight tenplate on the Festing Resignation subchapter 

message: I'll put it here since I merged that page to this one.Przepla 23:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Taken from [[Talk:Sovereign Military Order of Malta]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sovereign Military Order of Malta. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21388516
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120506234943/http://www.orderofmalta.int/press-articles/27314/treno-ospedale-attrezzato-per-lemergenza/?lang=en to http://www.orderofmalta.int/press-articles/27314/treno-ospedale-attrezzato-per-lemergenza/?lang=en
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) 23:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I got sent an e-mail today on the joke circuit, stating: "The actual smallest sovereign entity in the world is the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (S.M.O.M). It is located in the city of Rome, Italy, and has an area of two tennis courts. And, as of 2001, has a population of 80, 20 less people than the Vatican. It is a sovereign entity under international law, just as the Vatican is." I'm sure you will agree there's a classic Quiz question here, and yet (unless I missed it, apologies if i did) the topics mentioned are not addressed here. Should not this "interesting info" (properly corrected and sourced of course) be inserted nearly at the very top of the article? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The two buildings of SMOM in Rome have extraterritoriality, like any other embassy.  That is not the same thing as sovereignty. The SMOM headquarters buildings are located on the sovereign territory of Italy.  SMOM owns the buildings by virtue of having bought them in 1834, and Italy granted them extraterritorial status in 1869.  If you bought them from SMOM it would be a transaction under Italian law, not international law. With you installed in Palazzo Malta, it would no longer have extraterritorial status, and the new building SMOM moved into would only have extraterritoriality if Italy granted it.  They are not the only embassies of SMOM, and SMOM embassies in other countries also have extraterritoriality. Indeed, as the article states, SMOM is often cited as the only example of a sovereign subject of international law which does not hold territory. The situation is unlike Vatican City, which under the Lateran Treaties of 1929, is the sovereign territory of the Holy See, and is not part of Italy.   As the article also states, it is subject to debate whether SMOM is sovereign at all, though it has some of the hallmarks of sovereignty. SMOM considers itself sovereign, and is frequently cited by others as sovereign. One of the reasons given for SMOM not being sovereign is that is does not hold any territory. By the way, Vatican City is also not, strictly speaking, sovereign.  The sovereign entity which holds Vatican City as territory -- its only sovereign territory -- is the Holy See.  Vatican City is not the same as the Holy See.  In addition to Vatican City, which is its sovereign territory, the Holy See also holds several non-sovereign extraterritorial properties in and outside Rome, similar to SMOM.  So the email is wrong on Vatican City being sovereign.  The Wikipedia articles on all of this are correct.  You should trust them over emails. Person54 (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Italy recognizes, in addition to extraterritoriality, the exercise by SMOM of all the prerogatives of sovereignty in its headquarters. Therefore, Italian sovereignty and SMOM sovereignty uniquely coexist without overlapping.  Jeff in CA (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The extraterritoriality granted by Italy to the SMOM headquarters buildings in Rome isn't really any different from the extraterritoriality granted to embassies of other countries or to the various buildings of the Holy See in Rome and elsewhere in Italy.  It is not different from the extraterritoriality of all embassies everywhere. It means only that while the buildings remain the territory of Italy, SMOM rather than Italy exercises legal jurisdiction within the buildings, in the same way countries exercise legal jurisdiction within their embassies. The notion that there is something mystically "unique" about the coexistence of SMOM sovereignty and Italian sovereignty in the Roman buildings is nonsense put forward by SMOM and its advocates. It tries conveniently to overcome the argument that SMOM isn't sovereign because it doesn't have territory by trying to make sovereign territory out of SMOM extraterritorial buildings.  Italy recognizes SMOM as sovereign, but not all countries do; and the extraterritoriality of its embassies and buildings in some countries, notably Italy, doesn't transform those buildings into sovereign territory.  Person54 (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: The Summary and Quizzes

message: objects the entity being listed in Template:Current sovereigns of monarchies, after having been there for a long time per WP:Consensus. So did evidently also  about categorising it, as well as regarding Template:Monarchies, and Template:Current heirs of monarchies. However, as you can see in this article, it has long been described as a sovereign elective monarchy. If you object to that description and its support in sources, please address that here. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a sovereign state, btw. Malta itself, is a republic. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

text: I looked at the constitution of the order and the order's website but neither describe it as a monarchy. I would prefer not to trawl through the 70 other references, can you please pull out some quotes from them that say it is a monarchy? DrKay (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a state, but it is a sovereign subject of international law. It has United Nations permanent observer status and has its own passports, currency, and postage. It is ruled over by the Prince & Grand Master (elevated to the rank of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire in 1607 and holds the precedence of a Cardinal of the Catholic Church since 1630 and addressed as His Most Eminent Highness), who is elected to the position and is described by the Order as a Sovereign and having supreme authority, making it an elective monarchy. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there are lots of orders with sovereigns who aren't monarchs: there's a list at Dynastic order#Bestowed by head of formerly reining dynasty. We need to distinguish between a sovereign of an order and a sovereign of a state. We need an actual source stating it's a monarchy. DrKay (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  So a sovereign prince isn't a monarch? Also, the Orders you are referring to are not granted sovereign status, they are in connection with a Sovereign Monarch. The Order of Malta does not serve another monarch except their own Prince and, as a lay order, to some regard the Pope. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not interested in sophistry or straw men. I asked for reliable sources calling it a monarchy. If there aren't any, then the order shouldn't be described as one. If there are many, then the objection is refuted. DrKay (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I must be confused, as I cannot recall when or how I presented myself in a manner that was intended to deceive you. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just asking for sources. DrKay (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I understand that. No need to name call in the process. I was merely trying to explain how I, and others, would see the order as a monarchy. I agree that we should search for sources. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

text: It is not a country, but a sovereign entity recognized by the United Nations. Their official headquarters is the Palazzo Malta in Rome which was granted extraterritoriality by the Italian government. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a country and no one says it is. The Order is a sovereign entity that is subject to no other political entity. The fact that it's an anomaly means we have to look at it carefully. Common sense says a monarchy must be a country. But maybe not always. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

text: None of that's in dispute. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Souvereign, monarchy