Talk:Order of the Garter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Order of the Garter is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do. | |||||||||||||||||
 |
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 5, 2004. | |||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals, a collaborative effort to improve, organise, and standardise Wikipedia's coverage of national honours systems. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page |
 |
Order of the Garter is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
 |
This Everydaylife article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments). |
An event in this article is a April 23 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)
Contents |
[edit] Queen of Denmark
I understand that the official title of the Queen of Denmark is "Denmark's Queen", but is that her official style in English? john 22:02, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, the situation is as follows: Until 1972, the official title of the Sovereign was, "AB, af Guds Nåde Konge til Danmark, de Venders og Goters, Hertug til Slesvig, Holsten, Stormarn, Ditmarsken, Lauenborg og Oldenborg," in English, "AB, by God's Grace King of Denmark, of the Wends and Goths, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stormarn, Dithmarschen, Lauenburg and Oldenburg." In 1972, the title changed to "AB, af Guds Nåde Danmarks Dronning," in Engish, "AB, by God's Grace Denmark's Queen" (the current monarch being a lady). See also an alt.talk.royalty thread. I would think that, prior to 1972, the appropriate English style might be HM The King of Denmark, but would now be HM Denmark's Queen. However, I am not confident. -- Emsworth 22:53, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
The official style of Queen Elizabeth is "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Queen". I'm not sure how significant we should consider such things. Certainly she is colloquially known as "the Queen of Denmark". john 00:35, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Birthyears?
Is it useful to have the birthyears of the knights? Wouldn't their year of appointment make more sense (and explain the order of the list, keeping zealous alphabetizers away)? (I realize that appointment-year is already listed on the historical list of knights.) Doops 22:22, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I think having the year of appointment would be a good idea, though I think that it should perhaps be in addition to, rather than in replacement of, the year of birth.
- James F. (talk) 18:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] PoW as KC / number of knights?
I believe the Prince of Wales is technically regarded as a Knight Companion. Don't know why though. [anonymous]
- If that is so, it's because the Prince of Wales is automatically a member (whereas all the other royal knights and ladies were appointed because the Queen felt like it). So he's not really supernumerary! Doops 23rd April
- OK, today somebody moved the Prince up out of the knights section, which I have to say I don't think I agree with: since, even though he's automatically a member and not counted among the 24, he wear's a knight's robe and is basically a companion of the order. The prelate, registrar, usher, etc. aren't really companions -- and they don't wear a knight's robe. So I like the way I had the prince earlier: listed as an unnumbered companion. Doops 17:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I confess; t'was I. I think that it looks rather poor to have the PoW listed along with the Knights Companion, especially if it causes us to list in two different ways (hmm, directions).
- The article itself says that there are 26 members, and then says that two of them are the monarch and PoW, and then there are 24 KsC (yes, I know, it's a paraphrase), which (to my mind, at least) would say that, were we to list the PoW in the KC section, we should probably list the monarch there, too; this would seem... odd, really (apart from anything else, they're Companions to the monarch, AIUI...).
- Thoughts?
- James F. (talk) 18:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
-
- I just went back into the history and looked at the mixed-style list: and I realised that it look
[edit] FA Tag
I added a second FA tag to the article. The one at the bottom did not seem to create the star icon at the top right corner. Adding the tag to the top of the article made the icon show up. Not sure why.. I have the question in to the Template Talk. Morphh 01:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] post-nominal letters
Just wanted to note that I have added the post-nominal letters CD after the names of the Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra as they both hold the Canadian Forces Decoration Anne in 1982 (I think she got it during the repatriation of the constitution) and Princess Alexandra for being honorary colonel-in-chief of some Canadian regiment. I have not found any definate proof the The Earl of Wessex has gotten the CD yet, although he is colonel-in-chief of a couple of regiment in Saskatchewan, for which he was made an honorary member of the Saskatchewan Order of Merit Dowew
[edit] Your link in footnote #3 doesn't work
I picked on the link to find out what "Honi soit qui mal y pense" means, but I got an error. Can you fix it, please ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Not easy being green (talk • contribs) 16:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
- Fixed. The motto is actually translated in the second paragraph of the article. Dr pda 17:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- OK, thanks ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Not easy being green (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Holy Roman garter?
QUOTE nothing is mentioned of the holy roman empire, as far as I know the order of the garter also means holy roman emperor a title which german kings usually held during the middle ages, the first order of the garter was granted in the 1300's to a english king & he was seen as holy roman emperor. The order of the garter translates into other languages such as german & french, it did not specifically belong to English royalty, it was granted by the Popes & it was a title which represented "Holy Roman Emperor". Thus if you held the Order of the Garter you were also holy roman Emperor, it was granted by the Popes. Note this changed after henry the 8th started his own church opposed to the catholic church. It is impossible for someone to hold the title of order of the garter if they are not Catholic & prince Charles is not Catholic so legally he can not be considered to hold the title of Order of the Garter, of cause if he became a catholic he could become a true holder of the title order of the garter but only if the Pope approved of as in traditional times.
- I think you are confusing the Order of the Garter with the Order of the Golden Fleece as far as I am aware the Garter has always been an English order and had nothing to do with the HRE, France or the Vatican Penrithguy 15:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- 1066 and All That has a lovely illustration of Magna Garter. Doops | talk 21:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A note about the Countess of Salisbury
According to historian Alison Weir*, the Countess of Salisbury by the time of Edward III and the creation of the Order of the Garter was the wife of William of Montagu (William of Montacute), Katherine of Grandison. (* in Isabella, she-wolf of France)--Pw wiki 12:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Garter Origins
Might it be worth including Ian Mortimer's arguments in "The Perfect King" that the Garter origin has nothing to do with the Countess, as garters were not yet an item of ladies clothing, but instead something men wore. He suggests that instead the garter is most likely a reference to the Duke of Lancaster, who is also probably the origin of the motto as it is not one of Edwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.73.188 (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Honi soit qui mal y pense
This motto is widely used by British institutions (including on the nation's coat of arms) and isn't exclusive to the Order of the Garter. I therefore suggest that the existing redirects be changed and a new article be created devoted exclusively to the motto - its etymology, usage, history, etc. Any thoughts? -- Lincolnite 03:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, when you see this motto encircling the Royal Arms, it is in fact doing so as the Garter's motto; if you look closely enough, it is doing so on a garter. Doops | talk 07:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Indeed. My point was that, given its ubiquity, a separate article would be more suitable. Like in the case of E pluribus unum, for example. -- Lincolnite 15:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I understand that the sentence itself is attributed to Edward III and is directly connected with the creation of the Order of the Garter. Its entire genesis and early use, as well as its original noteworthiness, relates to the subject of this article. Naturally, there is information relating to new uses for the motto later in history. What needs to be considered is how much information on this (that is unrelated to the Order of the Garter) there is, and whether or not that would be sufficient to warrant the creation of a separate article. If not, it would probably suffice to create a section on this article for the motto, and include in it the extra information on other uses for the motto that the Order has been using for almost 700 years and that was, later, incorporated into British insignia. Redux (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] How many Companions
The article states first that there can be no more than 24 (The Order → Members → first paragraph: Membership in the Order is extremely limited and includes the monarch of the United Kingdom, the Prince of Wales, not more than 24 companion members); Then, in the same section and subsection, but in the fourth paragraph, it says that the limit is 25 Companions (quote: In addition, the Order includes supernumerary members, who do not count towards the limit of 25 companions). I have also looked into the article on the present members, and there I corrected (or maybe not, after all) the opening paragraph, which was stating "25", although the list of Knights and Ladies Companions had only 24 places (one of them listed as vacant) — I should also point out that in that article, the Prince of Wales is not included in the list of Companions, but rather in the list of Supernumerary members, in the quota of "members of the Royal Family", which I suppose would be correct, although it may be that the issue of there being 25 Companions could be in regards to counting the Prince of Wales in that list on occasion, and other times, excluding him from it. We need to figure out which one is the correct information. Redux 19:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- The Prince of Wales is ex officio one of the Knights Companion. For example one can see from List of Knights and Ladies of the Garter that Prince Charles became a member of the Order in 1958 (at age 10), when he became Prince of Wales. Thus the Order consists of the Sovereign, the Prince of Wales, up to 24 other Knights Companion, plus supernumerary Royal and Stranger members. The Prince of Wales should really be listed among the companions (or maybe separately, like the Sovereign), but not as a supernumerary member. --Dr pda 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Interesting, I had indeed noticed that the Prince of Wales had become a member at an exceptionally young age, but I did not make the connection concerning the association of the title (Prince of Wales) with [automatic] membership in the Order. I believe that the problem was this passage, in the paragraph I already quoted above: (...) who do not count towards the limit of 25 companions (...). That made it somewhat confusing to me, event though the article does state twice that the order is made up of the Soverign, the Prince of Wales and up to 24 Knights Companion. Even more to the point, I had read first the article on the current members, where it was stated (I changed it myself): (...) membership is extremely limited, consisting of the Sovereign and not more than twenty-five full members, or Companions. and the Prince of Wales is listed in the section "Royal Knights and Ladies", where we are listing the members who are in the Order as members of the Royal Family (and the Prince of Wales is not even at the top of that list; he is second, after the Duke of Edinburgh). I have corrected the opening paragraph regarding the number of Knights companion there, but not regarding the fact that the Prince of Wales is a necessary member; and I have also not changed the fact that the Prince seems to be listed in the wrong sectiont there. Perhaps, instead of having a section for the Sovereign and potentially another for the Prince of Wales, why not have both listed in a "Ex officio members" section? Redux 14:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
