chiv-orders-msg - 4/8/08
Chivalric Orders, Orders of Chivalry.
NOTE: See also the files: K-Ord-o-Spain-art, chivalry-msg, Chivalry-art, fealty-art, fealty-msg, knighthood-msg, squires-msg, courtly-love-bib.
************************************************************************
NOTICE -
This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.
This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org
I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter.
The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors.
Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s).
Thank you,
Mark S. Harris AKA: THLord Stefan li Rous
Stefan at florilegium.org
************************************************************************
From: ches at tristero.io.com
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 96 07:03:33 PST
Subject: FW: Re: Orders of Knighthood
To: ansteorra at eden.com
This a post from another list. I was wondering if Ansteorra has such a system:
> There is also Master at Arms which is for those of knightly mein and virtue
>who are unable to swear oath of allegiance to a crown.
>
> In Meridies there is also one Knight Bachelor (KbSCA) created as a
>compromise and to better reflect the Medieval usage of Knight Baronet (one
>owing fealty and service for peerage) and Knight Bachelor (one not owing such
>allegiance).
>
> The major practical differences between the two are that the Knights
>(KSCA) wear Belt, Spurs and Chain and the Knight Bachelor (KbSCA) wears only
>Belt and Spurs.
>
> The other difference is that when the Peers of the Realm are called forth
>to swear fealty the Knights swear to the Crown of Meridies and the Knight
>Bachelor swears to the Kingdom of Meridies. Notice that there is Fealty
>sworn in both cases and that the Knight Bachelor in return for the honor of
>the peerage returns service to the Kingdom.
>
>Tirion, aka Sir Starhelm Warlocke KbSCA
Ciao at }\
Ches at }----`--,-- http://www.io.com/~ches/
at }/
From: mittle at panix.com (Arval d'Espas Nord)
To: bryn-gwlad at eden.com
Date: 5 Mar 1996 13:42:03 -0500
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Facets of Knighthood
Greetings from Arval! britcomhmp at aol.com (No name given) writes:
> Small technical point here, there is no such thing as'The Order of
> Chivalry' unless the SCA has invented it. There are several Orders of
> Chivalry, The Garter, Bath, Golden Fleece even the Legion d Honneur.
For the modern world -- by which I mean anything from the Renaissance
onward -- you are quite correct. But the Middle Ages is a different story.
"Orders of chivalry" in the modern sense did not arise until the late 14th
century and did not become at all prominent until the late 15th century.
Yet writers discuss the "order of chivalry" as early as the 12th century.
It was not a formalized body, but it was viewed by the chivalric class as a
very real order, parallel to holy orders.
An excellent examination of orders of chivalry, in both senses, can be
found in "Knights of the Crown" by J. D'arcy Boulton.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord mittle at panix.com
From: mittle at panix.com (Arval d'Espas Nord)
To: bryn-gwlad at eden.com
Date: 5 Mar 1996 17:07:47 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Facets of Knighthood
Greetings from Arval! Symon Frasier wrote:
> It is ironic, though, that the proliferation of "orders of chivalry" was
> contemporary with the decline and demise of the military and political
> institutions of "chivalry"...
Ironic in retrospect, yes; but not at all surprising. The motivations for
the creation of formalized orders of chivalry were complex, but they
included several elements which were direct reactions to the decline of
those institutions.
The orders were, in part, an effort to revitalize chivalry by giving
knights a new ideal to which to aspire. As military technology changed,
there was less need for the armored knight as a tool of state; but
something was needed to replace the social bonds which had accompanied the
military organization of old. Knighthood was a traditional unifying
structure; monarchs made it more attractive by making it more prestigious
and bolstered their own power by focussing the new knighthood on themselves
as heads of orders.
Knighthood had also become an important tool of government finance. A
large fraction of knights paid money fees in place of military service, a
practice which the crowns tended to encourage, since it enabled them to
maintain standing armies rather than having to rely on feudal levies. But
in the 14th century, the proportion of eligible noblemen taking knighthood
had dropped alarmingly. We have evidence of several efforts in several
kingdoms to impose knighthood on gentlemen of sufficient income. The
orders had the secondary effect of increasing the overall glamor of
knighthood, thereby making it more attractive. It was no accident that
Edward's Order of the Garter mixed the great lords of the land with lesser
nobles.
The choice of the "order of chivalry" was also inspired. It carried echos
of romance -- the first attempt to found an order in England was actually
called the "Order of the Round Table" -- and it harkened to the greatest
achievements of the Crusades by recalling the religious orders of chivalry.
Orders were powerful political tools as well: Kings and princes bound
themselves to their most influential vassals by oaths of mutual support
that went far beyond customary fealty. The kings guaranteed the loyalty of
their companions, while the barons cemented relationships to the crown that
would advance their own interests in many ways. The order formed an elite
combat unit in some cases, an inner circle of advisors in others.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord mittle at panix.com
From: mittle at panix.com (Arval d'Espas Nord)
To: bryn-gwlad at eden.com
Date: 6 Mar 1996 12:10:13 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Facets of Knighthood
Greetings from Arval! Tim Pickles wrote:
> I must go back to my original point that whilst the concept of 'chivalry'
> most certainly existed there was no such thing as 'The Order of
> Chivalry'.
If you use that phrase in the limited sense of a formalized organization
with officers and a Rule, then you are correct that there was never a
universal order of chivalry. But it is simply incorrect to say that "there
was no such thing as 'The Order of Chivalry'. I refer you to Chretien de
Troyes, Honore Bonet, Ramon Lull, etc., all of whom wrote about a universal
order of chivalry, its rules and ethics.
> The first secular Order of Chivalry in the modern sence was the Order of
> the Golden Fleece created by the Duke of Burgundy and imitated in the
> Garter...
Your chronology is wrong. The Garter pre-dates the Golden Fleece; by about
a century, if I recall aright. Other orders -- with officers, rules,
regalia, and all the other trappings of formal orders -- also pre-date the
Golden Fleece: The Spanish Order of the Band, the Hungarian Order of St.
George, the French Order of the Star, etc. The best scholarship on the
subject can be found in "Knights of the Crown" by J. Darcy Boulton. His
introduction is an excellent summary of the origins and roots of chivalric
orders of all kinds.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord mittle at panix.com
From: britcomhmp at aol.com (BritcomHMP)
To: bryn-gwlad at eden.com
Date: 7 Mar 1996 13:33:45 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc.
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Facets of Knighthood
Greetings and 'Mea maxima culpa'. I did indeed transpose the founding of
the Garter (1344) and the Fleece (1430) and while there is no doubt that
the one copied the other and the first was founded on the TRADITION of the
round table there is no FACTUAL EVIDENCE that that such an organisation
EVER existed. Good heavens scholars (and others) are still arguing about
the location of Camelot and even if such a place actualy existed. On that
basis one might as well base the idea on the traditions of Atlantis!
Seriously I didn't want to get off track here merely to point out that how
Knighthood came about,and what constitutes an Order is not a matter of
speculation, it is a KNOWN FACT, thoroughly researchable. That certain
founders of Orders (including King Edward) said that they baised their
organisation on some long gone institution is rater like Egyptian Pharoes'
claiming decent from the Sun God Ra, it gives a new organisation an
instant ancestry.
Some of the other "Orders" mentioned are in fact 'Knightly Associations'
which could probably be likened to a modern pro Football team. One did not
become a knight by joining but one had to BE a knight before being ALLOWED
to join, many of these associationd did not outlive their founders.
I realy did not intend to get so deeply into this and I am truely just
trying to be helpfull if I may refer any inerested parties to Peter Bander
van Duren's book ORDERS OF KNIGHTHOOD AND OF MERIT I am shure you will be
facinated. It chronicals not only the origins of Knighthood but its
continuing role in the world which is considerable.
Please beleve me when I say that I am not trying to attack or belittle any
individual or society its 'just the facts Mam'.
Kind regards. Tim Pickles
From: ballywoodn at aol.com (BALLYWOODN)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: NEW PUBLICATIONS - CHIVALRY
Date: 30 May 1996 12:34:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
GRYFONS PUBLISHERS & DISTRIBUTORS
International Distributors of Publications Relating to Chivalry & Heraldry
ANNOUNCES
REGISTER OF ORDERS OF CHIVALRY
Report of the International Commission for Orders of Chivalry
REGISTRE DES ORDRES DE CHEVALERIE
Rapport de la Commission Internationale d Etudes des Ordres de Chevalerie
JANUARY 1996
The Principles involved in assessing the validity of Orders of
Chivalry with a list of Orders which have been scrutinised by the
Commission and pronounced to be valid. Incorporating corrections
sanctioned by the Meetings of the Commission in 1964, 1966, and 1967, as
collated (with additions in italics) at the meeting held in Munich
5.9.1970; and with the inclusion of the list of noble corporations arrived
at by the Commission held in Vienna 21.9.1970, and of other nobiliary
bodies agreed at Washington in 1984 and in subsequent sessions of the
Commission.
The Commission, which has existed now for some 30 years, is widely
regarded as the most competent authority in assessing the validity of
Chivalric and Nobiliary Orders.
US$12.50 postpaid within the U.S. / US$15.00 postpaid outside the U.S.
Advance orders being taken nof 300 copies
16 pages, 9 X 6 Cardstock covers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NIADH NASK
History and International Roll 1996
From the Preface by The Rt. Hon. The Lord Borthwick of that Ilk, NN, GCLJ,
President of the International Commission for Orders of Chivalry ...
The Niadh Nask is without doubt one of the most ancient nobiliary
honours in the world, if not the most ancient! Its origins are shrouded in
the mists of time. According to Gaelic historians, writing in the
fifteenth century, it was founded almost a thousand years before the birth
of Christ! Whether this is true or not we cannot say, but it is evident
that the Order is at least pre-Chivalric in origin if not pre-Christian.
Its members are knightly, as the Samurai of Japan are, or the
Roman EQUES were, but do not bear Chivalric designations. The Order has
divisions but no Grades as such. All Niadh Nask are in fact equal, wear
virtually identical insignia, and bear the same postnominal initials.
When, in 1984, after several years of scrutiny, the International
Commission for Orders of Chivalry recognized The Niadh Nask, or Military
Order of the Golden Chain, as a perfectly valid and legal Dynastic Honour
of the ancient Irish Royal House of Munster, under the Chiefship of The
MacCarthy M r, Prince of Desmond, it had to devise the entirely new
category of OTHER NOBILIARY BODIES to list it under, not because it was
less important than the great and ancient Dynastic Orders of Chivalry,
but because it was even more ancient in its origins!
The year 1996 marks the Quatercentenary of the death of His
Majesty King Donal IX MacCarthy M r, last regnant sovereign of Desmond and
titular King of Munster. Both the Dynasty and its House honour have
survived the collapse of Gaelic Ireland and remain a real Golden Chain
linking the present with the past. Whilst these Chains remain unbroken,
Gaelic Ireland survives!
The Niadh Nask History and International Roll 1996 contains not only a
listing of all current members of this nobiliary body, but details:
History of The Niadh Nask ... The current Grand Council of The Niadh Nask,
including an Armorial of these individuals ... In Memoria Roll of
Companions of The Niadh Nask who have died since the accession of the
current MacCarthy M r ... Jurisdictions of The Niadh Nask internationally
... Listing of recipients of the King Donal IX MacCarthy M r
Quatercentenary Medal Roll
US$17.50 postpaid within the U.S. / US$20.00 postpaid outside the U.S.
Advance orders being taken now for limited initial press run of 300 copies
76 pages with illustrations, 8 X 5 Cardstock covers
Make all checks or money orders (do not send cash) [Sorry, credit cards
not accepted at this time] payable in US FUNDS ONLY [US banks tend to
charge hefty currency conversion fees which can result in lengthy delays -
if you are ordering from outside the United States, please ask your bank
to write a check or money order for you in U.S. dollars] to:
GRYFONS PUBLISHERS & DISTRIBUTORS
PO Box 1899, Little Rock, AR 72203-1899 USA, Facsimile: (501) 834-4038
David Robert Wooten of Ballywoodane
The American College of Heraldry
NN,OMNN,OCStS,FSA(Scot),NSC
Gryfons Publishers and Distributors
(fax 501-834-4038)
From: Aline Swynbrook <alineswynbrook at yahoo.com>
Date: January 27, 2008 8:44:48 PM CST
To: ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
Subject: [Ansteorra] On knighthood in America
Actually, there are a number of Americans who hold
honorary knighthoods for good works and chivalric
endeavors or military service from foreign monarchies.
A number of famous members of the Order of the
British Empire include Bob Hope, Steven Spielberg,
George H.W. Bush, Wesley Clark, Rudy Guiliani, Alan
Greenspan, Sen. George Mitchell, Bill Gates, Paul
Getty, Colin Powell, and Gen. Tommy Franks. Bush Sr.
and Ronald Regan are also members of the British
Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath. Regan
also held the Grand Cordon of the Order of the
Chrysanthemum, the highest order of knighthood for the
Japanese Imperial Family. Additionally, there are two
Catholic orders of knighthood which are very active in
the United States, The Sovereign Military Hospitaller
Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of
Malta, and The Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre
of Jerusalem.
On a local note, there is one currently active SCA
member in Ansteorra and one formerly active SCA member
who are Knights in an Ethiopian order. I would be
happy to put anyone with further questions in touch
with them.
In Service,
Ly Aline Swynbrook
Who Mundanely is an Esquire.
<the end>