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 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. Edited by Mark S. Harris chiv-orders-msg Page 7 of 7