Talk:Order of the Garter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleOrder 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 so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 5, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 30, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
December 3, 2006Featured article reviewKept
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 23, 2004, April 23, 2009, April 23, 2010, April 23, 2011, April 23, 2012, April 23, 2015, and April 23, 2019.
Current status: Featured article

Queen of Denmark[edit]

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)

Birthyears?[edit]

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)

PoW as KC / number of knights?[edit]

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

FA Tag[edit]

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)[reply]

post-nominal letters[edit]

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

Your link in footnote #3 doesn't work[edit]

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).[reply]

Fixed. The motto is actually translated in the second paragraph of the article. Dr pda 17:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Not easy being green (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]


Holy Roman garter?[edit]

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)[reply]
1066 and All That has a lovely illustration of Magna Garter. Doops | talk 21:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. It looks as though, while many Emperors and kings have the Garter, it is bestowed via the UK. Specifically from the Templar's Crown Temple Church, the Queen being the representative Grand Patroness with the responsibility of knighting.

Members:

HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS GRAND DUKE JEAN OF LUXEMBOURG, 14th June, 1972.

HER MAJESTY MARGRETHE II, QUEEN OF DENMARK, 16th May, 1979.

HIS MAJESTY CARL XVI GUSTAF, KING OF SWEDEN, 25th May, 1983.

HIS MAJESTY JUAN CARLOS I, KING OF SPAIN, 17th October, 1988.

HER MAJESTY BEATRIX, QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS, 28th June, 1989.

HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY AKIHITO, EMPEROR OF JAPAN, 26th May, 1998.

HIS MAJESTY HARALD V, KING OF NORWAY, 30th May, 2001.

(member photo)

The Templars and the Kings ran the empire for the pope. After the suppression of the Templars the Order of the Garter was founded to directly run kingdoms of the empire.[1] And they were instrumental in later founding of Freemasonry, according to numerous researchers.[1] 75.121.255.9 (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This all sounds rather dubious to me. So much utter nonsense has been written about the Templars over the years, that one should generally be very careful about taking any of it at face value. What is certainly the case is that the Queen bestows membership in the Order of the Garter in her capacity as Sovereign of the United Kingdom, not through some questionable and unproven connections with Freemasonry or the Knights Templar. Also, the chapel of the order is St George's Chapel, Windsor, not the Temple Church. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note about the Countess of Salisbury[edit]

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)[reply]

Garter Origins[edit]

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)[reply]

Honi soit qui mal y pense[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The last line of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is "HONY SOYT QUI MAL PENCE" -- hardly "A rough version of the Order's Motto", but almost the exact same save for spelling. It also migth be noted that the line is added to the end of the poem in the manuscript, in a different hand to that of the poem (i.e. most likely added later by a different scribe), and is not included within the the poem itself. All this can be found in The Poems of the Pearl Manuscript ed. Malcom Andrew and Ronald Waldron, University of Exeter Press 1978 (revised edition 1987 repreinted 1989, 1994). This is the standard critical edition of the manuscript's contents in use by academics. MatthewPB 163.1.214.126 (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many Companions[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Lady Soames wearing her robes as a Lady Companion of the Order of the Garter

Cleanup[edit]

  • Deleted the section called Current members. It's totally unnecessary, since there is already a separate article list which is linked to from here. Anyway, it was probably somebody's idea of a joke, since it included Stephen Fry.
  • Deleted the audio section which, being 4 years old, has to be outdated.
  • The section about Sir Gowain was interesting, but it really needed to be incorporated under History.
  • Tried to promote the Wiki Commons media link to the top of the page, but it pushed down the main illustrations, so I put it back under "See also." It seems buried down there, so maybe someone else can make it work at the top.

— J M Rice (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Corrected error that Ladies Companion receive the title "lady" when appointed; the title that corresponds to "knight" is "dame." No female member of the order so far has not already held a higher title (cf. Lady Thatcher, Lady Soames). The title "lady" is reserved for wives of knights, baronets and peers not dukes, peeresses in their own right and daughters of dukes, marquesses and earls. Torontonian1 (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VC and KG[edit]

I wonder how many individuals managed to win both top honours of the UK - Victoria Cross and membership in the Order of the Garter. Only two come to my mind: Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts and William Sidney, 1st Viscount De L'Isle. Apparently there were three. Who was the third? ViennaUK (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC) -I think there are only 2- I've been through the whole list of Garter knights(the relevant ones), and can only find the ones you mentioned.[reply]

Regarding the part describing the KG as the pinnacle of the British honours system- the honours system covers 3 different type of award- honours, decorations and medals. The KG is in the "decorations" category and although it is not technically considered an honour, it is one of the awards of the British honours system, and also the highest ranking. Perhaps the KG could be better described as the pinnacle *honour* of the British honours system. It is not the pinnacle award of the system, and so it is not the pinnacle of the honours system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.96.17 (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Stranger Knights" versus "Extra Knights"[edit]

This Wikipedia site writes about supernumerary membership by foreign monarchs, who are known as "Stranger Knights and Ladies". The source used does not exist. The official website of the British Monarchy does not refer to Stranger Knights anywhere, the term is not known there. Instead it refers - regarding the supernumerary membership by foreign monarchs – to "Extra knights and Ladies". See: Members of the Order of the Garter. I think the naming Stranger Knights is incorrect (a Wikipedia invention) and should be "Extra Knights" instead. Demophon (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The website of the College of St George (the religious branch of the Order) uses the term Stranger Knights. Furthermore, I was at Windsor Castle today, and the Warden (guide) in St George's Hall - where all 1001 Garter Knights are listed, together with representations of their coats of arms - also referred to foreign members as Stranger Knights. Anglo-Norman (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. With reference the number, and status of Supernumerary, Stranger, and Extra Knights. I am listing the Knights of the Garter, from the 1884 edition of Whitakers Almanac.
Sovereign; 1. HRH Prince of Wales PC. 2. HRH Duke of Edinburgh PC. 3. HRH Duke of Connaught PC; 4. HRH Duke of Albany PC; 5. HRH Prince Albert Victor of Wales; 6. HRH the Duke of Cambridge PC; 7. HRH the Duke of Cumberland; 8. The Emperor of Germany; 9. The King of Portugal; 10. The King of Denmark; 11. The King of the Belgians; 12. The Emperor of Austria; 13. The Emperor of Brazil; 14. The Shah of Persia; 15. The King of the Hellenes; 16. The King of Italy; 17. The Emperor of Russia; 18. The King of Sweden and Norway; 19. The King of Spain; 20. The King of Saxony; 21. The King of the Netherlands; 22. Duke of Brunswick; 23. Duke of Sax Coburg and Gotha; 24. Grand Duke of Mecklenburgh-Streiltz; 25. Grand Duke of Hesse; 26; Crown Prince of Germany; 27. Prince Christian of Holstein; 28. Prince William of Prussia; 29. Duke of Buccleuch PC; 30. Duke of Abercorn PC; 31. Earl Granville PC; 32. Duke of Wellington PC; 33. Duke of Devonshire PC; 34. Duke of Somerset PC; 35. Earl of Shaftsbury; 36. Earl Fitzwilliam; 37. Earl Grey PC; 38. Duke of Southerland; 39. Earl Spencer PC; 40. Duke of Cleveland; 41. Earl Cowper; 42. Earl Cowley PC; 43. Duke of Richmond and Gordon PC; 44. Duke of Rutland; 45. Duke of Beaufort PC; 46. Marquis of Ripon PC; 47. Duke of Westminster PC; 48. Earl of Leicester; 49. Marquis of Salisbury PC (PM); 50. Duke of Bedford; 51.Duke of Grafton; 52. Duke of Argyle PC.
Can you tell me which of these are; Supernumerary, Stranger, or Extra Knights, also, why there are 52 (+ Sovereign) Knights? Ta Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, numbers 1–7 were members of the royal family ("royal knights"), numbers 8–28 were foreign heads of state ("stranger knights") and the remaining 24 (numbers 29–52) were ordinary knights companion. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, here is an archived version of the reference cited in the article, which does indeed use the term "Stranger Knight". Dr pda (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the text of the Institution, laws, and Ceremonies of the Order of the Garter: The word ‘Knight,’ is used in reference to: Knights Companions, Knights Achievements, Knights Commissioners, Knight Affiliants, Knight-Subjects, and to ‘"Knights Strangers".’ Which, along with; Stranger/s, Stranger Elect, and Stranger Achievements; were all written in reference to the terms: "Stranger Kings and Princes", and to "Stranger-Princes". Accordingly, ‘Stranger Knights,’ is a miss-quote of “Knights Strangers.” Which, along with, the terms; Royal Knight,’ ‘Extra Knight’, and ‘Supernumerary Knight’, are never used in this book.Stephen2nd (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite an extensive article on Stranger Knights in this year's programme for Garter Day (although it confuses things a little!). It says "A Stranger Knight is a foreign king, queen, emperor, prince or other royal foreigner... These are more correctly described as "Extra Knights Companions and Ladies", but doesn't explain why. Possibly "Extra Knights" is the official term, whilst "Stranger Knights" is the older and more commonly used term in everyday use. Later the article observes "Stranger Knights who were not of descent from King George I, used to be appointed by special statute as supernumerary. On 5 October 1954 The Queen made descendants of George I, who were appointed, and all Stranger Knights supernumerary." Anglo-Norman (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Pedro II of Brazil was also a member of the Order.[edit]

The caption that reads that the Meiji Emperor was the only monarch outside Europe who was awarded with the Order of the Garter is wrong. Emperor Pedro II of Brazil, a Brazilian-born monarch, was condecorated by Queen Victoria on 11 July 1871 at 3 p.m.

Source: Calmon, Pedro. História de D. Pedro II. 5 v. Rio de Janeiro: J. Olympio, 1975, p.911 (in Portuguese)

I hope that will help. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Royals who Refused the Garter[edit]

I believe Queen Elizabeth I and King James either refused or were never offered the Garter. They're never depicted wearing the vestments. That might be of interest in the article. Amish 01 (talk) 11:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both monarchs were Sovereigns of the Order, so they could not refuse it in that capacity. Queen Elizabeth I could not be appointed a Lady of the Order (before her accession) because women were not appointed to the Order during her lifetime. I do not know whether King James I was a Knight of the Order before his accession to the throne of England. Björn Knutson (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't. Opera hat (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry... yes he was, on 24 April 1590. Opera hat (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Source[edit]

I've been reading Hugh E. L. Collins, The Order of the Garter, 1348-1461: Chivalry and Politics in Late Medieval England (Clarendon Press, 2000), which is not cited as a source in the article -- but ought to be. The origin story he gives, citing numerous scholarly sources himself, varies considerably from what appears on the page, especially as regards the "garter" (which apparently isn't, really) and Edward's III's motivation in establishing the Order in the first place. I don't have the time to redo that whole section of the page, but someone may wish to do so. --Michael K SmithTalk 21:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section/First Paragraph[edit]

In the body somewhere, you have

"Knights and Ladies Companion use the post-nominal letters "KG" and "LG" respectively"

I think the post nominals would be worth putting in the first paragraphMelbournemason (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Sanchet D'Abrichecourt[edit]

The history section states that he dies in 1345 - thus causing problems with the dating of the foundation. But his article just says c. 1360 and the French article linked from the list says 1349. So it seems there is some doubt.

Also, why was the French article linked like that - I have removed that link. -- Beardo (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Foundation.[edit]

This article cleary states in the opening sentance that the Order was founded in 1348. This is in fact incorrect, in that the official foundation date was 23rd April 1349 (St.Georges Day), whereupon all Garter Knights took part in a Tournament at Windsor. This is very clearly outlined by Ian Mortimer in his book: 'The Perfect King, The Life of Edward III, Father of the English Nation, Appendix 6'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.204.228 (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's Not that It Was a Garter That Was Shocking, It Was What Was On the Garter[edit]

The first part of the "Legendary Origins" section does not go far enough and explains nothing. The courtiers were shocked because the garter bore a Cross of St George emblem marking the wearer as an adherent of the Old Religion (Paganism). Although most people at the time, from belief or for issues of personal safety or for political reasons, professed to be Christians, many, including high-ranking people, continued in the faith of their forebearers. The King, himself an until-then-secret follower of the Old Religion, saved the day by returning the garter to its owner, stating to those assembled, "Honi soit qui mal y pense", neatly side-stepping what was actually shocking to many present (maybe only because they thought they might be unmasked too) and creating a euphemism (the garter) for what had accidentally been revealed.

The Cross of St George is a CHRISTIAN symbol. Penrithguy (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post Nominals (Again)[edit]

Why are the female Royal Knights followed by a post nominal of KG, whilst the female actual knights have a post nominal of LG. Is there something that says Royal Knights cannot be female (present members obviously excepted!). It's not like they (the female royal knights) were admitted prior to the 1987 ruling on lady companions. Petsco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.73.132.82 (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Work needed[edit]

Hi everyone - Unfortunately, this article has not kept up with featured article standards in the years since it's promotion. If it is to remain a featured article, some rather significant work is needed. The major issues that caught my eye include:

  • References needed banner in Investure ceremony section
  • There is quite a bit of other unreferenced information. See, for example, the last sentence/paragraph of the History section and much of the Members section.
  • For an article of this length, WP:LEAD recommends a lead of three to four paragraphs. One or two sentences do not make a paragraph. Also, the lead should be a summary, and not provide information not found in the body of the article. Currently, the information found in the last sentence/paragraph of the lead is not found in the body of the article.
  • Reference formatting needs some work. One dead link. GoogleBooks is not a publisher, it is a service - use the actual publisher. Consistency - are refs 13 and 17 to the same book? Why is the full information to the Begant book given in both the Notes and the References? Page numbers for all books (specifically Begant)? What is ref #18 (Charles Knight)? These are just examples - the refs need a full check for consistency, completeness, accuracy and reliability.
  • Text should not be sandwiched between images.
I think I've resolved this one now, by moving two images over to the right-hand side of the page, but let us know if there's anything else. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If, at the very least, the major issues are not addressed, this article will need to go to WP:FAR. Dana boomer (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of these. I'll see if I can do anything to fix any of them. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Order of the Garter. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Order of the Garter. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Order of the Garter. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, hello, current members?[edit]

Why is this article missing precisely the most important part about it?

Why doesn't it list current members of the order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.212.140 (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. Esrever (klaT) 21:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Order of the Garter. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Order of the Garter. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Order of the Garter. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Roman Emperors[edit]

Another user, User:Bill stradling, and I seem to have reached an impasse over the issue of including a chronological listing of Holy Roman Emperors who were allegedly members of the order. My objection to including them is that the article doesn't contain any other comprehensive listings of historical members, only a few notable cases and the listing of current members. Do others feel strongly that the HRE's should all be included? Esrever (klaT) 14:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Roman Emperors are notable cases. Also, they were members of the Order - references supplied. Bill stradling (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But they aren't uniquely so. There are lots of monarchs who were members of the order, and only a handful get mentioned here because they were the first of their kind. Esrever (klaT) 16:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they should be there either. There is already a historical list of Knights and Ladies of the Garter where they are included. Opera hat (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are inconsistencies in this article which are in need of explanation.

Historically, the Order of the Knights of the Garter has included the following Holy Roman Emperors: (Ref: The Knights of the Garter 1348-1939 by Edmund H. Fellowes (ISBN: 9780902187085)

Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor 1368–1437

Albert V, Duke of Austria 1397–1439 Later Albert II, Holy Roman Emperor

Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor 1415–1493

Maximilian, King of the Romans 1459–1520 Later Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor

Charles, Infant of Spain, Archduke of Austria and Duke of Burgundy 1500–1558 Later Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor

Ferdinand, Infant of Spain, Archduke of Austria 1503–1564 Later Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor

Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor 1527–1576

Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor 1552–1612

However, the opening paragraph of this wikipedia page states that it is a 'most prestigious British order of chivalry'.

(Supernumary members were only introduced in 1786 by King George III).

By inclusion of this list of Holy Roman Emperors as members of the Order, the reader may make further enquiries of this Order of Knights of the Garter and hopefully address these inconsistencies as good researchers and scholars are wont to do. Bill stradling (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an inconsistency. You'll notice that the article doesn't include EVERY knight ever. It doesn't include all the stranger knights, or all the gentleman ushers. It doesn't include all of the sovereigns. It doesn't include the "all" of anything, so it doesn't need to include all the HREs. That it's a British order of chivalry isn't in conflict with the fact that non-Brits were early members, and is not an "inconsistency" that including a poorly-formatted list of HREs is going to fix anyway. Esrever (klaT) 14:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone fix a self-contradictory section?[edit]

Article says: "and no more than 24 living members, or Companions. The order also includes supernumerary knights and ladies . . . ."

How can an order include no more than 24, but then "also include"? If there is an also beyond the 24, then the "no more than" is absurd. I know we are dealing with English institutions. (PeacePeace (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

"but they were not made companions."[edit]

Can somebody explain exactly what this part means? The paragraph mentions women up to Margaret Beaufort, and again with Queen Alexandra, were made Ladies of the Garter and that they were "associated with the order" but that they were not companions. Some clarification on the significance of these terms would be helpful. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Prayer of the Most Noble Order of the Garter[edit]

In the acceptance ceremony the great prayer of the Order is said. Who knows the prayer and content?Docmo (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of banners[edit]

The broadcast from Prince Philip's funeral at St George's Chapel shows that the banners of Lady Mary Peters and The Marquess of Salisbury have now been placed in the chapel.

Thus, the section of this article which details where the banners are placed should show the placement of the banners of Lady Mary and Lord Salisbury. I tried adding this myself but the editing section was too difficult for me to navigate. Lady Mary should be directly between Sir John Major and Lord Stirrup. Lord Salisbury should be between Lord Morris and Lord Abercorn.--Ff462 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of the banner of the Marquess of Salisbury[edit]

I see that the location of the banner of the Marquess of Salisbury has now been added to the article. However, I believe that the placement is incorrect. Currently, Lord Salisbury is placed between Lady Mary Fagan and Lord Morris. However, the broadcast from Philip's funeral showed that Lord Salisbury's banner was placed between Lord Morris and Lord Abercorn. I would correct this myself but, again, the editing section is too complicated for me to navigate.--Ff462 (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I managed to correct it. It looks fine; I just hope that the editing section is fine. --Ff462 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla as LG not KG[edit]

Why is Camilla styled LG when Anne and Alexandra are KG as Royal Ladies of the Order? 148.252.133.114 (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Ladies of the Garter (e.g. Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall) are not counted towards the number of members of the Order (they are supernumerary members), and are also not counted towards the total tally of members. On the other hand, Royal Knights of the Garter are actually counted towards the total tally of members (e.g. Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, was the 1000th member despite being a supernumerary member), though they remain supernumerary members.
Anne, Princess Royal, at her own request, was instally as a Royal Knight of the Garter,[1] though she is nonetheless omitted from the tally of members. Princess Alexandra, the Hon Lay Ogilvy, was made a Lady Companion of the Order of the Garter, though, like Anne, she is still counted as a supernumerary member, and is not counted in the tally.
Non-royal Ladies Companion (e.g. Lady Mary Peters) are counted in the total number of members, but considering each of the said Royal members (Camilla, Anne and Alexandra) were all installed in different grades (Royal Lady, Royal Knight, and Lady Companion), it is unclear what the actual guideline is in regards to counting, though in regards to post-nominals, both Anne and Alexandra are granted KG post-nominal letters, as they are both included with the Royal Knights of the Garter [2] despite the fact Alexandra should use LG instead (as she was installed as a non-Royal Lady Companion) It is unclear what Camilla will use, though it seems to be LG.MaximusWikipedian (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/royalfamily/status/1293547913763848192?lang=en
  2. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20111217082602/http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/knight/knights-of-orders-of-chivalry.aspx

New appointments[edit]

Time to add Blair, Amos and Camilla? Or do we wait until they have met the queen? -Lgriot (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VII's daughters[edit]

[This paper] (Ladies of the Fraternity of Saint George and of the Society of the Garter, by James L. Gillespie, 1985), says that Henry VII gave Garter robes to his daughters Margaret and Elizabeth in 1495, which rather contradicts the normal consensus (on this article and in the list page) that his mother the Countess of Richmond in 1488 was the last Lady of the order until 1901. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garter Day[edit]

Is Garter Day on a specific day in June (like for example Trooping The Colour) or how do they choose the exact date? Glamourqueen (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Garter&oldid=1207146153"