Talk:Order of the Thistle

older entries
If I rememeber correctly, Fox-Davies (whom I unfortunately don't have in town with me) says a Knight of the Thistle may encircle his arms either with the collar of the order, or the "circlet" of the order, or both (the latter outside the former), or both (the latter superimposed on the latter). By "circlet" here's what he meens: a green cloth circle with the motto of the order written on it -- much like the garter, only without the buckle. Perhaps it's the superimposing of these two which has led to the depiction of the collar in its proper colors? (That is to say, a line drawing of the collar superimposed on a green circle led to a green collar.) Doops 20:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Question
Can, in theory, a person be invested as a Knight of the Thistle if s/he is 1) a Catholic or 2) a foreign non-Christian monarch (like the Emperor of Japan, who was admitted to the Order of the Garter in 1998)? Mapple 21:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure... I don't believe there has been any post-Reformation precedent for this, and if the Sovereign wishes to bestow an honour upon foreign monarchs it is the Garter, as the most senior of the Orders, that is presented. I can assure you that there is precedent for Catholics have been granted the Order of the Garter.  As an example I give you many of the | Dukes of Norfolk, up to and including the late 17th Duke.  I suppose the logic could go that if a senior Order is and has been granted to Catholics, then the others can be as well. -- 70.48.13.168 23:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually there is a single exception among foreign monarchs -- King Olav V of Norway was admitted to the Order of the Garter in 1959 and to the Order of the Thistle in 1962. Theoretically there can be a non-Christian monarch who has some kind of special connection with Scotland. I agree with you regarding Catholics. Mapple 11:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Scottish born ?
This article says that knights must be "scottish-born" which implies born in scotland. This is not the case, for example, of Robert Menzies who was born an lived in Australia. Should this be "of scotish decent" rather than scotish born ? Dowew 19:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I came here to ask exactly the same question. Unless the rules have been changed since 1963, when Menzies received his knighthood, there seems to be no general requirement to be Scottish-born.  Menzies was certainly of Scottish descent, but was born and lived all his life in Australia.  --  JackofOz (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I presume it defined "scottish born" as being Scottish by descent, not just by where one's mother happens to be when she goes into labour. At least one of the current knights was born outside Scotland - David Ogilvy, 13th Earl of Airlie was born in London and invested in 1985. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That would qualify millions of people all over the world who've never set foot in Scotland, many of whom have no desire to ever go there or be associated with the place. Menzies's father was born in Australia.  His grandfather migrated from Scotland.  If all it takes is to prove some Scottish ancestry, however distant, and assert a pride in it, then it's a pretty rubbery criterion.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Invented tradition?
This article is rather dubious, since it suggests that James VII was effectively reviving an ancient order. I suspect this could be an example of "the invention of tradition". Maybe there is some shadowy evidence for a Scottish order of chivalry in the 15th century, but I doubt if we can say more than that. PatGallacher (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe the article could use this as a reference? -> Stevenson, Katie "The Unicorn, St Andrew and the Thistle: Was there an Order of Chivalry in Late Medieval Scotland?", Scottish Historical Review. Volume 83, Page 3-22, April 2004. The Edinburgh University Press has free downloads of journals for the remainder of the month i think.--Celtus (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. sbemem@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.42.193 (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag
Having had a look at this article, I would say that the article gives undue weight to the idea that the order has a clear history prior to James VII. PatGallacher (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well all the statements are backed by references, and it certainly doesn't state that there was conclusively an order before James VII. I certainly cannot see why you have slapped a NPOV tag on, without any sort of discussion, or quoting references to back up your point. Quantpole (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To add to the above, the article consistently uses words such as 'allegedly', 'a tradition' etc, and 'Some Scottish order of chivalry probably existed during the sixteenth century'. I certainly don't read it as trying to claim some ancient history for the order, rather the opposite in fact. If you have another good source, then add that into the article, and make the article better, rather than slapping a tag on it. Quantpole (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if you want I will rewrite it to give less weight to the alleged early history. PatGallacher (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But it isn't giving a weight to the early history, it is simply stating what some people claim to be the eraly history, and as I have pointed out it seems to make it clear that a lot of this supposed history is myth! By all means contribute to the article, but coming all guns blazing and sticking a NPOV tag on without discussion isn't a particularly helpful way to proceed. Quantpole (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My reference is the article in the Scottish Historical Review referred to above. PatGallacher (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am also suspicious that those parts of the article which deal with the alleged early history of the order rely heavily on one work written in 1842 (!) by Nicholas. This is unworthy of a serious reference work. PatGallacher (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read through the source you quote, and it seems to back up the article, specifically where it says (on page 6):
 * Whilst there is enough evidence to suggest that the Order of the Thistle may have had its roots early in the sixteenth century, there is no evidence that any knight received the badge of the order from the sovereign until James VII’s reign. Quantpole (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Date of Entry / Date of Ceremony
I read Lord Patel was introduced in 2009. But I spoke with him in the evening of 14. July 2010. The introduction ceremony for him (and Lord Hope ...) by the Queen was at 11 o'clock of 15. July 2010 at St.Giles. I take a photo of Lord Patels emblem at St. Giles - 2009 on it. Why this difference? Please excuse my awful English (german) and the minor knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.124.254.171 (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the legal effect of their admision to the order dates to when an announcement is gazetted in the London Gazette (and in this case, simultaneously the Edinburgh Gazette), for the Order of the Thistle, such announcements are made on St Andrew's Day, 30 November, as St Andrew is the patron saint of Scotland. However, the formal investiture/installation/presentation or whatever the precise terminology may not take place until later (the weather in Scotalnd in November not necessarily being particularly good).  To add further confusion in this particular case it seems that Lord Patel received the insignia of the roder from the Queen at Buckingham Palace in June this year, and this was then follwoed by the installation at St Giles in July.  In Lord Patel's case, the original gazette announcement can be found at http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/59258/pages/20801. David Underdown (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The appointment, investiture and installation are three different events. It is the appointment which makes the individual a KT. Mark Hamid (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Order of the Thistle. 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/20100414021132/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/MonarchUK/Honours/OrderoftheThistle.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/OrderoftheThistle.aspx
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100414021132/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/MonarchUK/Honours/OrderoftheThistle.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/OrderoftheThistle.aspx

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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Lexicon Tetraglotton
Hello,

How do we account for the reference to the Knights of the Thistle in the Lexicon Tetraglotten dated 1660 ?

In the Lexicon Tetraglotten, the Knights of the Thistle are the Knights de Cardone of the House of Bourbon.

Perhaps this is the original order ?

Eyeze (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Eyeze (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * See also the discussion here: Talk:Nemo_me_impune_lacessit Felsic2 (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See also Knights of Cardone. Felsic2 (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Order of the Thistle. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070128200052/http://www.honours.gov.uk/honours/wear.aspx to http://www.honours.gov.uk/honours/wear.aspx

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) 14:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Prince Charles as ‘Duke of Rothesay and Edinburgh’
Is it correct to list Prince Charles as ‘Duke of Rothesay and Edinburgh’? These are still separate titles, and Duke of Rothesay is still the one used in Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:D183:5801:840A:BDB9:6D3C:C484 (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Order of the leek
in this Committee on Public Administration publication (2004), it mentions that setting up an 'order of the leek' (Wales) would be a 'good idea', although I cannot find additional information of such matter, I thought it was worth adding here. Hogyncymru (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Heraldry
The article about the Royal arms of Scotland quotes a blazoning from 1672 where the arms is "[e]ncircled with the order of Scotland the same being composed of Rue and thistles having the Image of St. Andrew with his crosse on his brest y unto pendent". It later states that the collar of the order was part of the achievement even before Charles II added its motto. Does anybody know how long this heraldic depiction goes back? Is it plausible that an order was part of a heraldic achievement without actually being confered on anybody? Oudeís talk 14:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)