Talk:Self-styled order

The Commission
The commission in itself was also a sham because it was set up by Gayre to lend credibility to the Order of St. Lazarus, a self-styled order. Calypso Joe (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the Commission is under patronage of His Eminence Cardinal Pio Laghi, Patron Cardinal of Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order od St John, His Eminence Cardinal Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo,H.I. & R.H. Archduke Dr. Otto of Austria, H.I. & R.H. Archduke Andreas Salvator of Austria, Countess Dr Walburga Maria Douglas, H.R.H. Dom Duarte Pio, Duke of Bragança, H.R.H. Prince Serge of Yugoslavia and H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria Wladimirovna of Russia. So, the Commission is not sham.--Yopie 12:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A chivalric order can't be under the "patronage" of a group of cardinals and pretenders to various nonexistent thrones, no matter how many pre-nominals you throw in front of their names. The Commission is widely considered a travesty even by its former Grand Master. And regardless, French law, the Vatican and other agencies regard the Order of St. Lazarus as a "self-styled order", so I'm adding it here. Bricology (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not now, but its founding was a sham under Gayre. It eventually did reform and reject OSLJ. Calypso Joe (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I question the neutrality of this article. A self-styled order is not backed by a "legitimate" sovereign, i.e., a pontiff, a king, or a lesser royalty or nobility. What makes a sovereign legitimate? The Lady of the Lake, descent from ancient thug, or a fictional line of succession? It all seems a sham, a shame, and self-styling to me. Derrickchapman (talk • contribs) 13:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, read article Sovereignty first. --Yopie (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality
I don't feel that this article is neutral. Just because an order does not derive its authority from an officially recognized font of honor does not make it any less legitimate. Using words like "falsely claim" seems biased towards the point of view of someone who is a member of an order that is not self-styled. Self-styled orders merely hold a differing perspective on what grants legitimacy. Thus, calling their claims "false" is POV.

76.176.110.30 (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * How do you figure it's POV? If I say I'm the King of Spain, does that make my claim legitimate? Would you simply dismiss King Juan Carlos' objections as mere POV? -- Kimon talk


 * "Legitimate" means, literally, according to law. As such, it is something that can be objectively verified. --145.226.30.45 (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thread necro hours: now-king of Spain Felipe 6's objections to Kimon's claims would be well placed - HM Kimon would be claiming a title in pretence neither the laws of any country nor a sizable fraction of "their" people would like to legitimate. An order which grants medals without authority isn't necessarily a false order (false as in outside of reality), it's just without authority and the medals should not be worn in the same honour as orders with authority, except maybe when arguing to an already-sympathetic sovereign that they should be given authority. Use of "false" may be a bit POV (though it represents consensus of governments which collectively control much of Terra's surface, so I fail to see how it would run contrary to Wikipedia's rules), but I'm POV myself the opposite way as a micronationalist. Ellenor2000 (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Changes suggested
First, I think it would be useful to change the "See also" heading to something more specific such as "Examples of self-styled orders". "See also" sounds too much like it's simply providing links to more sources for research. Also, I think that two additions need to be made to that category: the Order of St. Lazarus and the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Knights Hospitaller, both of which lack a proper fons honorum and are considered by experts such as Guy Stair Sainty to be self-styled. Occam&#39;s Shaver (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:STYLE for "See also".--Yopie (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that in the United States there are no rules regarding these types of groups. While I agree that the formation of an order needs to begin with a founder who has been knighted by a sovereign, even if that sovereign is of a country deemed in exile, traditionally that knight can then bestow that title upon anyone he chooses. We can see this in history where large groups of men were all knighted on the battlefield, usually with a priest standing in as a proxy representing the entire group. That knight can then go on to start an order. This article almost suggests that only nobles can be legitimately chivalrous, and the rest of the world can only dream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.191.163 (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, do you have source for it? --Yopie (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)