Talk:Order of the Golden Fleece

can you be a member of both orders?

Someone be a member of both is he is a catholic and a noble? Arthurian Legend (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg is a member of both. J S Ayer (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC) So, I see, is Albert II, King of the Belgians. J S Ayer (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OPHIR-MAHARLIKA ISLES OF GOLD: Jason supposedly having brought the Fleece back so to claim his throne may not be accurate, evident that he had to bulls, etc., etc., etc., as a test of his worth. He may not have found the fleece in Colchis and planned a second voyage to Asia, a place referred to by the Jews as Ophir-the isles off Gold. That place in Asia is in the Philippines. Magellan's secret agenda from King Philip-II of Spain was to land on the spot of the resting place of the fleece in an island, as by historical translations passed down from centuries way back to Philip-III, known as Philip the good of Burgundy. The latter who established the Order of the Golden Fleece. Skeletal remains were found in this said Island as this islands did once lived here protecting the fleece with the gorgon Medusa. As this island originated the 2nd root race of the bicameral man, whereby they spreaded out to africa, egypt and in europe as the latter was connected by lands, it was only in Egypt where suddenly "Adam" and/or technology began sprouting out. This is why am looking up on the fleece as have knowledge of its exact resting place?

HRH. ASHRF. MAULANA PADUKA AHMAD CARPENTER YU TIAMCO ARPA-V Email: padukashah@minister.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.251.189 (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparent doublet

The list of knights of the Austrian order includes both "Graf Czernin v. Chudenitz" and "Franz, Count of Czernin of Chudenitz." These two appear to be the same man. Does anyone know otherwise? J S Ayer (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably not same man see de:Liste der Ritter des Ordens vom Goldenen Vlies, there are listed five Czernins.--Yopie (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I had already consulted the English list. Each says that only one man by that title is now a member, though listing former holders in former centuries. This makes it seem even more likely that we have an accidental doublet. J S Ayer (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

King Amadeo

Did King Amadeo makes awards of the Golden Fleece during his brief tenure as King of Spain (1870-1873)? Or was Alfonso XII considered to be head of the order during this time period? john k (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Amadeo awarded Golden Fleece, probably illegally. See Burkes World Orders of Knighthood and Merit for more, or directly [3].--Yopie (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be mentioned in the article, no? john k (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Chapel Hill honor society

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill reportedly has an honor society called the Order of the Golden Fleece. I set up a link to that at the top of the page, replacing a red link, and this link has twice been removed. My thought is that someone trying to find out about that organization will likely wind up at this page, and it is simply courteous to provide a link to it. What do others think? J S Ayer (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

inconsistency

There are inconsistency in the article List of Knights of the Golden Fleece: Francisco de Borja Bazán de Silva, 1th Marquis of Santa Cruz 1th is not the truth. It may be 1st or it may be 4th, 5th ... It is possible that the number is wrong, or the “th” is wrong. I do not know what of that is wrong or true. Please check it. --Diwas (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Inducted 1877. The tenth Marquis of Santa Cruz was made a member of the order in 1821, and the thirteenth in 1927, so this must be the eleventh or twelfth. The same error occurs in the German list, and the other languages do not extend so far. J S Ayer (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: citation needed RE: Wellington

far too many "citation needed" comments appearing all across wikipedia these days, this one seems frivolous

Spanish Order In 1812 the acting government of Spain illegally[citation needed] awarded the order

it was obviously illegal on two grounds as explained elsewhere in the article,

1. the sovereign is the only one who can appoint members to the order - the government cannot do so.

2. the order is closed to heretics - Wellington, as a protestant, could not be appointed to the order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.214.153 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

French Order?

Was there not a French OotGF in prerevelutionary France? It is mentioned in one or another of the Hornblower novels. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, there was not. I remember the old Comte de Graçay remarking that he was a Chevalier of the Holy Spirit; are you thinking of this? J S Ayer (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Guillaume Machaut was dead, no?

Guillaume Machaut was dead by the 15th century. I think what is meant is Pierre Michault. Total guess. But definitely not Guillaume de Machaut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.231.155 (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

== Really! He was dead almost 60 years, and was not Burgundian.Beenhere (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Order of the Three Golden Fleeces (1809-13)

Napoleonic gallantry award. Merging of the Spaniard and Austrian orders plus a new French branch, with Napoleon, rather unsurprisingly, as Great Master. Never fully developed.

"http://www.france-phaleristique.com/3toisonsor.htm" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

All right, I apologize. Napoleonic France, though, not pre-revolutionary. I still don't remember the Hornblower reference. J S Ayer (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't apologize. I wasn't referring to the Hornblower reference. I was just mentioning in passing this little-known and short-lived Napoleonic decoration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Prince Kubrat of Bulgaria

Someone has added Kubrat, Prince of Panagyurishte as a Knight in the Austrian order. Since he is a prominent surgeon is Spain, I suspect he is a member of the Spanish order. Can anyone supply a hard fact? J S Ayer (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This paper [4] lists him as a member. It seems to be specifically about the Habsburg/Austrian branch. Though it is interesting that his Wikipedia article does not make mention of this honour. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That nails it. Thank you! J S Ayer (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Now it is in his Wikipedia article. J S Ayer (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Andres, Prince of the Pindus

This name has been added to the list of members of the Austrian order, here and in the list of members. I searched Google for this name, and came up with only this Wikipedia listing. I searched for Prince Andres del Pindo, and came up with a website for the Duchy of Carniola, which describes itself as a micronation and seems to have eight members, claiming no eminence. This posting appears to me to be a hoax, and I intend to remove it tomorrow unless some documentation appears. J S Ayer (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC) All right, someone got it while I was still checking. Good. J S Ayer (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of articles naming heirs to founts of honour

Several requests to delete articles entitled "Line of succession to the former throne of X" (e.g. Württemberg, Tuscany, Two Sicilies) have recently been proposed for deletion from Wikipedia by Pat Gallacher. Although Wikipedians from various projects are being notified of these requests for removal, I think those who monitor this page may also appreciate being notified. FactStraight (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing dates of induction for current Austrian knights

I have not been able to find any verification for the date 1961 applied to several dozen living Austrian knights by User:Mr._D._E._Mophon on May 24, 2011. In one case, Archduke Georg, it is clearly wrong - since he wasn't even born until 1964. In several other cases it is unlikely considering the youth of the recipients in 1961 (e.g. the Prince of Liechtenstein and Mariano Hugo, Prince of Windisch-Graetz). I think that the possible source might be this webpage [5] - but here it says "depuis 1961" (since 1961). I have removed the dates. If dates are verifiable, they should be added with a citation.Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Numbers and Prestige

The article until recently said that the Order of the Golden Fleece, having had but 1200 members in its entire history, is sometimes regarded as the most elite and prestigious order of chivalry. A very recent edit specifies this to the Spanish Fleece. I think the number refers to all knights, Burgundian, Spanish, and Austrian, but I cannot count them tonight. The Order of the Garter, by comparison, has had about a thousand members since its foundation, including (honorary) Royal and Stranger Knights. I read half a century ago that in terms of prestige in Europe the Garter ranked first, the Golden Fleece second, and the Annunziata third. I hope to count the Fleece-knights some time next week, unless someone else does it first. I think this edit is in error. J S Ayer (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

According to the the Bbliography used in the article, the number 1201 for Leonor, Princess of Asturias refers to all knights inducted before 1700 (618 in total) plus only the knights of the Spanish branch thereafter. The same reference counts the post-1700 Austrian knights separately.2804:14C:165:8EC3:35E4:80AE:3C0F:205E (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Update: here is the (approximate) count for a few active orders according to different Wikipedia sources (note: "knights" on the list includes both male and female members).

1. Order of the Garter (since 1348): 1,014 knights (English Wikipedia ?); average: 1.50 knight/year.
2. Order of the Elephant (since 1580): 860 knights (Danish Wikipedia); average: 1.95 knight/year.
3. Order of the Golden Fleece, Spanish branch (since 1430; knighthoods awarded by the Austrian branch post-1711 not counted): 1,201 (English Wikipedia) or 1,199 (French Wikipedia); average: 2.03 knights/ year.
4. Order of the Seraphim (since 1748): 883 knights (Swedish Wikipedia); average: 3.2 knights/ year.

Issue regarding edit war

Regarding the last edits:

The user editing them from an Austrian IP address is swapping the order of everything, always with the Austrian point of view first. The Habsburg branch is NOT NECESSARILY more legitimate as it was not the originator of the order (the House of Valois-Burgundy was). The order is not property of any family, and keeps changing according to the throne that has been granting it (Spain for the last half a millennium). King Charles II gave all his succession rights to Philip V, a Bourbon, passing the Grand Mastership to the kings of Spain (regardless of the house).

If that were not enough, Austria is a republic, Spain continues to have a constitutional monarchy where the Order of the Golden Fleece is officially recognised.

Furthermore, the fact that all the constitutional monarchs (Queen Elisabeth, Emperor of Japan, Kings of the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Tsar of Bulgaria etc...) are knights of the SPANISH ORDER of the Golden Fleece undermines the Austrian.

Lastly, I can see where the IP user is coming from when he says the Austrian order has continued with its tradition of granting the fleece ONLY to Christians, whereas the Spanish hasn't. This however does not mean the Spanish order has developed into an order of Merit per se. If you look at the members, all except 4 are/have been/will be kings (certainly not merit, but condition of royal birth).

With all this being said, I don't intend to not include the Austrian branch, which has absolutely got arguments in favor of its legitimacy, but it is bluntly evident that the article should follow an order of relevance, and so the Spanish branch should be the first mentioned. Throughout history, I'm certain the Spanish branch has been the "most desired" and most recognised (Duke of Wellington, Napoleons, British Royal Family etc...) whereas the Austrian has been granted mostly between the Habsburgs and the minor Germanic princes (which by the way doesn't make it better or worse, its simply a fact).

--Cantabrucu (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

---By the way, Franco did not receive any Golden Fleece, Infante Jaime gave it to him illegally, since the conferral was not his right, but his younger brothers', Infante Juan. It is true that Infante Juan allegedly offered it back in the day, but Franco rightly renounced since he considered such honor should be granted by a reigning sovereign only. References here: [6] [7] [8] [9]

---

Cantabrucu (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hallo!

I think there are some mistakes about the order:

For one thing, the order belongs exclusively to neither the Spanish throne nor the Habsburg throne. The order had its own statutes when it was founded. At the end of the War of the Spanish Succession there was a discussion about who could take over the order. According to the statutes of the order, the rights remained with the Habsburg family. The new Spanish royal family did not want to do without it and continued to cultivate the order. In any case, the Habsburgs took over the archive and the treasure, in particular they also took over the rights to Burgundy in accordance with the peace agreement. Since then there have been 2 branches of the order.

The Spanish branch then had some breaks in the history of the order in the 19th and 20th centuries, because the order was apparently not lived continuously during the Spanish Republic. There were also problems who can now award the medal, see Franco! But in every long-standing tradition there are such and such times. During the Nazi period by example, Hitler tried to destroy the Habsburg order. The fact that the branches develop differently is neither good nor bad, but simply natural. Life and history are colorful.

The Spanish branch has developed differently from the Habsburg branch, which refers to the original statutes and lives in the sense of a knighthood. According to the literature, the Spanish branch has developed into a bare medal of merit because the knights' community is no longer cultivated accordingly.

There is also literature on the subject claiming that the Spanish branch is a new establishment after 1715 and has no direct line to Burgundian orders.

One can always argue about the historical and current importance of the members, especially when one considers that the Habsburg family ruled the Holy Roman Empire for a long time, then an empire, while at many times Spain was not a royalty. It is also perfectly clear that the House of Habsburg has had no emperor since 1918 (- which in principle has nothing to do with the order). It is also interesting that there are historically and currently members who belong to the two branches.

Austria is now also a republic and has legally established the Republic of Austria that the Habsburg Order of the Golden Fleece has its own legal personality and that the Habsburg family is currently entitled to the award.

For me, it was essential for the article that the large treasure and archive are continuously the sole property of the Habsburg branch (- despite all attempts to get to the treasure by Nazi Germany, Spain, Belgium, etc. in the 20th century)

It is not an Austrian, Spanish, Habsburg, Bourbon, Burgundian or Dutch view - no, it should be a scientific one. It doesn't matter whether the one aristocrat is first or second in the article. The source of information and scientific literature on the subject are decisive for me. In principle, of course, the order in Spain as well as in Central Europe is particularly relevant. Whether Spain or Central Europe is more important is not my issue.

In any case, I tried to supplement and edit the article according to my sources in order to pursue the Wikipedia project further. Maybe we can expand the article together as a future project - it's European history!

Greetings from Corona Vienna - stay healthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.89.104.147 (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Good Morning!

I have been thinking about the difficult problem all night long and have read the literature again. I noticed other aspects. In 1700, the then applicable statutes of the order according to Art. 65 determined that the rights to the order would remain with the Austrian Habsburg branch due to the extinction of the Spanish Habsburg branch and would not fall to the new Spanish royal family. The whole thing was apparently a mini-topic at the peace negotiations but was never finally resolved, because on the one hand the Habsburgs obviously had the treasure, archive and Burgundy and on the other hand the new Spanish royal family simply handed the award on. Connected with it or interesting (which I only noticed now) is that Karl von Habsburg is apparently related in a direct line to the founder Philip the Good according to the order rules. Actually unbelievable!

Somehow everything is an evaluation problem with regard to the Spanish inheritance war and its results. Like Gibraltar or Catalonia.

Greetings from Vienna! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.164.132.215 (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Complement: The whole problem was apparently also an issue in the peace negotiations after the First World War and, according to my information, was decided by the Allies in favor of the Habsburgs. Further information would be helpful!

The only ones who are likely to legally wear the fleece are the buyers of a "Brooks Brothers - New York" t-shirt (and of course XX and XY)!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.164.132.215 (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

XXX So that means in hard facts: The Austrian branch goes back to the foundation by the Burgundians. The Spanish branch goes back to 1700, but has cultural and design roots from before. And apparently the Austrian branch and the Spanish branch live in peaceful harmony on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.169.53 (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Karl von Habsburg-Lothringen is not an agnatic descendant of Maximilian I or Charles V. He descends in paternal line from Francis, Duke of Lorraine, who had no valid claim to the Grand Mastership of the Order of the Golden Fleece. The direct agnatic line descending from Maximilian I became extinct following the demise of Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor, and, at that point, even if you want to invoke Art.65, the Grand Mastership would have fallen upon the most senior cognatic line descending from Charles V and that is the Bourbon line via Maria Teresa of Austria, daughter of King Philip IV of Spain and wife of Louis XIV of France. Not to mention that Charles II of Spain in his will bequeathed all his dynastic rights, which include the position of Grand Master of the Golden Fleece, to Philippe d'Anjou, later King Philip V of Spain. Of course, Karl von Habsburg-Lothringen, on top of all of above, is not a reigning sovereign and, therefore, has no authority to award honors, unlike the reigning King of Spain and Grand Master of the Order of the Golden Fleece, Philip VI.187.73.191.2 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Please get consensus here on the talk page

This article has been reverted by a series of IP editors based in Austria (who might all be the same person). A complaint was filed at ANI. I have semiprotected the article for one month because there are so far no comments here from the IPs. Please join the discussion here and try to agree on a version of the article that gives proper attention to both the Austrian and Spanish branches of this order. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I Think although the IP user might be right in some aspects, we generally mention one or the other on the basis of relevance. I think it is indisputable that the Spanish fleece has always been the most relevant to Western European culture. Yes, it has evolved to granting the fleece to non-catholics which the Austrian hasn't, but it is perhaps this that has made it more relevant and up to date with more modern times. If the important monarchs of the world are knights of the Spanish Fleece, then I think it would be wise to say "Toda, two branches of the order exist, namely the SPANISH and the Austrian (Habsburg) Fleece". Furthermore, as I said, the fact that it is an official order of Spain (a constitutional monarchy) strengthens this view. I think that is the main dispute here. What do others think? --Cantabrucu (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Having no feedback, I proceed to restore the page as it was before with the justification of being a longer-standing member of the Wikipedia community than the IP user. I will add sources.--Cantabrucu (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry to say Cantabrucu is not right. Today's Spanish Order has had no continuous continuity since the Burgundians founded it. However, today's Spanish order has cultural and traditional roots in the Burgundian foundation and is of course to be mentioned in the article. The treasure, archive, etc. of the Burgundian order is now part of the Habsburg branch, which is more important in terms of cultural history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.175.224 (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

According to our list of Fleece-Knights, the Borbon kings of Spain conferred the Golden Fleece every year from 1701 onward, while the Order was only instituted in Austria in 1712, so in practical terms it appears to me that the Spanish order has more continuity—but I don't think the Wikipedia should take part in any squabbles about which is the real one, or the better one. Both are real, and highly prestigious, and I think we should describe them and not pronounce any judgments. J S Ayer (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The order is a Burgundian foundation and has its own constitution. According to this constitution, sovereignty fell to Maximilian von Habsburg after the death of Charles of Burgundy. Then the rights under this constitution remained with, for example, Charles V or his successor, who were also Spanish kings. The last Spanish Habsburg king died childless in 1700. And according to the then existing statutes of the order (according to Art. 65) the rights to the order remained with the Austrian Habsburg branch and not with the new Spanish royal family. The new Spanish kings then defacto founded a new order based on the one their Hapsburg predecessors held. Therefore, the great treasure, archive, etc. is owned by the Habsburg branch and has never been claimed by the Spanish branch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.164.148.56 (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

A version of the article that gives proper attention to both the Austrian and Spanish branches of this order: Yes, both exist, and I don't think the Wikipedia should get sucked into any argument about which has the purer pedigree, especially since the two heads do not squabble. List them as we have: Burgundian order, Spanish order, Austrian order. J S Ayer (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree J S Ayer! I have restored biased views. --Cantabrucu (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Habsburg chaplaincy

Since this is a recurring problem, I point out that according to this article, section Austrian (Habsburg) order, subsection Officials, the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna is Grand Chaplain, and Gregor Henckel-Donnersmarck, priest and scion of a noble German house, is the chaplain, as his article in the German Wikipedia confirms. J S Ayer (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I shouldn't rely so far on my memory. The German article on the Order of the Golden Fleece says that the Cardinal Archbishop is grand chaplain, and Abbot Gregor is the chaplain. The German article on Abbot Gregor says that his position is almoner. J S Ayer (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2020

Please remove the links to Kubrat, Prince of Panagyurishte, as the article has been cut. 73.110.217.186 (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Will someone please explain to my ignorance why the article on Prince Kubrat has been deleted? J S Ayer (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kubrat, Prince of Panagyurishte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

slightly out of date

"The two monarchies, namely the kings of Spain and emperors of Austria, have ever since continued granting the Golden Fleece in relative peace."

This statement seems out of date by a century or so. Austria hasn't had an emperor since 1918 or so. How about 'heads of the house of Hapsburg' instead of 'emperors of Austria'?

DlronW (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

As you say! J S Ayer (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Officers of Spanish Golden Fleece

According to the following reference , the Chancellor of the Spanish branch of the Order of the Golden Fleece is the chaplain of the Royal Palace (who, I believe, is currently the Archbishop of Madrid) whereas the "greffier" or clerk of the order is the undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, see p. 198. Should that information be included in the article?

Other relevant information from the same reference: the Spanish Golden Fleece is currently awarded by Royal Decree published in the State Gazette (Boletín Oficial del Estado) and countersigned by the Spanish Prime Minister. However, see also the next reference, whereas appointments to the Order of Carlos III and to the Order of Isabella the Catholic are published respectively in the sections of the Gazette corresponding to the PM's Office (Presidencia del Gobierno) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, appointments to the Order of the Golden Fleece are published in the section corresponding to the Office of the Head of State (Jefatura del Estado) indicating that, unlike the civil orders, the Golden Fleece is awarded on the personal discretion of the monarch, albeit with the concurrence of the Council of Ministers. I believe that should be also explained in the article.187.73.191.2 (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Armorial of the Spanish Golden Fleece

In this section there is a heading "Coats of arms of current Knights of the Spanish Golden Fleece" followed by images of current members with their coat-of-arms including the Golden Fleece. Are these arms actually displayed someplace (e.g. a chapel of the order)? Or are these merely the coats-of-arms of these people IF they displayed them with the Golden Fleece? If its the former, that is fine. If it's the later, then that amounts to original creation and they should be removed. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the non-Spanish recipients (mostly foreign royalty). If anyone can provide evidence that any of these coats-of-arms have been used, then please restore those parts. Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Current knights of the order

Unfortunately, Queen Elizabeth II is no longer with us. The Queen is dead, long live the King. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:8B00:C19F:9BE:7B7B:CA46:4C6A (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2022

Change 'Current knights of the order include Queen Elizabeth II, Emperor Akihito of Japan, former Tsar Simeon of Bulgaria, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, amongst 13 others.' to 'Current knights of the order include Emperor Akihito of Japan, former Tsar Simeon of Bulgaria, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, amongst 13 others.' to remove the late Queen Elizabeth II from the list, as she is not currently alive. Twattock (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2022

Remove Queen Elizabeth II from the list of current awardees, because she is no longer living. 140.82.214.2 (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2023

Please removed Constantine II of Greece from the living members section, as he is now deceased. 2601:249:9301:D570:8D29:A3EF:A5EE:4FB2 (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)