Jump to content

Talk:List of knights and ladies of the Garter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article size

[edit]

Emsworth. I split the Knights of the Garter up some time ago because in one file it is too damn big. But here is is again back in one big lump as 95k. We need to split it again. Mintguy (T) 22:56, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Source

[edit]

Should a source be listed for this? It doesn't seem like 'common knowledge' stuff, nor was it compiled from all those individual bios (since many are still nonexistent). I presume the list was copied from elsewhere? (I'm new here; sorry if I'm betraying some sort of ignorance.) Doops 12:59, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yup, copied from elsewhere. Originally from [1]. See also [2]. john 17:31, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Terms

[edit]

We have some knights degraded, others struck off and others annulled. Are these all different things or just different discriptions of the same thing. We should be clear. Alci12 16:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian the Younger of Brunswick, Bishop of Halberstadt

[edit]

It seems to me he is the #417 - 31 Dec 1624 - Christian,Duke of Brunswick Wolfenbuttel - d. 6 Jun 1626 you can find here : List of Knights and Ladies of the Garter, and here. Since there never existed a Duke of Brunswick called Christian in the 17th. Can anyone clear that point ? Regards, PurpleHz 13:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent use of "Sir"

[edit]

Not wanting to edit this because I don't know anything about the subject, but it strikes me initially as odd that Sir Edmund Hillary is listed without his title, and Sir John Major is listed with his. Should it not be consistent for all members? I would think to default to inclusion of the title given the nature of this being a listing of Knights of the Order of the Garter. 64.228.196.211 23:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything for these two men it should be the other way around. Sir Edmund Hillary was appointed a KBE in 1953, so was entitled to be called 'sir' for some 40 years before his appointment as a Knight of the Garter; John Major was not a knight prior to his appointment to the Garter. Dr pda (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from List of Ladies of the Garter

[edit]

It looks like the "Ladies" article is completely redundant. Skiasaurus (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, it appears that the source list only contains women who were members of the Order before 1488. After that year, there were no more female members until 1901--but women added to the order since then are on the target list. The issue at hand, then, is this: what differentiates the women on the source list from those on the target list, apart from the date they were added to the Order? And, if there is no other difference, is that enough to warrant a separate list? Skiasaurus (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I see no reason why there needs to be two lists. Reywas92Talk 15:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've started to reformat the source list to match that of the target; I'm doing that here. Skiasaurus (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the proposed merge. There are two classes of women who have been associated with the Order of the Garter - Ladies of the Garter, and since 1987 Ladies Companion of the Garter. The latter are female equivalents to Knights Companion, and as such properly belong in the List of Knights and Ladies of the Garter (which should perhaps be renamed to "List of Knights and Ladies Companion of the Garter". The former are a separate class, and this would be why a separate list exists. By this logic Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary should be on the List of Ladies, but not the List of Knights and Ladies. I'm not sure whether the Queen Mother was made a Lady Companion after the change in statutes.

See the following paragraph from the history section of Order of the Garter regarding the difference between the two classes of women:

Soon after the founding of the Order, women were appointed "Ladies of the Garter," but were not made companions. King Henry VII discontinued the practice in 1488; his mother, Margaret Beaufort, was the last Lady of the Garter before Queen Alexandra. Except for female sovereigns, the next Lady of the Garter named was Queen Alexandra, by her husband King Edward VII. King George V also made his consort, Queen Mary, a Lady of the Garter and King George VI subsequently did the same for his wife, Queen Elizabeth. Throughout the 20th century, women continued to be associated with the Order, but except for foreign female monarchs, they were not made companions. In 1987, however, it became possible to install "Ladies Companion of the Garter" under a statute of Queen Elizabeth II.

Dr pda (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the difference should be more clearly stated on the list of Ladies, and the term "Knights and Ladies Companion" should be mentioned on this list - perhaps the list should even be moved to that title? Skiasaurus (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On this page, the Queen Mother's title as a member of the Order of the Garter is "Lady," and it lists her as having held that title from 1936-2002. This, combined with Order of the Garter saying that "throughout the 20th century, women … were not made companions" leads me to believe that the Queen Mother was never made a companion of the order; she does not belong on this list, but rather on the list of Ladies. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 03:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to be any consensus on this, so I'm withdrawing the move request. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 10:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by 75.73.172.220

[edit]

Does anyone think that an extra column for the appointing Sovereign is necessary? I think a better idea would be to put eventual Sovereigns in bold. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 05:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]

Should more notes be added to give a description of the people? I have added a list of former PM's, not comprehensive, and it would be nice to fill this in with notes like "General at the Battle of Waterloo" etc., or would it be too difficult to do this in 10 words without offending people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.53.234 (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Littlebluenick (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Coats of Arms

[edit]

Hi all, I've noticed that many of these people have their coats of arms on their wikipedia pages (and those that don't I'm slowly going through and creating). I think the arms would add a nice graphical element to this list. I was wondering if someone could add another small column so that I could stick them in. I've tried something like this on my sandbox page, but my table skills are awful! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A1_Aardvark/Sandbox Is this something that can be done automatically or quickly? Thoughts? Cheers. A1 Aardvark (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A1 Aardvark, See : User talk:Stephen2nd/Sandbox (f) You are welcome to use, or even finish this if you want. I just use it for quick reference sources etc. Stephen2nd (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alfonsbust.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Alfonsbust.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Knights and Ladies 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robes of Order of the Garter list PORTRAIT

[edit]

hi I would like to ask if in this item you could change the portraits of the knights (all possible knights) with their portraits in the guise of knights of the order of the garter, because I see that there are many portraits without the object of the item, so if we went in the voices of all possible members where commons have their portrait in the following guise, and we insert it in this entry instead of the current portrait, the entry on this list would take on a very beautiful aesthetic, this loyalty is currently consistent with the images of the FIRST KNIGHTS, from then on it is all a coat of arms and portraits in orghese clothes. therefore I ask that the current portraits in normal clothes are all modified with that of the order of the garter--37.183.21.172 (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies of the Garter (1358-1488)

[edit]

Shortly after the founding of the Order, women were appointed "Ladies of the Garter" but did not become companions. King Henry VII ceased the practice in 1488; his mother, Margaret Beaufort, was the last Lady of the Garter before again the next Lady of the Garter was named, i.e. Queen Alexandra, by her husband King Edward VII. Only since 1987 the "Lady Companion of the Garter" exists under a status of Queen Elizabeth II. Ladies of the Garter are included in the list, but only since Queen Alexandra and those ones from before Margaret Beaufort are not on the list and are excluded. Shouldn't these also be included in the list in order to obtain a complete overview? See: Ladies of the Garter, 1358-1488 - website heraldica and Ladies of the Garter -The College of St George. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, yes? If the article is about knights and ladies of this one order, then we have a glaring omission. I added one and added a source to her article. The readers are not getting the full picture this article ostensibly covers. My understanding is that there was a separate article for ladies once but it was deleted or merged without any actual merging being done. There was even a link to an article about the ladies but it clearly turned back to this article so an expansion is required. --Killuminator (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Others to Include

[edit]

Reviving two earlier discussions, I wonder if we could further expand this list:

  • First, should we include the medieval ladies of the Garter, as in the old article which was meant to be merged but then wasn't? I've never fully understood the significance of "associated with the order, but not companions" as to whether Margaret Beaufort and earlier can be included in the same list as Alexandra of Denmark and later.
  • Second, if we include those who were members ex officio as Prince of Wales, should we also include those who were sovereigns ex officio as monarch? I think nearly all the kings after Edward III would have already been in the order prior to accession, but the queens regnant (save the present one) were not. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • For 1 Yes. This was practically decided a long time ago but not acted on. The long time gap and miniscule differences shouldn't affect that. For 2 No. All the kings since the order's founders are listed as titles so it's not necessary for another entry. --Killuminator (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've noticed that Edward VI has no entry among his father's category. I would have expected him to join the order upon his appointment as Prince of Wales in 1537, but there is no mention of this. If he's been missed out, does that mean every subsequent companion has the wrong number? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_knights_and_ladies_of_the_Garter&oldid=1207223893"