If You Survey the History of Chivalric Orders, You Soon Find That There Is Much Conflict Over Which Are Valid and Which Are Invalid Or Even Fake Orders

Home , Postulant

the order. We are each more or less uncertain of our own worth. One can easily picture that a recognition helps to solidify one’s own self esteem. Because it is possible to work one’s way into an independent order, I believe that it involves more complex motivations. On a simple level, it is nice to have an honor. But I also detect that there are people who yearn for a world of greater ideals. For some, this is very much a hearkening back to past ages, to kings and nobility and honor. In my own case the idealism is more contemporary. I deliberately sought membership in a religious order that matched my own ideals. The knighthood became an outer embodiment of what is within. Late in life I discover that ideals are remarkably powerful. In a sense I see each person of ideals as a knight doing battle in their own little kingdom, trying to right wrongs and bring order to the world. It is almost simply a matter of fitting one’s ideals into the concepts of chivalry. Because this spirit of wanting to serve and help mankind is not exclusive to men, I am very much for extending knighthood equally to women. Are knights antiquated in this world? Not if you are thinking of all that needs to be done to put the world in good order. The Question of Valid Orders If you survey the history of chivalric orders, you soon find that there is much conflict over which are valid and which are invalid or even fake orders. There are large orders, of many honest members, which some other order will call fake. One doesn’t have to look far to see how this situation arose. Orders show a tremendous ten- dency to want an ancient history, preferably going back to the crusades, or better yet back to Christ’s disciples! Judging from the history of orders, the scene around the crusades was crowded with noble helpers! Some of Europe’s most noble orders, of unquestioned validity, have been caught faking a more ancient history. I won’t name names, since I don’t want to become embroiled in the conflict. A number of orders have been found to rest on historical documents which were later found to be forged. Add to this the historical power plays when a pope or sovereign or others simply created a new grand master and with it another branch of an order with the same name. Or someone starts a new order with an ancient and res- pected name and borrows its history as well. As a postulant, wanting to come into an order, I simply threw up my hands when confront- ed with 22 pages of documentation of who did what, and who succeeded whom. If the validity of any one of these links through the cen- turies was proven false, the order would be seen by some as invalid. Add to this the fact that orders tend never to die. For instance, there are many examples of orders abolished by pope so-and-so or king so-and-so which exist today. How? Someone claims a secret cell of members continued on. Add also that legal authority~ has it that a deposed king can continue to administer his own orders, and so can his heirs in succession. This situation gets confusing with conflicting claims to succession. Add also that the wars in Europe have destroyed many critical documents. Also non-monarchical republics tend to repudiate anything monarchical and throw out the control on orders, titles, and coats-of-arms that a well-run mon- archy has. Lord Gayre8 has an amusing out-of-print analysis of orders which he sees as pretenders. Though his work is instructive, I don’t wholly agree with him. For one thihg, he leaves out state orders, which are the largest and most respectable group. It appears that for him only noble orders are real orders of merit. Yet, noble orders are shrinking and state orders are on the rise. For the

I0 average person considering membership in an order, all these historical claims and counter claims are nearly impossible to sort out. I do have a few guidelines. An order is royal only if it was started by a reigning monarch. Neither heirs nor any lesser nobles have this power. An order is sovereign only if it actually has sovereignty over territory at some time. As far as I can §ee, passage fees have no real connection with validity. BurkeU cites passage fe~s for imperial Russian orders. It is an old tradition. Hospitalier orders which actually support hospitals are likely to have high fees (several thousands). Non-hospital orders are likely to have fees of a few hundreds of dollars. The cost of insignia (and robes, if required) may or may not be in addition to passage fees. But in general the requirement of a fee doesn’t distinguish fake versus valid orders. I would suggest that a person look at an order’s history, and even look at counterclaims of parallel organizations. Orders of lesser merit seem to me to emphasize fee and insignia. Orders of greater merit seem to emphasize history, tradition, chivalry, and function, while the insignia and fees are in the background. I was knighted in an order of lesser merit and had a desperate time learning anything of its history only to find that it was started by a couple of fellows in a back room some S0 years ago. Since its Grand Master cannot be found, it may have been dead for some years. I agree with Lord Gapre that the more titles and honors the "seller" parades, the more dubious the order. But this doesn’t give the novice much to go by. For those interested, I recomm~end the guidance of two organi- zations9,IO where individuals can join, learn, and be guided into generally accepted orders.

External Versus Internal Validity Let me illustrate my point by starting out with my own difficulties. I have a deep and abiding interest in these orders. The interest combines for me art, religion, idealism, and a wish to feel part of other cul~res and times. Early on I got the great books on ordersll,Iz,l~ but they did little to reveal how orders function. My first contact in the field was with an expert who so emphasized noble lineage and arms and the display of personal honors that I was totally put off for ten years. Then I came back to it and had contact with two individuals who help one get honors. Two knighthoods later, I was still dissatisfied. I didn’t want just medals, I wanted something of ~. So I surveyed the whole realm of chivalric orders. I e~ed all those whose claims are in conflict. I then zeroed in on orders of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Most are quite recently founded. I studied their theology and then chose an order. I had found something to match my ideals. I could easily see symbolically and internally what was involved in knighthood. The wish to be of service is very alive and real in many people. I wanted an outer order that would carry this meaning. I deliberately enlarged the meaning of my chosen order by studying the people, history, and religion involved. I submit that in the whole realm of medals we’ve been relatively neglectful of inner meaning. This meaning makes one award of great value to a person and another of little value, regardless of the order of precedence of the medals. Those who collect named awards and their history are dealing with vicarious inner meaning, as is frequently true of collectors in general. I believe that inner meaning is a safeguard in the realm of awards. Anyone can buy and wear any award. Why isn’t everyone doing it? One question from a friend, "What did you do to get that?" casts it in doubt. Most

ii people would find it difficult to wear what they didn’t earn. A few can fake it, but theirs is a life of pretense. Having earned an award, it is often enough just to have it as a memento~ a remin- der. It need not be worn or shown. It strikes me that medals and awards are a very sentimental realm. Those who deal in awards without sentiment, without meaning, are depriving them of value. So after several knighthoods, I finally have one that means something to me. It has meaning because I deliberately cultivated it. In effect it is the outer sign of what already existed within me. Inner meaning cannot be faked, although it can be cultivated. In- ner meaning is the safeguard that keeps people from wearing unearned awards. Inner meaning is ultimately the only significance of a medal. It gives the mother or wife of a posthumous Victoria Cross winner something of immense value, although outwardly it is an un- impressive dull ribbon and medal. I would charge the orders of chivalry ’with neglecting inner meaning. They have tended to act as though the significance was in the award. A dynastic house award probably had great meaning to a person who had spent a lifetime serving the family. But the same medal probably meant little when given by a king to purchase patronage. Same medal, but the meaning is very different. I see some need for a modern version of the schoolin£ that the early knights received, well described by BullfinchI4. I was struck by the fact that the page in training was encouraged to fall in love with a girl. As he learned battle tactics he was to feel that he fought for her. The modern training would go into the whole history and symbolism of knighthood. The postulant would reflect where and how he or she would wish to be of service. It would include a survey of orders with a search for a history and ideals that appeal to the postulant. Finally, the knighthood would be a marriage of the inner ideals and the outer symbol. When you think about it, knighthood should have disappeared as soon as any knave with flintlock or arbalest could shoot the knight off his high horse. It didn’t, because the ideals in knighthood are very much alive even though they are not always identified as knighthood and chivalry. The expanding chivalric orders are the outer sign of powerful ideals that have extended into all areas of human endeavor.

iMilitary Order of the Ardennes, David C. Laing, P.O. Box i, Eden, NY 14057 - Personal communication. 2james Van Der Veldt, Ecclesiastical Orders of Knighthood, Catholic University Press, Washington, D.C., 1956. 3Rodney Hartwell, Chivalry, issues Vol. i, Nos. i, 2, 3. See reference 9. 4Lowell Barker, The Knightly Renaissance, published by the author, 1987. See reference i0. 5A. R. Tinson, Orders of the Sultanate of Oman, Spink & Son, London, 1977. 6B. Burke, Book of Orders of Knighthood, Hurst & Blackett, London, 1858. 7R. E. Prosser, The Royal Prerogative, Raventhorn, Iowa City, 1981. 8Gayre, The Knightly Twilight, Lochore, ~{alta, 1973.