KNIGHTHOOD
Knighthood
Crown:
                                                                
Wesley Clark, U.S. General and NATO  Supreme Allied Commander in Europe made Knight Cokmmander of the Most Excellent  Order of the British Empire March 28, 2000.
General              Wesley K. Clark, US Army http ://www.nato.int/cv/saceur/clark.htm
                               
Lynn Sandstedt, University Professor at  the University of Northern Colorado, appointed Knight of the Order of Alphonso  the Wise by King Juan Carlos, for educational work in Madrid, October 1998.
Jerry Lewis, comedian, actor, director,  producer, humanitarian, appointed as Chevalier of the Legion of Honor, 1966.
                                                                           
 
Bob Hope, actor, comedian, humanitarian,  appointed by H.M. Queen Elizabeth, 1976, as Commander of the British Empire.
Norman Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell, U.S.  Military Generals, appointed in 1993 as Knights Commander of the Most Honourable  Order of the Bath (Honorary) by H.M. Queen Elizabeth.                              
                                                            
  Schwarzkopf: Logs don't mention  chemical exposure              Bush Names Powell Secretary of State http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/09/gulf.war.illness/index.html     h    http://www.gulfwarvets.com/schw.htm
George Bush, former U.S. President,  appointed Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath by H.M.  Queen Elizabeth.
 
 
Ronald Reagan, former U.S. President,  appointed Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath by H.M.  Queen Elizabeth.
 
 
Caspar Weinberger, former U.S. Secretary  of Defense, appointed Knight Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the  British Empire by H.M. Queen Elizabeth.
URL: http://www.afn.org/~dks/i-c/pVIII-weinberger-dod.html
Defense Secretary Caspar  W. Weinberger lied to investigators to  conceal his knowledge of the Iran arms  sales. Contrary to Weinberger's assertions, a small group of senior civilian  officials and m...
John Paul Getty II, U.S. billionaire  businessman, appointed Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the  British Empire by H.M. Queen Elizabeth.
 
Andre Previn, U.S. music composer and  orchestral maestro, appointed Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of  the British Empire.
 
Welsh, Alfred J.: Attorney (Louisville,  Kentucky). no date. Knight, Order of the Crown of the Kingdom of Belgium. No  restriction on use of prenominal "Sir" or on postnominals. Sir Alfred has served  as Honorary Consul of Belgium in Louisville since 1983. Source: The Magazine  of Sigma Chi, Fall 1994, page 16.
 
Foley, Tom: Former Speaker of the U.S.  House of Representatives. March 19, 1995. Member, Order of the British Empire.  Foly also holds the French Legion of Honor and the German Order of Merit.  Source: AP news release. The OBE was given by Sir Robin Renwick, the British  Ambassador to the United States with these words: "I am ordered by Her Majesty  the Queen to invest you with the Order of Knight of the British Empire." Without  further ceremony, Sir Robin then placed the neck decoration upon Foley.  According to the AP news release, Foley cannot use the chivalric prenominal, but  can use the OBE postnominal.
 
Falk, Peter: Television and motion picture  actor. Chevalier of Arts and Letters, France's highest arts honor in the French  Legion of Honor; on Thursday, February 29, 1996 in Paris. French film star  Gerard Depardie, himself a Chevalier, bestowed the honor in a ceremony held by  the French Ministry of Culture. Falk is one of many Americans who regularly  receive Knighthood in various Orders of Chivalry.
Heston, Charleton: Actor. Monday, March  16, 1997. Commander, Order of Arts and Letters (France). The French Order of  Arts and Letters is France's highest civilian honor for those in the performing  arts. Source: AP news release. No restriction on the use of prenominal "Chev." or on postnominals. Chevalier Heston commented that while he had played knights  in the movies, this was the first time he actually was made one.
Admiral Leighton W Smith Jr., who recently  retired from the United States Navy, has been appointed by Queen Elizabeth II as  an Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire  (Military Division) (KBE). The award, which will be made during an audience with  The Queen at Buckingham Palace on 5 March, 1997 is in recognition of Admiral  Leighton Smith's key role, whilst Commander-in Chief of NATO's Southern Command  based in Naples.
 
Hope, Bob and Delores Hope:  Actor/Comedian/Humanitarian. January 4, 1998. Knight, Pontifical Order of St.  Gregory the Great. The Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great (Ordo Sancti  Gregorii Magni) was founded by Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846). The Order's  original purpose was to honor loyal and meritorious gentlemen of the Papal  States. The Order of St. Gregory the Great is open to Roman Catholics, non-Roman  Catholic Christians, and even non-Christians. It now has three ranks (Knight  Grand Cross, Knight Commander, and Knight) and two divisions, civil and  military. Source: AP news release. No restriction on the use of prenominal "Chev." or on postnominals. On June 11, 1998, Chev. Hope and his wife, Dame Hope, were  Invested as Knight Commanders with Star of this Order. Source: AP news release.
 
Montalban, Ricardo and Mrs. Montalban:  Actor. January 4, 1998. Knight, Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great. The  Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great (Ordo Sancti Gregorii Magni)  was founded by Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846). The Order's original purpose was to  honor loyal and meritorious gentlemen of the Papal States. The Order of St.  Gregory the Great is open to Roman Catholics, non-Roman Catholic Christians, and  even non-Christians. It now has three ranks (Knight Grand Cross, Knight  Commander, and Knight) and two divisions, civil and military. Source: AP news  release. No restriction on the use of prenominal "Chev." or on postnominals.
 
Disney, Roy and Mrs. Disney: Disney  Studios Executive and brother of Walt Disney. January 4, 1998. Knight,  Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great. The Pontifical Order of St. Gregory  the Great (Ordo Sancti Gregorii Magni) was founded by Pope Gregory XVI  (1831-1846). The Order's original purpose was to honor loyal and meritorious  gentlemen of the Papal States. The Order of St. Gregory the Great is open to  Roman Catholics, non-Roman Catholic Christians, and even non-Christians. It now  has three ranks (Knight Grand Cross, Knight Commander, and Knight) and two  divisions, civil and military. Source: AP news release. No restriction on the  use of prenominal "Chev." or on postnominals.
 
Ali, Muhammed: World heavyweight champion  boxer. Thursday, January 15, 1998. Member of Morocco's Commander of the Arch. By  King Hassan II. Ali was in Morocco for the holy month of Islam's Ramadan.
 
Fed Chief Greenspan to Be Knighted
Tuesday, August 6, 2002; 4:48 PM
WASHINGTON  He won't get to call himself "Sir Alan" but Federal Reserve  Chairman Alan Greenspan  often known as the second most powerful man in the  United States  will get another title: knight.
Queen Elizabeth II has approved an honorary knighthood for Greenspan's "outstanding contribution to global economic stability," the British Treasury  announced Tuesday. A copy of the release was distributed in Washington.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51226-2002Aug6.html site down
Greenspan Defends His      Knighthood
Alan Greenspan recently received his      knighthood, and he's keeping it, thank you.
And that comes from the chairman of the      Federal Reserve himself, in correspondence NewsMax recently obtained.
When word first broke in August that Queen      Elizabeth II was about to bestow a knighthood on Greenspan for "his      outstanding contribution to global economic stability" (what was the Queen      smoking when she said that?), the indefatigable Conservative Caucus Chairman      Howard Phillips fired off a letter to Greenspan, saying such a move violated      the Constitution prohibition against officials holding "titles." America,      is, after all, a republic.
Greenspan fired back a letter to Phillips,      saying his lawyer says he has every right, under federal law, to accept and      keep his knighthood.
We thought we'd share the correspondence      between Phillips and Greenspan.
Here is the letter from Howard Phillips:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I noted in this morning's Washington Post      that you expect to be awarded a knighthood by her Majesty's government in      the United Kingdom.
In order to help spare you embarrassment, I      call to your attention the provision of Article I, Section 9 of the      Constitution of the United States which asserts that "No Title of Nobility      shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of      Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress,      accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever,      from any King, Prince, or foreign State". I would urge you to either secure      advance Congressional approval for your receipt of this title, or that you      respectfully decline.
Thank you for your consideration.
With Personal Best Wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Greenspan's Response to Phillips:
Dear Mr. Phillips:
Thank you for your interest in my pending      award of a knighthood by her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom.
I also believed that specific congressional      approval was required. My general counsel, however, informed me to the      contrary. His memo is enclosed. I trust this responds adequately to your      concerns.
My best regards.
Greenspan attached the following letter:
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE      SYSTEM
August 21, 2002
Subject: Foreign Decorations
From: Virgil Mattingly and Cary Williams
Mr. Phillips has asked whether the proposed      honorary knighthood for you would violate the Emoluments Clause of the U. S.      Constitution. This clause provides that:
[N]o person holding any Office of Profit or      Trust under them [the United States], shall without the consent of Congress,      accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or title, of any kind whatsoever,      from any King, Prince or foreign state. (Emphasis added.)
Congress gave its consent to the acceptance      of certain gifts and decorations in the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act      (originally enacted in 1966). The Act provides as follows:
The Congress consents to the accepting,      retaining, and wearing by an employee of a decoration tendered in      recognition of active field service in time of combat operations or awarded      for other outstanding or unusually meritorious performance, subject to the      approval of the employing agency of such employee.
The Act defines "decoration" to include "an      order, device, medal, badge, insignia, emblem or award." The Department of      Justice has ruled that an honorary knighthood is an "order" as permitted by      the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act.
Recent examples of U. S. citizens who have      been knighted by the Queen of England while they held public office include      General Wesley Clark and General Norman Schwarzkopf (who was presented with      his medal by the Queen at his Florida army base). U. S. citizens who are      knighted may not use the title "Sir", but may use the initials representing      the order of the knighthood they receive, such as "KBE" -- "Knight of the      British Empire" -- after their name.
Britain 'to confer honorary      knighthood - Bill Gatesn
Bill Gates'
Microsoft supremo Bill Gates is to receive an honorary British knighthood      for services to global enterprise, a newspaper has reported.
Mr Gates, 48, was recommended for the knighthood - which is to be formally      conveyed by the Queen - by Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, the      Sunday Telegraph reported, adding that an announcement would be made today.
That is when Mr Gates, among other captains of global industry and finance,      will be in London attending a major conference titled "Advancing Enterprise:      Britain in a Global Economy", organised by Mr Brown.
Britain gives the title of honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent      Order of the British Empire, or KBE, from time to time to distinguished      non-Britons, many of them Americans.
Such foreign knights cannot, however, prefix their names with "sir".
Americans who have received a KBE include former president George Bush,      former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, film director Steven Spielberg, and      US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who will also be at the      conference, the newspaper said.
=========================================
Queen Bestows      Knighthood On Bill Gates March 2, 2005
The honor came in a private ceremony today at Buckingham Palace, in      recognition of his charitable works.
The Microsoft founder was knighted by the United Kingdom's Queen Elizabeth      in a private ceremony at Buckingham Palace.
The honor bestowed on the American multi-billionaire is actually an honorary      knighthood, because royal titles aren't formally recognized in the United      States. Gates was given the knighthood primarily in recognition of his      efforts to improve health and reduce poverty in the developing world. To      date, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Global Health program has      earmarked nearly $5 billion for the effort.
"I'm particularly pleased that this honour helps recognize the real heroes      our foundation supports to improve health in poor countries," Gates said in      a statement. "Their incredible work is helping ensure that one day all      people-- no matter where they are born--will have the same opportunity for a      healthy life, and I'm grateful to share this honour with them."
Gates was accompanied at the ceremony by his wife, Melinda Gates, co-founder      of the foundation.
Nominated for the knighthood by U.K. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Gates was      also cited for his business leadership and contributions. In 2000, the Gates      Foundation donated $210 million to Cambridge University to be used toward      graduate school scholarships for recipients from outside Britain.
Microsoft employs some 2,000 persons in the U.K. and supports directly and      indirectly some 17,000 partner businesses in the U.K., Microsoft said. Some      80 researchers are employed at the Microsoft Research Cambridge laboratory.
Wellington Webb, Mayor of Denver,  appointed May 1998 as Chevalier of the French Legion of Honor.
Webb teams with Hillary
Rudy: A Knight in Tarnished Armor
Fri Feb 22 17:40:06 2002
68.3.132.0
Rudy: A Knight in Tarnished Armor
Newsday
Ian Williams is a British writer living in New York City.
Newsday February 20, 2002
LAST WEDNESDAY, as protocol dictates, "bowing from the head, not the waist"
to Queen Elizabeth, "Sir" Rudy Giuliani joined Billy Graham, Steven
Spielberg, IBM's Lou Gerstner, Ronald Reagan, Norman Schwarzkopf and other
knightly relics of the British attempt to persuade Washington that the
"special" relationship between the two countries means something more than
Tony Blair's doing what he's told - sometimes even before he's asked.
However, as "Sir" Rudy received his gong (medal) from the British queen, he
had more relevant role models as an "honorary" Knight Commander of the Most
Excellent Order of the British Empire. For example, one other previous
honorary knight was Rumanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu, who was honored for
buying British even as he drove his people to poverty and desperation.
Ceaucescu didn't like term limits either, and he also tried to hang on to
office, until the crowds in Bucharest eliminated him.
The Queen has also knighted President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan,
and British newspapers pointed out that even if he thus became an ersatz
aristocrat, his primary avocation was as a kleptocrat who had become one of
the richest people in the world by selling off his country's oilfields and
pocketing the proceeds. But since British companies were among those who
wanted to buy them, her majesty overlooked this peccadillo.
"Sir" Nursultan could provide a few other pointers for Sir Rudy, following
the latter's attempts to extend his term by hook or by crook last November.
The Kazakh parliament passed a law granting the "First President" total
immunity from prosecution and subpoenas if he were ever to break the
dictatorial mold and retire. Something similar may be useful if ever there
is any fallout from the last minute stadium deals or the lifting of all the
mayor's records in the last days of Giuliani's term.
British Airways, which has just announced 5,800 firings, flew Sir Rudy to
meet the oceanliner QE2 on the snobby but noisy Concorde. Sir Rudy
reciprocated by going to a banquet arranged by Sir Richard Branson,
proprietor of bitter rival Virgin Atlantic. He also did the Churchillian
tour, visiting the British leader's wartime bunker, and relishing the
somewhat forced comparisons between himself - for so bravely facing the
world's TV cameras - and the prime minister who had faced the Nazi bombers.
His hosts chivalrously forbore to point out that Sir Winston had had the
good sense to put his bunker underground rather than on the 23rd floor of 7
World Trade Center. The new knight's love affair with things British must
also have been a surprise to the Brooklyn Museum, whose funding he
threatened because they mounted an exhibition of British artists whose work
he did not like: He claimed it was anti-Catholic.
Perhaps someone should have told him as he was bowing his head to Queen
Elizabeth that she and her offspring have by law been banned from being
Catholics or marrying one.
In olden times, knights were supposed to be chivalrous: they were chaste,
humble and protected the weak. You could be forgiven if you don't think
central casting would have sent Giuliani around to audition for the part.
After all, neither canon lawn or the medieval ideal of knighthood included
separating from your wife at a news conference without telling her, did it?
On the other hand, Henry VIII, the founder of the modern British monarchy,
wasn't one for listening to the pope either. He divorced and beheaded his
way through six wives.
And as for defending the weak: Did Sir Rudy ever ride to the rescue for any
victim of NYPD brutality? For instance, Patrick Dorismond, whose juvenile
records the white knight and mayor unsealed so that he could somehow justify
summary execution on the street?
Knighthood is not enough for Sir Rudy. Anyone who follows British politics
can see that a control freak so prissily opinionated, so much a manipulator
of information, has a natural calling as a new Labor peer in the soon to be
reformed House of Lords. If the Queen and the government like him so much,
he'd be sure to get a British passport quickly.
All hail Lord Rudy of Flatbush!
And it may divert his nakedly palpable presidential ambitions and save the
United States and the world from his meanspirited and unchivalrous politics
as well. Then perhaps we could banish his baneful influence from New York
totally, except perhaps to allow him to record one of those inanely annoying
messages from minor celebs (another Giuliani legacy) that make it impossible
to tell a yellow cab driver your destination.
As he tells us to buckle up, we can tell him to belt up - with feeling.
Copyright ï¿½ 2002, Newsday, Inc.
 
The Original 13th Article of Amendment
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain      any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress,      accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind      whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person      shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of      holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/13th.htm
March 11, 1997: "Investiture  Ceremony"
The investiture ceremony took place in London, Buckingham Palace. Paul was  receiving his knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II.
  
Sean Connery should be knighted, Brits say
Copyright ï¿½ 1998 Nando.net
Copyright ï¿½ 1998 Agence France-Presse
LONDON (April 6, 1998 5:25 p.m. EDT
http://www.nando.net
) - Two-thirds of      Britons believe Scottish actor and former James Bond star Sean Connery      should get a knighthood after years of being passed over, according to a      poll released Monday.
Connery, 67, deserves to be awarded      the title "sir" from Queen Elizabeth II for incarnating the most famous      member of Her Majesty's Secret Service, most people polled by the NOP      Research Group said. His support was highest among 15- to 34-year-olds.
The actor himself has claimed he was      missed off the 1998 New Year's Honors list because of his active support for      the Scottish National Party that advocates independence for Scotland. But      government sources suggested it may have more to do with his attitude to      domestic violence. In a 1993 interview, Connery had said it was justifiable      in certain circumstances for a man to administer "an open-handed slap" to      his wife.
Oaths in the      Scriptures:
Matthew 5:33-37,  Jesus said, " Again.      ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not      forswear thyself,   but shall perform unto the Lord thine paths: vs.33
But I say unto you Swear not at all;      neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: vs.34
Nor by the earth: for it is His      footstool: neither by Jerusalem: for it is the city of the great King. vs.35
Neither shall thou swear by thy head,      because thou canst not make one hair white or black. vs.36
But let your communication be, Yea,      yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."  vs.37
King James Version of the Holy Bible
The following was found on a      Message Board by one of our researchers:
Posted by     Nigel on June 16, 2000 at 20:51:32:
In Reply to:     Re: Oath of Knighthood      posted by Jasper on March 13, 2000 at 11:00:08:
: If non Sca I have no information on      the ceremonies.
SCA-analog groups have very varied      traditions. In my group (the Empire of Adria), the Oath has some basic      elements, but certain elements are at the discretion of the Oath-Taker or      even the Oath-Giver (the Crown).
My Oath was slightly different than      usual, because I was already in direct fealty to the Crown by virtue of an      Oath I took three years ago. I also adapted some elements from other sources      (including some from here!). The last line "in all areas of my life" is      something I put in because I knew that it wasn't just *Nigel* who was taking      the oath, it was the mundane *ME* as well. I knew that this oath would      affect the rest of my life, not just my persona.
The Oath
Fiat voluntas tua sicut in coelo et in terra.
Panem nostrum            supersubstantialem da nobis hodiï¿½.
Et dimitte nobis debita nostra,
Sicut et nos debitoribus nostris.
Et ne nos inducas in tentationem;
Sed libera nos ï¿½ malo.
Amen.
We praise Thee, O Lord,            most holy Father, King of heaven and earth; because Thou hast            comforted us and brought Thy servant here to Thy holy Knighthood.
For Thou art the God of our            salvation, even that Salvation which arose from the Holy Sepulchre.
The Lord is our strength            and our song, and Thou hast become our salvation, and in his            Knighthood shall Thy servant become Thy Right Hand;
Let the heaven and earth            praise Thee, the seas and everything that moves in them. For God will            save Zion and build the cities of Judah. That they may dwell there and            possess it. Also, the descendants of His servants shall inherit it,            and those who love Thy Name shall dwell in it.
Glory be to the Father and            to the Son and to the Holy Ghost.
As it was in the beginning,            is now, and ever shall be, world without end.
In nï¿½mine Patris, et Fï¿½lli,            et Spirï¿½tus Sancti,
Amen.
The Vigil is commenced, go            in peace.
After the close of the Vigil      Invocation, the Candidate will take up his position at the Altar, kneeling      over his armor and weapons. Until 10 pm, people may visit him to discuss      Knighthood with him, after which he and his two attendants will retire until      morning.
At 8:00 the next morning, he and      his party will set up a pavilion in the Park, after which more visitations      may commence.
 
Please come forward, Your Highness.
Sir Franï¿½ois shall come before the      Crown, and say:
Franï¿½ois:
Your            Majesty, on behalf of the Chivalry of the Empire, I beg to inform you            that our numbers are not complete. There is one who by his deeds and            his demeanour has the right to a place in our company, a place he has            deserved for quite some time.
Crown:
Then let him come forward.
Herald:
Their Imperial Majesties, Elisabeth and Erik, by the Grace of God and            the Will of the Estates Empress and Emperor of Adria, do command the            presence of Their servant, Nigel the Byzantine.
Knight Candidate Nigel, accompanied by      the Knighting Party and wearing a white robe, shall come forward to the      following Boast and kneel before the Thrones:
Herald:
Your            Majesties, he who comes before You now is Nigel the Byzantine, who            serves You and this Empire as Fleur-de-Lis King of Arms. He is a            Baronet in this Empire, a Companion of the Order of the Star of Adria,            a holder of the Golden Spoon and the Celestial Raven, and a Paladin of            the Orders of Saint Bela and Saint Warhammer. In the Laurel Kingdoms,            he holds rank of Lord and the Order of the Golden Trident, and he is            Drafn. He comes now before Your Majesties to beg from Your hands the            accolade which his peers agree is rightly deserved.
Crown:
I would speak for the Dream.
Speaker should speak to the            Candidate's noble demeanor and how he upholds the Traditions.
Crown:
Is there anyone else who would speak to the qualifications of this            Knight Candidate?
A few minutes should be allowed for      those who have something nice to say. In the off chance they don't have      anything nice to say, the Crown should cut them off. After people have said      their peace, the Crown should continue:
Part the      Fourth: Vestment of the Regalia
Crown:
With            your fulfillment of the Lawful requirements verified, and your            qualifications been spoken to by these noble gentleman and ladies, let            the Spurs be brought forward.
While the Spurs are being placed on the      Candidate's heels, the Herald continues:
Herald:
The            Spurs represent the right of a Knight to ride unhindered throughout            the land, dispensing justice tempered with mercy, protecting the weak,            defending the defenseless, and helping the needy. By wearing the            precious Spurs near his feet, the Knights shows his disdain for            earthly treasures in favour of spiritual.
One of the people putting the Spurs on      the candidate should say as they near completion:
Spurs:
May            they never be hacked from your heels in shame and disgrace.
Once the Spurs are on, the Crown      continues:
Crown:
Let            the Belt be brought forward.
While the Belt is being girded on the      Candidate, the Herald continues:
Herald:
The            Belt respresents the unity of the Chivalry. The blue color is symbolic            of the Virgin Mary, reminding the Knight to be ever faithful in his            duties, to be pure of heart, and to be respectful in his actions. The            belt hearkens back to the ancient days of the Order of the Garter,            whose motto, "Honi soit qui mal y pense", or "Dishonour on him who            thinks ill of it", speaks as a reminder to the Knight to remain ever            honourable in his actions and his deeds.
The person vesting the Candidate with      the Belt should say as they near completion:
Belt:
Once the Belt is girded, the Crown      continues:
Crown:
Let            the Sword be brought forward.
While the Sword is being girded on the      Candidate, the Herald continues:
Herald:
The            Sword represents the Knight's right to dispense justice. The double            edge of the blade ever reminds the Knight to temper justice with            mercy. As the steel of the Sword must be tempered in fire and water,            so must the soul of the Knight be tempered by adversity and            compassion.
The person vesting the Candidate with      the Sword should say as he nears completion:
Sword:
Nigel the Byzantine
Crown:
This we do hear and shall never forget nor fail to reward that which            is given: fealty with love, service with honour, and oath-breaking            with vengeance.
Part the      Sixth: The Accolade and the Collï¿½e
After the Oath is administered, the      Crown will commence with the Accolade:
Crown:
With            which sword do you wish to be dubbed?
Nigel:
With the sword of His Highness, Sir Stefan Belski, who was the first            Monarch I had the priviledge of serving.
Dame Katayana, who has been holding her      husband's sword, will present it to Her Majesty.
Crown:
Having            fulfilled the requirements, had your qualifications spoken to, been            clothed in your vestments, and having taken your Oath, I hereby create            you a Knight Minister in the name of
 
Volume I: Of      the Rights of Persons
(1765)
Introduction
Blackstone's Commentaries did not make law, but was a commentary on the law      of Great Britain as it had been established by king and parliament.      Blackstone's Commentaries is still in use today in the legal system of Great      Britain. The excerpt here is provided for the historical interest it      contains about British titles and the duties and privileges of the peerage.
 
Chapter the      Twelfth
Of the Civil State
The lay part of his      majesty's subjects, or such of the people as are not comprehended under the      denomination of clergy, may be divided into three distinct states, the      civil, the military, and the maritime.
That part of the nation which falls under      our first and most comprehensive division, the civil state, includes all      orders of men, from the highest nobleman to the meanest peasant; that are      not included under either our former division, of clergy, or under one of      the two latter, the military and maritime states: and it may sometimes      include individuals of the other three orders; since a nobleman, a knight, a      gentleman, or a peasant, may become either a divine, a soldier, or a seaman.
The civil state consists of the nobility      and the commonalty. Of the nobility, the peerage of Great Britain, or lords      temporal, as forming (together with the bishops) one of the supreme branches      of the legislature, I have before sufficiently spoken: we are here to      consider them according to their several degrees, or titles of honour.
All degrees of nobility and honour are      derived from the king as their fountain: and he may institute what new      titles he pleases. Hence it is that all degrees of honour are not of equal      antiquity. Those now in use are dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts, and      barons.
A duke, though it be with us, as a mere      title of nobility, inferior in point of antiquity to many others, yet it is      superior to all of them in rank; being the first title of dignity after the      royal family. Among the Saxons the Latin name of dukes, duces, is very      frequent, and signified, as among the Romans, the commanders or leaders of      their armies, whom in their own language they called heheroza [note:      transliterated from the Greek]; and in the laws of Henry I (as translated by      Lambard) we find them called heretochii. But after the Norman conquest,      which changed the military polity of the nation, the kings themselves      continuing for many generations dukes of Normandy, they would not honour any      subjects with that title, till the time of Edward III, who, claiming to be      king of France, and thereby losing the ducal in the royal dignity, in the      eleventh year of his reign created his son, Edward the black prince, duke of      Cornwall: and many, of the royal family especially, were afterwards raised      to the same honour. However, in the reign of queen Elizabeth, A.D. 1572, the      whole order became utterly extinct: but it was revived about fifty years      afterwards by her successor, who was remarkably prodigal of honours, in the      person of George Villiers duke of Buckingham.
2. A marquess, marchio, is the next degree      of nobility. His office formerly was (for dignity and duty were never      separated by our ancestors) to guard the frontiers and limits of the      kingdom; which were called the marches, from the teutonic word, marche, a      limit: as, in particular, were the marches of Wales and Scotland, while they      continued to be enemies countries. The persons who had command there, were      called lords marchers, or marquesses; whose authority was abolished by      Statute 27 Hen.VIII. C. 27: though the title had long before been made a      mere ensign of honour; Robert Vere, earl of Oxford, being created marquess      of Dublin, by Richard II in the eighth year of his reign.
3. An earl is a title of nobility so      antient, that its original cannot clearly be traced out. Thus much seems      tolerably certain: that among the Saxons they were called ealdormen,      quasi-elder men, signifying the same as sen or or senator among the Romans;      and also schiremen, because they had each of them the civil government of a      several division or shire. On the irruption of the Danes, they changed the      name to eorles, which, according to Camden, signified the same in their      language. In Latin they are called comites (a title first used in the      empire) from being the king's attendants; a societate nomen sumpserunt,      reges enim tales "sibi associant." After the Norman conquest they were for      some time called counts, or countees, from the French; but they did not long      retain that name themselves, though their shires are from thence called      counties to this day. It is now become a mere title they having nothing to      do with the government of the county which, as has been more than once      observed, is now entirely devolved on the sheriff, the earl's deputy, or      vice-comes. In all writs and commissions, and other formal instruments, the      king, when he mentions any peer of the degree of an earl, always stiles him "trusty and well beloved cousin," an appellation as antient as the reign of      Henry IV; who being either by his wife, his mother, or his sisters, actually      related or allied to every earl in the kingdom, artfully and constantly      acknowledged that connexion in a his letters and other public acts; from      whence the usage has descended to his successors, though the reason has long      ago failed.
4. The name of vice-comnes or viscount was      afterwards made use of as an arbitrary title of honour, without any shadow      of office pertaining to it, by Henry the sixth when in the eighteenth year      of his reign, he created John Beaumont a peer, by the name of viscount      Beaumont, which was the first instance of the kind.
5. A baron's is the most general and      universal title of nobility; for originally every one of the peers of      superior rank had also a barony annexed to his other titles. But it hath      sometimes happened that, when an antient baron hath been raised to a new      degree of peerage, in the course of a few generations the two titles have      descended differently; one perhaps to the male descendants, the other to the      heirs general; whereby the earldom or other superior title hath subsisted      without a barony: and there are also modern instances where earls and      viscounts have been created without annexing a barony to their other honours:      so that now the rule does not hold universally, that all peers are barons.      The original and antiquity of baronies has occasioned great enquiries among      our English antiquarians. The more probable opinion seems to be that they      were the same with our present lords of manors; to which the name of court      baron, (which is the lord's court, and incident to every manor) gives some      countenance. It may be collected from king John's magna carta, that      originally all lords of manors, or barons, that held of the king in capite,      had seats in the great council or parliament, till about the reign of that      prince the conflux of them became so large and troublesome, that the king      was obliged to divide them, and summon only the greater barons in person;      leaving the small ones to be summoned by the sheriff, and ( as it is said)      to sit by representation on another house; which gave rise to the separation      of the two houses of parliament. By degrees the title came to be confined to      the greater barons, or lords of parliament only; and there were no other      barons among the peerage but such as were summoned by writ, in respect of      the tenure of their lands or baronies, till Richard the second first made it      a mere title of honor, by conferring it on divers persons by his letters      patent.
Having made this short enquiry into the      original of our several degrees of nobility, I shall next consider the      manner in which they may be created. The right of peerage seems to have been      originally territorial; that is, annexed to lands, honors, castles, manors,      and the like, the proprietors and possessors of which were (in right of      those estates) allowed to be peers of the realm, and were summoned to      parliament to do suit and service to their sovereign: and, when the land was      alienated, the dignity passed with it as appendant. Thus the bishops still      sit in the house of lords in right of succession to certain antient baronies      annexed, or supposed to be annexed, to their episcopal lands: and thus, in      II Hen. VI, the possession of the castle of Arundel was adjudged to confer      an earldom on its possessor. But afterwards, when alienations grew to be      frequent, the dignity of peerage was confined to the lineage of the party      ennobled, and instead of territorial became personal. Actual proof of a      tenure by barony became no longer necessary to constitute a lord of      parliament; but the record of the writ of summons to them or their ancestors      was admitted as a sufficient evidence of the tenure.
Peers are now created either by writ, or by      patent: for those who claim by prescription must suppose either a writ or      patent made to their ancestors; though by length of time it is lost. The      creation by writ, or the king's letter, is a summons to attend the house of      peers, by the stile and title of that barony, which the king is pleased to      confer: that by patent is a royal grant to a subject of any dignity and      degree of peerage. The creation by writ is the more antient way; but a man      is not ennobled thereby, unless he actually takes his seat in the house of      lords: and therefore the most usual, because the surest way is to grant the      dignity by patent, which inures to a man and his heirs according to the      limitations thereof, though he never himself makes use of it. Yet it is      frequent to call up the eldest son of a peer to the house of lords by writ      of summons, in the name of his father's barony: because in that case there      is no danger of his children's losing the nobility in case he never takes      his seat; for they will succeed to their grand-father. Creation by writ has      also one advantage over that by patent: for a person created by writ holds      the dignity to him and his heirs, without any words to that purport in the      writ, but in letters patent there must be words to direst the inheritance,      else the dignity inures on]y to the grantee for lifer. For a man or woman      may be created noble for their own lives, and the dignity not descend to      their heirs at all, or descend only to some particular; heirs: as where a      peerage is limited to a man, and the heirs male of his body by Elizabeth his      present lady, and not to such heirs by any former or future wife.
Let us next take a view of a few of the      principal incident attending the nobility, exclusive of their capacity as      members of parliament, and as hereditary counsellors of the crown; both of      which we have before considered. And first we must observe, that in criminal      cases, a nobleman shall be tried by his peers. The great are always      obnoxious to popular envy: were they to be judged by the people, they might      be in danger from the prejudice of their judges; and would moreover be      deprived of the privilege of the meanest subjects, that of being tried by      their equals, which is secured to all the realm by magna carta c. 29. It is      said, that this does not extend to bishops; who, though they are lords of      parliament, and sit there by virtue of their baronies which they hold jure      ecclesiae, yet are not ennobled in blood, and consequently not peers with      the nobility. As to peeresses, no provision was made for their trial when      accused of treason or felony, till after Eleanor duchess of Gloucester, wife      to the lord protector, had been accused of treason and found guilty of      witchcraft, in an ecclesiastical synod, through the intrigues of cardinal      Beaufort. This very extraordinary trial gave occasion to a special statute,      20 Hen.VI. c.9 which enacts that peeresses either in their own right, or by      marriage, shall be tried before the same judicature as peers of the realm.      If a woman, noble in her own right, marries a commoner, she still remains      noble, and shall be tried by her peers: but if she be only noble by      marriage, then by a second marriage, with a commoner, she loses her dignity;      for as by marriage it is gained, by marriage it is also lost. Yet if a      duchess dowager marries a baron, she continues a duchess still; for all the      nobility are pares, and therefore it is no degradation. A peer, or peeress      (either in her own right or by marriage) cannot be arrested in civil cases:      and they have also many peculiar privileges annexed to their peerage in the      course of judicial proceedings. A peer, sitting in judgment, gives not his      verdict upon oath, like an ordinary juryman, but upon his honour: he answers      also to bills in chancery upon his honour, and not upon his oath; but, when      he is examined as a witness either in civil or criminal cases, he must be      sworn: for the respect which the law shews to the honour of a peer does not      extend so far as to overturn a settled maxim, that in judicio non creditur      nifi juratis. The honour of peers is however so highly tendered by the law,      that it is much more penal to spread false reports of them, and certain      other great officers of the realm, than of other men: scandal against them      being called by the peculiar name of scandalum magnatum; and subjected to      peculiar punishment by divers antient statutes.
A peer cannot lose his nobility, but by      death or attainder; though there was an instance, in the reign of Edward the      fourth, of the degradation of George Nevile duke of Bedford by a writ of      parliament, on account of his poverty, which rendered him unable to support      his dignity. But this is a singular instance: which serves at the same time,      by having happened, to shew the power of parliament; and, by having happened      but once, to shew how tender the parliament hath been, in exerting so high a      power. It hath been said indeed that if a baron wastes his estate, so that      he is not able to support the degree, the king may degrade him: but it is      expressly held by later authorities that a peer cannot be degraded but by      act of parliament.
The commonalty, like the nobility, are      divided into several degrees; and, as the lords, though different in rank,      yet all of them are peers in respect of their nobility, so the commoners      though some are greatly superior to others, yet all are in law peers in      respect of their want of nobility.
The first name of dignity, next beneath a      peer, was antiently that of vidames, vice domini, or valvasors: who are      mentioned by our antient lawyers as viri magnae dignitatis; and sir Edward      Coke speaks highly of them. Yet they are now quite out of use; and our legal      antiquarians are not so much as agreed upon their original or antient      office.
Now therefore the first dignity after the      nobility, is a knight of the order of St. George, or of the garter; first      instituted by Edward III, AD 1344. Next follows a knight banneret; who      indeed by statutes 5 Ric. II. st. z. c. 4. and 14 Ric. II. c. 11. is ranked      next after barons: and that precedence was confirmed to him by order of king      James I, in the tenth year of his reign. But, in order to intitle himself to      this rank, he must have been created by the king in person, in the field,      under the royal banners, in time of open war. Else he ranks after baronet      who are the next order: which title is a dignity of inheritance, created by      letters patent, and usually descendible to the issue male. It was first      instituted by king James the first, AD 1611 in order to raise a competent      sum for the reduction of the province of Ulster in Ireland; for which reason      all baronets have the arms of Ulster superadded to their family coat. Next      follow knights of the bath; an order instituted by king Henry IV, and      revived by king George the first. They are so called from the ceremony of      bathing, the night before their creation. The last of these inferior      nobility are knights bachelors; the most antient, though the lowest, order      of knighthood amongst us: for we have an in instance of king Alfred's      conferring this order on his son Athelstan. The custom of the antient      Germans was to give their young men a shield and a lance in the great      council: this was equivalent to the toga virilis of the Romans: before this      they were not permitted to bear arms, but were accounted as part of the      father's household; after it, as part of the public. Hence, some derive the      usage of knighting, which has prevailed all over the western world, since      its reduction by colonies from those northern heroes. Knights are called in      Latin equites aurati; aurati, from the gilt spurs they wore; and equites,      because they always served on horseback: for it is observable, that almost      all nations call their knights by some appellation derived from an horse.      They are also called in our law milites, because they formed a part, or      indeed the whole of the royal army, in virtue of their feodal tenures; one      condition of which was, that every one who held a knight's fee (which in      Henry the second's time amounted to 20 ï¿½ per annum ) was obliged to be      knighted, and attend the king in his wars, or fine for his non-compliance.      The exertion of this prerogative, as an expedient to raise money in the      reign of Charles the first, gave great offence; though warranted by law, and      the recent example of queen Elizabeth: but it was, at the restoration,      together with all other military branches of the feodal law, abolished; and      this kind of knighthood has, since that time, fallen into great disregard.
These, sir Edward Coke says, are all the      names of dignity in this kingdom, esquires and gentlemen being only names of      worship. But before these last the heralds rank all colonels, serjeants at      law, and doctors in the three learned professions.
Esquires and gentlemen are confounded      together by sir Edward Coke, who observes, that every esquire is a gentleman      and a gentleman is defined to be one qui arma gerit, who bears coat armour,      the grant of which adds gentility to a man's family: in like manner as civil      nobility, among the Romans, was founded in the jus imaginum, or having the      image of one ancestor at least, who had borne some curule office. It is      indeed a matter somewhat unsettled, what constitutes the distinction, or who      is a real esquire: for it is not an estate, however large, that confers this      rank upon its owner. Camden, who was himself a herald, distinguishes them      the most accurately; and he reckons up four sorts of them: 1. The eldest      sons of knights, and their elder sons, in perpetual succession. 2. The      younger sons of peers, and their eldest sons, in like perpetual succession:      both which species of esquires sir H. Spelman entitles armigeri natalitii.      3. Esquires created by the king's letters patent, or other investiture; and      their eldest sons. 4. Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of      the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown. To these      may be added the esquires of knights of the bath, each of whom constitutes      three at his installation; and all foreign, nay, Irish peers; and the eldest      sons of peers of Great Britain, who, though generally titular lords, are      only esquires in the law, and must so be named in all legal proceedings. As      for gentlemen, says sir Thomas Smith , they be made good cheap in this      kingdom: for whosoever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the      universities, who professeth liberal sciences, and (to be short) who can      live idly, and without manual labour, and will bear the port, charge, and      countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master and shall be taken for      a gentleman. A yeoman is he that hath free land of forty shillings by the      year; who is thereby qualified to serve on juries, vote for knights of the      shire, and do any other act, where the law requires one that is probus et      legalis homo.
The rest of the commonalty are tradesmen,      artificers, and labourers who (as well as all others) must in pursuance of      the statute I Hen.V. c. 5. be stiled by the name and addition of their      estate, degree, or mystery in all actions and other legal proceedings.
-----------------------
THE NOBLE AND ROYAL TITLE      IN AMERICAN CULTURE
AMERICANS AND TITLES
Americans are indecisive about royal and noble titles. While pretending to      disdain titles and the titled, the fact is that Americans love them and are      fascinated and captivated by them. For example, we have "king-size" beds      (and queen-size, too). The "king-size" tube of toothpaste is the biggest      one--usually. We have the prom queen, the movie queen, the porn queen, the      king of the rodeo, the king of comedy. A friendly and helping man is "a real      prince," a sweet-tempered woman is "a lady." There's Duke Ellington, Counts      Basie and Chocula, the King of Swing and the Queen of Disco, Elvis the King      of Rock, Michael Jackson the King of Pop, and we even have among us a      mononymic rock star...Prince. When movie actress Grace Kelly became Princess      Grace of Monaco, America swooned (Even if the rest of European monarchy and      nobility didn't. Grace Kelley was considered a parvenu and somewhat vulgar      because of her movie career, but she was never "vulgar," and embodied her      name of Grace very well indeed.), and Grace's popularity soared. Yes, and      millions of Americans arose at 2:00 AM one morning to watch the Prince of      Wales marry Lady Diana--and they watch, now through the tabloids, with equal      wonder at that marriage's difficulties. Let a foreign nobleman, noblewoman,      or monarch come to America for a visit, and Americans will flock to each and      all, especially if the titled visitor has a suave manner and an interesting      accent--and, of course, that great entitler, money.
So, naturally, Americans aren't interested in titles. Certainly not. Oh no.      After all, doesn't the American Constitution prohibit Americans from      receiving, using, or even acknowledging titles? The answer is--no, it      doesn't. What Article I: Section 9, Paragraph 8 of the Constitution says is      this:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person      holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent      of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any      kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
The primary purpose of the Paragraph was to prevent the United States from      creating a system of nobility, at least in the British style of the detested      King George III. The secondary purpose was to prevent foreign royalty from      coï¿½pting an official of the United States government and to prevent royalty      from using the promise of a gift of a noble title as a bribe to obtain      preferment from a government official, at least not without the full      knowledge and consent of Congress, the assumption being that the "Consent of      the Congress" would not be forthcoming. This is the same section of the      Constitution which prevents the President (or his wife), members of      Congress, and Justices of the Supreme Court from personally accepting gifts      from foreign governments, all such gifts being received by the President on      behalf of the U.S. Government. Many such gifts are displayed at the      Smithsonian. Note that the Constitution does not hold titles in contempt,      nor does it reject them as worthless--just the opposite, the Constitution      equates the noble title with any other valuable gift, that is, a title is      seen as valuable property which can be given and used and which has such      significant instrinsic worth that it has the power of currency and,      therefore, cannot be recieved without an act of Congress.
The second part of the Constitutional prohibition is less rigid. That is,      the Section does not apply to private citizens, nor does it prevent a      private citizen from accepting or holding a royal or noble title, because      the phrase "Office of Profit or Trust" in this Section is interpreted to      refer to elected and appointed high federal officials and members of the      armed services who, during their tenure of service, are prevented from      accepting noble or royal honors. Once these persons are again private      citizens, they are free to be honored, as, for example, the "honorary" knighthoods granted by Queen Elizabeth II to Former Presidents Reagan and      Bush and to retired/retiring Generals Norman Schwartzkopf and Colin Powell.      These honorees probably will not use the title "Sir," but, because they are      members of Orders of Chivalry, i.e., they are knights, they can (and      undoubtedly will) use the postnominals of the Orders they hold. Actually,      there is no legal reason why these knights couldn't use the title "Sir." Even though the Constitution prevented the development of the traditional      European honors model, the United States certainly has developed an honors      system that in many ways resembles the establishment of nobility. For      example, for its military, there is the Purple Heart, the Congressional      Medal of Honor, and many others. For its private citizens there is the      Presidential Medal of Freedom, the annual awards given to performers at the      Kennedy Center, and others. The key difference seems to be that, unlike      European honors, American honors carry postnominals (single letter      abbreviations after the name which denote the honor conferred), not      prenominals which are titles before the name. Americans don't seem to mind      postnominals such as "Ph.D." (Doctor of Philosophy) or "K.C." (Knight      Commander) or "Bart." (more properly, "Bt.," Baronet). It's those      prenominals that they balk at ("Sir So-and-So" or "Dr. Whatshisname" or "Lord Whosis").
The point is that while the Constitution prohibits the giving of a title of      nobility by the American Government (Congress, the President, or the      Judicial) or the receipt of the same "from any King, Prince, or foreign      State" by high public officials during their terms of office, or by military      personnel while enlisted, private American citizens, themselves, are free to      accept and use titles of any kind whatever, noble or otherwise.
THE USE OF TITLES IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY
Citizens of the United States like to think of the U.S.A. as classless and      untitled, cherishing these egalitarian concepts as marks of the unique      American opportunity for upward mobility in class and power. In everyday      practice, however, Americans are very much aware of how to create and use      titles to establish class and wield power. A primary example of the      importance of a title as a mark of power and status is the title "Ms." (rhymes with fizz), created some years ago by feminists for use in the place      of "Miss" or "Mrs," both of which titles show a woman's relationship to a      man. The title "Ms." is egalitarian in that it shows gender only, exactly as      does the modern "Mr." (L.G. Pine, in The Story of Titles, discusses the      original and modern uses of "Mister," a variation of "Master." Interestingly, like "Ms.," most royal and noble titles are themselves      egalitarian in that they show gender only--for exampl,e a Queen is not      necessarily the wife of a King, a Baroness is not necessarily the wife of a      Baron.) The general acceptance and use of the once artificial "Ms." show      that Americans clearly understand and acknowledge the value and importance      of the title as an empowering device.
THE FONS HONORUM OF NOBLE AND ROYAL TITLES
A legitimate noble title always has a legitimate royal source, called a fons      honorum (Latin: "source of honor," the "fountainhead" from which the      legitimate title is issued). What is important to know (and what Americans      have to be firmly instructed in and regularly reminded about) is that noble      titles do not come from governments, but from heads of royal families,      called a "royal house." Thus, the royal house is a dynastic family holding      hereditary royal title and prerogatives usually based upon modern or ancient      geographical rulership; the royal dynastic family need not necessarily      currently head a government or rule a nation. A government is not, of      itself, royal, nor can a government declare itself royal--it is persons who      are royal or noble, and it is the head of that government who is royal.      Thus, a government as an entity is not and cannot be a fons for royal or      noble titles (Which makes the American Constitution's prohibition perfectly      proper.). In fact, the universal practice is that a government which prefers      a royal head of state doesn't create it, but goes, instead, to one of the      royal houses (in Europe or elsewhere) to find a monarch to reign. Observe      the actions of the British Parliament when, in 1701, it became apparent that      King William and Queen Anne were not going to leave any heirs in line for      the throne. Parliament wanted, of course, a Protestant sovereign, but even      the British Parliament had not the authority to create royalty, nor could      the King and Queen declare an heir. Therefore, Parliament, understanding      that governments do not beget royalty, began to carefully scrutinize      Europe's royals, searching for a suitable candidate to come to the throne      after King William's death. Having analyzed genealogies and religious      proclivities, Parliament settled on the Electress of Hanover, who had the      virtue of being the granddaughter of James I. However, the Electress died      before the British throne became available, so the office passed to her son,      George Ludwig who became King George I of England.
Of course, some countries in the Middle East have seen commoners elevate      themselves to royal status, as, for example, Reza Pahlavi (1878-1944) a      commoner and an army officer who seized power in Iran, declared himself      Shah, and then--like Napolean--crowned himself. His son, Muhammad Reza      Pahlavi (1919-1980) inherited the throne of Iran, but was deposed in 1979.      There are other examples of colonels cum kings. Middle Eastern countries,      being Muslim, don't go to the Christian royal houses of Europe for their      rulers. They don't have to, there being sufficient Muslim royal houses. Even      if there weren't, it is a fact that tanks and militia breed a potent throne      and that a quantity of gunpowder, liberally applied, can make any blood      blue. There is nothing new in this, as any student of medieval European      history knows.
The terms "exile" and "abdication" also sometimes present problems for those      who are unfamiliar with them. "Exile" occurs when a monarch leaves his or      her country because of invasion, uprising, or because a democratic      referendum establishes a republic. Merely because the monarch has relocated      does not mean that he or she ceases to be royal (since royalty is vested in      a person, not a government), nor does the person lose royal prerogatives,      including the right and power to confer titles. A government can be taken      away from a monarch, but royal prerogatives cannot be "taken away," not by      vote, not by revolution, not by invasion. There are today legitimate royal      courts in exile, headed by monarchs who have fled uprisings, invasions, or      referenda, but who have not relinquished their royal rights, as for example,      the royal court of Albania under King Zog (1895-1961), who, in 1939, was      forced to flee Albania to avoid capture by Mussolini's invading Fascist      army. After WWII, Albania became a communist satellite, and Zog remained in      exile. Zog (the name means "Bird") never relinquished the throne of Albania,      and when Zog died, his son, the Crown Prince, assumed the throne as King      Leka of Albania, still in exile and still a king. Many exiled Albanians      consider King Leka their king--and Burke's lists him as royal. Other      examples of exiled royal courts could include those of King Michael of      Romania (b. 1921), Humbert II (1904-1983), the King of Italy who was exiled      by a 1946 national referendum that established Italy as a republic, and King      Constantine of the Hellenes.
However, while royal prerogatives cannot be taken away, they can be      relinquished. The relinquishing of royalty is called "abdication." When a      monarch "abdicates," he or she gives up all royal rights and prerogatives in      favor of the person next in line to the throne. After abdication, the      ex-king (the only correct use of the term) cannot reclaim royal rights and      cannot grant titles of nobility or confer knighthood. An important point      established by international agreement is that abdication is not--and never      has been--a "destruction" of the throne or a "dissolution" of the monarchy,      but a passing on of the prerogatives of the throne to the person next in      line of succession. Sometimes the ex-king receives titles of nobility from      the new monarch, and sometimes the ex-king simply becomes a commoner and      lives quietly in obscurity, as, for example, Alexander I, Tsar of Russia      from 1801-1825, who gave up his throne and assumed the name and life of of a      commoner, Feodore Kuzmich. (However, there is much mystery to this whole      affair. See the Chapter on Alexander I in Stanley B.-R. Poole's book, Royal Mysteries and Pretenders.)
There are other royal courts, reigning      and non-reigning, in many countries, including some residing in the United      States. Some of these courts are remnants of the Western Holy Roman Empire,      which certainly did not disappear in 1806 as historians often claim, and      others are part of the Eastern (Byzantine) Holy Roman Empire founded by      Constantine in xxx, several hundred years before the Western Holy Roman      Empire. As Friedrich Heer says in his 1967 classic work, The Holy Roman      Empire, "Francis II was called upon [by Napoleon] to divest himself of the      imperial crown, in terms so threatening that he had no choice but to comply.      He did so on 6 August 1806, and at the same time dissolved the 'Roman      Empire,' an act for which he had no legal justification." When the Western      Holy Roman Emperor "dissolved" the empire, the Byzantine Porphyrogenitus, as      the ranking Byzantine (Eastern) potentate, considered himself as the      successor, as did the Byzantine royalty and nobility, who eventually came      together as the government-in-exile of the (Eastern) Holy Roman Empire.
The present Byzantine Emperor, Caesar Dominus Pius Flavius Johannes VII      Daniel IV Alexander Augustus, came to the office as any emperor--he was born      to it, of a distinguished royal lineage that ruled in the ancient Byzantine      empire, which at one time even included parts of Italy. The Byzantine      kingdoms and principalities tended to stay together, even though the royalty      of the "German" Holy Roman Empire renounced rights and titles with abandon,      so that only their monarchist followers were left hoping for restoration.      Meanwhile, the Byzantines went right on with the idea of a non-political      government "in exile," which is where they are today. Many monarchists are      focused on the Western (read German) royalty, not the Eastern, and so many      are intent upon the idea of a political restoration that the idea of a      non-political, in-exile restoration that maintains and nurtures the ideals      of royalty, nobility, and chivalry never occurs to them. And besides, the      Byzantines learned long ago to just go about their business among      themselves, and not stir up the hornet's nest of Germany. Certain imperial      princes, especially those in exile in South America, denied any "dissolution" of the ancient empire by forming a "League of Princes of the      Holy Roman Empire," just as Napoleon's imperial prince supporters had formed      the Confederation of the Rhine. The Confederation vanished with Napoleon,      but the League still exists today as the Byzantine Holy Roman Empire, in      exile, headed by His Imperial and Apostolic Royal Majesty, The Emperor Cï¿½sar      Dominus Pius Flavius Johannes VII Daniel IV Alexander Augustus who has not      relinquished his rights or powers.
A royal dynasty can be created by force of arms, by grant, and by creation.      Some princely families (in America and elsewhere) have received letters      patent from the Porphyrogenitors ("born to the purple"), Princes of the      Blood Royal of the Byzantine Holy Roman Emperor who have, in modern times as      in ancient, the authority to grant or create hereditary princes who then      head ancient non-political principalities of the Holy Roman Empire. In      creating a prince by grant, Porphyrogenitors assign a principality to the      prince, and the prince then becomes the fons for his nobles and knights. The      assignment of a non-political principality is an ancient practice, and, on      occasion, the monarch further grants the principality in perpetuity and the      prince is no longer a vassal prince, but is elevated to the rank of a      sovereign prince, i.e., a monarch in his own right.
The non-political, or titular, principality is one which once existed, but      which is currently extinct, having been in past centuries absorbed by force      of arms into another country. However, if the Holy Roman Emperor never      relinquished rights to the principality (and he rarely did), it is still      considered by the "Holy Roman Empire-in-Exile" as within the provenance of      the Blood Royal Princes, but "non-political." That is, the geographical      boundary of the principality no longer exists, but the title to the      principality continues as legitimate and is considered quite real not only      by the League of Princes of the Holy Roman Empire-in-Exile, but also by many      other European royalty and nobility.
Even some monasteries of the Holy Roman Empire were created principalities,      and the abbot made a prince. The Roman Catholic Church also followed that      practice, as, for example, the Abbey of San Luigi which was recognized by      the Church and France as a principality on August 25, 1883 at Tunisia and      Tripolitania, and the abbot, Fr. Henrice Pancomez was selected as the      abbey's first Prince-Abbot. Also, the Pope, from time to time, creates a      titular bishop who holds the authority of a See that has ceased to      geographically exist. This practice was derived from the Holy Roman      Emperor's practice of creating hereditary princes of ancient but extinct      principalities.
Americans usually think of a prince merely as the son of a king or queen      (deriving the idea from the world's most visible monarchy, the British), and      Americans, again, have to be instructed and reminded that a prince can be a      monarch in his own right--as, for example, Prince Rainier of Monaco who      holds the title Serene, denoting his status as a sovereign head of a      royal house, with all the rights and privileges of the sovereign, including      the right to create nobles and knights for his royal houses. Unlike Rainier      who reigns as well as rules, there are Americans who are themselves      hereditary (and even sovereign) princes of non-reigning royal houses. A      non-reigning royal house, just as a reigning one, may legitimately have a      full complement of nobility and one or more Orders of Chivalry, and the head      of the house, regnant or not, retains full powers to create legitimate      nobles and knights as needed or desired.
Of course, Americans know about such titles as king, queen, prince, duke,      marquis, earl (and its European equivalent, the count; for Americans, the      most famous count is the fictional vampire Dracula, an identity which causes      some problems for genuine counts.), viscount, and baron, but they think that      these titles are strictly British and are issued only by the British Crown.      But royalty and nobility are not only not "strictly British," they are not      even primarily British--Britain's modern monarchy itself has a Continental      source (Germany), and there are many other royal houses in Europe, Latin      America--and even in the United States. Concerning the royal houses in the      United States, Americans are usually astonished to discover that one can be      a solidly patriotic American and yet still belong to a royal house or hold a      legitimate hereditary title from the fons of a royal house. Perhaps      Americans have the idea that the term democracy excludes the term royalty,      but a hereditary and non-regnant royal house can exist very nicely within a      democracy. For example, Italy is a democracy, yet an Italian can be a      hereditary count. Likewise, America as a democracy can--and does--easily      host hereditary American counts (and barons and marquis, and dukes) of      princely royal houses headed by hereditary and legitimately titled princes      who happen to hold American citizenship.
The idea that titles come from royal houses, not governments, is a very      difficult thing for Americans to grasp--so difficult, in fact, that modern      monarchs seldom attempt to explain the fact to Americans, whose heads are      filled with fairy tale kingdoms and visions of cinematic "royalty." All      those King Arthur movies have taken a toll on the real thing. Furthermore,      Americans have complicated their ideas of royalty by readily granting royal      status to cinema actors. The term "movie queen" is well known. Clark Gable      was called "the king," and John Wayne was called "the duke." In music, Elvis      Presley was "the king." The American press, otherwise so efficient in      glorifying movie actors, has a particularly difficult time grasping the idea      of noble titles as emanating from a royal house, not a government, so much      so that royal houses in America simply avoid the press whenever possible.      For example, the press can't seem to understand the fact that a prince is      not necessarily the son of a king, but can also be a sovereign monarch in      his own right with rulership over a geographic or hereditary principality.
The identity of royalty and government is so firmly fixed in the American      mind that it takes a considerable amount of education and reeducation to      help Americans to see that a royal house is not political or governmental,      but familial--a family. Hence, Americans (because they have no experience in      these matters) have to be instructed and regularly reminded that      monarchies--including the royal house of England--come from Europe and      Eastern Europe and exist there (or elsewhere in exile) to this very day.      There are only some dozen or so "governing" European monarchs remaining      today--which is odd, considering that until the early 1900s, the most common      form of government in the world was the monarchy, a system that had survived      from Old Testament days. But monarchies have fallen on hard times, and even      surviving monarchies are, at most, constitutional. Americans are usually      surprised to learn that such countries as Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and      Belgium have monarchies.
Americans sometimes have some difficulty understanding the non-reigning,      non-political, non-governmental royal house. In the case of noble and royal      titles, Americans are not at all stupid, just unfamiliar with certain usages      and customs, and an unruffled explanation of one's legitimate use of a noble      title can suffice for the American who wants to know--otherwise, the title      can simply be used without explanation. A common question from an American      to a nobly titled American is, "Well, what do you do with a title? What does      it mean?" The answer is, "Well, what does a book do with its title? It is      used for self-identification and is clearly stamped on its binding so that      it can be identified." The questioner could also be asked, "Well, what do      you do with your title of 'Mr./Mrs./Ms./Dr.'?" Usually, the questioner gets      the idea. Titles are, in fact, personal property and are always used at the      discretion of the holder (not the user, as some seem to think).
THE AMERICAN FONS
So, Americans are fascinated with titles, and for some Americans mere      fascination is insufficient--they want a title. Once one understands that a      legitimate title has a legitimate fons honorum, the problem for the      title-seeking American becomes one of finding a legitimate fons--and then      actually acquiring the title. Because of the influence of the Constitution,      there are no laws at the federal, state, or local levels that control the      acquisition and use of titles. Of course, one could merely assume a title,      such as was done in the 19th century which abounded in "doctors" who never      went to school and "professors" who never taught, but the possibility of      being exposed as a fraud always made self-conferment a danger. Further,      there were always laws against committing fraud, but these laws dealt with      actual damages incurred, not to the use of a self-conferred title. There      were (and are) no laws preventing the use of the titles "Dr." or "professor"--until the fake "Dr." takes out an appendix or the fake "professor" tries to conduct a class at university.
Americans are familiar with and are fairly comfortable with the titles of      doctor, professor, and reverend, the American equivalents to life peerage      titles. The "life peerage" is the British practice of granting a title of      nobility that is vital, i.e., not inheritable, but ceases to exist upon the      death of the holder. A famous life peer was Lord Laurence Olivier (or:      Laurence, Lord Olivier), who held the title of baron. Upon his death,      Olivier's title became extinct. The advantage to the British Crown of      awarding life peerages is obvious--the great can be honored with a noble      title without the need to distribute royal lands or wealth and without      disturbing the peace of mind of the ancient hereditary nobility who may not      welcome a parvenu. The life peerage is virtually unknown among the other      European monarchies, whose titles, when granted, are invariably hereditary      and whose patents of nobility usually ennoble the entire family. England      considers the European practice extravagant, but Europe considers the      British practice parsimonious.
The titles doctor, professor, and reverend are not inherited or granted from      a sovereign, but, in true American fashion, they are personally earned      through the application of the American work ethic (there is a certain      amount of intelligence involved, of course, but it is also true that the      Ph.D. can result as much from diligence as intelligence.). Americans like      the idea of "working for" a title, so three organizations have evolved in      America to fill the need for a "work ethic nobility"--higher education,      fraternal orders, and religion.
AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION AS A FONS
From higher education come two coveted prenominals, the titles "Dr." and "Professor," both of which are, in some areas of this country, treated with      as great a respect as any European title of nobility. (This is especially      true in certain areas of the American deep South where, sometimes, a "Dr." or a "Prof." may not even have to produce a driver's license to pass a      check.) The holder of a doctor's degree (whether the Ph.D., the Ed.D., the      D.Psy., or the M.D., or any other variation) is granted the      non-transferable, vital (non-inheritable) title "doctor," which makes the      doctor's title an American equivalent to a life peerage. There are, however,      two versions of the doctorate, the "earned" doctorate and the "honorary" doctorate, awarded honoris causa. The earned doctor's degree is a result of      approximately ten years' of personal (well, not totally personal, since a      scholar's spouse commonly participates in getting that degree, often by      holding down two or more jobs and by providing free reading and editing      services, not to mention acting as a sounding board for academic theory. The      ten years are a total of four for the undergraduate, two for the Master's      Degree, and four--sometimes five--for the doctorate). effort on the part of      the scholar. The earned doctorate is the foundation of the true title of      American nobility, the honorary doctorate.
As the titles granted by a reigning monarch, so the honorary doctor's degree      (usually awarded during a university's commencement exercises) is an award      for an individual's outstanding service to mankind in general and the      university in particular--which, in one sense, means that the president of a      university cloaks himself in the power of the state and takes on the role of      the sovereign prince. (University professors generally agree that the real      vestiges of the feudal system are not found in Europe, but in the halls of      academe where the Chairman is Baron to the Dean, and the Dean is vassal      prince to the sovereign president.) The honorary degree most often awarded      is the "Doctor of Humane Letters." Does the holder of an honorary degree      have the right to the title of "doctor"? Yes, absolutely, although writers      of books of etiquette seem to think that the holder of the honorary      doctorate should not use the title, which is utter nonsense and sheer      snobbery on the part of "etiquetticians." Indeed, certain etiquetticians,      apparently impressed by the physician's annual income, claim that only the      M.D. should use the title "Dr." in public--which is not only further      nonsense and snobbery, but also ignorance, since the title "doctor" means "teacher"--and medical doctors are not teachers. Furthermore, since the      Ph.D. (and, in general, the other doctors) holds three degrees (B.A./S.,      M.A./S., Ph.D.) to the MD's two (B.S. and M.D.), there is no question that      the Ph.D. has a firmer academic grip on the title of "doctor" than does the      M.D.
While the title of "Dr." is derived from the degree, the title of "Professor" is derived from a profession, that of college/university      scholar/teacher. It is believed in some university communities that the      title of "professor" is a superior title to "doctor," and at many fine      universities a professor is insulted if addressed as merely "doctor." (This      is not usually the case in the American South, where the titles are often      used interchangeably without giving offense.) Those outside the university      setting usually don't know that there are three ranks of professor, those of      assistant (usually granted upon being hired), associate (often granted after      five to seven years if tenure is given), and full (granted at least after an      additional five to seven years, although often longer), and that one is      promoted to a higher rank not only after a passage of a lengthy period of      time, but also only after measurable and outstanding contribution in the      areas of scholarship (publication of articles and books), teaching, and      university and public service. Unlike the nobleman who only has to please      his monarch, the professor who wishes to be promoted must be approved first      by his/her department, then the Chair of the Department, then the Dean of      the College, then the Vice-President for Academic Affairs, then the      President, and--finally--the Board of Trustees. The prestige and power      attached to the ranks of assistant, associate, and full professor are      actually limited to the university community itself, since, in general, the      public doesn't use the title "professor," probably because the patent      medicine hucksters of 19th century America appropriated the title and      brought it into disrepute.
THE AMERICAN FRATERNAL ORDER AS A FONS
America's attempt to provide a fons of nobility for its people can be most      clearly seen in its highly-developed fraternal order system, the primary      example of which is Freemasonry. (The comments which follow also apply to      such fraternal groups as the Oddfellows, the Knights of Columbus, the      Woodmen of the World, and others.) Of course, Freemasonry is a British      system, and many of the current royalty and nobility of England hold high      offices in British Freemasonry--including Prince Philip who takes his      Masonic duties very seriously. (It is more accurate to say that Freemasonry      is Irish, since the first Grand Lodge in in the world was organized in      London in 1717 by Irish residents who belonged to independent Irish lodges      back in their home country. Prior to 1717, all Masonic Lodges were      independent.) Indeed, the royalty and nobility of other European countries      also have active roles in their respective Masonic Grand Lodges--the Grand      Master of the Swedish Grand Lodge is King Charles XVI Gustav.
After 1717, Freemasonry consisted of three degrees (initiations), those of      Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft, and Master Mason, and no more. It was in      18th century France that the "high degrees" beyond the first three degrees      of Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft, and Master Mason developed, which      development included the creation of whole systems of degrees that granted      elaborate titles. Perhaps Frenchmen, having discarded all royal and noble      titles in their Revolution, began to long for their heritage and fulfilled      their longing by creating simulated noble titles for the Masonic "high      degree" systems such as the "Emperors of the East and West," the "Rite of      Strict Observance," and many others. The supreme achievement in      degree-granting titles was the Masonic French Rite of Memphis-Misraim, which      conferred some 186 degrees, along with 186 titles! Officials of this Rite      granted forms of address which even the most power-mad monarchs would envy. "Sovereign Prince Commander of the Stars" is only one example among the      Rite's many degree titles. The Rite of Memphis-Misraim is now considered "clandestine" (illegal and unrecognized) by all regular Masonic authority.
When the "high-degree systems" entered America, the titles came with them,      and Americans took to them with relish. The Rite of Memphis-Misraim      flourished in the American west, but then faded away, buried under its own      weight and under the scandal of the selling of degrees. But when the      Emperors of the East and West came to America, it underwent a transformation      from a 25-degree system to a 33-degree system, renamed itself The Scottish      Rite, gained respectability, and became the best-known of the two regular      and legitimate Masonic "high degree" bodies (the other being the York Rite).      Titles of royalty (but not nobility) abound in The Scottish Rite: "Prince of      the Sun," "Rose+Croix Prince of Heredom," "Prince of the Royal Secret," and "Sovereign Grand Inspector General." Of course, Masons who belong to The      Scottish Rite understand their Order to be a fraternal organization and do      not presume to hold authentic titles of royalty. The York Rite confers      neither royal nor noble titles, but does confer a title of knighthood, the      Knight of the Temple. So too, members of the Masonic Order of the Temple      understand their organization to be a fraternal Order, not an authentic      Order of Chivalry, and these Masons do not claim to hold authentic      knighthood.
The American comes to a Masonic title either by taking an initiation (for      example, to be a Prince of Heredom, one takes the 18th Degree of the      Scottish Rite), or by being elected to the dignity of a Masonic office. High      Masonic dignitaries are usually shown the greatest of deference and respect      by their Masonic members, and, like the monarchs of old, they are often      feted at great banquets held in their honor. Actually, should modern      monarchs insist on the same level of treatment that some Masonic dignitaries      receive, they would be in danger of their thrones! No criticism of the      system is intended, since Freemasonry is a fine and worthwhile philosophic      and philanthropic institution whose officers serve without pay, often at      great expense to themselves. But there is no doubt that Freemasonry is, for      Americans, a dream fulfilled--a constitutional monarchy in which even a      common laborer can rise to the position of, if not sovereign prince, then at      least archduke.
THE CHURCH AS FONS
The Church--whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant--also confers titles.      In fact, in historical times, the Roman Catholic Church attempted to      arrogate to itself the power to grant all titles, including that of Emperor      of the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy See of Rome, as a city-state, today      reserves to itself the right to grant the Papal titles of prince, marchese,      and count which it occasionally bestows upon worthy Roman Catholics. The      Holy See of Rome also grants to its clergy the title of Monsignor, which      then supersedes the title "Father." Of course, both the Roman Catholic and      Orthodox Churches grant titles such as Archbishop and Patriarch, and so on.      Generally, Protestant Churches grant the title of "reverend" to their      clergy, although certain Protestant groups prefer "pastor" or "brother." The      full range of ecclesiastical titles is covered well in L.G. Pine's The Story      of Titles. However, Pine makes some rather snide comments about the Church's      use of titles, saying that titles are incompatible with Christianity. In      fact, Pine hadn't the faintest idea what he was talking about. The New      Testament writers went to great length to show that Jesus was a Prince of      the (non-regnant) Royal House of David, and royal titles abound in both the      Old and New Testaments. Pine certainly knew about secular titles, but      apparently he knew little about Biblical royalty, and even less about the      royal titles of Jesus, who was not only considered "King of the Jews" by no      less than Pontius Pilate, but "King of Kings" by Christians.
THE ORDER OF CHIVALRY AS FONS
In the case of Orders of Chivalry, Americans have a truly difficult time.      Most Americans are exposed to knights through old MGM movies or through news      reports about the knighting of distinguished British actors such as Sir      Richard Burton or Dame Edith Evans, or, more recently, Sir Anthony Hopkins.      Generally, Americans have no trouble whatever in addressing these knights      correctly--"Sir First Name." When European knights enter the scene,      Americans again have some difficulty substituting "Chevalier" for the title "Sir." (Happily, the title for both the British and European knighted woman      is "Dame," so confusion is less likely.) Of course, Americans can learn the      proper address of a European knight when he or she has an accent and is      obviously not an American, but when Americans are knighted in genuine Orders      of Chivalry that follow the European custom (as most do), there are two      problems.
The first problem is that Americans are so used to fraternal orders using      the title of "knight" that the "Order of Chivalry" and the titles granted by      it have little meaning and require explanation. It takes patience and a      clarity of mind to explain that there is a difference between an authentic      knight of an Order of Chivalry and members of the Knights of Columbus,      Knights of Labor, Knights of Pythias, and--heaven forebear!--Knights of the      Ku Klux Klan.
The second problem is that Americans are not accustomed to the idea that      Americans can be knighted...and they can as, for example, when the Queen of      England grants "honorary" knighthoods to distinguished Americans. Of course,      the term "honorary" doesn't mean "but not really," but only is a gentle      subterfuge used to prevent protests from those who might object to the      (perfectly proper and legal) receipt of knighthood by prominent Americans      who have thereby received grants of minor nobility and a minor noble title.      The Queen of England rarely grants knighthoods to Americans. It is more      common for other European Orders of Chivalry to be active in America, where      are found various religious Orders of Chivalry as well as Dynastic (royal      house) Orders. In the United States, authentic Orders of Chivalry headed by      royalty or nobility include the Knights of Christ, the Order of the Noble      Companions of the Swan, the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, The      Religious and Military Order of Knights of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem,      the Royal Order of the Three Crowns, the Order of the Crown of Lauriers, and      others. The idea of an American holding an authentic knighthood is so far      removed from the experience of most Americans that they find it difficult to      grasp the meaning--or think that the legitimate American knight is kidding      about the accolade, or, worse, is somehow deluded.
SOME COMMON FORMS OF NOBLE AND ROYAL ADDRESS
Americans are fond of the idea of equality, believing that "all men are      created equal" and believing that eschewing titles and being on a first-name      basis constitutes not only equality, but also friendliness. Undoubtedly, all      men are created equal, but not all achieve equally, and using a first name      without permission is not friendly, but rude, even in America. Of course, it      is not possible in this small space to cover all possibilities; therefore,      the reader should take note that the following usages are not prescriptive,      but, in general, follow the European model.
The Knightly Gentleman of a European (non-British) Order of Chivalry in      formal speech and in writing may be addressed as "The Right Honorable      Chevalier John Smith," or "The Right Honorable Chevalier Smith," depending      upon the usages of the Order to which the Knight belongs. Some Orders use      the "Right Honorable" and some do not, but, in general, the phrase may be      used without error. Informally he is titled Chevalier (sheh-vul-YAY;      sometimes, shuh-VALL-yay) Christian name, thus: "Chevalier John." Even more      informally, the Knight also may be simply addressed as "Chevalier." The      untitled first name of a Chevalier is never used alone. In British usage,      the title "Sir" is a prenominal to the first name only, so that there is a "Sir John," but not a "Sir Smith."
The Knightly Gentlewoman of a European (non-British) Order of Chivalry in      formal speech and in writing may be addressed as "The Right Honorable Dame      Mary Smith," or "The Right Honorable Dame Smith," depending upon the usages      of the Order to which she belongs. Informally, she is titled Dame Christian name, thus: "Dame Mary," or very informally as "Dame." The      title "Lady" is a courtesy that denotes the non-chivalric wife of a      Chevalier and is not used to address a woman of knightly rank. The untitled      first name of a Dame is never used. Note also that , in British usage, the      title "Lady" is the equivalent of "Lord" and is used to address a female      Peer.
Ecclesiastical rank and title take precedence over secular rank and titles.      Clergy, therefore, often use only ecclesiastical prenominals ("Rev." or "Father" or "Bishop"), omit chivalric prenominals ("Sir" or "Chevalier"),      and list postnominals only in writing. In some religious Orders of Chivalry,      chivalric prenominals are formally combined with the ecclesiastical ones      thus: "The Right Honorable Chevalier the Rev. first name and surname" or "The Right Honorable Dame the Rev. first name and surname. If a Priest, the      formal title in some usages is "The Right Honorable Chevalier Rev. Fr." followed by the full name. If a Bishop, the formal title is "The Right      Honorable Chevalier the Rt. Rev." and his full name, thus: "Rt. Rev. the      Right Honorable Chevalier John Smith." When in doubt, it is always correct      to address clergy with ecclesiastical prenominals, according to the usage of      the denomination. The untitled first name of clergy is never used.
The non-chivalric wife of a Knight is often addressed as "Lady" as a      courtesy. In speech and in writing, that is, informally and as a courtesy,      she may be addressed "Lady" plus her Christian name, thus: "Lady Jane." The      non-chivalric husband of a Dame is titled "Mr." unless he holds a title in      his own right.
Titles of nobility of royal houses are those of baron, viscount , count,      marquis, and duke. (Note: Some royal houses do not confer the title of      viscount.) For the first three (or four) titles, it is proper to use the      pre-nominal qualifier "His/Your Excellency" plus the titular designation      which may be a surname alone or a surname with a place designation. Sir      Anthony Wagner, Garter King of Arms, makes it quite clear in his book, A      Herald's World, that a surname without a place designation is perfectly      correct for a title of nobility, and that he often counseled new British      peers how to keep their surnames intact as noble titles. If a place      designation is used, Garter sees it merely as "an address." See Garter's      book, pages 20-21 and 126-129. It is proper, in European (but not British)      custom, to refer to "Baron Last Name," as in "Baron Smith." As the      highest-ranking nobility, the duke's pre-nominal is "His/Your Grace." Note      that the British usage for all peerage titles is "Lord" plus the titular (or      last) name, as in "Lord Snowden," the titular name of Anthony Armstrong      Jones, or "Lord Olivier," the titular name of Baron Laurence Olivier      (Laurence, Lord Olivier). When signing documents, nobles use only the last      name, and one may hear nobles speaking to each other using the last name      only (a usage which close American male friends have adopted).
In formal occasions, where one holds multiple titles, the practice of "diminishing title" applies, where the highest to lowest titles come before      the name. Titles are generally ranked in descending order, thus: quality      title (His/Her Excellency or His/Her Grace), ecclesiastical title, noble      title, academic title. For example, if John Smith were a Priest, a Knight, a      Doctor of Philosophy, and a Baron, he would very formally be introduced,      following the rule of diminishing title, as His Excellency the Rev. Baron      Dr. Smith of Connor. (That is, in very formal presentational speech, as, for      example, if Baron Smith were being presented at a formal evening dinner or      at court. The complete title would also be used in formal writing, as, for      example, an official invitation or an official letter or document. The full      title might also appear on the envelope of a formal document such as an      invitation.) Formal titles can prove unwieldy, so, for informal situations,      single titles suffice. Thus, Smith could also be correctly addressed as      His/Your Excellency or Baron Smith. However, since ecclesiastical rank may      take precedence over secular titles, it also would be correct to address      Baron Smith as Father Smith (but not "Father John"). Those who wished could      address him in common conversation simply and correctly as Dr. Smith. Note      that titles of nobility preclude and supersede the use of "Chevalier" or "Dame" when the noble is also a knight, so Baron Smith would not be      addressed as Chevalier Smith.
Monarchs are usually addressed as "Your Majesty" if a king or queen, then,      in conversation, the title "Sir" or "Ma'am" (while some authorities say the      word rhymes with "harm," other more modern authorities say it rhymes with "jam") is used. The "Crown Prince" is usually the son of the king or queen      and is the one designated to inherit the throne. The Crown Prince is the one      usually thought of by Americans when the title of "prince" is heard. The      correct form of address for the Crown Prince is established by the Monarch.      In fact, the Monarch establishes all correct forms for his or her dynasty.
The Sovereign Prince is addressed as "Your Highness Prince X" or using the      prenominal as established by the Royal Dynasty to which the Prince belongs.      In conversation with the Sovereign Prince, "Your Highness" is used once,      followed by the use of "Sir," although it is not incorrect to occasionally      repeat the title of "Your Highness" during the course of the conversation.      Unlike the Crown Prince or the Papal Prince, the Sovereign Prince exercises      all sovereign rights within his dynasty.
MANUALS AND GUIDEBOOKS
American etiquette books are of little help in establishing the correct use      of noble and royal titles, and, in some cases, are not only incorrect, but      exhibit insufferable arrogance by pretending to limit and control      legitimately owned titles, claiming a "correctness" that simply doesn't      exist. For one wishing to find a useful guide for royal and noble etiquette,      there are only a few reliable sources, mostly British, mostly difficult to      obtain. One is Titles and Forms of Address: A Guide to the Correct Use, a      standard work by "Armiger" now in its 14th edition (London: A.C. Black,      1971). Robert William Chapman's Names, Designations and Appellations      (Oxford: Clarendon Press) is good, but outdated, its last edition being in      1936. Dorothy M. Newman's Forms of Address: Honours, Orders, Decorations,      Medals, Religious Orders in Canada, Breat Britain, and the U.S.A. (St.      Louis: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1980) is very inclusive. If available, a useful      general guide is Debrett's Correct Form: An Inclusive Guide to Everything      from Drafting Wedding Invitations to Addressing an Archbishop. Also, L.G.      Pine's classic work The Story of Titles (republished by Barnes & Noble as      Titles: How the King Became His Majesty) is very interesting and useful. These books are to be used as guides; the best procedure in any circumstance      is to determine and follow the practice of the holder of the title.
There are also books about the honors system itself, including Michael      De-la-Noy's The Honours System (New York: Allison and Busby, 1985); John      Walker's The Queen has been Pleased: the British Honours System at Work      (London: Secker and Warburg, 1986); James McMillan's The Honours Game      (London: Frewin, 1969); and Cyril Francis James Hankinson's My Forty Years      with Debrett (London: R. Hale, 1963).
CONCLUSION
Some titles are hereditary, and some titles are vital, but in every      instance, a title is property, and, as with any other piece of property, the      owner is perfectly free to use it, without apology, whenever he or she      wishes, keeping in mind both propriety and requirements. The titled believe      that the correct use of forms of address ennobles both the user and holder.      In the mock modesty and ersatz intimacy of American culture, where      unsanctioned first-name usage is casually assumed by the ignorant or the      willfully rude, proper use of legitimate titles is an educating and      stabilizing link with tradition in an otherwise uncertain and rebellious      culture which so desperately needs to learn self-respect, as well as the      respect of othe
 
Knighthood: A      Brief History
 
Chivalry (derived through the French      cheval from the Latin caballus) as an institution is to be considered from      three points of view: the military, the social, and the religious. We shall      also here consider the history of chivalry as a whole.
 
Military
In the military sense, chivalry was      the heavy cavalry of the Middle Ages which constituted the chief and most      effective warlike force. The knight or chevalier was the professional      soldier of the time; in medieval Latin, the ordinary word miles (soldier)      was equivalent to "knight." This pre-eminence of cavalry was correlative      with the decline of infantry on the battlefield. Four peculiarities      distinguished the professional warrior:
 
his flag.
Weapons
The medieval army was poorly equipped      for long-distance fighting, and bows and crossbows were still employed,      although the Church endeavored to prohibit their use, at least between      Christian armies, as contrary to humanity. At all events, they were regarded      as unfair in combat by the medieval knight. His only offensive weapons were      the lance for the encounter and the sword for the close fight, weapons      common to both light-armed and heavy cavalry. The characteristic distinction      of the latter, which really constituted chivalry, lay in their defensive      weapons, which varied with different periods. These weapons were always      costly to get and heavy to bear, such as the brunia or hauberk of the      Carlovingian Era, the coat of mail, which prevailed during the Crusades, and      lastly the plate armor introduced in the fourteenth century.
 
a fourth to guard prisoners,        chiefly those of quality, for whom a high ransom was expected.
 
These attendants, who were of low      condition, were not to be confounded with the armed retainers, who formed      the escort of a knight. From the thirteenth century the squires also went      armed and mounted and, passing from one grade to the other, were raised      finally to knighthood.
 
Flags
Banners were also a distinctive mark      of chivalry. They were attached to, and carried on, the lance. There was a      sharp distinction between the pennon, a flag pointed or forked at the      extremity, used by a single chevalier or bachelor as a personal ensign, and      the banner, square in form, used as the ensign of a band and reserved to the      baron or baronet in command of a group of at least ten knights, called a      constabulary. Each flag or banner was emblazoned with the arms of its owner      to distinguish one from another on the battlefield. These armorial bearings      afterwards became hereditary and gave birth to the complicated science of      heraldry.
 
Social
The career of a knight was costly,      requiring personal means in keeping with the station; for a knight had to      defray his own expenses in an age when the sovereign had neither treasury      nor war budget at his disposal. When land was the only kind of riches, each      lord paramount who wished to raise an army divided his domain into military      fiefs, the tenant being held to military service at his own personal expense      for a fixed number of days (forty in France and in England during the Norman      period). These fees, like other feudal grants, became hereditary, and thus      developed a noble class, for whom the knightly profession was the only      career. Knighthood, however, was not hereditary, though only the sons of a      knight were eligible to its ranks. In boyhood they were sent to the court of      some noble, where they were trained in the use of horses and weapons, and      were taught lessons of courtesy. From the thirteenth century, the      candidates, after they had attained the rank of squire, were allowed to take      part in battles; but it was only when they had come of age, commonly      twenty-one years, that they were admitted to the rank of knight by means of      a peculiar ceremonial called "dubbing." Every knight was qualified to confer      knighthood, provided the aspirant fulfilled the requisite conditions of      birth, age, and training. Where the condition of birth was lacking in the      aspirant, the sovereign alone could create a knight, as a part of his royal      prerogative.
 
Religious
In the ceremonial of conferring      knighthood the Church shared, through the blessing of the sword, and by the      virtue of this blessing chivalry assumed a religious character. In early      Christianity, although Tertullian's teaching that Christianity and the      profession of arms were incompatible was condemned as heretical, the      military career was regarded with little favour. In chivalry, religion and      the profession of arms were reconciled. This change in attitude on the part      of the Church dates, according to some, from the Crusades, when Christian      armies were for the first time devoted to a sacred purpose. Even prior to      the Crusades, however, an anticipation of this attitude is found in the      custom called the "Truce of God" (q.v.). It was then that the clergy seized      upon the opportunity offered by these truces to exact from the rough      warriors of feudal times a religious vow to use their weapons chiefly for      the protection of the weak and defenseless, especially women and orphans, and of churches. Chivalry, in the new sense, rested on a vow; it was this      vow which dignified the soldier, elevated him in his own esteem, and raised      him almost to the level of the monk in medieval society. As if in return for      this vow, the Church ordained a special blessing for the knight in the      ceremony called in the Pontificale Romanum, "Benedictio novi militis." At      first very simple in its form, this ritual gradually developed into an      elaborate ceremony. Before the blessing of the sword on the altar, many      preliminaries were required of the aspirant, such as confession, a vigil of      prayer, fasting, a symbolical bath, and investiture with a white robe, for      the purpose of impressing on the candidate the purity of soul with which he      was to enter upon such a noble career. Kneeling, in the presence of the      clergy, he pronounced the solemn vow of chivalry, at the same time often      renewing the baptismal vow; the one chosen as godfather then struck him      lightly on the neck with a sword (the dubbing) in the name of God and St.      George, the patron of chivalry.
 
History
There are four distinct periods in the      history of chivalry. The period of foundation, i.e. the time when the Truce      of God was in force, witnessed the long contest of the Church against the      violence of the age, before she succeeded in curbing the savage spirit of      the feudal warriors, who prior to this recognized no law but that of brute      force.
 
First Period: The Crusades
The Crusades introduced the golden age      of chivalry, and the crusader was the pattern of the perfect knight. The      rescue of the holy places of Palestine from Moslem domination and the      defense of pilgrims became the new object of his vow. In return, the Church      took him under her protection in a special way, and conferred upon him      exceptional temporal and spiritual privileges, such as the remission of all      penances, dispensation from the jurisdiction of the secular courts, and as a      means of defraying the expenses of the journey to the Holy Land, knights      were granted the tenth of all the church revenues. The vow of the crusader      was limited to a specified period. For the distant expeditions into Asia,      the average time was two or three years.
Second Period: The Military Orders
After the conquest of Jerusalem, the      necessity of a standing army became peremptory, in order to prevent the loss      of the Holy City to surrounding hostile nations. Out of this necessity arose      the military orders [note: the reference here is to the Sovereign Military      Order of Malta, the Knights Templar, and, later, the Teutonic Knights} which      adopted as a fourth monastic vow that of perpetual warfare against the      infidels. In these orders, wherein was realized the perfect fusion of the      religious and the military spirit, chivalry reached its apogee. This heroic      spirit had also its notable representatives among the secular crusaders, as      Godfrey of Bouillon, Tancred of Normandy, Richard Couer de Lion, and above      all Louis IX of France, in whom knighthood was crowned by sanctity. Like the      monastic, the knightly vow bound with common ties warriors of every nation      and condition, and enrolled them in a vast brotherhood of manners, ideals,      and aims. The secular brotherhood had, like the regular its rule imposing on      its members fidelity to their; lords and to their word, fair play on the      battlefield, and the observance of the maxims of honour and courtesy.      Medieval chivalry, moreover, opened a new chapter in the history of      literature. It prepared the way and gave ready currency to an epic and      romantic movement in literature reflecting the ideal of knighthood and      celebrating its accomplishment and achievements. Provence and Normandy were      the chief centres of this kind of literature, which was spread throughout      all Europe by the trouv*res and troubadours.
Third Period: Secular Chivalry
After the Crusades chivalry gradually      lost its religious aspect. In this, its third period, honour remains the      peculiar worship of knighthood. This spirit is manifested in the many      knightly exploits which fill the annals of the long contest between England      and France during the Hundred Years War. The chronicles of Froissart give a      vivid picture of this age, where bloody battles alternate with tournaments      and gorgeous pageants. Each contending nation has its heroes. If England      could boast of the victories of the Black Prince, Chandos, and Talbot,      France could pride herself on the exploits of Du Guesclin, Boucicaut, and      Dunois. But with all the brilliance and glamour of their achievements, the      main result was a useless shedding of blood, waste of money, and misery for      the lower classes. The amorous character of the new literature had      contributed not a little to deflect chivalry from its original ideal. Under      the influence of the romances love now became the mainspring of chivalry. As      a consequence there arose a new type of chevalier, vowed to the service of      some noble lady, who could even be another man's wife. This idol of his      heart was to be worshipped at a distance. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the      obligations imposed upon the knightly lover, these extravagant fancies often led to lamentable results.
Fourth Period: Court Chivalry
In its last stages, chivalry became a      mere court service. The Order of the Garter, founded in 1348 by Edward III      of England, the Order of the Golden Fleece (Toison d'or) of Philip of      Burgundy, dating from 1430, formed a brotherhood, not of crusaders, but of      courtiers, with no other aim than to contribute to the splendor of the      sovereign. Their most serious business was the sport of jousts and      tournaments. They made their vows not in chapels, but in banquet halls, not      on the cross, but on some emblematic bird. The "vow of the Swan" of 1306,      was instituted during the feast of the dubbing of the son of Edward I. It      was before God and the swan that the old king swore with his knights to      avenge on Scotland the murder of his lieutenant. More celebrated is the "vow      of the Pheasant," made in 1454 at the court of Philip of Burgundy. The      motive was weighty indeed, being nothing else than the rescue of      Constantinople, which had fallen the past year into the hands of the Turks.      But the solemnity of the motive did not lessen the frivolity of the      occasion. A solemn vow was taken before God and the pheasant at a gorgeous      banquet, the profligate cost of which might better have been devoted to the      expedition itself. No less than one hundred and fifty knights, the flower of      the nobility, repeated the vow, but the enterprise came to nought. Chivalry      had degenerated to a futile pastime and an empty promise.
Literature, which had in the past so      greatly contributed to the exaltation of chivalry, now reacted against its      extravagances. In the early part of the fourteenth century this turning      point becomes evident in the poetry of Chaucer. Although he himself had made      many translations from the French romances, he mildly derides their manner      in his "Sir Thopas." The final blow was reserved for the immortal work of      Cervantes, Don Quixote, which aroused the laughter of all Europe. Infantry,      on its revival as an effective force on the battlefield during the      fourteenth century began to dispute the supremacy which heavy cavalry had so      long enjoyed. Chivalry which rested entirely upon the superiority of the      horseman in warfare, rapidly declined. At Cr*cy (1346) and Agincourt (1415)      the French knighthood was decimated by the arrows of the English archers of      Edward III and Henry V. The Austrian nobility at Sempach (1386) and the      Burgundian chivalry at Morat (1476) were unable to sustain the overpowering      onslaught of the Swiss peasantry. With the advent of gunpowder and the      general use of firearms in battle, chivalry rapidly disintegrated and      finally disappeared altogether.
-----------------------------------------
"Who is a Knight?"
W
hat is a real      knight? For some time there has raged within the confraternity community a      debate concerning who is and is not a real knight. Without question, those      British Knights of the Garter and their brethren have inherited the title in      an indisputable tradition extending unbroken back to Edward III in the 14th century. The Knights of Saint John also have an intact lineage, running all      the way back to the 12th century. The various modern fraternal      organizations based on the Templar romance have a more debatable connection.      Then there are the Knights of Columbus and similar groups. Within the Society for Creative Anachronism and similar organizations lies yet      another tradition now more than thirty years old. Lastly, many smaller      groups use the concept of knighthood to inspire their members in some way      and to build better people.
For me, all of these groups contain real knights. In every instance the adoubement of knighthood now has      little to do with the feudal structure and everything to do with a      recognition of a particular kind of individual who has built their renown in      the context of doing right.
When the Queen of England confers a      knighthood, it is in recognition of deeds done in service of Crown and      Commonwealth.  A Knight of Saint John, a Templar , and a Knight of Columbus are members of close fraternal      organizations whose aims are to achieve good works in the world and to      provide an internally consistent system of values based on core religious      beliefs common to most of the worlds population. A knighthood conferred here      also recognizes achievement--renown. Within the Society for Creative      Anachronism knighthood is conferred based both on physical prowess in the      system of martial arts practiced by the SCA and for renown based on a      loosely understood effort to follow chivalry.
The common thread for all the groups      above is their concern for the knights duty to pursue the good in various      ways through personal sacrifice, sincerity, and excellence displayed in      profession and avocation alike.
To be a knight in much of the medieval      period had little to do with adoubement or service to any ideal, it had to do with the possession of      such equipment and skills as were requisite to the title. Skill with sword,      lance and horse was the basis more than was a focus towards the ideal. From      the earliest days of what might be called the chivalric tradition, any      knight could make a knight, but there was honor to be gained in being      knighted by a King of particular renown or by a powerful nobleman whose      reputation as a knight sans reproche brought him fame. But there was no      centralized registry of knights; any country knight could and did confer      knighthood on soldiers they thought worthy. Nor was the ceremony an absolute      requirement. If an armed man travelled far, and appeared a knight then de      facto he was a knight.
The idea that a knighthood need be      obtained through particular channels is a Renaissance one. English knights      began to obtain their stations directly from the Crown, but by this time the      station had changed from a tier in feudal society to an honorific title.      Even so, the honorific use was to reward service to the Crown or state; a      recognition, if you will, of renown in service.
As a member of the Society for      Creative Anachronism, some would say that I have little claim to the title      of knight. Some view the encounter as primarily a social enterprise, a kind      of theme party, while others focus on the development of the martial art.      Others take it far more seriously, some to the point of fanaticism. Part of      the problem with the Society, a simultaneous strength and paralyzing      weakness, is in this diversity. There are knights of all varieties within      the SCA. There are those who are attend to party, for whom the belt means      privilege and an increased chance at the ladies. There are those for whom      the fighting itself is the essence, they would just as soon drop the rest.      There are those who live their entire lives trying to fulfill some kind of      image or in seeking power within the organization. And there are those who      believe that knighthood is largely a private path. All of these are true      about the SCA. And yet, it does produce some real knights.
In the SCA only the King can confer a      knighthood. But the king must himself must be a knight. There is a legend      that one of the early SCA knights was himself a real knight, and some have      used this to validate all knights made since that date. I cannot ascertain      the truth of this belief, but for me it doesnt matter. I know of many      within the SCA whose character and demeanor, both inside the Society and      out, that they are knights in the pursuit of the ideal sense of the word. I      know others who wear the white belt but who I cannot in good faith consider      knights--I believe the same could be said for any group of men laying claim      to the title in any time period.
I cannot agree with the modern knights      who believe the only paths lie through their own organizations. I see the      whole argument as a colossal waste of time--would not this time be better      spent in the pursuit of deeds worthy of a knight rather than in trying to      discourage others from pursuing the right in their own way?
It is also true that someone cannot      awake one morning and say, I am a knight, and become one. But why not? The      reason is that the earning of a knights title lies, in every case, of the      building of renown such that the title is earned through deeds. Through      sincerity. Through dedication. It is not the title of knight that makes a      man a knight, it is his renown. Sometimes circumstances will recognize such      a gentle with a formal title, and sometimes not.
Modern knights vary in quality as      surely as did the medieval ones. As in the Middle Ages, some follow some      kind of romantic ideal while others hold the attitude that only performance      on the battlefield counts. Knights of both types all ultimately fail to      achieve the perfection of their ideal, whether it be a purely martial image      or a more philosophical one, but they can succeed in the betterment of      themselves and of their world, and this is the function of knighthood.
The true essence of knighthood lies      not so much in whether you believe you are a knight. The key is, do others      believe you are a knight? If the answer to this question is yes, then I      believe you can claim the title of knight. In so doing you also accept the      duties towards acting with the right and striving towards the distant      chivalric ideal. You thus become a brother to all those knights who have      trod the road before and who will come after. Fine company indeed!
Within the SCA the knight is tested      primarily through the practice of our martial art on the tournament field in      what I have called the crucible of virtue. In England knights are tested      in the political arena of Britain and the world. For the Fraternal orders      the challenges are wrought in the common stuff of life and in various      exercises designed to teach and to strengthen the mind. I do not know the      testing and refining techniques of other groups who use the idea of      knighthood to build people of quality, but I am sure they exist.
I believe that this essence of renown      is a spark that burns brightly in those knights who share the common bond of      seeking a distant ideal, and that this spark can be recognized instantly by      others who travel the same road. Some of them are formally known as knights      while others are not.  It is a comforting thing to know that it does not      require an institution to continue the chivalric tradition, but is entrusted      to a thing far more durable and pure--the human heart.
Queen Elizabeth    Presents New Seal
Wed Jul 18 17:33:05 2001
Wednesday July 18 11:20 AM ET
Queen Elizabeth Presents New Seal
LONDON (AP) - Queen Elizabeth II (news - web sites) presented the government    with a new Great   Seal of the Realm on Wednesday - the second in her 49-year reign - continuing    a tradition that has
endured for a thousand years.
The monarch gave the silver stamp to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, during    a meeting of the Privy   Council at Buckingham Palace. As Britain's top legal official, the Lord    Chancellor is also keeper of the   seal.
The seal dates from the 11th-century reign of Edward the Confessor, and is    used to authenticate   important state documents. The new seal replaces one introduced in 1953, which    had worn out.
Designed by James Butler, the new seal is six inches across and is engraved    with an updated portrait of   the queen, wearing ceremonial robes and holding an orb and scepter. It bears    the Latin inscription:
``Elizabeth II by the Grace of God of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and    of Her other Realms and   Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.'' The    reverse side features the coat of arms.
The Great Seal is used on variety of documents, including proclamations,    electoral writs and letters   patent. One concession has been made to modernity, though - nowadays the    impression is made in cellulose acetate plastic, rather than wax, which is deemed too fragile.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010718/wl/britain_great_seal_1.html
Seal of Richard I by James Basire
(1730-1802). The Great Seal of the
Realm was used to authenticate state
documents. It was an essential tool
in the administration of grants and in
authenticating writs (actions at law).
The Great Seal is a two-sided wax
seal attached to the bottom of
important papers; it is changed with
each new monarch and it is still in
use today
Sovereign as 'Fount of Justice'
Queen and the law/judiciary in Scotland
Queen's role in the administration of justice
Queen's position in United Kingdom law
Queen's position in European Union law
Sovereign as 'Fount of Justice'
The rendering of justice is one of the oldest of royal functions.
From late Anglo-Saxon times, the concept of the Sovereign as
the 'Fount of Justice' grew in importance as it helped to ensure
that a single system of justice prevailed over competing local,
civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions. Ethelbert's reign (560-616)
saw the first law code written in the vernacular; kings such as
Alfred the Great (reigned 871-99) extended the law codes by
codifying community custom, administrative regulations and
ancient law. Successive kings preserved and adapted the body of
English laws which had been accepted by the community and
which past kings had published, and case law supplemented
these law codes.
This accumulated legislative power placed responsibilities on
the king as a dispenser of justice to ensure order and punish
crime. From William the Conqueror (reigned 1066-87) onwards,
royal justice was more effectively enforced by the king's
appointment of local sheriffs, travelling justices and other
officials to administer justice in the Sovereign's name throughout
the kingdom. A chronicler of 1179 wrote of Henry II (reigned
1154-89): 'he appointed wise men from his kingdom and later
sent them through the regions of the kingdom assigned to them
to execute justice among the people ... This he did in order that
the coming of public officials of authority throughout the shires
might strike terror into the hearts of wrongdoers.'
The royal courts were therefore at the centre of the
administration of justice in both civil and criminal cases, and
Sovereigns themselves took an active part in their own courts,
with the king sometimes presiding over the proceedings. By the
fifteenth century, the central courts had settled at Westminster,
and the Courts of Justice remained housed at Westminster Hall
(built in 1097 and renovated in 1394) until 1882.
However, there were limits to royal enforcement of justice or
'the king's peace'. These limits included the geographical distance
of the more remote shires (particularly on the troubled borders
of the Welsh Marches and Scotland), the independent
jurisdiction of 'palatine counties' (where royal powers were
granted in franchise to an individual), ecclesiastical jurisdictions
and, above all, the Sovereign's reliance on local barons and gentry
to uphold the law in the regions - which was liable to break
down in times of civil war.
Moreover, as Parliament's legislative role grew and day-to-day
power came to be exercised by Ministers in Cabinet, so the
Sovereign's role in actually administering justice declined. The
Bill of Rights (1689) (in Scotland, the Claim of Right in the same
year) confirmed the fundamental constitutional principle that
the Sovereign no longer had any right to administer justice. The
Sovereign's responsibilities regarding the judiciary also waned -
under the Act of Settlement (1701), judges were to hold office
during good behaviour rather than by the Sovereign's will.
(Judges can be removed by the Sovereign on the advice of
Ministers, either following an address presented by both
Houses of Parliament or without an address in cases of official
misconduct or conviction of a serious offence). The Act
therefore established judicial independence.
Queen and the law/judiciary in Scotland
The Scottish legal system, and the Sovereign's role in it,
developed separately from the legal system in England. It was
not until 1603 that the Crowns of England and Scotland became
united when the Scottish King, James VI, ascended the English
throne. Until the Act of Union of 1707 (which established the
Parliament of Great Britain) Scotland had her own Parliament. In
the Act of Union, the continued existence of a separate legal
system in Scotland was expressly provided for.
The system of rule introduced to England by William the
Conqueror, was brought to Scotland by the Scots King, David I,
(reigned1124-53), and there too emerged the idea of the king as
the fountain of justice. In his reign, King David's court heard
important cases and appeals from the lower courts; justiciars
appeared as the King's delegates for the administration of justice
and they went on circuit to deal locally with cases not heard by
the King's Court. The office of Sheriff (appointed by and acting
on behalf of the King) was also established by David I, and
lesser cases were heard from time to time in the Sheriff's Court
in various places throughout Scotland.
The Scottish Parliament evolved some time in the 13th century.
It originally existed as a Supreme Court and was derived from
the King's Court sitting with counsel for discussion. In the
administration of criminal justice, the office of King's Advocate
emerged in the 15th century; the King's Advocate was entitled
to appear in cases to represent the King's interests in securing
law and order (at that time all but the most serious crimes were
pursued by the injured party). By an Act of the Scottish
Parliament of 1587 the Advocate was authorised to 'pursue
slaughters and other crimes although the parties be silent or
would otherwise privily agree', and the system of public
prosecution in Scotland, which exists to this day, was created,
allowing the Advocate to prosecute regardless of the private
interests of the parties. The Lord Advocate (or Her Majesty's
Advocate), as he is now known, is appointed by The Queen on
recommendation of the Prime Minister. He is responsible for
virtually all prosecutions in Scotland (which are on behalf of the
Crown).
As in England, the role of The Queen in judicial matters has
become symbolic. The Claim of Right of 1689 established the
independence of the judiciary and provided for judicial office to
be held during good behaviour (as the Act of Settlement did in
England) rather than by the will of the Sovereign. Today,
Scotland's two most senior judges, the Lord President and the
Lord Justice Clerk, are appointed by The Queen on
recommendation of the Prime Minister. Other judges of the
Supreme Court, and Sheriffs, are appointed by The Queen on
recommendation of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Queen's role in the administration of justice
Today, the task of administering justice is carried out by others
acting in The Queen's name. The Queen's role in the
administration of justice is entirely symbolic; she does not
herself judge any case nor does she play any part in the judicial
process.
By the coronation oath, and by common law and various
statutes, the Sovereign is required to cause law and justice with
mercy to be administered to all. In the United Kingdom, all
jurisdiction therefore derives from the Crown: the courts are The
Queen's courts; the judges are Her Majesty's judges and derive
their authority from the Crown; criminal prosecutions are
brought in the name of the Sovereign against those charged; the
prisons are Her Majesty's Prisons; and prisoners are detained
'during Her Majesty's pleasure'.
In the area of law, as in her other public actions, The Queen acts
solely on the advice of her Ministers. For example, although The
Queen appoints senior judges, she does so on the advice of the
Prime Minister. The prerogative of mercy (by which the
Sovereign may, for example, grant free or conditional pardons or
remit penalties) is also exercised on the advice of her Ministers.
Queen's position in United Kingdom law
Given the historical development of the Sovereign as the 'Fount
of Justice', civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against
the Sovereign as a person. Acts of Parliament do not apply to
The Queen in her personal capacity unless they are expressly
stated to do so.
However, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in
her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with
the law. Under the Crown Proceedings Act (1947), civil
proceedings can be taken against the Crown in its public
capacity (this usually means proceedings against government
departments and agencies, as the elected Government governs in
The Queen's name).