Talk:Order of Leopold II

RVO comparison

"The British Royal Victorian Order, which is a personal gift of the British monarch and has similar classes, but with the difference that the Order of Leopold II does not confer knighthood at the higher classes."
I was reverted on my attempt to edit this phrase so I will explain here: this awkward turn of phrase is perfectly backwards. As it reads, one would think that the lowest rank of the order of Leopold II confers knighthood whereas the higher ones do not, which is patently absurd (an officer of an order of knighthood is still a knight!). What it is attempting to say, no doubt, is that this order is unlike the RVO or OBE, which are knighthoods only in their highest rank, whereas most continental orders, including Belgium's, place knighthood at the entry-level rank (chevallier).

At the very least, the phrase should be "does not only confer knighthood at the higher classes", but this is still less awkward than reformulating the assertion positively ("confers knighthood from the lowest class"), since this phrasing does not assume that the reader is already familiar with the RVO's ranks. --145.226.30.44 (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the wording is that the Order of Leopold II doesn't confer knighthood. "Knight" in the 3 Belgian orders is a rank within the order but - unlike the higher classes of various British orders (which is why I reverted) - gives/is no/not a noble title. According to the Belgian Constitution only the King can confer noble titles by bestowing them, the order isn't set up to do this. It's merely a "medal" for service but not a "title" -- fdewaele, 11 February 2014, 17:25.

We're clearly working with different definitions of knight, but I don't understand yours. For me, a knight is someone who is given an award of knighthood by a sovereign country (or, more dubiously, by a formerly sovereign dynasty). It is not a noble title (like baron or count). So a French chevalier des palmes académiques is, by definition, a knight. (As are, a fortiori, the officers of that order.)

Aha--while writing this, seeing that your profile looks Flemish, I remembered that in Dutch you have a title Jonkheer, which we don't have in French, and wondering if that had something to do with it found the article Ridder (title). This explains your viewpoint. I certainly agree that the Order of Leopold II does not give one the status of Ridder! I would submit, though, that it is dangerous to translate Ridder as "knight", because in England, France, and Italy, there is no equivalent rank (except maybe the Knight of Kerry), and in these countries and languages knight/cavaliere/chevalier means anyone who receives an award (of merit 99% of the time) with that name, which does not confer a noble title. (Which is no doubt why Wikipedia calls its article "Ridder" instead of translating it.) --145.226.30.44 (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually "Jonkheer" isn't a noble title either. It's an hereditary denomination for a male child of someone titled (just like in Britain the children of nobles are The Honorable X or Lord X Surname). Knight in Dutch is the equivalent of the French word Chevalier. But this word is in the Belgian context used - both in French and Dutch - both for the personal or hereditary noble title as well as the rank in one of the three Belgian orders. But when applied to the rank it never confers nobility. In Britain, on the other hand one can became a knight mainly in two ways: be created a Knight Bachelor by the Monarch or get a knighthood through one of the senior classes of the various British Orders. The first option is similar to the knighthoods ("Ridder") conferred by the Belgian King, the second in Belgium doesn't confer knighthood in the British sense (no "Sir"), nor is it part of the Belgian nobility (which the first option is). -- -- fdewaele, 11 February 2014, 17:25.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Order of Leopold II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502182005/http://www.medals.connectfree.co.uk/belgium/belgium07.htm to http://www.medals.connectfree.co.uk/belgium/belgium07.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090507171936/http://www.medailles1914-1918.fr/belgique-distina.html to http://www.medailles1914-1918.fr/belgique-distina.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)