[ANSTHRLD] Baronial investiture ceremonies

tmcd at panix.com tmcd at panix.com
Thu Jan 24 22:38:30 PST 2008


On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Diane Rudin <serena1570 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com> wrote:
>
> > They aren't considered that ex officio?  That's what I've always
> > thought.  The heir to the UK's throne doesn't have to be a member
> > when they succeed to the throne, but Wikipedia states, and "the
> > monarch is the fount of honour" implies, that the new sovereign is
> > ipso facto Sovereign of the Garter.
>
> Oh man, please, let's not go over this topic again for like the
> third time in the last twelve months.
...
> It's all in the list archives, including my *lengthy*
> legal-historian post....

I didn't remember the previous iteration that I found first:
<http://lists.ansteorra.org/htdig.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org/2007-May/thread.html#11925>

Summary: it used to be considered automatic and it-goes-without-saying
that an incoming baron and baroness got the baronial service order at
their investiture.  At least one Board ruling was cited that an award
has to be announced in public.

(I did mention that I dislike awards with qualifications being given
automatically, but nobody asked me.)

> It's in the BSO constitutions, at least the ones that exist and were
> actually run by the Crown, which requirement IS in Corpora.

The same Corpora that says that baronies can't give armigerous awards
... yes, yes, they run it by the king and queen first, but does a king
and queen ever say "no"?

Dankyn de Lyncoln
-- 
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com



More information about the Heralds mailing list