Order of Garter - Titles (in Norway)

[pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at y..., Catlady <catlady at w...> wrote:

[snip]

> Isn't the Order of the Garter designed to have 169 (13 X 13) members
> including the Sovereign and the Prince of Wales, for  numerological
> reasons?

I doubt it.  There are 24 Knights and Ladies Companion, in addition 
to a number of Royals (direct descendants of George I and II, and 
children/grandchildren of sovereigns, I believe), which is subject to 
change with the passing of the years.  Then there are the foreign 
royalty admitted to the order, but they are Knights and Ladies Extra, 
and are not counted.

[snip]

> In general, most Americans love to bow or courtesy to a
> British monarch, but it was all over the newspapers when the
> Queen visited Australia and the then-Prime Minister of
> Australia greeted her with a hug and a kiss and called
> her "darlin'" instead of "Your Majesty".

I can well imagine.

[snip]

> I mentioned the ranks of marquis, earl, and viscount. Marquis
> started as a French pronunciation of marchgraf, which is a
> graf (which means count, which originally meant the feudal
> owner of a county) whose domain is on a march (border) and
> therefore has to  have a bigger army and be more loyal to his
> monarch than a graf who rules an interior county. Viscount
> started as vice-count. Earl came from Scandinavian jarl, which
> degenerated from meaning man-at-arms to meaning serf, and the
> earl's wife is a countess. I am amused that these three ranks
> are named for 'count' in three languages.

Note on "jarl".  Serf translates, in my dictionary, as a bondsman, 
with an even lower status than a villein.  Jarl was in Norway the 
term for the highest vassal and officer of the crown all through the 
viking- and middle-ages, and it was a hereditary term, unless the 
King intervened.  If I'm not mistaken, the authority of a jarl is 
somewhat similar to the authority of a Lord High Sheriff in England 
in teh same time-period.  The lords of the Orkneys and of Shetland 
were both ranked "jarl".  The title fell out of use in Norway, as the 
country lost its independence.

> Christian's examples, which include an older daughter as Heir in
> preference to a younger son, are NOT British, which is terribly
> masculinist, they are Norwegian, which made a law that their
> anti-sex-discrimination law included no sex discrimination in
> inheritance of peerages. I forget the date that Norway did that.

It would have to be before 1824 (eighteen-twenty-four), as that was 
the year nobility was abolished in Norway.  Besides, I suspect you 
must be thinking of a different country, as Jarlsberg is a "stamhus" 
reserved for male members of the family.  A stamhus is a collection 
of real property and money subject to certain conditions of 
inheritance, and which cannot be pawned, sold, etc.  Under Norwegian 
law, no new "stamhus" may be created, and Jarlsberg is the only 
existing "stamhus" today.  With the failing of the male line, 
the "stamhus" will become the property of the University of Oslo.  
The various "stamhus" that have existed in Norway, were all created 
in 1824, from noble families, all depending on the male line.

The nobility existing in Norway at that time, consisted of two 
persons, one a baron and one a count twice over.  There was also a 
number of socalled untitled nobles, who were raised to the ranks of 
lesser nobles, with a fancy name and all that (names like 
Gyldenstjerne, Rosencrantz, Knagenhjelm, Løvenhjelm, etc. all mark 
somebody who has been raised to the rank of nobles by the King of 
Denmark; the name Gyldenløve was a statement that the person of that 
name was the son of the King but not of the Queen - noone not in that 
predicament were allowed that name).  

The titles existing in Norway at the time of separation from Denmark, 
were all of the socalled "new nobility", which is a term describing 
the range of titles introduced probably shortly after the 
reformation; the king could raise commoners 

> Americans always get that stuff wrong. A lead negotiator in the
> recent Bosnian war was Lord Owens from UK, and American
> reporters kept referring to what 'Lord David Owens' had done
> in today's negotiations.

This is nowhere near as bad as Norwegians getting "lord of the manor" 
wrong.  I previously mentioned one Dr. Sigmund Røkke Johnsen.  He is 
(or so he claims) something of an adopted member of the Thai Royal 
Family, and he is something of a local form of Royalty in Trondheim.  
He purchased, a few years ago, the title "lord fo the manor Newton".  
This is perfetly legal, as under legal law, a manor and the lordship 
of that manor, ar separate pieces of property.  Owning such a title 
does not make you a Lord, however.  

In 1997, the city of Trondheim celebrated its millennium, and this 
Dr. Røkke Johnsen gave a statue of the late King Olav V to the city, 
and he had engraved on the plaque "Gift to Trondheim city from Lord 
Newton."  Need I say more?  The plaque was altered, following some 
caustic comments from people with more knowledge on the matter than 
Dr. Røkke Johnsen, and now reads "Gift to Trondheim from Dr. Sigmund 
Røkke Johnsen".

IMO, the proper Norwegian application of the title "lord of the manor 
Newton" would be "Herr Sigmund (Røkke Johnsen) til Newton".

Best regards
Christian Stubø
"'Hold your tongue, you foul clot of ectoplasm', Arzosah 
growled.  'How I wish I could snap you up and crunch you down my 
gullet!'"
- The Fire Dragon, by Katharine Kerr