Talk:Order of the Bath

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleOrder of the Bath is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 29, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 3, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
September 10, 2006Featured article reviewKept
July 16, 2022Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Image removal[edit]

Why was the image of the Bath medal removed? I saw in the remarks that it ws labeled as "low quality". I will look for a better image, but that it is NOT a valid reason to delete an image that someone else posted unless you are prepared to replace the image with a better one. User:Husnock 2 Aug 04

Sorry, I was unaware that a lack of quality was an invalid reason. -- Emsworth

I was too harsh...your work on this article is extremely impressive. Hope the new picture is better User:Husnock 3 Aug 04

Image moved[edit]

I moved the image to make the article appear a little bit better. Most Wilk articles have an "eye catcher" picture at the start of the article. The way this one was set up, the pictures were 2/3rds of the way down in the body of the article. I think it looks better this way. If not this picture, then something at the top there to give an image right when you start reading teh article Husnock 21 Sep 04

Honorary Knights may be stripped of their knighthoods[edit]

This statement should be revised or qualified in some wise as it gives rise to the questions both under what circumstances, and can regular knights be so stripped, and, if so, under what circumstances? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are no 'rules'. It is at the Queen's pleasure. As a guide, conviction for a serious offence will result in the title being stripped. Alci12 18:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only the very cleanest knights qualify for this order. This isn't the order of the septic tank, you know. Kauffner (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking[edit]

Does the Order of the Bath really rank after OM and CH among the British orders of chivalry? And are OM and CH even 'orders of chivalry'? Their members do not receive knighthoods. Mapple 19:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the correct ranking for orders of chivalry, of which the orders of knighthood are just one section. alexmb

The Cabinet office ( http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ceremonial/honours/chivalry.asp )and the Select Committee on Public Administration of the House of Commons ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/212/21204.htm#a3 ) both provide the tables of the British orders. In both tables OM is placed after the Order of the Bath, and CH after the Order of the British Empire. I wonder what is the source for your information. Mapple 17:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing the rankings. Mapple 09:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The original rankings I think (?) came from the royal family's site. Look at http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page490.asp . I am not going to touch the order you have changed it to until we can find a definitive list - there must be one....??!!

Move new comment from FA page:[edit]

I'm moving this from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Order of the Bath: Melchoir 05:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: It is stated in the article that the three crowns in the Bath insignia refer to the Kingdoms of England,Scotland and Ireland. Surely this would be the Kingdoms of England Scotland and the German electorate of Hanover from where King George came. The order was inaugurated in 1725 yet Ireland was not elevated to a Kingdom within the United Kingdom until 1801. If you look at the three crowns you will notice they are Hanovrian crowns rather than British crowns. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.72 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 29 April 2005.

The three crowns emblem was adopted for knights of the Bath under King James I. At that time, England, Scotland, and Ireland were three separate kingdoms under one monarch. Hanover was not a part of James's dominions. -- Emsworth

Accoutrements[edit]

Do male GCBs, KCBs and CBs wear a neck badge? Or do they wear the badges on their left chest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.128.3 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 30 May 2006

KCBs and CBs wear the badge on a necket. For GCBs, the badge hangs from a sash or the ceremonial collar on collar days.187.73.191.2 (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

There seem to be Category:Knights of the Order of the Bath and Category:Knights Commander of the Order of the Bath. Surely they should be merged? - Kittybrewster 13:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are three types of Knights of the (order of the) Bath,
  • Knights of the Bath - these were 'special knighthoods conferred on important Royal occasions such as coronation, a practice which had died out by the time of Charles II', according to the history section of the article. This is presumably what Category:Knights of the Bath, now empty, is for. This category correctly doesn't have the words of the Order.
  • Knights Companion of the Order of the Bath - Knights created after the 'revival'/creation of the Order in 1725 when it was only a one class order. Those still living became Knights Grand Cross when it became a three class order. Category:Knights of the Order of the Bath (from a very quick look) seems to contain both these Knights, and the previous sort.
  • Knights Commander of the Order of the Bath - Knights created after the Order was divided into three classes (this happened in 1815 for the military division and 1847 for the civil division). The category for these is Category:Knights Commander of the Order of the Bath, logically enough.
I would suggest Category:Knights of the Bath be populated with the pre-1725 knights, Category:Knights of the Order of the Bath be renamed to Category:Knights Companion of the Order of the Bath and the pre-1725 Knights removed, and a note distinguishing the three sorts of knight placed on all three category pages.
I note that at WP:CfD on August 2, it was suggested that Category:Knights of the Bath be merged with Category:Knights of the Order of the Bath. No-one commented apart from the nominator, and this has gone ahead as of August 10. I guess I will post my above suggestion there later today, if no-one else beats me to it.
--Dr pda 15:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Published citations?[edit]

Is there an online source giving the citations for the award of Knighthoods of the Order of the Bath? I have looked for them in vain on the web, including in the London Gazette. Any ideas? Thanks. --78.54.119.70 (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the reasons for appointments to the Order of the Bath (or the other British Orders) are published anywhere. The Gazette is the definitive record, so that's where they would be if they existed. Dr pda (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the citations have ever been systematically published. Many of the original recommendations for awards of decorations and honours to Army officers between 1935 and 1990 are now online from The National Archives, search here, info about what you might find here which will include some appointments to the Order fo the Bath - bear in mind that for much of the 20th century a KCB was pretty much automatic for anyone promoted to lieutenant-general or equivalent - and from recent experience these do not appear to be included in these recommendations. You can search the records I mention above for free, but to actually download a record will normally cost £3.50 unless you are in an institution that subscribes via Athens, or if you visit the office at Kew. David Underdown (talk)

What is the current fee? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Junius (talk • contribs) 04:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still £3.50 I believe. Sorry, I failed to sign my post above originally. David Underdown (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chiang Kai-shek[edit]

I've removed the photograph of Chiang Kai-shek because I don't think it's particularly relevant to the subject of the article. He was an honorary GCB (at least according to the article about him) but (a) there's no other reference to him in the rest of this article, much less any explanation as to why his photograph appears so prominently, and (b) the photograph in question doesn't show him actually wearing the vestments, riband, badge, star or collar of the Order. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before my time, but I think this sort of thing shows those foreign leaders whom the British establishment delights to honour, in addition to its own people. In the president's case he was an important leader of a quite large country; China's George Washington --- but less greedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claverhouse (talk • contribs) 07:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of GCBs?[edit]

It'd be nice if we could have a list of all GCBs - it's the highest honor in the UK we don't have a full list of (we have all KGs, KTs, KPs, KBs, OMs, and apparently GCSIs). There's a list in Haydn's Book of Dignities that goes up to 1887, but I'm not sure where to find the rest. Obviously they're in the London Gazette, but that thing has the worst user interface ever if you don't know exactly what you're looking for. john k (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A full list is certainly something that can be worked on, it can be done on a new page. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 10:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it! Leigh Rayment now has a list of all knights since 1837, so I'm compiling it in chronological order along with the Haydn's list for the earlier ones, then I'll cross-reference it with the London Gazette if possible. Rayment's list combined with Haydn should actually be able to get us all knights in orders eventually, which would be pretty nice, though obviously a lot of work to collate and code in and reference. john k (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
john k, a list now exists, though not finished. List of Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 08:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere near complete, but the formatting is a nice start. I'll work on it! john k (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes added to article[edit]

The following notes were added to the article by an anonymous user (81.98.210.143). I've removed them but have copied the information here for further discussion or verification. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ACM Sir Peter Terry GCB AFC was actually appointed in the 1983 New Years Honours list
Query following to be added to table:-
1988 Sir Brian Hayes
1988 Sir Clive Whitmore CVO
1991 Gen Sir Brian Kenny CBE
1992 Sir Terence Heiser
1993 Gen Lord Ramsbotham CBE
1993 Adm Sir John Kerr
1994 Sir Clifford Boulton
1994 Gen Sir Charles Waters CBE
1995 ACM Sir Michael Alcock KBE
1995 Sir Peter Gregson
1995 Gen Sir John Wilsey CBE
1996 Sir Anthony Battishill
1999 Sir Nigel Wicks CVO CBE
2006 Sir Richard Mottram
Sir Brian David Hayes was created a GCB in the 1988 New Year's Honours list - so far as I am aware he is still aliveSonofsphilip (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 4 external links on Order of the Bath. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Source check}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Order of the Bath. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Order of the Bath. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G HW Bush[edit]

https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=List_of_memorials,_honors,_and_awards_of_George_H._W._Bush#Awards_and_honors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.138.34.227 (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deserving[edit]

The use of honours in the early eighteenth century differed considerably from the modern honours system in which hundreds, if not thousands, of people each year receive honours on the basis of deserving accomplishments.


Like running really, really fast; or being a supermarket boss; or contributing to a prime minister's banknote collection, etc. etc..

Claverhouse (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claverhouse what does that have to do with the Order of the Bath? You might be looking for the Order of the British Empire page to leave your rambling remarks. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 12:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point being made is that the statement in bold (which is in this article) is not NPOV because it asserts as fact that all those receiving modern honours are "deserving", when not everyone would agree with that. Proteus (Talk) 13:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly; thank you Proteus.
Nford24, A ridiculous statement of opinion can certainly be countered on its Talk. Next time, try to think before replying. Claverhouse (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Claverhouse My statement stands. You never specifically raised an objection to the line of text without very loosely using examples that don't fit the award criteria or the reason for past awards within this specific order of chivalry. You should consider wording your statements a little better in future. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be able to understand a clear rebuke to a nonsensical claim. The claim was here, on this order's page, therefore it is properly addressed only here, and not to be tuned to such imbecility that would be baffled by the argument. Such pandering to the uncomprehending mass --- as shown by frequent reductions in the size, and therefore the utility, of Wikipedia articles --- is reducing Wikipedia to Quick Glances at Things for Three-Year-Olds. Claverhouse (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020[edit]

I am reviewing this (old or very old) FA as part of WP:URFA/2020, an effort to determine whether old featured articles still meet the featured article criteria. This very old FA has considerable uncited text, missing as of dates, a listy lead, and some content that may be dated based on old sources used. Per the abundance of the use of the word today, a MOS:CURRENT review is also in order. The word also is often redundant, and often is here; there are other indications that a good copyedit is overdue. Images should not be left-aligned when that offsets a list. I am listing this at WP:FARGIVEN; hopefully improvements can be made sufficient to avoid a Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Bath&oldid=1209454156"