Talk:Order of Saint Joachim

What on earth

The people of this Order expect to be taken seriously, but, for heaven's sake, what for? They do charitable stuff, but they should just change this into a charitable foundation instead of going under the guise of an actual Order. Apparently they take membership from whoever can pay the annual thirty bucks, which is silly.J.J. Bustamante 10:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind the charade

• I do not mind their "sillyness". If calling yourself an order of knighthood adds more fun and stability to a charitable organisation then why not? Why should only princes of countries that were abolished decades ago be the founders of orders of knighthood? In the middle ages any knight or group of reputable people could do so! William the Marshall for example.

The obvious smokescreens in this article, that I started but that has since been extended by what seems to have been a Knight of Saint Joachim called "Montfort" (he used the frase "we were etc," thus betraying himself),are the following:

• The order was extinct for a long time. With what right was it rekindled?
• Who is Helmut von Braundle-Falkensee? Is there a family of that name? What right did he have to reinstitute this order?

If the answer on the last question is "none", then the order is indeed "self styled". But never mind, I wish them good luck and many happy chapters.

Robert Prummel 01:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A slight edit

• I have inserted quotation marks around the title of Levett Hanson, as he was never actually knighted in England. A native of Yorkshire, and classmate of Admiral Nelson's at Paston School in Norfolk, Hanson moved to Europe, where he shuttled between various royal courts. The designation of 'Sir,' implying knighthood, seems to be merely honorific. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A slight correction on my earlier post. Levett Hanson was apparently accorded the honor of a knighthood of a foreign court, and such was recorded in the annals of the College of Arms. I have appended a footnote to the original source.MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Count Theo Branislav-Bey P.Hd (Oslo & Prague) and the Order of St Joachim

During December last year I contacted the Grand Prior of the Order of St Joachim who replied postively. I sent off my cheque, the whole of my C.V. and later a 10,000 word essay on Count Theo Branislav-Bey that I had taken a considerable amount to research and my Wife typed out for me, and sent it directly to the 'Grand Master' and waited and waited and waited.

Eventually I sent an email inquiring on the progress of my application. Within two days I received an email back informing me I was not successful - thereafter being 'totally blanked' on each of my several emails sent.

My point here is not to moan or be bewitched with 'sour grapes' - no, on the contrary - you can't win them all in life, but this fine Order has its way, its rules and its code of conduct. It has it's own history - quite interesting really, in some ways - and now, with Lord Nelson, another real life War hero (Branislav-Bey) who liberated 750 jewish Kids from the notorious childrens hospital at Aplerbec, can be added - and all authenticated in the same way.

But with all this going on a hint from one of its active and full members would indicate that caution and a common sense approach really must apply. His question was a simpe one 'how many members does the Order have' - his answer was blanked. Another (marked up as anonymous) asked why the Orders site has so many advertisements attached to it - some apparently with lewd or unsuitable contents -again it was blanked. Yet another member - a man of the cloth - asked ' what next for the order' and again the same thing happened - blanked

Mmmmm - We live and learn!!

Mike Sales —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Sales (talk • contribs) 00:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Other Orders

Interestingly a couple of the Order of St Joachim's leading members have researched and listed for their colleagues the names of other Orders. It is quite a list and worthy of consideration - even if simply for the insight...however alongside that same list must be read the observations made by the International Commission for Nobility & Royalty The two are not complimentary but both well worth the look for comparison

Mike SalesMike Sales (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide info on the "International Commision" you cite. Calypso Joe (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

About this order

Hello, cuz. Yep, had the same problem. Lifes a bitch, innit? Sat in the dunny all night just thinking about it-who is this Helmut von Falkoncee bloke, anyway? Another bloody wingeing pom or simply changed his name by deed poll years ago for the price of a cold tinny. And who the christ is Branislav-Bey. A dog might be born in a stable, but you can't necessarily call it an 'orse, can ya? Both tarred with the same brush, I suppose, and all in the name of charity. Possums arse, really, innit. Regards from down under. TS

Who was Helmut von Falkensee? He is not in any list of German or Austrian nobility. And what about gap in order history between 1850 and 1929? And what was reorganization in 1929 and 1948? Too many questions, too few answers. --Yopie 11:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The most striking point, however, is that after telling the order's story up to ca.1800. Article give no further history at all and no explanation how the Grand Master Helmut von Bräundle-Falkensee (whose family was never in the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, at least not before 1991)is supposed to be linked to the earlier ones. He was Grand Master of bogus Order of Saint-Andrew, too.

One can cite from Poetical Works By Thomas Moore (see [1]: Title, insignia etc....been authorised by British court, but since then, this sanction of the order had been withdrawn.

So, for me this looks, that there was original Order, but this order disappear in 19. century. And "von Falkensee" reorganisation was probably "recreation" without direct connection to original order. --Yopie 13:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nationmaster

Yopie, Nationmaster is just an older reprint of Wikipedia. Not valid for an article to reference itself as a source. As a courtesy, I moved your Sainty reference down to the sentence about Sainty, where it belongs. ***You're Welcome!***Vote Obama Today!*** Calypso Joe (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm, but about other sources and qustions? What about "von Falkensee"? And what about gap between cca 1850 and 1948? --Yopie 16:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not the issue - your fake reference is. I never raised the issue. Your speculation onf 1850 to 1948 is Original Research. Very naughty of you. Calypso Joe (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I must oppose your answer. It´s not speculation, it´s the gap. "von Falkensee" was bogus "count" and the gap is and was The Gap. Your are without arguments, references etc. --Yopie 00:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

We are not arguing about the same thing. Your topic continues to drift. My argument was about NationMaster. Calypso Joe (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No doubt this is a fake order

The modern "Order of Saint Joachim" is a "self-styled". I doubt any genuine historians consider it a "Confraternal Order of Chivalry". The introduction and article should distinguish between the real historical order and the modern fake. One of the best sources confirming the identity of real and fake orders is the "International Commission on Orders of Chivalry".Royalcourtier (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Order of Saint Joachim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080413111744/http://www.loge-carl-zum-felsen.de:80/entstehung.html to http://www.loge-carl-zum-felsen.de/entstehung.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)