Talk:Accolade

A fact from Accolade appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 May 2008, and was viewed approximately 11,325 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the accolade (pictured) was a ceremony for knighthood in the Middle Ages?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/May.

Wikipedia

Concerns about sources

I noticed that one of the cited sources is "Knights by Justin," which is a work by a fifth-grade student. This is particularly dangerous as (1) this article is now on the Main Page on DYK, and (2) It provides a false sense of security through a seemingly legit endnote. This is not a reliable source; we need something from a book by a scholar (university press, etc.) or article in an academic journal (preferably recent), or at least something from a .edu domain. I'm sure there are medievalists/historians who have written on this ceremony. Neutrality^talk 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out similiar concerns with the ThinkQuest Jr. and Word of the Week sources, which are both unsourced themselves and have no author. Neutrality^talk 04:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just one comment more - These sources aren't good for use pe se, but just as an example of an issue: In the sentence "Initially this was a simple rite often performed on the battlefield, where writers of Romance enjoyed placing it"—does this refer to writers of Romanticism or writers of Romance (genre)? They're quite distinct movements/styles. Neutrality^talk 04:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address these concerns by providing several additional reliable sources. Some examples:

The article incorporates text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.
The International History Project reference, which is run by current and former university professors from around the globe and under the direction of Doctor Robert A. Guisepi (historian and author).
Royal Insights additional references - The official web site of the British Monarchy, written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace. --Doug ^talk 15:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of other sources is very well, but it still doesn't deal with the 13 times non-reliable sources are cited - the "Word of the week," "Knights by Justin," and "Knight's quest" entries. I'm especially concerned with the section that reads:

"When it became formal and Christianized then prior to the ceremony of becoming a knight the candidate had to take a bath to wash off his sins. The accolade that was a knight-to-be would also pray all night in front of the altar with a sword in his arms. He would then attend Mass the next morning to receive a sermon on the responsibilities of knighthood." (entirely cited to the fifth-grade Justin)

The other major part I'm concerned about is the "promotion steps" section, which cites Justin for each step in addition to the International History Project cite (the latter is acceptable, although still not ideal because it does not cite its sources).

Side note. I am slightly confused - in the intro section it says that the accolade ceremony "initiated candidates into knighthood," but in the "Promotion steps" section it implies that an accolade ceremony merely marked the candidate's iniation into knighthood training. Neutrality^talk 18:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out your concerns so that these issues can be cleared up. I have removed the Justin reference. I shortened the intro (even though these particular words were edited in by another) to follow close to the 1911 reference. In the section Promotion steps it is worded as "A special kind of trained soldier,..." - not training. Under the "Who we are" section of the International History Project it gives the Primary Sources as well as a large list of Source Materials Used. The site has been quoted by USA Today, CBC and PBS. Will that work for you? --Doug ^talk 19:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references

The natural starting place for an article on this topic should be Maurice Keen's Chivalry (1984), which is widely considered the authoritative work on the subject. It's available online on Amazon; I would in particular recommend chapter IV - "The ceremony of dubbing to knighthood". Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 12:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong picture

The picture af Jean II and the "adoubement" looks convincing but in reality it is an illustration of a scene described by Froissart where parliament (the kneeling figures) asks the king to break his word and to refuse the payment of the huge ransom after the battle of Crécy and the peace of Brétigny.

The chivalrous king got so annoyed that he drew his sword in anger.

Robert Prummel (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the BnF - follow the link on the image page. But you might be right. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about the description of the Bibliotheque National de France. It is the reason why I did not remove the picture. The scene with the angry king is described by Froissart. Maybe I am wrong but look at the picture.

The artists of that day were not that accomplished in composition or depiction of emotions but who is being knighted? The three of them?

The king is facing three deputies, one of them holding a scroll.
The deputies are dressed as members of parliament.
no-one in the scene is part of a ritual.

The text on the page can teach us more but I can't read this medieval script...

Robert Prummel (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the picture until it is determined that it actually applies to Accolade - conferring knighthood. --Doug ^talk 12:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to rely on the text beneath the miniature, the inclusion of the image seems justified. A Google search brings up this edition of the Grandes chroniques de France. The chapter begins with king Jean knighting several persons:

"Du couronnement du roy Jehan, des chevaliers qu'il fist et de la mort monseigneur Raoul conte d'Eu et de Guynes, lors Connestable de France. Après le trespassement du roy Phelippe de Vallois régna pour luy Jehan, son ainsné fils ; et fu couronné en l'église de Rains (...). Et après ce couronnement, fist le roy pluseurs chevaliers nouveaux, c'est assavoir (=And after this coronation the king made several new knights, to know): Charles, son ainsné fils, dauphin de Vienne ; Loys, son secont fils ; le conte d'Alençon ; le conte d'Estampes ; monseigneur Jehan d'Artois..."

Based on this text there seems little reason to doubt the aptness of this picture as an illustration of this article. Iblardi (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I am the one that removed the picture, so as far as I am concerned you can place the image back in whereever you think it is appropriate and where you think it looks good. Thanks for the info. --Doug ^talk 22:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miniaturists of this period often reused compositions for quite different scenes; it may have represented the other scene in another Ms. Can anyone read the surrounding text? I can only make out "le connetable de France" at the end of the red. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rubric beneath the miniature is the first line (in fact the chapter heading) of the French text that I cited above, with very slight variations (e.g. "et de la mort de mes(seigneurs)" instead of "et de la mort monseigneur"). It contains a couple of abbreviations: the "chlrs" at the start of the second line, for instance, represents "chevaliers". Just have a look at it yourself.

The three lines together read:

Le p(ri)mier p(ar?)le du co(u?)ronnem(en)t du Roy J(e)ha(n) (et) des

ch(eva)l(ie)rs qui fist et de la mort de mes(seigneurs) Roul co(n)te

deu et guines Lors connestable de france

Iblardi (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken another look at the picture I am still doubtfull... the three men are in my view petioners, one of them is holding a piece of parchment. But are they dressed as members of parliament? That could give us an important clue.Robert Prummel (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but the garments they wear look fairly plain to me: a robe with a cowl, and a belt, almost as if they were monks; only the coloration is different. The type of clothing would be in line with the rituals of purification that would supposedly have preceded the accolade. Iblardi (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text directly under the image confirms that it is the king dubbing knights: "le premier parle du couronnement du roy jehan et des chevaliers qui fist et de la mort messire roul conte d'eu et de guines lors connestable de france." Roughly: The first (paragraph/section) deals with the coronation of king John and the knights he made, and with the death of Sir Raoul, Count of Eu, and with Guines, then Constable of France." So the composition may be surprising indeed to some eyes, but the context of the image leaves no doubt. However, there are plenty of other, less controversial representations of accolades in medieval manuscripts. here's one of Lancelot: File:Http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/ConsulterElementNum?O=IFN-8100001&E=JPEG&Deb=32&Fin=32&Param=C And it's only one of the 28 different illuminations you can pick from with the key-word "adoubement" on the BNF's searchable database (called mandragore).Claire Jardillier (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Claire Jardillier.[reply]

Conferring knighthood?

Does the accolade actually "confer" knighthood? I ask because whenever new knighthoods are announced, the invidivuals can immediately be called Sir/Dame and use their postnominals (where they apply), and the wives of knights are immediately Lady. If the person dies before the opportunity of receiving the accolade, they die no less a knight than one who did receive the accolade. So, what actual effect does the accolade have? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a related question, about Anglican clergy. They do not receive the accolade and do not use "Sir". I've often read that these 2 things are connected, i.e. the reason they do not use "Sir" is that they do not receive the accolade. The temptation, therefore, is to believe that the only knights who can use "Sir" are those who receive the accolade. But that's clearly not the case, as my example above about knights who die before the opportunity of receiving the accolade shows. My point is that we should be saying that clergy do not use "Sir" and do not receive the accolade, but the two things are not related. Or are they? Comments? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine de Swynford?

Is the woman in the picture Katherine de Swynford, because it's the picture seen on the cover of Katherine, by Anya Seton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.42.167 (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. I sure don't know.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"a knighting-stool"

A "knighting-stool" must be a piece of Gothic revival furniture: imagine finding such an item in a late medieval inventory!--Wetman (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vigil

Added a link to Vigil#Medieval_knights since:

During the Middle Ages, a squire on the night before his knighting ceremony was expected to take a cleansing bath, fast, make confession, and then hold an all-night vigil of prayer in the chapel, preparing himself in this manner for life as a knight. For the knighting ceremony, he dressed in white as a symbol for purity and over that was placed a red robe to show his readiness to be wounded.

Kortoso (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Accolade. 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/20080323125405/http://www.royalinsight.gov.uk/OutPut/Page4877.asp to http://www.royalinsight.gov.uk/OutPut/Page4877.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chronique.com/Library/Glossaries/glossary-KCT/gloss_k.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828200806/http://www.regalis.com/malta/knights.htm to http://www.regalis.com/malta/knights.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207065040/http://forum.seslisozluk.com/archive/index.php/t-246.html to http://forum.seslisozluk.com/archive/index.php/t-246.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) 22:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Accolade. 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: 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) 12:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. See the investigation subpage and WP:DCGAR for more information. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. XOR'easter (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same side of the blade?

Quote:

...The monarch then raises the sword just up over the apprentice's head, flips it counterclockwise so that the same side of the blade will come in contact with the knight's body, ...

Wouldn't flipping the sword make the other side of it come in contact with the knight's body? E L Yekutiel (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]