Talk:Royal Victorian Order

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

}}

Royal Victorian Order in Canada?[edit]

On list of post-nominal letters, it says a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order uses the letters RVO... but on here it says they use CVO...? Is there a separate Royal Victorian Order in Canada or something of that sort? ugen64 18:33, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

CVO is the correct answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianfflynn (talk • contribs) 08:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People who are not members[edit]

According to http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/celebrity-chef-serves-up-fake-resume/2008/03/04/1204402403985.html the celebrity chef Robert Irvine is not a member of the RVO. He is the presenter of Dinner: Impossible on the Food Network. He recently admitted to lying about being made a Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order and receiving a castle from the Queen. Vk2tds (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility[edit]

the eligibility section only talks about Canadian eligibility. more countries should be added. does one have to be a commonwealth citizen? I ask because in the Tom Clancy novels, Jack Ryan, an American, is made an honorary Knight of this order. and even thourgh it is not recognized in the US, the Brits in the books always call him Sir John. Rds865 (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, can someone pse clarify the position regarding foreign nationals and this order? At [[1]] we read that this French airman held the "Croix de l'Ordre Royal de Victoria". I don't see "Cross" mentioned as such in the en/Wiki article. Is there someone with a list (or who can tell us how to gain access to a list) in order to confirm this point?Mikeo1938 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's perfectly possible for foreigners to be appointed as honorary members of all the grades. example Opera hat (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Canadian probably can't receive an honorary award in the KCVO/DCVO and GCVO grades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.151.119 (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign's right to confer honours[edit]

It simply isn't true that the Order of the Garter was 'always' in the personal gift of the Sovereign. George V could only confer it upon advice of the PM - it was Elizabeth II who was again allowed to confer it on her own will alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.63.66 (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a delayed response(!), but it was surely George VI, as the change happened in 1946. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone except Canadians[edit]

My understanding is that Australian citizens no longer receive knighthoods either; at least none are bestowed by the Australian government under current policy. Can someone confirm that Australians *are* in fact eligible to receive the highest two honours? Slac speak up! 10:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure about the two highest but certainly some Australian were awarded some of the lower grades in the 2011 new year list (eg Royal Victorian Medal (Silver) to Andrew Botto, Household Attendant, Government House, Canberr5a, Australia). The RVO is the gift of the Queen not the governments so in theory she could still give it to anybody. MilborneOne (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that that's the theory, but if in practice the Canadian government's "Canadians don't receive knighthoods" policy is explicitly mentioned as preventing them from receiving them under this order, I'd assume the equivalent Australian policy would have exactly the same effect. IIRC the practice of Australians receiving knighthoods ended in the mid 1980's. Slac speak up! 11:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Australian Labor governments have never recommended knighthoods. Labor was in power federally between 1983 and 1996. The state governments used to make their own separate recommendations for imperial honours, and the Liberal-National state governments often recommended knighthoods regardless of who was in power federally. I think it was early during Paul Keating's time as Prime Minister (1991-96) that it was officially announced from Buck Palace that the Queen would not be giving any more knighthoods or other UK honours to Australians on the recommendation of any Australian state or federal government, since the Order of Australia was designed to be the sole system for Australian honours.

However, she is unrestricted when it comes to knighthoods and other honours in her personal gift (such as the OM that John Howard recently got). Also, Australians can still be the recipients of knighthoods and other honours recommended by the governments of other Commonwealth Realms (whether because the recipient is a dual citizen or because they have a particular association with that place).

Living Australian knights and dames tells me that there have been at least 7 Australians who've received knighthoods (including a KCVO) since 1990, the last one as recently as 2011. Also, three new dames were created in that time, the last in 2010. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 21:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the knighthoods/damehoods received since the last dynastic award to Ninian Stepehen (Order of the Garter) in 1994 have only been to dual citizens of the UK and Australia. In other words it was probably only because they were also UK citizens that they received them. Dynastic Knighthoods/damehoods to Australians have been effectively dormant since 1994, despite the fact that they have been ostensibly an official part of the Australian honours system since then. The Queen probably knew that awarding these knighthoods (for much longer after Imperial awards had ended in 1992) would have inflamed the knighthood debate. Whether Abbott's revival of knighthoods/damehoods in the Order of Australia will also revive the awarding of the Garter or knighthood/damehood grades in the Royal Victorian Order, remains to be seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.151.119 (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can personally guarantee that the Royal Victorian Order is still awarded to Australians. There are about 2-4 new appointments every year. People working for the various Governors and the Governor-General as well a aides and equerry's are all from time to time made MVO's and LVO's. The personal aid to visiting royals are usually made an MVO about six months later. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 11:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying the Royal Victorian Order isn't still being awarded to Australians, only that the two highest grades (GCVO and KCVO/DCVO) have not been awarded to an Australian (apart from dual citizens of the UK) since David Smith in 1990. There were no knighthood/damehood awards in the Royal Victorian Order in the Queen's Birthday honours list for Australia this year (2014). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.158.2 (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MVO?[edit]

Is it correct that MVO redirects here? There is no mention of this acronym in the article. Invertzoo (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MVO is the post-nominal for Member, the fifth class, of the Royal Victorian Order. It is found three times in the article. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oooops, yes, thanks EricSerge, you are quite right, I did not look far enough into the article. MVO is not mentioned in the intro or first section. By the way, I made MVO into a redirect page, as there is at least one other meaning for the acronym which now also has an article. Invertzoo (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just need to rember that about 100 links to MVO will need to be sorted out as well. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MilborneOne for the reminder. I believe I have corrected all of those links this morning, except for a couple of mentions on talk pages which I thought I should maybe leave as is. Drop me a line on my talk page if anything else needs fixing. Invertzoo (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I was going to help fix any outstanding but you seem to have found most of them, probably best to leave the talk page ones. MilborneOne (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medal (RVM)[edit]

I was just reading through the article about the RVO at www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/RoyalVictorianOrder.aspx and it does not list the Royal Victorian Medal as being a part of the Order. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 11:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right it is not actually part of the order it is just associated with it. MilborneOne (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it back to being a stand alone article along the lines of the British Empire Medal. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not accurate and the change was premature, one needs to keep in mind what an order is. An order is, in essence, an institution of chivalry or honour comprising its officers (ie those with some form of governance role), membership (those appointed to the order at whatever level) and associated practices, regalia, etc. Hence one is appointed to the order with a specific grade (also referred to as class; eg Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, (capital 'm') Member of the Royal Victorian Order, etc) and can't be awarded a 'Member of the Royal Victorian Order' (despite what the media and many other often ignorantly write). It is also why posthumous appointment is generally not available. Notwithstanding, many of these orders also have medals of the order (in one or more grades). These are no less a part of the order than any of the other elements, however those upon whom they are conferred do not thereby gain (small 'm') membership of the order. So it is the recipient who ends up affiliated with the order (but not a member) rather than the medal itself that is affiliated. The RVM is such a medal and is covered by the statutes of the Royal Victorian Order (refer "No. 28607". The London Gazette. 14 May 1912. and "No. 34290". The London Gazette. 02 June 1936. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)). Likewise the British Empire Medal (which is not the official title) is part of the Order of the British Empire and is covered by the Order's statutes (refer "No. 35141". The London Gazette. 18 April 1941.) If a medal is established outside the statutes of an order, then there may be a case to argue that that medal is affiliated with the order rather than a part of the order. Having recently checked some of my references, issues with the BEM article aren't just restricted to claiming it is affiliated to the order (rather than part of it) but also to the whole historical development. I will have a look at this when I get more time. AusTerrapin (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just making the point that the medal is not listed as being part of the order on the Queen's official website is all....Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 22:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I boldly made some improvements to the sickly stub/start that it was. If there is a consensus that my efforts were in vain, then revert them. That is the beauty of Wikipedia. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, apologies if my response came across as brusk - I know both of you edit in good faith as does MilbourneOne. Eric, unfortunately you got in just before I was able to post my reply (got an edit conflict when I tried to send it). So it wasn't unable to catch you in time. No problems with WP:BOLD - my remark was intended more as an ironic statement and certainly not as a criticism. The work in updating the details on the medal is certainly not wasted, the question is more one of whether to have a separate article or merge into the article on the order (which would be my preference). AusTerrapin (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number of living members?[edit]

Does anyone know approximately how many members of all grades belong to the RVO? I know that the RVO, unlike some Orders such as the Order of Merit and the Order of the Companions of Honour, has no limitation on the number of members. So superficially, one might expect that it would have approximately the same ratio between grades as that of the Order of the British Empire. That Order, with five grades, has 100 GBEs, 845 KBEs, 8,960 CBEs, about 100,000 OBEs and MBEs; roughly 1:10:100:10,000. Since the RVO is stated as having 62 members of GCVO (the top of its five grades), one might extrapolate that there would be about 500 KCVOs, 5,000 CVOs, and 50,000 LVOs and MVOs. However, that seems unlikely to me, as each member of the Order would have to have some connection with a member of the royal family. Does anyone know any actual numbers? Bricology (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess that the best way to get an estimate would be to look through the last, say, five honours lists, and count how many people were appointed to each grade. That should give you a reasonably accurate impression of the ratios involved (although you'd have to take promotions within the order into account). (As an aside, presumably you meant 1:10:100:1,000 in relation to the Order of the British Empire.) Proteus (Talk) 10:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Royal Victorian Order. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Royal Victorian Order. 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) 05:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Royal Victorian Order. 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) 22:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admission of Women[edit]

Can we find the Gazette reference for the change in statute which allowed Dames to be appointed? It doesn't seem to be in here. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Australian order precedence is circular[edit]

Officer of the Order of Australia precedes RVO Commander which is outranked by RVO Knight/Dame Commander which precedes Officer of the Order of Australia. This is circular and needs attention from an Australian editor. Ross Fraser (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both your statement and the article are logically correct. Article says the order is: Knight/Dame Commander RVO, Officer OA, Commander RVO, which is linear: 1,2,3. You say "Officer of the Order of Australia precedes RVO Commander which is outranked by RVO Knight/Dame Commander which precedes Officer of the Order of Australia", which is logically equivalent to: "2 precedes 3 which is outranked by 1 which precedes 2", i.e. 1,2,3. DrKay (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This may be pedantic but I presume you are referring to the Australian Order of Wear. At one time Australia did call it the Order of Precedence but that title has not been used for many years. Anthony Staunton (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stars[edit]

"Knights and Dames Grand Cross and Knights and Dames Commander have their crosses surrounded by a star: for the former, an eight-pointed silver star, and for the latter, an eight-pointed silver Maltese cross with silver rays between each arm." Surely this is inaccurate -- the star is a separate item from the cross, and (as is usual) is worn on the breast, while the cross is worn as described earlier in the paragraph. 216.255.171.122 (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awarded by[edit]

"The British monarch" neither aligns with the lede of the article nor is correct. The monarch of a foreign nation doesn't induct Canadians into the RVO, a part of the Canadian honours system. See the information about the RVO published by the Governor General of Canada (the Chancellery of Honours being part of the Office of the Secretary to the GG): "The Order may be conferred by The Queen of Canada to recognize services rendered to the Sovereign or to members of the Royal Family",[2] which is repeated on the Government of Canada's site—[3]—and the government of Saskatchewan's.[4] The Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia states: "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada has also invested a small number of Nova Scotians with the Royal Victorian Order at Government House."[5] In The Order of Canada: Genesis of an Honours System: "the Royal Victorian Order is part of the Canadian Honours System, and the Queen makes appointments as Queen of Canada, for services in right of Canada."[6] The above isn't attempting to say the infobox should say "the Canadian monarch", only to prove that "the British monarch" isn't accurate. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be British monarch, as there's no such title/position of Monarch of the Commonwealth realms. However, I'll offer a compromise that we use Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox says nothing about "position". It simply says, "awarded by". "The monarch of the Commonwealth realms" is a neutral and accurate description of the person who "awards" membership in the order. Well, "the monarch in right of each Commonwealth realm" is the most accurate, but it's rather wordy. "Elizabeth II" is also correct, though it might imply the order exists only so long as she's queen. That might isn't strong enough to compel me to oppose "Elizabeth II". It's merely a possible concern. Just "the British monarch" is demonstrably false. The proof is right in the comment you were ostensibly replying to. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject that covers such medals, would be the ideal place for such an RFC. This route would be better then having edit-warring & resulting blocks. "Monarch of the Commonwealth realms? is a complete non-starter. As for the proposed compromise? Elizabeth II can always be replaced latter, by Charles III, then William V, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I'll have to mention that you've made recent additions to the body of this article, without prior consensus. I'll allow others to judge for themselves if it was a correct move or not. Mostly, I'm going to give you (another) platform to present your arguments. GoodDay (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BOLD. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let others judge that, at the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I 'might' have to open up an RFC, concerning such medals. GoodDay (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think highlighting "British monarch", "Canadian monarch", "Australian monarch", and "New Zealand monarch" is not useful and creates a lot of clutter in the lead. Since, these offices are held by one person we may use a term that can cover all these positions. Not to mention that the Royal Victorian Order is also awared by the Jamaican monarch, Bahamian monarch, Papua New Guinean monarch, Belizean monarch, Solomon Islands monarch, Vincentian monarch, Saint Lucian monarch, Saint Kitts and Nevis monarch, Antiguan and Barbudan monarch, Grenadian monarch, and the Tuvaluan monarch (linked to recipients). There you have it, all 15 realms. Peter Ormond 💬 07:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See RFC being held on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the British monarch, Canadian monarch, Australian monarch, and New Zealand monarch" isn't my preference, either. However, an editor insisted on going strictly by references and I followed suit only to correct, as best as possible, without reverting. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 08:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can not add links in the “Known for” field in table entries.[edit]

In the “Current Knights and Dames Grand Cross” section, I have been trying to make three table entries consistent with links to the relevant Wikipedia page by changing the “Known for” field to ((Commonwealth Secretary-General | Secretary-General of the Commonwealth of Nations)) but with brackets instead of the parentheses.

Unfortunately, the preview then did not show all of the rows of the table - so I didn’t proceed.

Perhaps I have introduced the “|” separator incorrectly.

I would appreciate someone with more skills than I have making the changes.

Peter

202.168.33.73 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Peter, you can copy and paste this. There is no gap between the seperator and the words if that was what was going wrong. Secretary-General of the Commonwealth of Nations Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 03:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precedence for New Zealand[edit]

As at today (Friday, 2 December 2022) the list is a nonsense. In particular, the contents of the first and third columns (preceding and succeeding) are woefully out of date.

Precedence for each grade of an order in Aotearoa New Zealand is taken the date of establishment of that order. Other than RVO and NZOM [Aotearoa New Zealand royal honours] gives dates for Garter, Thistle, Order of Merit and then the honours particular to Aotearoa New Zealand.

As Garter and Thistle are awarded for personal service in England (and Wales) or Scotland, the chances of them having precedence over honours awarded in Aotearoa New Zealand would be small, there is little point is spending any more time and space on them in this article.

As the Orders of Ss Michael and George and British Empire are not listed as in the having any importance in Aotearoa New Zealand, there is no basis for including them in a table in this section.

There have been some RVO awards to Kiwis for service in Aotearoa New Zealand (such as a Minister of Internal Affairs at the conclusion of a Royal Tour) with the creation of the New Zealand Order of Merit (NZOM) in 1996 I suspect they will fade away.

So, only two columns are needed: RVO and NZOM

My tuppence worth for discussion is:

RVO 1 --- 2 --- 3 GCVO 4 KCVO/DCVO 5 CVO 6 LVO 7 MVO 8 --- 9 ---

NZOM 1 OM 2 ONZ 3 GNZM 4 KNZM/DNZM 5 CNZM 6 ONZM 7 MNZM 8 QSO 9 QSM

PS: I, and many others, note the ribbons worn by the former Prince of Wales (and presumably a practice continued as Monarch) are for them to be displayed in sequence of award. Because of the distinctive nature of the QSO ribbon, it is easy to pick it out when worn - it is closest to the lapel. AlwynWellington (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you've put this on the correct articles talk page. But, For New Zealands honours, they are awarded by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Sovereign (but all awards are made in the name of the sovereign). The DPMC does maintain the order of precedence for New Zealand and currently places the Orders of the Garter and Thistle in position 3 and 4 respectively, immediately following on from the Victoria Cross for New Zealand, New Zealand Cross and George Cross, and immediately preceding the Order of the Bath, Order of Merit and finally the New Zealand Order of Merit. So the article is correct in its present form. See [7]. Charles honours are worn according to the United Kingdoms order of precedence, the QSO is a commonwealth decoration, which sits before jubilee medals, see List of titles and honours of Charles III. Hope this helps. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The New Zealand Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet issues the Order of Wear for New Zealand see https://dpmc.govt.nz/our-programmes/new-zealand-royal-honours/honours-lists-and-recipients/information-honours-recipients/order-of-wear-orders-decorations-medals-in-new-zealand Australia and I presume New Zealand issued THE ORDER OF WEARING ... HONOURS AND AWARDS for many years but in recent years both countries have used "Order of Wear" instead of the "Order of Precedence". The last Australian Order of Precedence for Honours and Awards was gazetted in 1993 and I may be wrong but shortly after that the change to Order of Wear occured. However in the thirty years since, there has only been one consolidated Australian Order of Wear gazetted which was in 2007.
The Order of Wear is different to the Commonwealth Table of Precedence last issued by the Governor-General of Australia in 2022 which does not mention decorations but only orders. It is listed as paragraph "32. Recipients of awards and honours at Knight Bachelor and above according to The Order of Wearing Australian Honours and Awards, as notified by the Governor-General from time to time, and recipients of equivalent awards according to the date on which the award was announced." Anthony Staunton (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. THE ORDER OF WEARING ... HONOURS AND AWARDS should be THE ORDER OF PRECEDENCE... HONOURS AND AWARDS Anthony Staunton (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need advice - Heraldry[edit]

At the request of an editor, I added an RVO circlet to the arms of the 27th chief of clan Cameron I am not 100% sure if this is correct. Donald Angus Cameron of Lochiel the 27th chief is CVO. Do CVO's get circlets or is that reserved for the rank above (Knights - KCVO)? Czar Brodie~commonswiki (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience no. The only example I've ever seen of any second grade (KCB, KCMG, KBE etc), including a KCVO having a circulate was Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex which is different [8] to the GCVO circulate (the one you used). Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 07:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I updated the image back to Czar Brodie~commonswiki (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Victorian_Order&oldid=1210140339"