Talk:List of grand masters of the Knights Hospitaller

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Middle Ages Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Malta Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malta, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malta on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaltaWikipedia:WikiProject MaltaTemplate:WikiProject MaltaMalta articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Medieval / Crusades CL‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles CL This article has been rated as CL-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Crusades task force Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles Catholicism Low‑importance List of grand masters of the Knights Hospitaller is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Catholicism task list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

Isn't the style of the Prince and Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta 'His Most Eminent Highness', and not 'His Majesty'?

Why the statement that there is no source cited? The main source is given in the External Links section. Cosal 00:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three times in the last several days User:Principia1 has added the full baptismal names of Fra Andrew Bertie (i.e. listing him as "Andrew Willoughby Ninian Bertie"). In the case of other grand masters we only use multiple baptismal names if they are known this way (e.g. Giovanni Battista Ceschi a Santa Croce). In the case of Ferdinand von Hompesch zu Bolheim we do not call him "Ferdinand Joseph Antoine Herman Louis von Hompesch zu Bolheim". Note also that Andrew Bertie signed his name just "Andrew Bertie".

User:Principia1 has never given an edit summary for this change. When I have reverted, I have written "other GMs are only listed with multiple Christian names if that is the way they are generally known".

Can User:Principia1 explain why he insists on this peculiarity for Andrew Bertie? Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full names should only be used when the individual is known by those names. Otherwise, they do not belong in this list but in the articles of the subjects themselves. I am behind Mr McFerran on this matter. Charles 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all,I am a relative newcomer to Wikpedia editing so I apologise for not yet being fully aware of the protocols involved or how to contact the editors.I have not had to do so before so I have only just begun to be aware of this as a result of you 'correcting' my edit no less than 4 times.

My justification for adding Fra Andrew Bertie's full baptismal names is quite simply because that is how he is referred to on the Sovereign Order of Malta's official website (please see below) and that should be sufficient justification for making the edit.Although I now understand that it would have been useful (or necessary) to have added this explanation at the time of my edit,I confess to being a little astonished that you seem not to be aware of how the SMOM's own official website refers to him!

I now await your justification for rejecting my edit based on the information I have now supplied to you.

http://www.orderofmalta.org/site/granmaestri.asp?idlingua=5

Thank you

Principia1

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Principia1" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Principia1 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the statistics on how Fra Andrew Bertie is called on the official website of the SMOM:

2,660 - "andrew bertie"

148 - "andrew willoughby ninian bertie"

If the numbers were closer, then there might be a case to be made in favour of the additional Christian names; as it is, there isn't much of a case here. On official documents (such as the Constitutional Charter), he always signed "Fra Andrew Bertie".

Since you are relatively new, I will point out that using phrases such as "I confess to being a little astonished that you seem not to be aware", doesn't encourage friendly discussion. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your statistics notwithstanding,the fact is that the list of Grand Masters on the SMOM's official website refers to Fra Andrew with all of his baptisal names and that is the authoritative source,is it not?

I would not presume to suppose that the information supplied in the list on the official website is incorrect.If it is your view that it is,perhaps it would be advisable for you or someone of a similar opinion to inform them accordingly.If the information is then altered,all well and good.Until then,I feel justified in taking the information they have supplied and applying it elsewhere.Are you saying I am unreasonable to do this?

Lastly,I am completely in accordance with you that these discussions should be friendly and constructive and I meant to imply nothing otherwise when I said I was surprised that the entry in the official website had not been taken into account.By the same token,I hope you will refrain from too many comments of the 'You are new here etc.etc.' as I find that to be a little patronising and similarly unhelpful in trying to discuss and resolve our different points of view in a civilized and amicable way.

Yours sincerely

(Principia1 (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

It's an authoritative source for his full name, which we also list in the first line of the article. It is not necessary to include his full name in the article or in our own list. Adam Bishop 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk) [reply]

But I wasn't referring to the article,I repeat that I was following the information supplied in the official website's List of the 79 Grand Masters where it quotes Fra Andrew's full set of names.I consider it to be correct to follow the example of the Order's official website.Everything else is a matter of opinion and I respectfully submit that mine is at least as valid as yours because mine is backed up by the most authoritative source there is.(Principia1 (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

The fact of the matter is that your opinion doesn't follow our style or usage conventions, which are to use the most common name or the article name, even when composing lists. Your comments about an authoritative source are meaningless; we have the Order's list as a source for individuals on the list but we don't have to list people exactly as they do. The Order's website does not dictate how we have to list people on Wikipedia. See, for example, the talk page of Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg. We didn't have to list her as Alexandra, countess of Frederiksborg simply because the "official" source used grevinde and countess in Danish and English and not Grevinde and Countess. This is a difference of style. Charles 16:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain why Fra Giacomo dalla Torre,Lieutenant ad interim from February 7 - March 11 2008 has been removed from the list of Grand Masters? Thank you.(Principia1 (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

I have now restored the above to his place in the aforesaid list.See http://www.orderofmalta.org/site/granmaestri.asp?idlingua=5.(Principia1 (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

The title and the content of the article leads to error.

According to the web page of every single leader of the order between 1803 (the last Grand Master) and 1905 (the last Lieutenant General), the leaders of the order between 1805 and 1879 were not Grand Masters but Lieutenant Generals, because they have been not appointed by the Pope (broadly speaking), but in the content of this article they are all showed as Grand Masters.

I think this article need a clarification in the content, adding the corrrect titles between 1805 and 1879, and in the title of the article itself, which should be changed to "Leaders of the Knights Hospitaller".

I personally added two succession boxes in the article of Giovanni Battista Ceschi a Santa Croce, but changing the title of the page, I think, needs a little bit more discussion. --Albert (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111113211958/http://www.orderofmalta.int/history/680/the-79-grand-masters/?lang=en to http://www.orderofmalta.int/history/680/the-79-grand-masters/?lang=en

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.

• 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) 05:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111009095433/http://www.orderofmalta.int/the-order-and-its-institutions/246/fra-matthew-festing-2/?lang=en to http://www.orderofmalta.int/the-order-and-its-institutions/246/fra-matthew-festing-2/?lang=en

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.

• 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) 01:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Prince chigi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The numbering is a mess. The "official" current numbering is entirely based on websites. They may be "official websites", but the lists are undated and without indication of who made them, they may as well be based on Wikipedia. Actual publications of numbered lists of Grand Masters in the 18th century seem to be pretty consistent, they do not count Gerard, but they do count Caracciolo (32nd). Lists published in the 19th century are all over the place, some of them count Lieutenants, some do not count Caracciolo, most do count Gerard, etc. There is no clean way of giving a Wikipedia-endorsed system of numbering. I used Morris (1884) at first, which has the advantage of being a scholarly but secular source. This source counts Gerard as 1st, does not include Caracciolo, so that von Hompesch is 70th. But I see now that this is in no way the only modern convention, so that I suggest numbering has to be given up altogether, in exchange for a dedicated section discussing the various conventions used historically.

It is very unfortunate that numbering has been included in category names on commons, e.g. "commons:Category:Manuel Pinto de Fonseca (GM 68)" Pinto is given the number 67 explicitly in commons:File:Emmanuelle Pinto.jpg, a portrait apparently published around 1775, and apprarently reprinted in 1962 (and again 2005), but without proper identification of a source. The 1726 portraits also include explicit numbers, e.g. File:Fabrice Carrette.jpg is labelled 42nd (Quarante Deuxieme Gr. M.), and his category is still named commons:Category:Fabrizio del Carretto (GM 43). If numbering is used in the articles, we can at least require that the number used must be that used during the rule of the GM in question, i.e. the 18th-century GMs can be given the numbers they themselves used, with references. This concerns GM from about nr. 50 onward, earlier ones did not number themselves at all. --

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sovereign Military Order of Malta which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have today removed the false statements that the title of prince was only granted in 1880. These statements seem to be based on the title of the Grand Master used on coins. It may be interesting to note how a grand master was referred to a coinage, but this is not determinative of his actual titles. Over the next few weeks I plan to remove the other statements in this list which are also only based on coins. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]