# A question about knighthoods **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 28, 2009, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-knighthoods/515405 "2009-10-28T06:28:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-knighthoods/515405/1 "2009-10-28T06:28:08Z")
Originally, being a knight was a military accolade, with religious overtones. In early Medieval times, one was knighted after proving oneself as a warrior, and after a childhood spent in training with one’s horse, sword, armour and other things. At some point - I don’t know exactly when, but maybe sometime during the early Renaissance - knighthoods were given out to people who didn’t necessarily have any military connection. It was a title given out to very important people, but not necessarily military ones. My question is, firstly, when exactly did this change occur, and secondly, was there a large outcry of complaint from knights who had earned their title through military valor? ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-knighthoods/515405/2 "2009-10-28T10:54:42Z")
[http://www.greeleynet.com/~maxalla/OKHSSub/kthd.html](http://www.greeleynet.com/~maxalla/OKHSSub/kthd.html) scroll to the bottom. ---
**Author:** ![Hypno-Toad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b2d939/32.png) [@Hypno-Toad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypno-Toad)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-knighthoods/515405/3 "2009-10-28T18:33:39Z")
I find that link dubious and overly romantic. In Gies _The Knight In History_, it’s shown that in the early medieval times “knight” simply referred to a warrior who fought mounted. There was no social position attached to the term. The French and spanish terms for knight are Chevallier and Caballero which both mean simply “Horseman.” Likewise, in German they’re called Ritters, or “Riders.” The only specialness attached to the position was due strictly to the superior fighting ability of a mounted warrior. They got paid more than foot soldiers and this translated to greater social status over time as wealth is wont to do. If a peon managed to steal or otherwise acquire a horse, sword, and armor during the early medieval period, he was as much a knight as any other mounted warrior. But more often, knights came from the upper classes since those were the ones who could afford the expensive gear in the first place. As the middle ages wore on, the idea of chivalry began to really take hold and make knighthood a matter of social class as much as fighting ability. Increasingly, your daddy had to be a knight in order for you to become one. Otherwise, you were simply a man at arms, even if mounted. Chivalry, orginally a sort of “fraternity of fighting men” kind of thinking, began taking on the romantic images of virtuous men fighting for the favor of their lady, reciting poetry, etc… In 1066, a knight was just a brute and that’s all that was expected of him. In 1485, he’d be expected to be a gentleman as well. It was during the later middle ages and the rennaissance when the nobility enacted laws intended to bring back the good old days when peasants knew their place and didn’t have enough money to wield economic influence. Laws such as sumptuary regulations that determined what the various social classes could wear. There were indeed nobles and knights who did not like the idea of a wealthy commoner buying his knighthood. It might have begun with the very first rich merchant to do so. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-knighthoods/515405/4 "2009-10-28T20:21:08Z")
According to [this cite](http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/glossary/personal-rule.htm), it dates back to at least the 1200s. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-knighthoods/515405/5 "2009-10-28T21:14:24Z")
> [@Hypno-Toad](#): > > In 1066, a knight was just a brute and that’s all that was expected of him. In 1485, he’d be expected to be a gentleman as well. I think it was more like, in 800, all the Knight had to be was capable. In 1200, the Knight had to be downright skilled and well-armed. In 1500, he had to be educated and have polite court manners. In 1800, he had to be a ballroom dancer. In 2000, he had to have a platinum record. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-knighthoods/515405/6 "2009-10-30T19:54:28Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > was there a large outcry of complaint from knights who had earned their title through military valor? > **[Nobility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility)** > > Nobility is a social class found in many societies that have an aristocracy. It is normally appointed by and ranked immediately below royalty. Nobility has often been an estate of the realm with many exclusive functions and characteristics. The characteristics associated with nobility may constitute substantial advantages over or relative to non-nobles or simply formal functions (e.g., precedence), and vary by country and by era. Membership in the nobility, including rights and responsibilities, ... > [@](#): > > In France, influential high bourgeois, most particularly the members of the parlements (courts of justice), obtained noble titles from the king. The old nobility of military origin, the _noblesse d’épée_ (“nobility of the sword”) became increasingly irritated by thisnewer _noblesse de robe_ (“nobility of the gown”). In the last years of the ancien régime, before the French Revolution, the old nobility, intent on keeping its privileges, had pushed for restrictions of certain offices and orders of chivalry to noblemen who could demonstrate that their family had enough “noble quarterings” . . . “My ancestor was a war hero. Your ancestor was only a bureaucrat.” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-knighthoods/515405/7 "2009-10-30T20:05:22Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > I think it was more like, in 800, all the Knight had to be was capable. In 1200, the Knight had to be downright skilled and well-armed. In 1500, he had to be educated and have polite court manners. In 1800, he had to be a ballroom dancer. > > In 2000, he had to have a platinum record. 😃 …or make a substantial contribution to the P.M.'s party… :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2009, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-knighthoods/515405/8 "2009-10-31T20:33:46Z")
What **mbh** posted applies to the German nobility as well. Most continental nobility, unlike the British version, included untitled nobles roughly analogous to the untitled gentry of England where they were regarded as gentlemen and ladies, but technically still commoners. I supposed Mr Darcy and Mr Bennett from _Pride and Prejudice_ are fairly representative of this class. In Germany there was the _Uradel_ (Old Nobility) and the _Briefadel_ (nobility by creation beginning in the early modern period). A family of the _Uradel_ carried more social prestige, even if they were only Ritters or didn’t even have a title, than a Baron or Count of the _Briefadel_. ---
**Author:** ![Hypno-Toad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b2d939/32.png) [@Hypno-Toad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypno-Toad)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-knighthoods/515405/9 "2009-10-31T21:00:38Z")
> [@mbh](#): > > [Nobility - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility) > > “My ancestor was a war hero. Your ancestor was only a bureaucrat.” 🙂 I noticed that in the British parliament, the House of Commons had statues of men in scholarly robes. The House of Lords had statues of knights in armor. I guess they commemorate the means by which they got their power.