Templar Inn of Court is the restored direct continuation of its original 12th century tradition, providing specialized training for Barristers of the independent Legal Profession. In the modern era, this authentic medieval institution was re-constituted as an autonomous official body of the intergovernmental organization (IGO) Ignita Veritas United (IVU). It is thus the first Inn of Court in history to hold official Diplomatic Status at the supra-governmental level of conventional international law.
In connection with the Inter-Governmental Bar Council (IGBC), Templar Inn has a mandate to provide education and training on âduties of the lawyer and of human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized by⊠international lawâ (1985 Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Article 9).
Templar Inn of Court serves as a post-graduate training center, in the form of a professional Law Society, providing qualifications for admission to the international Bar in Common Law and subsequent high-level practice as an International Barrister.
Under Crown Patronage of a restored 12th century Historical State, it teaches the ancient and medieval âsecretâ knowledge of the authentic customs of the Common Law system, which empowers the Independent Legal and Judiciary Professions, directly from the original teachings of the Knights Templar.
Professional training and Continuing Legal Education (CLE) materials are contributed by the Bar Council (IGBC) and the Royal Institute of Law and Justice (Law Faculty) of Ignita Veritas University.
The Masters of the Bench governing Templar Inn are comprised of Judges, Crown Counsels and Privy Councillors, who are recognized by the Inter-Governmental Bar Council (IGBC), an official agency of the Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ), representing the Independent Judiciary Profession worldwide.
As a non-profit institution, Templar Inn of Court uses all net proceeds to support the humanitarian operations of the host IGO Ignita Veritas United (IVU), especially including its Human Rights Court of the independent Judiciary, through the Public Access to Justice Endowment (PAJE) Fund.
In the traditional Common Law system since medieval times, it is the primary responsibility of the Independent Judiciary Profession to support the Independent Legal Profession.
For this reason, in addition to being called to the Bar within the Courts, Barristers must also be specially trained under authority of the Court, in traditional âInns of Courtâ: âEvery Barrister⊠must be a member of one of the⊠ancient societies called Inns of Courtâ. [1]
âWhen once called to the Bar, no hindrance beyond professional etiquette limits a Barristerâs freedom of action⊠A member of an Inn of Court retains his name on the lists of his Inn for lifeâ [2].
This customary rule embodies the Magna Carta principle that lawyers must preserve and maintain the Independent Legal Profession, remaining free to challenge the authorities and oppose the interests of the State.
Just as the Bar of Barristers belongs to the Court (and not the State), traditional practice demonstrates that the Inns of Court are also governed by Judges of the Independent Judiciary Profession:
A 16th century survey of the British Legal Profession documented that the Inns of Court were comprised of âpractisers [Solicitors] or pleaders [Barristers] and Judges of the laws of this realm.â The term âlaws of this realmâ was a customary reference to the Common Law jurisdiction of the Independent Judiciary Profession. [3]
In the daily life of the Inns of Court, it was âcustomary for the Judges and other distinguished visitors to dine with the Benchers [and] Barristers and students [Solicitors]â [4].
Among members of an Inn of Court, the âBenchers are senior members of the society, who are invested with [its] government⊠more formally designated âMasters of the Benchâ [5]. The term âBencherâ refers to the âBenchâ as the âseat of Justice, where Judges sitâ, and means âpersons seated on a bench for the purpose of administering Justice.â [6]
Accordingly, decisions by the Masters of the Bench regarding acceptance and status in the Bar are subject to appeal and reversal by independent Judges of the Common Law Courts (separate from Crown Courts of the State government):
âThe Benchers of the different Inns of Court⊠for sufficient reasons, subject to an appeal to the Common Law Judges as visitors of the Inns, they may refuse to call a student [lawyer] to the Bar, or may expel from their society or from the profession (âdis-barâ or âdis-benchâ) even Barristers or Benchers.â [7]
âThe Judges of the Superior Courts are the visitors of the Inns, and to them alone can an appeal be had when either of the societies refuses to call a member to the Bar, or to reinstate in his privileges a Barrister who has been disbarred for misconduct.â [8]
Temple Church Commandery at Chancery Lane, London England
The âKnights Templarâ, of the Order Knights of the Temple, developed, established and enforced the 13th century âMagna Cartaâ, to advance the most ancient doctrines of the Rule of Law, for the protection of timeless human rights, freedoms, and liberties.
The Magna Carta is one of the key milestones of humanity and core pillars of civilization, which developed the Common Law, and transformed much of historical customary international law into the codified body of modern conventional international law.
The framework of Common Law was developed through legal reforms by King Henry II (1133-1189) of the Templar Royal House of Anjou, backed by the Knights Templar, establishing the foundations of the Common Law system [9]. These core principles were enacted in 1215 as âMagna Carta Libertatumâ, meaning the âGreat Charter of Libertiesâ, which historians generally consider to be an âAngevinâ (Templar) charter.
The âBaronsâ Warâ by Templars of upper nobility, to establish and enforce Magna Carta, was led by Robert Fitzwalter, a Templar Knight of the âArmy of Godâ [10].
British legal scholars confirm that âmany of the key moments in the two years leading up to the sealing of the Charter took place inâ the Templar Commandery headquarters of Temple Church in London, which is thus regarded as âthe cradle of the Common Law.â [11]
The key meeting with King John, which compelled him to ratify Magna Carta five months later, was held by Fitzwalter and the Knights Templar, in full battle armour and chivalric regalia, in Temple Church [12] [13].
Finally, the Knights Templar led by Fitzwalter stormed the City of London on 17 May 1215 [14], and less than one month later on 15 June 1215, the Templars obtained King Johnâs seal enacting the Magna Carta.
The Templar Knight William Marshall, the Angevin appointed Protector of the young King Henry III (1207-1272) of the Templar Royal House of Anjou, repeatedly reissued Magna Carta from 1216 to 1225 to ensure its survival, finally installing it as the perpetual Common Law [15]. For two of these reissuing acts in 1216 and 1217, Marshall placed his own seal in Templar Church, where he is buried, and his effigy is featured there among the most famous Knights Templar [16].
King Edward I of the Templar Royal House of Anjou enacted Confirmatio Cartarum reaffirming Magna Carta in 1297, and enacted Articuli Super Cartas for its stronger enforcement in 1300 [17]. Under pressure from King Philip IV of France, Pope Clement V annulled Confirmatio in 1305, weakening enforcement of the Magna Carta Rule of Law provisions which would limit the Kingâs ambitions and abuses of power [18].
This was a major factor causing the persecution of the Templar Order by the French King, only two years later in 1307, leading to suppression of the Order in 1312.
Therefore, the most important historical mission of the Templar Order, and its greatest accomplishment, was the establishment of the Common Law system for Judiciary enforcement of the Rule of Law. It was this same historic achievement which most directly provoked the suppression of the Order, forcing the Knights Templar to survive as an underground network.
Early 19th century British legal scholars defined âthe Common Law, properly so calledâ, as the âunwritten lawâ established by âevidences of our legal customs [which] are contained in the recordsâ of history, âand in the treatises of learned sages of the profession, preserved and handed down from the times of highest antiquityâ.
The doctrines of Common Law âare not set down in writing as acts of parliament are, but receive their binding power, and the force of laws, by long and immemorial usageâ.
Common Law is âthe laws⊠which our ancestors struggled so hard to maintain⊠the laws that so vigorously withstood the repeated attacks of the civil law⊠[of] States that have lost by these means their political libertiesâ. âBut the antiquity of this law is much higher than tradition or history can reach.â [19]
The traditional world center of the Common Law system is the legendary area of Chancery Lane in London. The key landmark of Temple Church, the historical Commandery headquarters of the Order of Knights of the Temple, is in close proximity to the High Courts. Chancery Lane itself was created by the Knights Templar ca. 1185, as a central access road for their complex of buildings [20] [21].
The Templar domain of Chancery Lane was heavily populated by prominent lawyers as legal advisors to the Knights Templar, who were revered as the âLaw Giversâ of Magna Carta after 1215. When King Henry III prohibited law schools from teaching Common Law in the City of London in 1234, the Independent Legal Profession moved en masse to Chancery Lane, to establish the new legal education system [22].
After the limited suppression of the Templar Order in 1312, the four famous Inns of Court developed around Chancery Lane, directly based upon the legal education system established by the Knights Templar:
Surviving Templars restructured the Order’s operations to create Middle Temple Inn from 1337 [23], and Inner Temple Inn from 1388 [24]; Templar-trained Barristers later used that same system to create Lincolnâs Inn from 1422 [25], and Greyâs Inn from 1569 [26].
Reflecting the full sovereignty of the Templar Order, the Inner Temple and Middle Temple Inns of Court were established as âLibertiesâ having Common Law jurisdictional independence [27], such that Crown Officers, and even the King or Queen, could not enter without asking permission at the gates [28].
The spirit of the 12th century Knights Templar continued to inspire the later Inns of Court with Magna Carta values of Common Law independence of the Legal and Judiciary professions, as a counterbalance to potential abuses by the State [29]:
Legal historians note that âin the later 17th century⊠Chancery Lane became a focus for those attracted by political intrigue and dissentâ, and a center for free thinking civil rights activists to develop âsystemized political organization.â [30]
Templar Inn of Court holds Crown Patronage from the Order of Knights of the Temple, the full restoration and direct legal continuation of the 12th century historical institution of the original Knights Templar.
The Templar Order was founded by Royal Patronage of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1118 [31] [32] [33], confirmed in 1119 [34] [35], and reconfirmed at the Council of Nablus in 1120 [36] [37] [38] [39] as the permanent Fons Honourum (source of authority) for the Grand Mastery [40], such that it was never dependent upon any later status with the Vatican.
The Order thus officially received Sovereign Protection recognizing its full and independent sovereignty of statehood in perpetuity, as a non-territorial (international) principality, by the Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum of 1139 [41], reconfirmed by Milites Templi of 1144 and Militia Dei in 1145 [42], but exercised this sovereign capacity only privately in diplomatic relations [43] [44].
For these reasons, the Templar Order was never âdissolvedâ, but merely âsuppressedâ, and thus survived and continued:
After the French persecution of 1307, the Pope issued the Chinon Parchment of 1308 exonerating and vindicating the Knights Templar from false confessions under torture, ârestoring to unity with the Churchâ [45].
Because of the permanent Templar sovereignty, the Papal Bull Vox in Excelso of 1312 only âsuppressed the Order by way of ordinance⊠not by definitive sentenceâ, merely as an internal political measure having no legal effect outside of the Vatican [46] [47].
The Order was legally and canonically restored under customary law from 2007-2016, with full chivalric, nobiliary and sovereign legitimacy [48], by all forms of juridical continuity and succession [49] [50] [51] [52], as a âsovereign subject of international lawâ [53] [54], perfected by having the full substance of its authentic heritage to continue its historical missions [55].
As a sovereign non-territorial (international) principality of statehood, it possesses inherent Fons Honorum vested in the institution as its own Crown authority [56] [57].
The Inns of Court, which train and call Barristers to the Bar, are considered âancient societiesâ by their nature. âThe existence of the English societies as schools can be traced back to the 13th century, and their rise is attributed to the clause in Magna Carta, by which the Common Pleas [Common Law Courts] were fixed⊠instead of following the Kingâs Court, and the professors of law were consequently brought together⊠These schools of law are now represented by the Inns of Court.â [58]
Traditionally, lawyers âare admitted as members of the Inns of Court, on paying certain fees and on⊠evidence of having passed a public examination at a university.â [59] Members of an Inn of Court are accepted to that Law Society âfor lifeâ, by âa small annual paymentâ which can be âcompounded [as] a fixed sum taken at the Call to the Bar.â [60]
Historically, for members of an Inn of Court, âtheir subsequent Call to the Bar depends onâ the social practice of âkeeping termsâ, originally through the practice of âdining in hallâ, which âapplied a certain social testâ. However, âpracticing Solicitors of not less than five years standing may be called to the Bar without keeping any termsâ. [61]
In the modern era, the British Bar Council confirms that: âThe old-fashioned âdining in hallâ has been⊠substantially replaced by⊠educational and training sessions.â [62]
The historical practice of âkeeping termsâ was symbolized by the concept of âdining in hall, where many ancient usages surviveâ. The term âancient usagesâ was a customary direct reference to the principles of the Code of Chivalry and the Rules of Courtly Etiquette.
This traditional preparation of Barristers was essentially teachings âon the subject of the dress, manners, moralsâ, and training âin discipline and professional etiquetteâ as ethics, as the foundations for advancing civilization and promoting positive values in human society. [63]
The 12th century Knights Templar developed and promoted the customs of courtly etiquette, which most notably characterized the culture of royalty and nobility in Europe, becoming the standard system of courtly conduct worldwide:
The practice of etiquette was directly based upon the Code of Chivalry, such that throughout the Middle Ages, the word âChivalryâ was interchangeable with the phrase âupper social classesâ [64]. This advanced âsystemâ of courtly protocols defined the ânobleâ conduct which is essential to nobility, and taught âa conception of honour, which is the pole of noble life.â [65]
The âDemocratization of Chivalryâ arose from the professional classes striving to be educated at courts of nobility, to be âtrained in manners of the knightly classâ. This produced the first âcourtesy booksâ teaching courtly etiquette as the âGentlemanâs Codeâ [66].
As a result of this history, an authentic Inn of Court in the modern era is essentially a post-graduate training center, in the form of a professional Law Society, as qualification for admission to the Bar of the Independent Legal Profession, and subsequent high-level law practice as a Barrister.
While modern law schools and university law faculties teach the use of statutory law needed for lawyers to conduct legal work for clients, only the traditional and authentic Inns of Court can effectively teach the historical customs of the Common Law system which empower the Independent Legal and Judiciary Professions.
This is the body of âsecretâ knowledge, based upon the ancient Code of Chivalry, preserved over many millennia by guardians of the law, which serves as the pillars of civilization upholding human rights. Such knowledge appears âsecretâ only because very few historical institutions could teach it, but its scholars made great efforts to preserve it in the public historical record for future generations.
Templar Inn of Court, supported by Crown Patronage of the restored 12th century Order of Knights of the Temple, teaches the full depth and substance of the original and authentic Templar knowledge as related to law, which is necessary for all Barristers of the Inter-Governmental Bar Council (IGBC).
Its unique and proprietary teaching materials, diligently restored directly from the historical record, include:
The Code of Chivalry of 1066, the Templar Code of 1150, the Rules of Courtly Dress & Regalia of 1672, the Rules of Courtly Etiquette of 1682, and the Rules of Courtly Titles & Forms of Address of 1769. The most ancient context and civilization building perspective of this knowledge is taught from related university archaeology.
This specialized knowledge is of primary and universal importance to all Barristers and Judges, empowering them to achieve major positive impact to advance human civilization, in the venerable tradition of the medieval âLaw Giversâ of the Magna Carta Common Law for the people.
These protocols of courtly conduct and etiquette are the keys for Barristers to effectively and professionally interact with sovereign States and historical institutions, and their governments and diplomats, whether representing them or opposing them in all matters of law.
As a result, the level and impact of professional training provided by Templar Inn of Court is on par with the four famous British Inns of Court:
Since the Middle Ages, the âInns of Court [are] non-corporate legal societiesâ, such that they are independent from the State. As an established rule of customary law since medieval times, all âInns of Court stand on a footing of complete equality, no priority being conceded to or claimed by one Inn over another. Their jurisdictions and privileges are equalâ. [67]
[1] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, New York (1911), Volume 3, âBarristerâ, at p.437.
[2] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, New York (1911), Volume 14, âInns of Courtâ, at p.584.
[3] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, New York (1911), Volume 14, âInns of Courtâ, at p.584.
[4] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, New York (1911), Volume 14, âInns of Courtâ, at p.585.
[5] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, New York (1911), Volume 14, âInns of Courtâ, at p.584.
[6] London Encyclopaedia, 1st Edition, Thomas Tegg, London (1829), Volume 4, âBencherâ, at p.5.
[7] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, New York (1911), Volume 3, âBarristerâ, at p.438.
[8] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, New York (1911), Volume 14, âInns of Courtâ, at p.584.
[9] Paul Brand, Henry II and the Creation of the English Common Law, in Christopher Harper-Bill & Nicholas Vincent, Henry II: New Interpretations, Woodbridge UK, Boydell Press (2007), p.216.
[10] Hugh Chisholm, âFitzwalter, Robertâ in Encyclopedia Britannica (1911), 11th Edition, Cambridge University Press, p.449.
[11] Lord Judge Master of the Temple, The Greatest Knight, in The Inner Temple Yearbook: 2013-2014, Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, pp.14-15.
[12] T.F. Tout, âFitzwalter, Robertâ in Leslie Stephen, Dictionary of National Biography (1889), London, Smith Elder & Co., p.226.
[13] Gabriel Ronay, The Tartar Khanâs Englishman, London, Cassel (1978), pp.38-40.
[14] T.F. Tout, âFitzwalter, Robertâ in Leslie Stephen, Dictionary of National Biography (1889), London, Smith Elder & Co., p.226.
[15] Danny Danziger & John Gillingham, 1215: The Year of Magna Carta, Hodder & Stoughton (2003), p.271.
[16] Lord Judge Master of the Temple, The Greatest Knight, in The Inner Temple Yearbook: 2013-2014, Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, pp.12-15.
[17] William B. Robinson & Ronald H. Fritze, Historical Dictionary of Late Medieval England: 1272-1485, Greenwood Press (2002), âArticuli Super Cartasâ at pp.34-35.
[18] Sophia Menache, Clement V, Cambridge University Press (2002), p.253.
[19] London Encyclopaedia, 1st Edition, Thomas Tegg, London (1829), Volume 12, âLawâ, Part II, âIntroduction: Of the Common Lawâ, at pp.531-532.
[20] John Baker, Inner Temple History, Inner Temple (2009), Introduction, Part 1.
[21] James Campbell, The Map of Early Modern London: Chancery Lane, University of Victoria (2009).
[22] Watt, Dunbar & Benham, The Story of the Inns of Court, Boston, Houghton Mifflin (1928), p.133.
[23] Staff Writer, The Middle Temple, The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple (2009).
[24] John Baker, Inner Temple History, Inner Temple (2009), Introduction, Part 1.
[25] Watt, Dunbar & Benham, The Story of the Inns of Court, Boston, Houghton Mifflin (1928), p.7.
[26] A.W.B. Simpson, The Early Constitution of Grayâs Inn, Cambridge Law Journal (1975), p.132.
[27] Staff Writer, Middle Temple as a Local Authority, Middle Temple (2014), middletemple.org.uk.
[28] Robert Richard Pearce, History of the Inns of Court and Chancery: With Notices of Their Ancient Discipline, R. Bentley (1848), pp.236-237.
[29] F.A. Inderwick, Q.C., A Calendar of the Inner Temple Records, Volume II, Chiswick Press, Chancery Lane, London (1898), Introduction, cxxx.
[30] Celia Pilkington, Saints and Rebels, in The Inner Temple Yearbook: 2013-2014, Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, p.23.
[31] Collierâs Encyclopedia, Thomson Gale (1985), 1985 Edition, Macmillan Library Reference (1990), âKnights Templarsâ.
[32] Charles G. Addison, The History of the Knights Templar (1842), pp.4-5.
[33] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 14, âTemplars, Knightsâ, Part 1, âTheir Humble Beginningâ, p.493.
[34] William of Tyre, Historia Rerum in Partibus Transmarinis Gestarum (ca. 1172 AD), XII, 7, Patrologia Latina, 201, 526-27, Translated by: James Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary History, Marquette University Press, Milwaukee (1962), pp.70-73.
[35] Ernoul & Bernard, Chronique dâErnoul et de Bernard le Tresorier (ca. 1188), Ed. L. de Mas Latrie, Paris (1871), Chapter 2, pp.7-8.
[36] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.5.
[37] Hans E. Mayer, The Concordat of Nablus, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Cambridge University Press, No. 33 (October 1982), pp.531-533, 541-542.
[38] Dominic Selwood, Quidem Autem Dubitaverunt: The Saint, the Sinner, the Temple; Published in: M. Balard (Editor), Autour de la PremiĂšre Croisade, Publications de la Sorbonne, Paris (1996), pp.221-230.
[39] Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, Cambridge University Press (1978), p.8.
[40] Dominic Selwood, Knights Templar III: Birth of the Order (2013), historian for Daily Telegraph of London, article.
[41] Pope Innocent II, Omne Datum Optimum (29 March 1139), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.8, pp.59-64: Granted âin perpetuity⊠Protection and Tutelage⊠for all time to comeâ, which âmay not be infringed nor diminishedâ, as a âPrincipal [princely] houseâ.
[42] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.8.
[43] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 8, âJerusalemâ, p.363.
[44] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 14, âTemplars, Knightsâ, Part 2, âTheir Marvellous Growthâ, pp.493-494.
[45] Pope Clement V, Chinon Parchment (1308), Vatican Secret Archives, âArchivum Arcis Armariumâ D 217-218; Replica Parchments, Processus Contra Templarios, Scrinium, Venice, Italy (2008).
[46] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1908), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 4, âClement V, Pope: Clement V and the Templarsâ, pp.21-22.
[47] Pope Clement V, Vox in Excelso (22 March 1312), Regestum 7952, Paragraph 13, in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press (1990); Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896), Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012).
[48] International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), Report of the Commission Internationale Permanente dâĂtudes des Ordres de Chevalerie, âRegistre des Ordres de Chivalerieâ, The Armorial, Edinburgh (1978), Gryfons Publishers, USA (1996), including: Principles Involved in Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry (1963).
[49] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006).
[50] François Velde, Legitimacy and Orders of Knighthood, Heraldica (1996), updated (2003), Section I, Part B-1, âHistorical Continuity: Military-Monastic Ordersâ.
[51] François Velde, Legitimacy and Orders of Knighthood, Heraldica (1996), updated (2003), Section I, Part B-1, âHistorical Continuity: Time Gapsâ.
[52] Ambassadeur GĂ©raud Michel de Pierredon, Histoire Politique de lâOrdre Souverain de Saint-Jean de Jerusalem (Ordre de Malte), Paris (1926), Tome 5.
[53] Rebecca Wallace, International Law: A Student Introduction, 2nd Edition, Sweet & Maxwell (1986).
[54] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, Article 3.
[55] Vatican, Tribunal e Cardinalizi o Constituito con Pontifico Chirografo (10 December 1951), Acta Apostolicae Sedis (24 January 1953), XLV (15): 765-767.
[56] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.36, p.423.
[57] International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), Report of the Commission Internationale Permanente dâĂtudes des Ordres de Chevalerie, âRegistre des Ordres de Chivalerieâ, The Armorial, Edinburgh (1978), Gryfons Publishers, USA (1996), including: Principles Involved in Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry (1963), Principle 1.
[58] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, New York (1911), Volume 3, âBarristerâ, at p.437.
[59] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, New York (1911), Volume 3, âBarristerâ, at p.437.
[60] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, New York (1911), Volume 14, âInns of Courtâ, at p.584.
[61] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, New York (1911), Volume 3, âBarristerâ, at pp.437-438.
[62] Bar Standards Board, Review of the Bar Vocational Course: Report of the Working Group, âBVC Reportâ (2008), âPart Aâ: Article 10.
[63] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, New York (1911), Volume 14, âInns of Courtâ, at pp.585, 587.
[64] The World Book Encylcopedia, World Book, Inc. (1994), pp.346-351.
[65] Johan Huizinga, The Waning of the Middle Ages (1919), Republished (1924), Chapter: âThe Idea of Chivalryâ, p.58.
[66] James Ross Sweeney, Dictionary of the Middle Ages, Volume III (1983), âChivalryâ.
[67] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, New York (1911), Volume 14, âInns of Courtâ, at p.584.
You cannot copy content of this page