Subject: Re: French Society of Cincinnati
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Prince Felix Youssoupov)
Date: Mon, Mar 22, 1999 18:01 EST
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Chris,

I am a member of the Society of the Cincinnati (I also wrote my master's
thesis on the Society) and our badge (order) is one of the few decorations
that American servicemen are allowed to wear on their dress uniforms.  His
Most Christian Majesty Louis XVI did permit the order to be worn by
members of the French Society.  Today it is worn (in miniature) by members
of the French Society on their lapel.  The American members usually wear
their badges (full size) on a neck ribbon for formal events.  Mr. Sainty's
web-site does how a few errors with regard to the Society.  I have written
him about these and he said he would correct them; however, when I last
checked they had not been corrected.  The one that comes to mind has to do
with the President-General having the ability to decide on the eligibility
of applicants (this is not the case).  Membership eligibility is decided
by the local (state and/or French) society.  Also he (Sainty) states that
one of the officers (usually the Vice-President-General) is usually is a
Frenchman.  This is not true!  Any office MAY be held by any member of the
Society (from any of the constituent societies).  In closing, I am,

With best regards,

Bryan Scott Johnson
Greenville, South Carolina




In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, tcjohnsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> > ...
>
> > after the end of the War, could be admitted as with their descendants).
> >
> > I believe that the right to wear the badge on military uniform sets these
> > four bodies apart from all other hereditary societies in the US,
giving them a
> > form of official recognition. I believe the badge of the French Society
can
> > also be worn on the right breast on French military uniform.
> >
> > Guy Stair Sainty
>
> Is it true, as I have read somewhere, that Louis XVI permitted this and
> that it was (is?) an unusual privelege?
>
> Chris


Reply via email to