" 
 ****Nice prevarication.  I never said ""Vatican State"", now did I?  One uses ""the Vatican"" to refer to the Holy See, the Pope and the entire apparatus there.  Are you saying that the Holy See doesn't have laws about chivalric orders?  Because you know that they do, and you know that they have explicitly stated their qualifications for chivalric orders and that the OSL does not meet those qualifications.  I didn't use the other article as a reference for a claim; I referred to it as an example of what the term ""fons honorum"" is accepted to mean, and I pointed out that you, who have spent so much time and energy promoting a different definition of it here, have not bothered to spend any time or energy correcting that article.  That's not evidence of anything but I do find it peculiar.  Regardless, the points I've made above stand.  You/the OSL claim a legitimate fons honorum.  The onus is on such claimants to support their claim.  Support the claim, or I'm going to change it to reflect the majority and orthodox opinion on the subject.   "