I was giving an example of an order having a clear stipulation. I don't know if the Danish order has such stipulations and if it has they don't have to be equal to that of the Orange-Nassau order.
Each order has it's own rules. The point i was trying to make is that when an order has rules it's not up to those rules when someone looses the order due to a conviction rather than the personal sentiments of the head of the order. In this case Queen Margrethe.
You make valid points. The orders of the various countries will (normally) have statutes (regulations) which determines what will happen if the recipient has done something "unworthy" (the statutes for the St. Olav Order talks about "uverdige forhold" (unworthy conditions), but leaves it to the Grand Master (i.e. the king) to decide after having heard the council's opinion. So it will be an interpretation about how serious the situation is. Stig or others will have to tell if there are statutes for titles like Kammerherre etc. The statutes for the Dannebrog Order is here: http://www.omsd.dk/DanishOrders/docs/Dannebrogordenens%20Statutter%201693.pdf Relevant section is no. 5 (I think). If you are "dømt fra Ære, Lif eller Gods" ("sentenced from Honour, Life or Property", not sure if this is the best translation, though). So does this phrase mean "any sentence", whether suspended or not? I still find the decision too harsh, but if the section can only be interpreted in the strictest sense, I will of course back down from my opinion ...
DTH
763