[Archers] archery peerage

[John Atkins]

Fen,

I have to take exception to your comments here.  What makes you think that a
person who gets elevated to knighthood who doesn’t have a defined persona,
no clue as to history or where his perceived persona is supposed to fit, and
conducts himself in a totally unchivalrous manner is a model any archer
should follow after?  Yes, this particular individual may be an exception
but it would be better if they were the only exception and not the current
day’s rule.  Knight’s who dance?  Really?  Knights who know about historical
methods of fighting?  Really? Knights who enter A&S?  Really?  Chivalry
(outside the ranks of those with white belts), chess?  Really?  How many?
I would seriously like to  meet these unique individuals.  As I say, some
fit this mold but my experience says most do not.  I see no value in an
archer being squired to a knight.  I would see much more value in an archer
being either apprenticed or protégéd to a laurel or pelican.  My personal
experience was asking a knight, whom I respect, about becoming his squire.
He responded that he expected me to fight on the battle field even though I
made it clear my goal was target archery.  At 65 and with exercise induced
erythema I’m not going to do that.  Been there, done that as a combat
archer.  Not now.  What then can this knight do for me?  On the other hand
my first laurel told me they knew nothing of my craft, leatherworking, but
they knew how to lead me through the process of becoming a laurel.  Those
words and guidance have stood me quite well though I’m still not a laurel
and doubt I ever will be.

 

If I seem harsh on those with white belts, I don’t mean to be.  But they
have white belts because they fight well not because they are chivalrous,
dance, know history or do A&S well.  They swing a stick well.  That is what
the white belt has become and that is what it now means.  Of course there
are many exceptions to this as with any group of people and perhaps those
are the ones we should be focusing on and not the outside exceptions.

 

cog

 

 

From: archers-bounces at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
[mailto:archers-bounces at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org] On Behalf Of Fen &
Michelle
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 8:14 PM
To: archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
Subject: Re: [Archers] archery peerage

 





I don't think its new, just a correction to what the Yew Bow recognizes.  As
I understand it, there has always been a service component.

 

Which brings up another point - the Chivalry has always said that, while are
there are several things they look for in a candidate, they prefer not to
use a checklist type format.  Some fighters may possess all the desired
attributes of such a "list" but still not qualify as a squire. Its a very
subjective process, deliberately so.  We may want our own peerage to be like
that, so people don't just assume they simply need to put a check in each
box to qualify.

 

Also, is there really anything that prevents an archer from asking to squire
out to a knight now?  Granted, you will prob never be elevated, but you
could be a sponge and soak up all the knowledge for the archery community to
put to use. And it would make a strong point.  I still firmly believe that
our first generation of peers should be well-schooled in chivlary, the seven
virtues, history, dance, chess, etc... just like that martial peers are. So
they can pass that standard on to whoever they squire. There needs to be an
aspect of "The Dream" to it or it will go off the path. 

 

But the Chiv has changed alot since I played heavy weaps in the 80s. I think
Jonathas is an active squire, he could prob speak on the matter better than
me and discuss whether any of this squire training would transfer well into
an archery peerage. 

 

Cheers

Fen  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/archers-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20120217/12e87d92/attachment-0003.htm>