[MR] 4th Peerage

[atlantia at corwyn.net]

(apologies if this duplicates)

At 12:57 PM 2/20/2009, Alan MacNeill wrote:
>Peerage has power.  To deny a group of people it because the activity
>they do doesn't fit with the current peerages is incorrect.

Perhaps more accurately, those with power (meaning those who make 
things happen in the SCA) tend to have peerages. People earn respect 
because of what they do, not what titles they hold.

Many moons ago, I used to wonder why it was that all the peers hung 
out together. Seemed awfully clickish and elitist.

Then I realized that actually it was that all the friends hung out 
with each other, and that friends tend to have friends like them, and 
that the group of people had known each other for years, and just so 
happened now were all peers. But that it wasn't the peerages that 
brought them (or kept them) together. It was that they had all been 
friends, and that they all still hung out together 
regardless.  People also meet one another based on what they are 
doing. Those getting things done tend to meet others doing the same. 
Peerages had just happened along the way.

It was an enlightening realization...

Corwyn


>On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Duane Moore 
><poetamilitarus at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > There is a fallacy in your arguement. Do you honestly believe 
> that someone must be a Peer to be a leader? I strongly disagree, 
> and worshipfully admire our Provosts, for instance, that teach, 
> serve, and lead by example. A title will never dicate that love of the Society.