[MR] opinions on peerage

[Murienne l'aloiere]

Actually there is a place in Corpora that has definitions of the Patent
Orders...

VIII.A.4.a -
The Chivalry: The Chivalry consists of two equal parts: Knighthood and
Mastery of
Arms. No one may belong to both parts of the order at one time. When a
member is admitted to the Chivalry by the Sovereign, the choice of which
part of the order to join is made by the new member. The candidate must be
considered the equal of his or her prospective peers with the basic weapons
of tournament combat. To become a Knight, the candidate must swear fealty to
the Crown of his or her kingdom during the knighting ceremony. Masters of
Arms may choose to swear fealty, but are not required to do so.


basic weapons of tournament combat....
I do not recall ever having heard of rapier or bow being part of these.
I may be very wrong in this so please be gentle with your correction if I
am.

Lady Murienne



On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Jim/Mathias <jsfrodo at gmail.com> wrote:

> From Duke Logan:
> [quote] sure.  elton john is a knight and i dont think he has any prior
> military
> service.  but that not relevant in the sca.  sca knights are just that,
> knights of the society.  the requirements for induction into that order
> include chivalric combat.  nobody is refusing to acknowledge any "real life
> period examples" regarding induction into our order.[/endquote]
>
> Lord Karl wasn't discussing Elton John, he specifically said:
> "real-life period examples of people getting knighted who had never
> suited up in armor".  If you need an example, how about Sir Francis
> Drake?  He was knighted in 1582 (within our period) for his service to
> the crown as an explorer, ship captain and privateer.  I don't know
> how familiar Your Grace is with maritime combat in period, but heavy
> armor wasn't part of the equation, because swimming in armor is a
> really bad idea.  Secondly, I've checked the Atlantian Books  of Law
> and Policy and can find no definition of the Order of Chivalry, which
> leaves me with what's recorded on the Order of Precedence, which
> defines the Order of Chivalry as "One becomes a member of the Chivalry
> through martial prowess on the field."  This says absolutely nothing
> about what type of combat you're practicing, it simply refers to being
> good at combat.  Can you show me a reference that defines "chivalric"
> combat as taking place only with heavy armor and rattan weapons?
>
> From Her Majesty:
> [quote] the Society mandated and tradition grounded basis of the
> order.  The order of Chivalry in the SCA was created for and about
> heavy fighting.[endquote]
>
> Your Majesty, I've seen nothing in Society documents that even defines
> the Peerage Orders, let alone mandates anything about them.  As far as
> tradition goes, when the Order of Chivalry started, heavy fighting was
> the only kind of fighting in existence in the Society, so naturally
> that's what people associate with knighthood.  However, that has
> changed, but the peerage-level recognition has not.  There are some
> that point to the Order of the Laurel as the proper place for
> recognition of other martial activities, but (again from the Atlantian
> OP), "One becomes a Laurel through excellence in the arts and
> sciences."  Skill with a rapier or a bow simply does not fit that
> description.  And moreover, the simple fact is that the Order of the
> Laurel is NOT recognizing fencers or archers.
>
> You suggest looking at "the many ways we have of recognizing those
> contributions." Yes, the kingdom has many ways of recognizing folks,
> but there aren't equal levels of recognition.  The problem is that
> while there is a route to a peerage for almost anything else in the
> Society, there is none for martial activities other than heavy combat.
>  It's difficult for someone in one of the several neglected
> disciplines not to get discouraged and possibly bitter when they see
> those of great skill in their discipline, those who have served the
> kingdom well at events and wars, being overlooked for EQUAL
> recognition simply because they don't swing a piece of rattan.
>
> There was an old joke when I was in the Navy, "200 years of tradition
> totally unhampered by progress", a joke that was all too often founded
> in reality when the Navy as an organization refused to accept new
> ideas because "that's the way it's always been done".  Blindly holding
> on to tradition and refusing to acknowledge that the world has
> changed, including the Known Worlde, and thereby refusing to recognize
> the skills and service of some people, is certainly not in keeping
> with the ideal of honor that the Society has set for itself.
>
> Yours in Service,
> Lord Mathias von Oldenburg
> ========================================================================
>                   The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
>    List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
>  Submissions: Atlantia at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> Subscriptions:
> http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/atlantia-atlantia.sca.org
>