Just more peerage stuff, kill file now

[Lance Harrop <lharrop@mrj.com>]

Lord Tibor writes:

> Tadhg had written "Peers are RECOGNIZED."
> 
> Leifr wrote:
>   I really hate that phrase.  In the first place, it's not universal to the 
>   Society, it's particular to Atlantia.
> 
> I'veclived in the East, and Trimaris, and I'vecheard it both places.  It's a
> pretty widely felt sentiment, I think.

That's nice, it's all over the eastern seaboard.  But is it POLICY in the 
East and Trimaris, or does it just describe how the orders think about
identifying candidates for elevation?  It's all very well for the Society 
to say that it Recognizes peers, but that doesn't remove the obligation 
of a peer to his student to teach them how to be a peer, nor does it remove
the power from thecCrown to make a candidate a peer.
 > 
> In fact, I'vechad this discussion with people, and they all pretty much
> agree that our peers should have one thing in common: pretty much everyone
> agrees that they are (or could be) ecrole model of peerage.  (Although they
> never agree on what exactly that is.)

That's a nice definition.  Unfortunately, it seems the aspect to be 
considered last in the order meeting, from what I've been told.  Apparently
objective measures of documentation (for Laurels), tourney wins (for 
Knights) or events autocrated (for Pelicans) and the such are considered
first and foremost.
 > 
> The battle over who should be given a peerage is old, long, and tired.
> That's one of the reasons I very much appreciate our rotating Crowns.  No
> particular viewpoint get's a hammerlock for long.
> 
Now that is a good point.  Of course, it would be nice if each faction 
would have the courtesy to recognize the other faction's right to make 
peers without all the unnecessary sniping.  When a count tells you hechad 
to chose between two worthy candidates because hec"couldn't" make both of 
them knights, there are problems.

And no Henry, that is not a strawman.

Leifr Johansson