[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

Re: Stability in the Upper Echelons

Poster: David KUIJT <kuijt@umiacs.umd.edu>

Jonathan wrote:

> I think that H.E. Ct. Daffyth brought up quite a valid
> assumption; namely, that the Establishment (Knights, peers, whatever)
> tends to suck up the best potential Peers, leaving not very much for
> anybody else.

Please don't blame me for that statement; I said nothing of the sort.
What I said was that "most Knights were once squires" can be explained
without postulating any conspiracy to restrict knighting to squires.

Your statement is very interesting; exactly what counter-establishment
are you referring to by the "anybody else" above?

> One wonders if this is the best course of action (since it
> has been amply demonstrated that this (in the case of heavy fighting,
> anyway) tends to strip the local Baronies of most of their decent
> potential leadership; but that's another story.

Ah, so we shouldn't knight a worthy candidate because that will REMOVE
leadership from a group?  That is laughable!  In most groups the knights
are among the leaders in armoured combat (strangely enough).

Jonathan, I've been trying to speak openly about subjects (peerage,
how we look at candidates, etc.) where there is a lot of misinformation
and disinformation.  If you want to start a new thread on whether
Peerage Households do or do not support Local Groups (which is what
I am guessing your allusion above refers to), please bring the subject
up openly and cleanly.  It is very hard to discern exactly what you
are asking when you bring up topics in this sidelong fashion.

In service of honest discussion,

Dafydd etc.
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org