[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Re: New Peerage? (fwd)
Poster: firstname.lastname@example.org (Fred Homan)
Barbara Nostrand wrote the following (as forwarded by Tanner Lovelace):
> I wish to posit that the whole peerage system could be vastly improved
> reserving the title "Marquis" to all non-royal peers. Further, the
> would be authorized to eleveate someone to peerage estate through
> with the extant peerage orders in the kingdom without admission into a
> order. Consequently, if the crown wished to elevate someone to peerage
> who was undoubtedly a peer, but whose activities did not clearly belong
> to any
> particular order, then the crown could simply elevate them to the estate
> Marquis upon consultation with the extant peerage orders. (This is a
> modest requirement as some kingdoms alreay are formally asking for a
> from all of the peerage orders for all elevations.)
No, please don't do this! We already have a horrendous enough problem
(in my mind) that while we may have so-called Orders in the Peerage, we
actually have three separate-but-equal (US historical implications intended)
Peerages that don't fit history. Adding any more complexity is merely
making it all worse. Now, I may be out on a limb here, but I seem to recall
that historically all Peers were within one system, used the same titles
in an absolute list (within a country, of course), but were elevated for
various reasons, thus the reason of having orders. Thus, a knight was the
equal of any other knight, but Sir Joe Bob might have been made a knight for
valor in combat in a crucial battle while Sir Billy Bob might have been made
one for his long loyalty to the throne (a service award, if you will). Then
of course, there were the various barons and the like who held their titles
through grant or traditional land-holding. And, on up through the ranks.
(Yes, this is simplistic, but I'm a big believer in KISS.)
Now, the SCA decided to make it so that we (currently) have three Orders
for the Knight-equivalent, of which only one (Chivalry) actually uses the
traditional ranks and the others borrow from the old Guilds. I assume there
is more of a reason for this other than the traditional tension between
fighters and A&S, for otherwise it is more foolish than it now appears.
Additionally, the SCA decided that the only way to have this level was to be
in one of the Orders (which admittedly, follows at least modern Knighthood).
And, then there are the landed Barons and the granted Barons for those whom
the Crown decides are worthy. And, the higher ranks of the Peerage have been
sucked up to show how many times a person has been Crown.
Now, it is suggested that we add another rank for those whom the Crown decides
are worthy of the Peerage, but do not belong in a particular Order. If we
didn't have the bit about inviolate Orders in the first place, we wouldn't
have this problem. Frankly, if we are to make a change, I would rather it be
to make all Knight-types into Knights and make the Orders used only for those
who fit into them. Thus there could be Knights who belong to no Order until/if
an Order is formed that will fit them. Difficult? Yes, a bit. But no more
than making them a "Marquis" and then doing the same thing. And, this at least
has more of a historical rationale.
All of this IMAO. YMMV. Please consult doctor before taking internally. ;-)
And, this doesn't even enter in to my thoughts (as yet just fresh and still
aging) on the whole rank-for-how-many-times-you-were-crown bit...
PS Barbara, please feel free to forward this as you wish to East list. Or not.
Aedric the Green IKA Fred Op
House Howling Mouse email@example.com
Canton of Elvegast, Windmaster's Hill, Atlantia Raleigh, NC
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
Admin. requests: firstname.lastname@example.org