Re: New Peerage? (fwd)

[homan@nando.net (Fred Homan)]

Poster: homan@nando.net (Fred Homan)

Barbara Nostrand wrote the following:
> Actually, adding the title Marquis would represent a simplification.  The
> peerage itself would carry the title Marquis.  That would be the peerage.

Ooops.  Seems I missed a rather important point there.  My apologies for my
misunderstanding.  So, that would make it that being a Peer was actually
higher ranking (in the mundane view, not the weird, current SCA view) than
being a noble/gentleperson.  OK.  That makes sense.  That I can and do
support.  However, I would suggest another rank besides Marquis.  But,
that's just me.

> knighthood.  Historically, there were also Knights bachelor.  Historically,
> knighthood was not a unified thing, but had degrees.  Generally, the pinacle

Still do, in fact, as any of our Canadian cousins would remind us.  (The
Governor-General of Canada is the head of an order whose name escapes me at
the moment.)  Anyway, I've been wondering if this proposal means we can
have Knight back as a lower rank?  Instead of the silly business of having
more nobles than knights?

> just posted a note about this moments ago.  My current notion is that it
> should be given the name "Order of the Golden Spur".  They would retain all

Works for me.  Would be nice to stop having the silliness about the Chivalry
being one branch of the Peerage and all.  However, it's going to royally
annoy a *lot* of knights, IMHO.  An unfortunate number seem to consider
themselves as first among equals.  In fact, I would say that's the greatest
problem with the proposal overall.

> a Baron and nobody blinks an eyelash.  Holding multiple titles is actually
> very very period.  This is NOT something that we should be trying to avoid.

I didn't mean to suggest that we should avoid this.  But, I do get annoyed
that we end up with former Crowns who also want to acknowledge their
membership in the Peerage do the "Duke Sir Blah" thing.  I may be wrong, but
that doesn't sound very period.  One would normally use the appropriate
title for use or the highest, no?  But, this goes to my rant on the former
Crowns having sucked up too many titles...

> Again.  The title Marquis would carry the peerage itself.  Induction into a
> peerage order would still be a matter of court busines.  Technically, this
> proposal would result in a REDUCTION in the number of peerages as it would
> unify the peerage orders (other than the rose) into a single title of
> nobility.

And, I think that is a most worthy goal.  I like the idea of making it so
that we can recognise all, still have people be justifiably proud of having
been inducted into an order (or orders for the over-achieving!  ;-)), and
maybe even make it so that one of the lowest titles is no longer the most
sought after (and thus stop turning history on its head).

> title of nobility.  Finally, this proposal would not require any kingdom to
> actually give out "naked" peerages.  It would simply make them available and
> reserve a currently unused title for the use of the three peerage orders and
> the "naked" peers.

All right.  I have a question.  Why about Court Barons/esses?  Why not convert
this over to being the title of the Peerage?  I've always thought of the
Court Baron/ess thing as mainly a thing where the Crown said, "You're the
kind of nifty person we need, but you don't fit in any Peerage criteria".
Or, am I completely off-base here?

-- 
Aedric the Green					IKA Fred Op
House Howling Mouse					homan@nando.net
Canton of Elvegast, Windmaster's Hill, Atlantia		Raleigh, NC
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org