Re: disc: ONE Peerage, Different Orders, or No Order

[Lance Harrop <lharrop@mrj.com>]

Poster: Lance Harrop <lharrop@mrj.com>


Lord Aedric writes:

> In fact, my only comment disagreeing with you is that only fighters would
> have knights.  I see no reason in history why we could not have artistic
> knights and service knights (A good reason for knighthood in period, no?)
> and scientific knights and the like.  It might be stretching it some to
> achieve equality, but I do not see the great harm in this as opposed to
> the current system.

Actually, once you go back to the point where knighthood is no longer 
connected to the peerage, I think you go back to the point where the 
title knight is used fairly exclusively for a mounted warrior (yes, I 
know we don't ride horses).

The knighting of people like Sir John Gilguld (modern actor) and so on 
happened mostly because there had been the creation of Royal Orders of 
knighthood, like the Garter and the Bath, in which the Crown wanted to 
include non-fighters (mostly because there weren't enough really 
knightly people around).  In the Society we have plenty of people who 
whack each other while in heavy armour.

If we want to demote this term to its proper position in the ranking of 
titles, I also think we want to narrow its definition to cover only 
heavy-armoured fighters.

France late in period had two types of nobility.  Nobles of the sword, 
fighters like our knights and half or so of our royal peers, and nobles 
of the Robe, who basically ran the government, and were much like our 
order of the Pelican.

Just don't ask ME where Laurels fit historically.

In Service
Leifr Johansson
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org