[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Re: disc: ONE Peerage, Different Orders, or No Order (fwd)
Poster: Lance Harrop <lharrop@mrj.com>
Lord Pedario writes:
> It's also something that didn't mean very much, early on. Most
> pre-1100 knights (_miles_ or _ministeriales_ in Latin) were very
> low on the social scale. In fact, some _ministeriales_ were refer-
> red to in German records as serfs.
Personally, I kind of shot for the time when knights were less then
barons, but more then commoners.
>
> Garter was not a "non-fighting" order.
I'm not sure I said it was. But as you continue...
> If anything, the Garter was an attempt to revive the Round Table by
> the romance-stricken Edward III.
In other words, the creation of a king in the late middle ages (or late
middleage ;-) who has a confused notion of what knights should be.
Autharian romances do not the real knight define.
> > 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.
>
> _Very_ late.
Quite posibily out of period, for all I know. It just happens to be as
close as the SCA gets to the enoblement of Servants of the Crown in
period (such as Sir Thomas More, in Tudor England (fah!)).
LJ
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
Submissions: atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
Admin. requests: majordomo@atlantia.sca.org