Re: disc: ONE Peerage, Different Orders, or No Order (fwd)

[Lance Harrop <lharrop@mrj.com>]

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