[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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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!)).
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
Admin. requests: email@example.com