[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

Re: oaths of loyalty vs. oths of fealty

Poster: Michael and MJ Houghton <herveus@access.digex.net>

Christopher Storm wrote:
> So.... If I swear loyalty that's absolute!  But if I swear fealty I must
> obey only legal orders.  Yet these are still very absolute, an oath you
> swear to live by wereas if you just promise you have some leaway.  
> Please remember that to many of us any oath is just that, you have sworn you
> very life if neccesary, at least as long as it is a legal command.  The key
> word is "SWEAR".

Your view on swearing vs. promising is not universally held. Some, myself
included, feel that punctuating some committments with a sworn oath only
suggests that other promises are somehow less binding. If one is a person
of their word, how would swearing a might oath make a promise more 

If one is committed to truthfulness and honesty, then why is it necessary
to swear an oath? Swearing an oath suggests that other words not so sworn
are less truthful.

I do not mean to impugn others by these claims; I merely present my view
on the subject. If you feel it appropriate or necessary to swear oaths for
whatever reason, that is your decision. I just ask that others not impugn
my honesty for my refusal to do so (and I am not aware of anyone who has
so impugned).

It may be interesting to note that one of the recent brouhahas in Atenveldt
was over the Kingdom Law requirements for Great Officers to swear an oath
of fealty or alternately an oath of service, completely ignoring (or
cutting out) those who will not swear any oath. I had no difficulty in
this kingdom during my tenure as Triton over this issue. I count this as
a Good Thing(tm).

List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org