Re: chivalry / no "watch list"

[Corun MacAnndra <corun@access.digex.net>]

Poster: Corun MacAnndra <corun@access.digex.net>

Greetings Your Majesty,

I am going to mark certain bits of Your post and address those directly
with my questions. If the phrasing of my questions causes offense I ask
forgiveness for I mean no disrespect. I seek education on the way of things
among the Chivalry in this Kingdom. I also entreat other Knights who read
these questions to give answer. I may one day aspire tp Knighthood, and
like any goal one seeks to attain, one must ask questions in order to know
what must be done to attain it.

Your Grace wrote:
>
>Due, in part, to the sheer numbers (or lack of) of the Chiv. there
>really is no reason to have a watch list.  Contrary to what some think
>this Kingdom is not a big one and it is easy to recognize those in a
>particular field (namely fighting in this case) that are doing great
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^
>things.  The Chiv. is also limited in the numbers of people who can
 ^^^^^^                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>achieve it's high standards.  Standards such as speed, ability,
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>athleticism, hand/eye coordination, strength etc. are not things that
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please enlighten me. Firstly, what does the Chivalry in general consider
"great things"? Secondly, are these standards You have listed then the only
standards which mark a Knight? Are not courtesy, hounour, and chivalry,
counted for anything? What about courage? Honesty? Loyalty? Perseverence?

I lay the following examples before You. I am small in stature, so I may
never possess the strength of someone much larger than me, You for
instance, or Duke Galmr, Count Thorbrandr, or Duke Cuan. Yet though I am
small I have tenacity. I may one day face You on the field, and though You
pummel me into the ground like a tent peg, I will rise again and face you.
And again and again. I may never beat You no matter how hard I try since
You outmatch me in sheer strength. But am I less worthy of Knighthood for
that? I may also not have as much stamina as a younger man such as Yourself
(and before You say I'm not that old, I probably have a good decade on You
though I don't look it), and therefore I may leave the field sooner to
rest. Am I to be faulted because age has taken its toll of me?

But, there will always be someone I am better than. Where then is the line
drawn? What, if any, are the other standards that the Chivalry sets before
it considers someone for Knighthood? What combinations of the above
mentioned standards are acceptable? All? Any two? Add then any standards
not yet mentioned and what then becomes the acceptable level? And if I try
and try and slowly get better, yet I never manage to match Your strength or
Your speed or any of the other things You've listed, am I still unworthy?
One can only do as well as one can. A glass may only be filled so full
before it holds all it can. What is the measure by which one is gauged
against these standards? I ask the older Knights, what were the standards
in the Old Days? The same? Different? If different, how?

Again I hope I have not given offense by these questions. I have great
respect for You, and yet I would be dishonest with You if I did not say
that the standards You have listed cause me some dismay if those are the
only standards by which one is judged for Knighthood.

In service,
Corun


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