Tournaments and the Crown
LANGJ at mail.syntron.com
Tue Mar 28 07:07:38 PST 1995
Re: Awards and Coronets, and comments by Gunhilda & Phelim et al
> I would love to have a King who showed all the Knightly qualities.
> The reality, as I read them in the by-laws, are such that one just
> needs to be considered "acceptable" to the current crown. (This
> is off the top of my head.) I read this, probably wrong, that as
> long as the person isn't unacceptable, they will be allowed to
> fight in Crown.
To be permitted to fight in a Crown Tourney (in Ansteorra), one
must be acceptable to the Crown, and if not a member of the
Chivalry, "spoken for" by a member of the Chivalry. By Kingdom
Law, one must also be "Able to support the office (it costs quite
literally thousands of dollars to be the Crown in Ansteorra, the
phone bill alone, may easily exceed $300 a month). Have reliable
transportation (several Crowns have had cars disintegrate beneath
them). Law also requires that both the Sovereign (the one who
wins), and the consort, have held office in the SCA (so that you
will have a clue of the workings of the bureaucracy). The
Corporation requires that you be a member, and have "access to a
Black Star." These are the major requirements, there are a few
more, they are all detailed in Law and Corpora.
> Kingship appears to be outside of the current peerage for a
> reason, and I think it's a good reason. If only Knights were
> allowed to be King, there could be a bad inbreading. (IMHO)
> Of course I don't know if there has ever been a King who wasn't a
> Knight. Honestly, I know little of who was King when and when
> they became a Knight.
Duke Sigmund was the first Crown who was not a member of the
Chivalry when he won Crown Tourney. He was Knighted at the
Coronation of his Heir.
Duke Inman also won Crown Tourney before becoming a member of the
Chivalry. He was Knighted before his third reign.
Duke Patrick Michael, was not a Knight when he won Crown Tourney,
but was Knighted between Crown Tourney and Coronation.
> > > I honestly view Kingship outside of the peerage realms. This
> > > loan title has nothing to do with the attributes of becoming
> > > peers. (Very little to do with Knights as I understand who can
> > > become King.)
> > Any knights out there who care to comment on this? Sir Kief?
> > You still lurking? How do the knights view the kingship? I
> > would say that having the attributes of a peer is an integral
> > part of being a good King/Queen.
Your point is well taken. There was, at one time, a Law that
required entrants in Crown Tourney (and their consorts) to have
AoAs. That requirement is long gone. The Crown is held by "Right
of Arms" and no other attribute. The attribute of a peer IS an
integral part of being a good King/Queen. Sometimes that quality
is there, some times it isn't, often it manifests itself during
the course of a reign.
> I would like to hear from Knights as well on this. Heck, I'd just
> like to hear from anyone on this particular topic.
> If one is to be a peer (Knight), should the other be a peer as
> well? Should either one of them be peer? Does it matter?
The _system_ usually places a Knight on the throne. It might be
argued that "Right of Arms" is not the *best* way to select our
monarchs. I would argue that it is at least as effective as
"Divine Right." Since our aim is to recreate a (synthetic) feudal
system, a hierarchy of nobility is part and parcel of the
In nearly a quarter century in the SCA, I'm satisfied that the
system works far more often that it breaks down. I've also
noticed that when it does break down, it repairs itself.
[langj at mail.syntron.com]
More information about the Ansteorra