Tournaments and the Crown

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]

More information about the Ansteorra mailing list