Lyonesse champions and winners....

[Heidi J Torres]

Mari here again!

On Sun, 6 Oct 1996, dennis grace wrote:

> 
> >According to most of the (admittedly limited) research that I've done,
> >you are mostly correct - there would usually be several "winners" or
> >"champions" for a given tournament.  Thus, by insisting on a single
> >winner, aren't we imposing a 20th century "ideal" in a (theoretically)
> >medieval re-creation?  Wouldn't having multiple winners give a better
> >feeling for what a medieval tournament was like?
> >
> >Mikjal Annarbjorn
> >-- 
> >
> 
> So who gets to wear the crown on alternate Thursdays? :)
> 
> Aquilanne

I can't speak for any other period style tournament, but Lyonesse Tourney 
names both a number of "defenders" -- those who have, in the eyes of the 
judges, performed with the greatest prowess, chivalry and flair during 
the tourney -- as well as a "champion", chosen from among those defenders.

I have only limited knowledge in the area of period tourneys and 
tournament societies, but from various things I've read, period 
tournaments did at times chose a single champion, or at least designated 
the fighter who would receive the lion's share of the prizes.  Also 
remember, in real tournaments there were often professional tourney 
fighters, rather, I think, like modern tennis or golf pros.  Just because 
they didn't "win" the purse of gold, or the shield with the picture of 
the Virgin on it (or whatever fine prize the sponsoring noble might 
offer), doesn't mean they went away empty-handed.

I think I'm on a tangent now, so I'll quit while I'm ahead.

Cheers!

Mari ferch Rathyen