ANST - Re: long courts

[Dennis O'Connor]

 From: Garth <green at man.com>
>Dennis O'Connor wrote:
>> 
>>  From: Garth <green at man.com>
>> >The Oaths of Fealty required of the Knights and Territorial
>> >Barons/Baronesses is a re-creation of the backbone of most period
>> >govenrments.
>> 
>> It would be nice if you could provide a source for that.
>> Many times on the Rialto I have seen learned peoples
>> way that this was not true.  For example, Knights were
>> typically in fealty to a local Lord, not the King.  And Barons
>> were, at times, pretty independent, which led to the
>> Magna Carta and all other manor of foul things.
>
>True, but in theory and within the legal framework of Fuedalism all
>oaths led directly back to the King.

Do you have a source for that ?   I seem to recall that if the 
Baron you were in fealty to revolted, you revolted too.
And IIRC, people were sometimes to two masters, for
different things, and had to choose what to do when
the two masters went to war with each other.
 
>> >They are necessary also to the SCA. If the King and Queen
>> >are to be our leaders the military (Knights), officers and Their
>> >Majesty's local representatives (Barons) must be loyal to the Crown. A
>> >public Oath of loyalty that goes both ways aids in assuring harmony.
>> 
>> You are a lucky person, to have attained your age without
>> ever experiencing the political reality that belies your opinion.
>> Or at the least, you have never lived in "downtown Atenveldt".
> 
>I said it helps to assure harmony. As always there are no absolutes. At
>age 49 and sixteen years in the SCA ( 4 local and two regional offices)
>I still enjoy this game. There are good politics as well as bad
>politics. Maybe I just have a thick skin  [...]

Maybe.  Perhaps you have just, as I said, been lucky.
Certainly no amount of fealty would have prevented the 
debacle that was Estrella '97, or assured harmony in 
the wake of it and the many other debacles of that reign.
 
>> >Gifts can and should be given at a place other than Court.
> 
>> Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  There was once a group that
>> presented a peacock to Their Majesties with much show. I do
>> not think anyone minded that they did so in Court:. Quite not, really.
>
>I stand on my words.

This is logically equivalent to merely repeating your words,
 an invalid form of argument. Better if you had simply not
responded at all, than to display what is either an inability
or an unwillingness to support the bald assertion that
currently makes up the whole of your position.

You may apply this critique to the remainder of your reply
as well, which in a like manner failed to do anything to
advance your argument.
--
Dennis O'Connor               dmoc at primenet.com
All rights reserved. Speaking only for myself, by default.



============================================================================

To be removed from the Ansteorra mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe ansteorra".