MSCA vs Knighthood

[Lori Jones]

Although everyone's probably heard enough on this subject, I just 
wanted to say this....

When I was new to the SCA, and naively in awe of almost any knight I 
met, I was introduced to the concept of Mastery of Arms. I was told 
about members of the order, the ones who stood out in my mind being 
Their Graces, Masters Lloyd von Eaker, Johnathan de Laufyson, and 
Inman MacMoore (who has since switched to KSCA).  I just don't 
understand how, in company such as this, Mastery of Arms could be 
perceived as "less" than Knighthood.  If anything, my newbie 
perception was that it was somehow *better* than knighthood 
(something to do with being trusted enough that you didn't *have* to 
be bound by fealty - like I said, I was new, OK?).  

My beliefs changed over those early years (whose don't?) to thinking 
that Masters were those who simply didn't *want* to be required to 
swear fealty, which then developed into the idea that maybe the 
Knights or the King felt they didn't *understand* knighthood well 
enough to be "knights".  It wasn't long before common sense 
reasserted itself and *both* of these ideas fell by the wayside.  It 
couldn't be more obvious from the track records of the individuals I 
mentioned earlier that they well understand the characteristics of 
knighthood, as all have had their hand in raising some of this 
kingdoms best knights.
  
In the case of Master Ivar Battleskald, one has only to hear the song 
he wrote (most people know it as "Born on the Listfield") to know 
without a doubt that he well understood what it means to be a knight.

I think the truth is, there are probably as many reasons for taking a 
baldric instead of a belt as there are Masters-at-Arms.  I've had 
the opportunity to speak with people who were around at the time many 
of the Masters were made.  I've also heard explanations from some of 
the Masters themselves.  Reasons range from personna accuracy to 
personal values to personality conflicts to moving to another kingdom 
and not wanting to swear fealty there.  I'm sure there are more I 
haven't heard. 

If you've sorted through all my ramblings, good news! You've 
finally made it to my "bottom line", so to speak.  It is this: Any 
peer is a peer of the Society. They are all equal and no peerage 
or title is "better" than any other.  If one peerage seems to receive 
more respect, it is probably a result of how their members interact 
with the general populace.  How they treat people, how they wear 
their regalia, their bearing, manners, garb etc., those kinds of 
things gain long-term respect.  

At the risk of starting WWIII, I'd like to submit that, IMO, people 
respect peers for their titles for only a short time. They respect 
expertise, service or combat ability for only slightly longer than 
that.  Eventually, they look past the titles to see what kind of 
person is really there.  There's a big difference in respecting an 
entire order (as most newer folks do), and in respecting individual 
members of the order.  

- Just a thought or two....

- Baroness Katrionna MacLochlainn 
  Barony of Wiesenfeuer