Made to Swear Fealty

[Burke McCrory]

At 11:57 AM 6/7/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Baronman at aol.com wrote:
>> Very well stated, but what you fail to realize is that  many people within
>> the SCA consider it (the SCA) to be reality.  They not only have one
foot out
>> of the stirrup but both.
>>   Your thoughts???????
>
><el snipo>
>
>I have always taken oaths VERY seriously. I believe that a promise can
>be made in jest, but an oath can not. To me, an oath made in the SCA
>would be every bit as binding as one made outside it. I admit to a bit
>of confusion about the oath of fealty, though. It was my understanding
>that the oath is made to the crown (the office; representing the beliefs
>and ideas of the people <kingdom> it stands for) and not to the person
>(Jonh von Doe) wearing it. It is also my understanding that these stated
>beliefs of the kingdom all pretty much good along with the `King Arthur'
>beliefs of the round table (chivalry, honor, respect, honesty, etc). If
>my understandings have been correct, than I personally, despite my
>strong beliefs about oaths, would not have a problem with swearing an
>oath of fealty because these ARE values I believe in.
>
>Have I misunderstood the oath? Does it it involve a pledge to the crown
>(and the ideas it represents) or to the man wearing it?
>

No, you don't have the wrong idea.  The Oath of Fealty that a knight is
required to swear with the Crown is just that, To the Crown of the Kingdom
you are in, not the person.  This was dealt with during the court of
inquiry held many years ago.  Individual people can choose to swear any
type of personal fealty that they want.


>William FitzBane
><wec1 at airmail.net>
>
>


Sir Burke Kyriell MacDonald


mka Burke McCrory
email:  burkemc at ionet.net