MSCA (was: Re: MOA)

[Michael F. Gunter]

> This subject happens to correspond with a bit of homework I have been doing
> of late and I must disagree with you.  Knights in period (England, our
> model) swore to each *man* who wore the crown because it was more than just
> a pledge of allegience.  Not only that, but the oath of fealty was a yearly
> ordeal for most even when the crown/baron did not change.  The barons
> demanded it and in their society it was for good cause... everyone *saw* you
> give your word... everyone *heard* the contract between you and the
> king/baron.
 
> In my opinion, knights SHOULD swear fealty to each king so as to set the
> contract of not only what you owe *him* but more importantly what he owes *you*.
> 

Hey, I have no problem with differences of opinion, that's why I love these lists.

But I think on this matter we will disagree.  In period the knight was always a 
knight/servant to somebody. (I'm Sir Jeepers, knight to Baron Overlord.)  I am
different in this aspect because I am not Sir Gunthar, knight to the Sultan Mahdi.
Instead I am a Knight of Ansteorra.  The Crown may change but the Land does not.
I serve the Kingdom and whoever wears that Crown. I will renew my pledge of fealty
to the Crown but if I fail to reassert my vows they are no less binding.

The ideals that you and your knight are honorable and noteworthy.  We have 
different views but I feel that neither view is more honorable than the other.
My feelings go that way as well for Masters of Arms.

> Auf Wiedersehen fur jezt,
> 
> Dieterich 
> 
> 

Yers,

Gunthar