ANST - Fighting awards/orders...
Chris and Elisabeth Zakes
moondrgn at bga.com
Fri Nov 7 20:24:58 PST 1997
I'm getting into this discussion a little late, so I'm going to do some
fancy cut-and-paste work to hit the points I consider significant...
>At least from looking at Corpora I now understand why Rapier and
>Archery combatants can't be Chivalry without proving themself on the
>tournament field. It clearly states that missile weapons are not
>allowed, and that rapier fighting is not part of the "formal
>tournament lists for royal ranks and armigerous titles". Since that is
>the case, aren't our Order of the White Scarf against Corpora? After
>all, a Grant award has an armigerous status according to Corpora.
The specific intent of the Board (I was *at* that meeting) was that rapier
fighting would be allowed as an ancillary fighting style, but could not be
used in Crown or Coronet tournaments. Since the White Scarf is given for
fighting ability, service and courtliness, not for winning a specific
tournament, it doesn't count.
Pug also wrote:
>Did I hear of a King's Lancer for equestrian?
That's an award from Meridies. My Cadet, Osprey won the first King's Lancer
Galen of Bristol wrote:
>The Order of the White Scarf of Ansteorra is also a polling order,
>of which the Queen is the Principal, and is the highest honor to
>recognize excellence in duello combat.
That isn't entirely correct. The Constitution of the WSA says that the
Crown are the principals of the order, which is why both the King *and*
Queen are entitled to wear White Scarves. (Most of the kings just don't,
for whatever reason.)
Galen also wrote:
>If we wanted to, we could knight someone for excellence in
>rapier combat; don't hold your breath. But I believe that in other
>kingdoms, there are a couple of Laurels for rapier combat.
There are two or three "rapier laurels", in Artemesia and An Tir. I don't
know the details, so I can't say if the laurels were given specifically for
excellence in rapier fighting, or for a broad range of Renaissance skills,
such as clothing, metalworking, research and teaching of period fighting
>> The QR is given to fighters whom the Queen thinks is going in the right
>> direction to eventually earn a White Scarf.
and Galen replied:
>Hmmmm, so it would be Bad Thing for someone to have a Queen's Rapier
>but never be a candidate for a White Scarf?
It wouldn't automatically be a Bad Thing. A lot would depend on the
circumstances. For example:
A fighter could receive a Queen's Rapier, and then lose interest in rapier
fighting, or move out of kingdom, or be injured such that further fighting
A fighter could be physically unable to achieve the skill level expected of
a White Scarf, but nonetheless be a driving force for rapier fighting in
their part of the kingdom.
I don't think any of these examples qualify as "Bad".
>Actually I don't know that G&PD #5 says it's not "tournament combat". It
>and the other clauses I quoted *imply* it, but none of them come out and
>say it. To quote it again, it says:
> "Rapier combat, not having been part of formal tournament combat in the
> Middle Ages, shall not be a part of formal tournament lists for royal
> ranks and armigerous titles."
>I can read this several ways.
>1) Rapier tournaments can not be used to make Royalty. (ie. King,
> Prince, etc.)
That was their precise intent.
>2) Rapier combat is not "tournament combat". This means that Knights
> can't be made due to skill in rapier fighting.
That issue was never discussed at the meeting. I think the general (but
unspoken) assumption was that "rapier fighters couldn't possibly become
knights, knights are heavy weapons fighters". (Remember this was 18 years
ago, the whole notion of a "rapier knight" was pretty much inconceivable.)
>3) Rapier fighting can not be used as a "measuring stick" for making
> *any* armigerous titles. This means no award structure based on
> fencing. (ie. no White Scarves since they carry a grant)
No, that was not the intent of the G&PD.
Daniel de Lincoln wrote:
>You know, this just adds to my firm opinion: Corpora is one of the
>most badly-written governing documents I've ever seen. It has more
>ambiguities than the homage and fealty relationships of the Duke of
>Normandy and the King of France.
That's because it's mostly a collection of afterthoughts--"Oh! We need to
decide how to handle *this* situation; let's do...X" and so "X" becomes the
next Governing and Policy decision.
(On the other hand, consider the number of differing opinions on the
meaning of a clear, unambiguous statement like "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.
More information about the Ansteorra