ANST - Order of the Pelican...

[Elisabeth B. Zakes]

At 09:09 AM 9/23/97 -0500, Pug wrote:
>Good Morning,
>
>  First I will disclaim here at the beginning, that this might (hell,
>  probably will) offend Peers, particularly Pelicans, if they are
>  at all sensitive to receive criticism from those not worthy enough
>  to do so. I am not talking about any individuals here, but rather
>  the Peerages as a group.

What is "not worthy enough to do so"? One does not need to be a member of
the order to express opinions about them.

>
>  After going home and thinking about what people had said on the list,
>  as well as in private, I think I got even more concerned and discouraged
>  by this weekends occurrence. Not to mention the trend that Viscount Galen
>  pointed out.

I think I missed his letter--what trends did he mention?

[snip]

>  Not to mention, are there no worthy people within Raven's Fort itself
>  that are deserving of this peerage? It seems to me that someone there
>  *has* to be doing a lot of work in order to keep the group going. Isn't
>  Keif from Raven's Fort? Is he not worthy of this status? If not,
>  than I am quite certain that I shall never be able to attain this
>  prestigious and elite Order.

Is this a formal recommendation?
>
>  Do all of the Pelicans think that the work ends when feast starts?
>  When Court starts? Ever? Is it that they are no longer required to work
>  since they have received their peerage? Is it such that the Pelicans
>  are so high and mighty that they can sit back on their "laurels" and
>  judge those still working as not worthy of this recognition? If they
>  judge it that way, what are their criteria for doing so? Not to
>  mention why?

The short answer is "no." Most Pelicans are elevated to the order because
they can't stop working. I could name several whom you would recognise as
still working. There have been cases (rare ones) of peers of all orders
judging candidates by their own current standards ("He's not as good as I
am now/hasn't been working as long as I have now"), and therefore no one
will qualify. But this is very unusual and I haven't heard a statement like
that in quite a while.
>
>  As for the general trend of peers not attending events that do not
>  have activities for them, I say "You are not worthy". The last I
>  checked, which has been a while, a Peer is to be a well rounded person
>  who understands the courtly and chivalric graces. A Peer is someone
>  who gives back to the Society as much as the Society has given to
>  them. All Peers need to know the basics of dance, costuming, period
>  games (particularly chess if I remember right), chivalry, Society and
>  Kingdom Law, as well as continuing to perform service through teaching
>  if through no other method. These are not items that they have to know
>  once to become a peer and then can stop improving or even just
>  refreshing their skills. These are the ways that we continue to make
>  the Society better and not allow it, nor ourselves, to stagnate and die.

I agree 100%.
>
>  I would ask forgiveness to those whom I offend, but I feel these where
>  concerns and criticisms that I just couldn't keep to myself.

I can understand where your statements are coming from. I feel relatively
sure that most people had valid reasons for what they did. I cannot and
will not post details of discussions on candidates, but I assure you that
people are being watched and recognised in all the circles. But I will say
that if a candidate is received favourably in one meeting, he will be
brought up again in another meeting in another area to give people who were
not present the opportunity to give the Crown their views. This can delay
things in non-peers' eyes because they are not aware of the discussions.
But the Crown is required to consult the order--not just some of the order,
but the whole order.

Also, if folks feel that someone is being overlooked, please bring him to
our attention (all circles). Yes, people fall into cracks. In a perfect
world, they wouldn't, but this world isn't perfect.

As for not attending courts, that is something that I feel should be taken
up with individuals. I don't think that "the peers" have stopped attending
courts.
>
>  (Is it just me or do I regularly just not understand what the hell is
>  going on with the Peerages? *shrug*)

I don't think that either of these is an accurate statement. The whole
concept of peerages is hard for some of us peers to understand, too. And if
you feel strongly enough to write so eloquently, you are probably voicing
someone else's opinion, too--someone who, for whatever reason, hasn't
written this.

I am not offended by your words. I hope I do not offend with mine.

Aethelyan Moondragon


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

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