ANST - Nobility..

[Timothy A. McDaniel]

On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Raymond Catz <scurlock at ies.net> wrote:
> The truth is that we also misuse the term "peer".  In period, that
> would generally have been translated, "dukes".

That appears not to be the case, to judge by the 1st ed. Oxford
English Dictionary.  Definitions 1-3 are based on "equal".  4: "A
member of one of the degrees of nobility in the United Kingdom; a
duke, marquis, earl, viscount, or baron".  Sense 4b is "In reference
to France: (a) One of the twelve Peers of France: see DOUZEPERS; (b)
One who possessed a territory which had been erected into a lordship,
and who had a right to sit in the Parliament of Paris ..."  Sense 5 is
"In generalized sense: A man of high rank, in any country, state, or
organization; a noble", dating to circa 1350.  (Douzepers at one
period: three dukes, three counts, an archbishop and two bishops
ranking as dukes, three bishops ranking as counts.)

> I therefore think that fealty should be incumbent on us all.

Weeeeeelll ... to me, it depends on what you mean by "fealty", and do
you mean "homage" too?  Next week I hope to buy a little booklet from
Alban Saint Albans on the subject.  I have no personal objections to
an oath or affirmation with defined scope and with defined
compensation, or at least a concept that scope and compensation exist
(tho' the exact bounds may be fuzzy).  For example, consider an oath
of office.  I might swear to perform the duties of my office
faithfully, and the Crown might swear that I had their protection and
that they give me the office.  If I received land, I would do as
period folk did: I would do homage and swear fealty to do the
traditional services of my land, and receive back an oath of
protection and a land grant.  SCA knights don't receive knights' fees,
so I don't see why they should do homage and swear fealty in that
sense.  An oath as a member of an order, OK (swear to succor the weak
and such, for example).  If they're viewed as an officer, swear an
officer-like oath (to give good counsel in the circle, for example).
I'd like to read up on period fealty and homage, with examples.

I really don't understand the people who bop on up at Coronations and
swear something really vague (or practically slavery!) and get little
or nothing promised in return.

However, there are those who feel they cannot swear anything due to
real-world constraints.  Some feel a religion obligation not to swear.
Some feel pre-existing bonds prevent it (I am told Master Richard of
Mont Royal, who was in service to an uncle of his named Sam, felt
this).  I feel we ought not to oppress such people, but accomodate
them.  It's one of those *many* areas where I think SCA practice
should bow to modern beliefs rather than period practice.

Daniel de Lincolia
-- 
Tim McDaniel (home); Reply-To: tmcd at crl.com; 
if that fail, tmcd at austin.ibm.com is my work address.
============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.