ANST - one Peerage (was "It's Not Period")

[Michael Tucker]

(I'm having trouble with my email server. I'm not sure wheter this went out
successfully a while ago; if it did, please accept my apologies for the second
posting. Thanks - Michael)

Greetings, all, from Michael Silverhands:

Russell Husted wrote:
> 
> Sounds correct to me, and as somebody said, in late period, people were
> knighted for service not prowess<g>
> 

Which brings me back to my point (see full context, quoted below). As my kinsman
Sir Kief might put it: this is a radical idea, it might hurt, so hang on. (*grin*)

Suppose - just suppose, mind you - that there were _truly_ only one Peerage, and
- for the sake of argument - suppose we called it "Knighthood". You'd get
"Knighted" for whatever you did that led you to peerage - whether it was martial
prowess, service, or excellence in the arts and sciences. (By the way, this
would be a _much_ better approximation of history than our current model.) You'd
still have to be a Knight, or be spoken for by one and approved to enter a Crown
or Coronet list (per Kingdom law). And Crowns would still be determined (per
Corpora) with "weapons of tournament combat". (In particular, "Governing and
Policy Decision", 5. Rapier Fighting in the Society; "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.") The only
difference would be that not all "Knights" would be fighters who were competent
to enter the list.

You'd still have to "swing a hot stick" to _win_ the list, and it would still be
easier to _enter_ the list if you were first a Knight (i.e. Peer). Circles would
work a little differently - but, I think, _only_ a little. All the members of
the Circle would still be competent to discuss a candidate's "Peer qualitites".
And you'd still have to rely on the judgement of others in the circle whose
particular expertise made them a better judge than you of the candidate's
particular qualifications (i.e. martial prowess, A&S, service, whatever). This
wouldn't be any different than it is now, where you have to rely on Master
Whosit or Mistress Whatsit to tell you whether the candidate's needlepoint, or
sword point, or point of order, is worthy of a Peer, if you yourself aren't
expert in that area, or you don't know the candidate personally well enough to
have formed an opinion of your own.

The only real difference I can see is: what forms of address would you use?
Personally, I like the idea of calling _all_ Peers "Sir <x>", just as it's done
in "real life". If you wanted, you could differentiate the insignia (as we have
done) and append an honorific, such as:
Sir <x>, Knight of the Realm
Sir <x>, Master/Mistress of Arms
Sir <x>, Master/Mistress of the Laurel
Sir <x>, Master/Mistress of the Pelican

I fully realize that this is just a "thought exercise" - I'm not proposing a
change to 34 years of tradition. But I've heard this "model" for our Society
discussed by friends who've been in the Society since the _very_ beginning. I
haven't heard it brought up within the context of our current discussion - i.e.,
whether to expand the Peerage to include other activities.

I'm also curious: is there anyone out there who was active prior to AS 9 (when
the Order of the Pelican was created)? Since we're discussing a possible
_fourth_ Order of Peerage, how much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth
accompanied the creation of the _third_ Order?

> From: Michael Tucker <michaelt at neosoft.com>
> Reply-To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG
> To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG
> Subject: Re: ANST - "It's Not Period"
> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:04:28 -0500
> 
> Hi, Gunnora:
> 
> You just said something I've been wondering about:
>  >
>  > I tend to think that we don't need a 4th peerage, because I think that
> the folks
>  > we've been discussing for such a peerage all can adequately be covered
> with
>  > the Laurel and the Pelican.  I can't see how one could have the
> nevcessary peerage
>  > requirements as set out in Corpora, as well as peerage-level athletic
> abilities
>  > amply displayed, without being a Laurel or Pelican candidate as well.
> It's
>  > not a status quo thing for me, certainly, because I wouldn't mind if a
> 4th peerage
>  > were created -- I just think we've got it covered adequately already.
>  >
>  > ::GUNNORA::
> 
> I've heard people "approach" this idea before, but this is the best I've
> heard
> it presented. Now, re-read the above paragraph, but in the two places where
> it
> says "a 4th peerage", substitute "knighthood".
> 
> (waiting while our viewing audience tries this at home)
> 
> Interesting, huh?
> 
> This harkens back to the ancient argument, "A Peer is a Peer is a Peer";
> i.e.,
> that there is really only one Peerage, whether we choose to give different
> people different titles or not. What do you think?
> 
> Yours,
> Michael Silverhands
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.