[Ansteorra] Why aren't we doing this?

Richard Culver rbculver at sbcglobal.net
Fri Nov 5 22:35:34 PDT 2010

Closer to correct for which period?  In Early Germanic, certainly Anglo-Saxon, 
lored and thegn were not titles in the first place but statements of 
relationship.  In fact the same person could be considered both at the same 
time- lord over one set of people and a thegn to another group or individual.  
The only real titles at that time were functional, not necessarily rank, though 
it changes in ecclesiastical circles. Bretwalda, alderman, cyning, dryhten, and 
such were leadership titles.  It is much later that Thegn become an 
administrative title somewhat equivalent to baron or sheriff.  At this point in 
time cniht still meant boy.

Of course if we truly want to move to accurate, our kingdom name is missing an 
element to make it correct to Anglo-Saxon naming practice. :P


From: "Kevinkeary at aol.com" <Kevinkeary at aol.com>
To: ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
Sent: Fri, November 5, 2010 9:47:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Why aren't we doing this?

It would actually be moved considerably closer to correct if we just  
acknowledged the fact that an 'Award of Arms' -- the right to inheritable 

-- raises you to the Gentry, makes you a Gentleman or Gentlewoman, as 
opposed to  the Yeomanry or Peasantry, and the titles Lord and Lady should be 
reserved to  the Nobility -- landed Baronys and higher.  Baronets are 
post-period, but  Court Baronys are a close approximation, and Baronets are also 

merely  Gentry.

Given that, the approximation would actually be fairly  close.

More information about the Ansteorra mailing list