[ANSTHRLD] a couple questions
rbculver at sbcglobal.net
rbculver at sbcglobal.net
Wed Jul 22 06:38:28 PDT 2009
I am only putting in an opinion, but not based on mastery, that I though titles went down in the line in order of immediate influence even historically. This is all assuming we are working within the Norman model, which started off the numbering of kings and such.
I thought that some of the early Norman and Plantagenet kings were listed in such fashion: King of England, Duke of Normandy, County of Anjou, etc. I am guessing based on immediate control and sovereignty. I would hazard a guess then that the SCA usage is based on involvement in the business and running of baronial subordinates, with Seneschals acting in somewhat of an autonymous proxy for the baronial seat. Just a guess though.
Other conversational aside:
The inclusion of "lord" is one of those odd things that came about with the Norman take over of England. Prior to that historically the title was more a statement of relationship to others instead of just a title of power. The term meant "loaf-ward" ( a runic title of similar form, witgendhlaiban- fighter for loafs; Old West Saxon "hlaford, Old Anglian "hlafard") and was used for anyone who have people in their charge by use of land and protection, with kind of person who could muster the "fyrd" or militia for defense. The Normans did make it a pretty low rank of nobility when introducing their own on top of the English model. [edit to add after some browsing] It seems that Baron replaced the big L "Lord" in the royal peerage.
Another total aside:
I found it odd that the SCA acccepted usage for Baron for an AS persona was Thegn again since it is a pretty broad usage term. I would think technically within an early AS persona, such I do, if I had a man-at-arms and members of a household, I could call them historically thegns as well. The specification with Baron is that it is the King's thegn so I guess it fits.
Sorry for the random thoughts.....
Wihtric hlafard Wihtmunding
--- On Wed, 7/22/09, Alden Drake <alden_drake at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
From: Alden Drake <alden_drake at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [ANSTHRLD] a couple questions
To: heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2009, 7:58 AM
I've done a bit of research in the past on marshalling arms, and I started wondering, "If a barony has cantons associated with it, would it be appropriate for the baron/ess to wear/display the arms of the barony quartered with the arms of the canton(s)?"
This question arose because on several occasions I've heard of a landed noble being introduced as "John Smith, Baron of Hereabouts and Lord of Overthere", referencing both the barony and the canton. I realize this is a bit of an SCAism, because in period (and today), Lord X is a proper address for the Baron X. "Lord" is not a lesser noble title such as the way the SCA uses it.
In the process of writing this email though, I though that maybe a better question is, "Is it appropriate to style a B&B as Lord&Lady of <Canton Name>, or is that perpetuating yet another SCAism?"
Heralds mailing list
Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
More information about the Heralds