SC - Taillevent bio

[Elaine Koogler]

This was a discussion that the BoD had some time ago...4 or 5 years, if memory
serves.  At that time, the proposal was to do away with the titles of
Mistress/Master for Laurels and Pelicans, and have Knights of the Laurel, Knights
of the Pelican, etc.  We would have been entitled to use Sir or Dame, wear a chain
to represent our fealty to the Crowns.  The current regalia of the Order of
Chivalry (White belt and Spurs) would remain exclusive to that Order.
Unfortunately, the only piece of this that made it through was to allow women to
be called "Dame".  The Knights were concerned that it would somehow take away from
their status if we all used the same titles and wore chains.  (At least that's
what the members of the Chivalry said in Atlantia).  We were pretty bummed about
it...after all, Master and Mistress were not peerage titles in period and it would
be nice to have a period title to use.

I hope I haven't offended any of our number who are Knights, but I wanted to pass
this on.

Kiri (looking for the rock so she can dodge the slings and arrows coming her way)

Philip & Susan Troy wrote:

> Vincent Cuenca wrote:
> >
> > Offhand, does anyone know if Guillaume Tirel was nobly born or a commoner?
> > His knighthood for service to the House of Valois would seem less unusual if
> > her were nobly born.  I've found a few instances of cooking knights (Sir
> > Kenelm Digby being one, and a Gonzalvo Gil listed in a c1300 roll of members
> > in the Order of Santiago as "cozinero mayor del rey" or head cook to the
> > king).  Were these cases of additional honors being bestowed on those
> > already entitled, or the elevation of commoners due to their skills?
> >
> > Vicente
> > (knighthood for cooking... hmmm...)
>
> I once had a lovely discussion with a member of the Order of Chivalry
> here in the East, in which he opined that the Order of the Laurel was
> not an appropriately period form of recognition for a master craftsman.
> (This was a while ago, before the leafy thing occurred.) Finally he
> said, "Okay, you're a cook who tries to behave like a period cook. What,
> based on your experience and historical precedent, is the highest honor
> a Crown would bestow on a cook for that service?" I said, "Well,
> Taillevent was made a knight and given an estate..."  Somehow the
> subject changed after that.
>
> As far as I can recall, Taillevent was a commoner, and while I have a
> vague memory of it having been said he was the son of a shopkeeper, all
> I can find is that his name appears listed on a roll dated 1326 as a
> kitchen boy in the household of Jean d'Evereaux, and the Larousse
> specifically calls his subsequent knighting ceremony as his
> "ennoblement", by which we can conclude (if accurate) that prior to that
> date, he wasn't noble.
>
> Digby appears to have been a knight in a non-culinary right; cookery,
> brewing, mazing, etc., seem to have been sidelines. I seem to recall
> reading that he had been both a diplomat and a spy for various English
> Crowns. I know there's a fairly detailed (if short) bio of Digby in Eric
> Quayle's "Old Cook Books".
>
> Adamantius
> --
> Phil & Susan Troy
>
> troy at asan.com
> ============================================================================
>
> To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
> Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".
>
> ============================================================================