SC - OT-Nobility

[Michael F. Gunter]

> What is written is that ALL members are considered to be
> nobility?

Although I hold the esteemed writers of the Corpora in high respect I
do feel they are mistaken in the concepts of the nobility vs the gentry.
I haven't seen the section of Corpora you state so I can't say one way
or the other.

But there is a lot of confusion in the concepts of the two as well. For
example, when someone is granted knighthood they are said to be
"ennobled". Which indicates that they are part of the nobility. However
as for heraldic Order of Precidence stuff they are members of the gentry.
The gentry are all of those who have Royal or Noble blood but don't
necessarily have to have any real rank or precidence. The nobility are
the ranks of gentry less than Royalty but recognized. So, at least in
an English heraldry sense, from Knighthood up to even Duke you can
be nobility and only those who have direct bloodlines to the Crown are
Royalty.

> What justification do you have for these interpretations? Or more to
> the point, what justification through official documents do you have which
> would support your stance?

By the way heraldry is arranged. With an AoA you recieve a Coat of arms and
mantling. With a Grant you recieve a helm, torse, mantling.  With Peerage you
recieve a motto and your arms are encircled by a symbol of the Peerage.
With a "hat" rank (baron, viscount, count, duchy) you are allowed supporters
and a coronet on the helm.
According to heralds, these are the ranks of the nobility.

So as far as what determines nobility from the gentry I go to the heralds.
Sorry I don't have the books or corpora to back me up. But I also know that one
time I attended an event where the Crown called a meeting of all nobility
and above. Meaning Court Barony on up.

> Ras

Yers,

Gunthar