SR - Re: ANST - Tournament of the Worthies

Brent & Susan Rachel hbrache at
Wed Mar 24 15:56:25 PST 1999

Regarding reviving 9 Worthies, Amy Forsyth wrote:

> I've gotten a chance to look over the Southern Region mailing list archives
> to see the background discussion about the ideas for reviving Worthies.
> I do not like the ideas that have been proposed for using the 'worthies'
> titles.

Let's slow down a bit here.

If you looked at the archives, you should also have seen that my suggestion of
using titles LIKE those from the "9 Worthies" went over like a lead balloon.  I
posted the suggestion due to my irritation at the squabbling over warden -vs-
champion -vs- insert your choice here, to be used for the *heavy champion* of an
event originally espoused to selected a range of champions in the various
disciplines...., one to be regarded no higher than the other.

The very concept of a group of folks, worthy of regard as the best the southern
region has to offer can hardly be expressed without the word "worthy."  Thus,
the idea of the "held in period" 9 worthies came to mind..., followed by the
Ansteorran one.

Drawing from the idea of the whole thing I suggested selecting worthies from
history (ourselves), which we felt embodied what we sought.  It spawned one
whole response..., a query as to whether the concept was period or not.

That idea, which was *never* the resurrection of Ansteorra's Tournament of the 9
Worthies,  was dead.

> What has been proposed [3 'worthies' for each tournament portion of the
> overall event (ie. 3 chiv. worthies, 3 rapier worthies, 3 A&S worthies,
> etc.) & a breakdown of the selection of the worthies being done as follows:
> 1 champion (ie. winner of the tournament), 1 by panel selection, 1 by
> populace selection], doesn't follow the period pattern.
> Worthies was an event focused upon Chivalric combat (this style of
> tournament is not period for rapier combat).  It was a high-persona event
> with incredible pageantry.
> If you want to bring back Worthies as it was ---- a tournament based upon
> how tournaments really were ran in period --- then I'm all for it.
> If your wanting to simply use the titles.... I can't support it.

Having cited that this was never the idea, I still stand by the concept that I
set forth in the message you excerpted above:

In lieu of titles for each discipline that will, of necessity   1) be
inappropriate for all personae cultures;  and 2)  contain titles that are
inherently more commanding for one discipline than another (I'd love the title
"warden" but gack at the title "cavalier." -personal preference)...., I
suggested using the title "Worthy."  NOT the names of the 9 worthies of old...,
but the actually word "worthy."

In consideration of the previous debate on Southern Regional list about whether
these "champions" ought to be selected by victory in a tournament or by virtue
of a panel of judges, I sought to exalt both concepts, as well as throwing in a
third, by having 3 worthies per discipline:  1 - the victor of the competition;
1 - the selectee of a panel who would observe them throughout the day and note
their comportment and chivalry and honor;  and 1 - the winner of public acclaim,
who most impressed the populace of the event that day.

Those individuals would BE the 9 (or 7 or 13 or 22) Worthies of [the Southern
Region].  Each as worthy as their companions, none regarded of higher worth
merely as a result of a "different title" won at the tournament.


Now all should be aware that we are not trying to revive and alter what seems to
so many (and so justifiably) a precious and cherished memory.

Baron Kazimir Petrovich Pomeshanov

Go to to perform mailing list tasks.

More information about the Southern mailing list