From: cctimar@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Charles the clerk)
Subject: Re: fealty and peers
Organization: Shire of Glaedenfeld
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 07:33:35 GMT

To all upon the Rialto doth Charles the clerk send his greetings!

Graydon writeth:
> 
> So - recognize that the magnates (Ducal, County, Vicounty, and Landed
> Baronage) are essentially a fourth peerage order.  Let them have meetings,
> and recommend people to the Crown for elevation if they want to.

as "Court Barons," I presume?

> Keep the mandatory grant of Ducal and County rank upon succesful
> completion of a reign.

I've always felt that this was a stupid tradition.  On the one hand,
it is good to recognize former royalty, but, on the other, taking up
perfectly good feudal titles is a bad thing.  We already have a silly
sort of confusion over princes.

(BTW, what is the second example (after Wales) in which a Prince held
lands in fief from a King?  I know that there were a few who held their
lands as parts of the HRE, but there is still a sovereign Prince today.
Wouldn't it be more correct to have Principalities as minor Kingdoms,
as Shires are minor Baronies?)

If we wanted to create an administrative unit larger than a barony, but
smaller than a principality, the two obvious titles would be County and
Duchy, but these would presume either a Count or a Duke, and some former
royalty would complain that their toes were being stepped on.

> wishing to do homage to the Crown wear plain gold chains when being
> ...
> thing I like to see legislated is the restriction of the plain gold
> chains to designate homage to the Crown.  Note that Great Officers

I believe that the official regalia is an unadorned chain.  This bit
about gold is a more recent tradition with no official sanction at the
Society level.  In fact, I am not sure that the squires' chains don't
break some sort of sumptuary law.

> Redo the formal ranking structure to put landed barons *ahead*
> of people of knightly estate.  Restrict 'sir' as an intitulation
> to those of knightly estate and up; make it very plain that it is
> an acceptable form of address for anyone.   Restrict 'Lord/Lady'
> as an intitulation to those of knightly estate; make it very plain
> that it is an acceptable form of address for anyone.  Release
> Master/Mistress from any restriction.  All the Chivalry are knights. 

Graydon doesn't specify, but, "Lord" or "M'lord," which were equivalent,
were generally used for nobility, whereas "Sir" and "Master," could be
used either for nobility, for gentry, for clergy, or for respected
commoners (although this last usage would have been from other their
inferiors.)

This suggests restricting "Lord/Lady," and the "M'L" variants, to a
higher rank than that we restrict "Sir" to.

My own preference would be to consider our KSCA's, Laurels, and
Pelicans to be, essentially, Knights Banneret, Baronets, or Vavasours,
and to consider any authorized fighter with arms to be a Knight
Bachelor.  Anyone else with arms can be considered of Knightly Status.
Then use "Lord" for the peers, "Sir" for anybody (authorized or not)
with arms, and "Master" for anybody.

> It would be a little more period, it would be way-serious less confusing,
> and it doesn't step on many toes.

I sometimes suspect that Americans are more strongly tied to their
traditions than most other countries, and the SCA certainly reflects
a stubborn unwillingness to change its customs.  I don't think that
any change will happen, because most SCAdians consider SCA cultural
traditions to be the most important aspect of the society.
--
    -- Charles, student, in Glaedenfeld, Meridies