Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: 4 On Fealty
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 21:04:26

 JM> Greetings from Arval!  Tadhg wrote:

 JM> > I was responding to Arval's "It's my fealty and I can swear it if I
 JM> > want to" message. Unless he's getting (or giving) pensions or
 JM> > equivalent (and occasionaly trinkets do *not* qualify), then it
 JM> > ain't fealty.

 JM> Since you haven't any idea what I exchange with my various overlords and
 JM> vassals, you were arguing from ignorance.

 Gosh, I thought that was *de rigeur* here ... since you didn't mention it,
 I assumed it wasn't happening (possibly based on the presumption that
 anyone who's been in the SCA as long as you would know that what most
 people mean by "fealty" ain't ... if *I* were to claim to be in fealty to
 someone, I would damned sure mention my "fee", to demonstrate that I meant
 the real thing and not SCA pseudo-fealty.)

 JM> However, since many (if not most) SCA fealty agreements do not include
 JM> an annual payment, let's grant your assumption for the moment.

 Which assumption are we "granting"? That what mostly happens in the SCA
 isn't real fealty? (That's not an assumption, that's a fact.) Or that what
 you do is SCA fake-fealty rather than the real thing? (Easily rebutted -
 just explain what "fee" you are receiving.)

 JM> Master Humbert agrees that each year he will feed his vassal Gwendolyn
 JM> every night at Pennsic and pay her camping fee in return
 JM> for her arriving
 JM> early enough to deal with the land lottery and set up his camp.

 Okay. That's more a contract of retinue than fealty, but in SCA terms it's
 close enough that I'll give it to you.

 JM>   Master Humbert agrees that each year he will supply his vassal William
 JM>   with a year's supply of calligraphic inks in return for William's
 JM>   producing up to ten works of calligraphy each year at Humbert's behest.

 Bingo! That works.

 JM>   Master Humbert agrees that he will teach his vassal Pietra the art of
 JM>   calligraphy in return for her serving him in such ways 
 JM>   as they agree over the course of the year.

 That's an apprenticeship, not fealty.

 JM> These arrangements are analogous to contracts of service fealty that I
 JM> have seen in the SCA.  I think that, given the practical limitations
 JM> of life in the Society, they are excellent adaptations of the medieval
 JM> concept of fealty to our needs.

 Well, I guess one out of three isn't bad, for the SCA. However, I don't
 see any need to mischaracterize these as "fealty" ... I haven't yet seen a
 relationship in the SCA that didn't have a properly-termed Period analog,
 and I see no reason to debase the language by not using the correct term.
 (Unless, of course, we really do *want* knowledgeable people to think that
 we're ignorant...)

 JM> You argued that a peer's oath to the Crown is not fealty because the Crown
 JM> does not return a fee; the peer remains a peer whether he swears the oath
 JM> or no, and so receives no benefit from the contract.  The point I made a
 JM> few weeks ago was that the peer can treat his peerage as if it were fee
 JM> from the Crown.  He could refrain from displaying the regalia of his order
 JM> until he renewed his fealty each reign, and make sure to perform the
 JM> services promised. From his point of view, his peerage _is_ a fee
 JM> received in return for his service, and his oath is fealty.

 Nope. Unless his peerage is a condition of his fealty, as it is with
 Knights, he's merely exercising voluntary restraint - since there's no
 external obligation binding him to observe this procedure. If he suddenly
 decides not to be so picky anymore, he remains a peer - while if a vassal
 refused on his own motion to perform the services attached to his fee, he
 was guilty of felony and his fief was escheat to his lord. These pretend
 games are not fealty.

    Tadhg, Obelisk

 * Origin: Herald's Point * Steppes/Ansteorra * 214-699-0057 (1:124/4229)
From: Beth.Appleton@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Beth Appleton)
Sender: FredGate@ocitor.fidonet