NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/org/sca/15998

Text File | 1992-11-21 | 1.9 KB | 39 lines

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!INTERNET!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: [e-mail] (Graydon)
Subject: peer structure
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Wizard A. Root)
Organization: The Internet
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:34:00 GMT
Lines: 28

Unto Charles the Clerk and the Rest of the Rialto, Greetings!

Nope, the created magnate should have a)whatever rank the magnates
recommend b)whatever rank the Crown sees fit to grant or c) whatever
the Crown and the Magnates can agree on.  I think the idea of a 'Court
Baron' is fairly silly (as *extremely* distinct from the individuals
who are court barons!); it's a way for the Crown to make a non-peer
hat.  I'm most unconvinced that there were period hats who weren't peers
of the realm.

My problem with 'automatic titles' is that we have way serious too many
high ranking people for an actual medieval kingdom.  The idea I *really*
like is that, after being on the throne successfully, you are automatically
a peer and a magnate, but your title depends on who you can get to declare
for you.  This idea has a sparrow's chance of flying to the moon of
actually happening, but it would keep the numbers of great lords down.
As it is, I think the idea of being able to create hats who haven't reigned
is enough for this go round.

And, yes, Charles, I do know that it is the 'unadorned chain' that is offical;
I think that either a chain with your lord's badge on it, whatever the
nature of the chain, or a more specific *type* of chain would be a good
idea.  Besides, it isn't really clear that it is neccesary to have a
single mark of royal homage, or a single mark of any specific rank, for
that matter.  (If I ever become an Earl, I'm going to find out what an
Ealdorman wore, and wear that, coronets be damned.)

Graydon