RE: [Mid] Martial Activity Prowess

Greetings from Josceline.

Malcolm wrote:

>A knight - if king - may elevate by his hand anyone to any peerage - KSCA,
>MSCA, OL, OP. A MSCA - if king - may elevate to a peerage the exact same
>people that an Laurel who was king could. Or even an unbelt. If you,
>Master Daffyd Blaidd became King, or I, or Master Rin Ravenfoe we would
>have
>no difference in who we could elevate to what peerage. All of us could
>make
>Masters and Mistresses. None of us could make Knights.

Yes, you could. You would simply need a knight to hold the sword. While the
saying goes that "only a knight can make a knight," the truth of the matter
is that only a Sovereign can make a knight. There are knights in the
Midrealm who were given the accolade by the Queen, with one of her vassal
knights holding the sword. The accolade came from the Crown, however, in the
person of the Queen, not from the knight who held the sword.

>Knights are "Sir" and all other peerages are Master or Mistress.

Female Peers (Laurels and Pelicans as well as Knights and MSCAs) may also
use the title Dame if they choose. The vast majority of female KSCAs choose
to be called "Sir."

>Knights wear the chain to indicate their special vow of fealty, which (in
>theory) is the only thing that differentiates between them and Masters of
>Arms is that vow.

True.

>The perogatives of a knight are considerably different than the perogatives
>of all the other peerage orders, and save for sitting in the Chiv Meetings,
>the perogatives of a MSCA are closer to that of one of the OL or OP.

Just what do you believe are the prerogatives of each type of Peer?

>Now, I'll grant, not being a peer myself, I'm a lot of "outside looking in"
>but it's not something I say casually. Now I'm not arguing that a Knight
>is
>higher ranking than a MSCA, or an OP, or OL - but they are different, and
>the differences between a KSCA and a MSCA are more pronounced than the
>differences between a MSCA and an OL.

You are entitled to believe that if you wish. However, I doubt if you would
find many Laurels, or Masters at Arms, who agree with you. Granted, I have
only known one MSCA well enough to discuss such topics (the late Thorbjorn
the Graysides), and I have been a Laurel for less than five years, but I
really believe that the focus of the two Orders is different, largely due to
the interactive nature of combat and the individual nature of A&S. The
focus of a Master at Arms in pursuit of excellence and in training others is
the same as the focus of a Knight. Also, each Order has a slightly different
interpretation of what constitutes peerlike qualities. A Master at Arms is
far more likely to share his interpretation with a Knight than with a
Laurel.

You have drawn parallels between Laurels and MSCAs, and differences between
Knights and MSCAs, based on some very superficial traits (the title and the
requirement to swear fealty). Most Laurels I know swear fealty on a regular
basis, even though they are not required to do so. Some MSCAs choose to
swear fealty, but most do not (I suspect that most of them chose Mastery
rather than Knighthood in the first place is because they felt that oaths of
fealty were inappropriate for reasons of conscience or persona). You are
ignoring the nature of the activities that are central to each Peerage.
There is no doubt in my mind that a Knight and a Master at Arms belong to
the same Order, and that I belong to a different Order.

In service,
Dame Josceline Levesque, O.L.

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

From: "c olson" <rudefrog2000@hotmail.com>
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ to unsubscribe, send a message to
`~-, ,-~`~-, ,-~`~-, ,-~`~-, ,-~` majordomo@midrealm.org with
. | | | | | | | | 'unsubscribe sca-middle' as its body.
Received on Fri Oct 22 00:15:37 2004