Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Coronet options

Expand Messages
  • GR Auklandus
    ... it is a ... combatants. ... about ... would ... I am responding to this one not because I think Paolo s wrong, but because it hit me why I disagreed with
    Message 1 of 107 , Dec 9, 1998
      > From: Eric J Abbott <ejabbott@...>
      >
      > I lurk till I think I have something that needs saying but I agree
      it is a
      > good idea. After all in period many people ruled without being
      combatants.
      > Could you imagine Elizabeth in armour fighting for England? Or how
      about
      > Isabella, she was queen in her own land, Ferdinand had no power there.
      > Also the youth that ruled without ever raising a sword. I think it
      would
      > be a nice change kind of a Palantine Principality (modeled after the
      > Barony of Western Seas?) I look forward to the 12th night meeting.

      I am responding to this one not because I think Paolo's wrong, but
      because it hit me why I disagreed with the non-martial faction
      (courteously!).

      Yeah, some later period monarchs (and, I guess, some earlier ones)
      could hold a throne through habit of their family being royalty, but
      most of us Dark Agers wouldn't stand for a King who couldn't defend
      his crown. That, to me, is one of the prime things we in the SCA
      emulate: some strong person (not just by martial prowess, but a ruler)
      who could defend what he saw as right. Historically, if a strong king
      was a bad one, he could be deposed via many methologies. We have a
      natural assassin, called Crown Tourney. (Look at our history; we had a
      king who didn't want to give up the throne; it happened anyway.)

      But the kings we put on pedestals were all martial in nature: Arthur,
      Richard, Henry V, etc. I don't necessarily pull the stick jock
      mentality of "might makes right" and "we fighters have a natural-born
      right to be kings and nobody else," but it's the way the SCA was
      founded. If we wanted to be twentieth-century wimps afraid of
      offending everyone and let lawyers be our defenders, we'd not be in
      this group. But it's developed the way it has for a number of good
      reasons, else it'd have grown other ways.

      Off the rattan soapbox...

      Cai
    • Diver
      I read over 100 emails regarding this topic. When I first read Duchess Gabrielle s idea, it sounded good. I thought, hey, now the non-fighter could win a
      Message 107 of 107 , Dec 14, 1998
        I read over 100 emails regarding this topic. When I first read Duchess
        Gabrielle's idea, it sounded good. I thought, "hey, now the non-fighter
        could win a crown...". (ok- someone brought up the "champion" issue but I
        was unaware of this when I first read the message).

        I read Pros and Cons on the issue. Lots of GREAT ideas and opinions. I was
        impressed.

        I think that including Archery and Fencing into the combat arena (yes, I
        believe fencing and archery do constitute COMBAT) is an excellent one. I
        agree. (my 2 cents on that issue)

        HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!

        ONE MAJOR issue I have is with the A&S idea - someone else (ok I am NOT
        going through those emails again to put names here... sorry!) had brought
        this up and I never thought of it - When you are judging a fighting match,
        there is a specific yes/no agenda... he hit there, loose an arm... (or shoot
        better in archery) etc..talking about judging here.. not the fight itself.
        NOW, how can an A&S judge say that someone's BREWING ability is better than
        someone's SEWING ability? That is apples and airplanes. There can be no real
        comparison between artwork on a scroll and someone's metalworking. All are
        equally as impressive, but who is to say whose is "crown worthy"? I am not
        talking about judge impartiality here. I'm saying there is NO basis for
        judging two completely unique and creative talents.

        I feel that this is one area that CAN'T be resolved. I AM NOT BELITTLING
        PEOPLE'S THOUGHTS HERE... but all the other arguments sort of fall back in
        my head to not mattering AS MUCH as this. If we CAN'T judge, how can we say
        who has the crown?

        NOW~~~~ AT LEAST in combat, there is a set of rules for a judge to use in
        determining the winner. People can determine WHO is the better
        fighter/ARCHER/FENCER. Apples and Apples.

        Unless we designate an A&S competition to ONE CERTAIN AREA of Arts and
        Sciences... it wouldn't be fair AT ALL.

        I am keeping an open mind here. I think the idea has merit, but I don't know
        if it would be practical to include A&S...

        OPEN to ideas on this ???

        Sherri (Beryl)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.