Re: Coronet options
> From: Eric J Abbott <ejabbott@...>it is a
> I lurk till I think I have something that needs saying but I agree
> good idea. After all in period many people ruled without beingcombatants.
> Could you imagine Elizabeth in armour fighting for England? Or howabout
> Isabella, she was queen in her own land, Ferdinand had no power there.would
> Also the youth that ruled without ever raising a sword. I think it
> be a nice change kind of a Palantine Principality (modeled after theI am responding to this one not because I think Paolo's wrong, but
> Barony of Western Seas?) I look forward to the 12th night meeting.
because it hit me why I disagreed with the non-martial faction
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...
- 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
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)
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 ???