34072Re: [SCA-Archery] APEC proposal
- Aug 29, 2013
Let's hope so and also that Janyn gets nominated to the BOD.
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: John Edgerton <sirjon1@...>;
To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>;
Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] APEC proposal
Sent: Thu, Aug 29, 2013 5:32:24 PMI hope that someone will actually read it. But, I think it just as likely that it will glanced at and noted as either "approve of proposal" or "other" and just tabulated with it really never being considered.Jon
From: Carolus <eulenhorst@...>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] APEC proposal
Excellent, Sir Jon!
This phrasing covers exactly what I was hoping for with my comments.
CarolusOn 8/28/2013 12:34 PM, John Edgerton wrote:Below is what I sent out regarding the additional peerage proposal.
Note, that I also sent a copy to the board director in charge of the APEC and the APEC itself.
This was in the hope that someone would actually read it.
Please send in your comments on the proposal. If you should happen to agree with the suggestion in my letter, you could mention that as well. If you do support my suggestion, please feel free to forward this post to any other lists or persons that you think might be interested.
August 28, 2013GreetingsI think that the APEC did an excellent job on their proposal. I find that many of the reasons they give for rapier/cut thrust receiving peerage recognition also apply to the other non-rattan martial activities (NRMA) which at this time include: Target archery. Combat archery. Thrown weapons. Siege. And equestrian. I hope that this proposal continues through the system and is finally approved.However, if it is approved and implemented the question of peerage recognition for the the remaining NRMA will come up. The idea of separate peerages for each of the current or future NRMA creates a problem with many Society members. And I agree, the thought of perhaps eleven or more peerages is excessive and could cause extreme resistance to the idea by many members. If more individual peerages were not created, it could then happen that those that do have the PLQs and excel in the other NRMA would never receive peerage recognition for their excellence in these martial skills.I have a possible solution for this future problem and it is based upon existing SCA practice. The Order of Chivalry is composed of Knights and Masters of Arms. It is really one order with two "sub-orders". If an all encompassing order for NRMA were to be created with rapier/cut thrust as the first of the sub-orders, then there would be only one additional peerage order created which would include the other sub-orders. Other NRMA could be added in the future using the same process as is now being used for rapier. The BoD, with input from the membership, would have the say as to which other activities would be added and when. The process should be easier in the future, having already gone through the process for rapier. This would cover the current NRMA and any new NRMA that might develop.This single order, let us, for now, call it a "Grand Order" in the sense of grand meaning all-inclusive, would function much as the OL does. The OL covers a wider diversity of skills from armoring, calligraphy, lace making, cooking, etc than a NRMA order would include. Moreover, the OL still functions well in finding candidates for vastly differing skills and presenting them to the Crowns in its Peerage Circles.Each sub-order could have its own name, just as the knights and masters do and its own badge which could combine the badge of the "Grand Order" with the sub-order, and regalia. The first members of the OL had their skill given as part of their title. Which for the first two were Master Artificer and Master Musician."And the rank of this OrderShall be Master, which titleshall bear also the name of thatdiscipline in which the receiverdoes excell;"For example. Master Robin Loxley, Master Archer. The details of this would have to be worked out by the College of Heralds.I hope that you will give this concept consideration as a possible way of preventing the problems that would be caused by attempting to create too many peerages. If this were to be implemented, I feel that it is important that it be clearly stated that the “grand order” would be the future home of the other NRMA as they are approved.John R EdgertonSir Jon FitzRauf, OC, OL, OP. WestMembership #1179
- << Previous post in topic