With regards to the "fourth peerage" proposal.
- Dear Sirs and Madams;
Having participated in the initial poll, having read many of the discussions
pertaining to this proposal, and having read the three particular proposals,
I would like to voice my support for, in particular, the proposal for
changing the Order of the Laurel to include "skills." I do not favor the
creation of a new peerage encompassing non-heavy combat, and my opinions on
the creation of a Master of Combat Arts within the Order of the Laurel are
balanced between the positive and negative.
I maintain that if you attain a standard of excellence in an art or science,
and go out of your way to pass that knowledge on and be a chivalrous beacon
to others in that field, then you should achieve a Laurel in that subject.
Whether that's basketweaving or archery, garb of a particular period or
seige weapons, that's what the Order is for.
If the visors of the Order of the Laurel have become too narrow and focus
only on fine arts, perhaps they need to be reminded that war, too, is an
art. My belief that archery is an art held true in period, as much as it
does now, to wit, the very title of a very popular book, the Art of
Archerie, by Gervase Markham, published in 1634.
Two of the sources of this proposal are the archery and fencing communities,
who feel that their skills are underrepresented in the peerage. This could
be because the two communities find it hard to frame what they do in a
manner that makes their art, teaching, and research accessible to Laurels.
However, from observing the extensive discussions, it does seem that the
doors of the Order of the Laurel have slowly closed to these arts.
Including "skills" in the definition of a Laurel should serve as a reminder
to the Order that these skills that are the underpinnings of the arts of war
should be recognized.
Lord Brochfael the Anglespurian, Royal Forest of the Rusted Woodlands,
mka Jeff Morton
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]