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

Re: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal

Expand Messages
  • John Edgerton
    Janyn I posted this for comment and thank you for your comment.  But, could you explain your comment of I have never seen additional peerages ever taking
    Message 1 of 18 , Aug 26, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Janyn

      I posted this for comment and thank you for your comment. 

      But, could you explain your comment of "I have never seen additional peerages ever taking away from Chivalry..." I do not understand how anything I wrote would indicate that I feel an additional peerage or peerages would take anything away from the Chivalry. I do not believe that.  The problem I see, from reading comments on many other lists, is that although many SCA members would support peerage recognition for the NRMA such as: Rapier, target archery, combat archery, thrown weapons, siege and equestrian, they are not comfortable with the idea of a surfeit of peerages. If all of the NRMA were to have their own peerage this could lead to a total of 12 peerages, counting the existing peerages and this is very unlikely to happen. I would rather see all the NRMA eventually get peerage recognition under one "grand" order, than only or two e.g.  rapier and target archery ever receive recognition.  I am trying to avoid an "... all or nothing approach...". So, I guess I did not make my idea clear. Could you suggest, what I should do to do so?  All of the Arts and Sciences have simply been lumped into one group labeled the Order of the Laurel and this has worked quite well over the years.  If it were possible, I would prefer that all the NRMA be included under the Order Chivalry, but that is no longer possible. 

      Jon


      From: Janyn Fletcher <janynfletcher@...>
      To: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>; "SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com" <SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com>; "sca-4peerage@yahoogroups.com" <sca-4peerage@yahoogroups.com>
      Cc: "SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com>; "SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 5:39 PM
      Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal

       
      Sir, John while I applaud your efforts and cant say I disagree with your logic presented in principle,  I feel it leaves a bad taste for some of us. Of course I am speaking for Archery and will include the now considered Rapier group as well. I have never seen additional peerages ever taking away from Chivalry but maybe that is because I am not a Knight? I also have not been able to wrap my head around why in this society that we are all paying members of, why they would alienate anyone?
       
      Again it sounds like sour grapes and I'm not trying to make it sound that way but it seems like Rapier and possibly (or not) Archery would have to "settle" to gain peerage status even though there is evidence of all of these disciplines in period being recognized. Not trying to open any can of worms here but I just feel like it will come down to an all or nothing approach which is unfair and should not be acceptable in the end. I think your idea is a very level headed approach but I would hate to see all the others simply lumped into one group labeled "Chief cooks and bottle washers..."
       
      In Service,
       
      Janyn

      From: John Edgerton <sirjon1@...>
      To: "SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com" <SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com>; sca-4peerage@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>; "SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com>; "SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 3:43 PM
      Subject: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal
       
      This is a draft of the letter I will sending to the BoD in comment on the "Additional Peerage Proposal" for rapier. However, before I send it, I would like to have your input on the suggestion I am putting forth. 

      Thank you 

      Sir Jon FitzRauf, West
      ***************************************************************



      Greetings

      I 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).  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. Or it could then happen that those that 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 this 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 in the future. 

      This single order, let us call it a "Grand Order or Fellowship" 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.  And the OL still functions well in finding candidates for 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 Order
           Shall be Master, which title
           shall bear also the name of that
           discipline in which the receiver
           does 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 the creation of too many peerages. 

      John R Edgerton
      Sir Jon FitzRauf, OC, OL, OP. West
      Membership #1179
      sirjon1@...


    • John Edgerton
      Carolus In my next draft I will include the idea of including all the NRMA if and when such an order is created. But, since the BoD is creating the precedent
      Message 2 of 18 , Aug 26, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

        Carolus

        In my next draft I will include the idea of including all the NRMA if and when such an order is created. But, since the BoD is creating the precedent of an involved process of approving single skills to be acceptable for peerage recognition, I feel the best that could be done would be to have the other NRMA listed in the "grand" order as future possibilities pending approval. My original proposal for additional peerage for the NRMA included all of them in one order. But, the BoD wants to do it one step at a time, so I am trying to find a way for them to do so and in the end, still include all the other NRMA without a surfeit of peerages. 

        From what I have read on many other lists is the main reasonable objection is with the idea of too many peerages. I think it likely that if the BoD approves peerage recognition for those skilled in rapier now and perhaps a separate peerage recognition for those skilled in target archery in the future, the other NRMA will fall by the wayside. 

        Jon


        From: Carolus <eulenhorst@...>
        To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 1:57 PM
        Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal

         
        Sir Jon,
        While your proposal has great merit, I see a major flaw in it.  Giving the option to add "sub-orders" at a later date is an easy out for the BoD to do nothing.  In light of past lobbying on the part of existing orders, it has taken far too long to get to this point and only allows further obstructionism to occur.  A fourth peerage for a select group only points out further the disrespect shown by the current powers to the general populace.  The policy of the SCA states that we all represent members of noble families (though not all are nobles) and yet actions like this send the message that many are considered peasants at best and serfs in general.  I believe your influence would be better used if you were to ask for the "sub-orders" or classifications to be included at the time of \creation of the order.
        With greatest respect,
        Carolus von Eulenhorst
        On 8/26/2013 12:43 PM, John Edgerton wrote:
         
        This is a draft of the letter I will sending to the BoD in comment on the "Additional Peerage Proposal" for rapier. However, before I send it, I would like to have your input on the suggestion I am putting forth. 

        Thank you 

        Sir Jon FitzRauf, West
        ***************************************************************



        Greetings

        I 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).  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. Or it could then happen that those that 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 this 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 in the future. 

        This single order, let us call it a "Grand Order or Fellowship" 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.  And the OL still functions well in finding candidates for 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 Order
             Shall be Master, which title
             shall bear also the name of that
             discipline in which the receiver
             does 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 the creation of too many peerages. 

        John R Edgerton
        Sir Jon FitzRauf, OC, OL, OP. West
        Membership #1179



      • Carolus
        My concern is that without the framework being established at the outset it will be easy to ignore in the future. Are we prepared to wait another 50 years for
        Message 3 of 18 , Aug 26, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          My concern is that without the framework being established at the outset it will be easy to ignore in the future.  Are we prepared to wait another 50 years for equality of recognition?  This Balkanization of recognition is one of the greatest problems in the SCA today.  We began as a group dedicated to the proposition that the concept of honor and chivalry had good and valid qualities and those qualities should be emphasized in the society in order to prove that they still had a valid place in modern society.  To that aim we minimized the negative manifestations of historical realities..The concept of "...with indoor plumbing and without the Sapnish Inquisition..."  was a good representation of our goals.  Unfortunately, we have moved to a position in which we are forgetting the philosophical aspects and re-enacting the repressive evils of the historical society while compounding it by adopting the modern politics of expediency.  If the BoD wishes to proceed piecemeal and continue to disparage and isolate many participants there is little we can do but by accepting this encroachment of modern society on our organization in our comments without even a mention of better options only weakens the structure further.  As you asked for comments, I am offering mine.  You are in a rather unique position in the Society with your stature and respect.  If you accept the degradation of our principles without striving for a better outcome the rest of us have little hope of influencing the outcome.  This is why I urge that you reconsider your comment and at least add a call for including a statement of principle that the new order is intended at a future date to include other disciplines.  This will make it much easier to add those sub-orders and not simply pretend they don't exist.
          Carolus
          On 8/26/2013 6:59 PM, John Edgerton wrote:
           

          Carolus

          In my next draft I will include the idea of including all the NRMA if and when such an order is created. But, since the BoD is creating the precedent of an involved process of approving single skills to be acceptable for peerage recognition, I feel the best that could be done would be to have the other NRMA listed in the "grand" order as future possibilities pending approval. My original proposal for additional peerage for the NRMA included all of them in one order. But, the BoD wants to do it one step at a time, so I am trying to find a way for them to do so and in the end, still include all the other NRMA without a surfeit of peerages. 

          From what I have read on many other lists is the main reasonable objection is with the idea of too many peerages. I think it likely that if the BoD approves peerage recognition for those skilled in rapier now and perhaps a separate peerage recognition for those skilled in target archery in the future, the other NRMA will fall by the wayside. 

          Jon


          From: Carolus <eulenhorst@...>
          To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 1:57 PM
          Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal

           
          Sir Jon,
          While your proposal has great merit, I see a major flaw in it.  Giving the option to add "sub-orders" at a later date is an easy out for the BoD to do nothing.  In light of past lobbying on the part of existing orders, it has taken far too long to get to this point and only allows further obstructionism to occur.  A fourth peerage for a select group only points out further the disrespect shown by the current powers to the general populace.  The policy of the SCA states that we all represent members of noble families (though not all are nobles) and yet actions like this send the message that many are considered peasants at best and serfs in general.  I believe your influence would be better used if you were to ask for the "sub-orders" or classifications to be included at the time of \creation of the order.
          With greatest respect,
          Carolus von Eulenhorst
          On 8/26/2013 12:43 PM, John Edgerton wrote:
           
          This is a draft of the letter I will sending to the BoD in comment on the "Additional Peerage Proposal" for rapier. However, before I send it, I would like to have your input on the suggestion I am putting forth. 

          Thank you 

          Sir Jon FitzRauf, West
          ***************************************************************



          Greetings

          I 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).  I hope that this proposal continues through the system and is finally approved.  However, if it is approved and implemented thequestion 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. Or it could then happen that those that 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 this 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 wouldbe 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 in the future. 

          This single order, let us call it a "Grand Order or Fellowship" 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.  And the OL still functions well in finding candidates fordiffering 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 Order
               Shall be Master, which title
               shall bear also the name of that
               discipline in which the receiver
               does 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 the creation of too many peerages. 

          John R Edgerton
          Sir Jon FitzRauf, OC, OL, OP. West
          Membership #1179




        • John Edgerton
          Carolus I do intend to suggest that the grand order makes it clear that it is the future home of all the NRMA. I will try to be more clear.  Thanks Jon ...
          Message 4 of 18 , Aug 26, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Carolus

            I do intend to suggest that the "grand" order makes it clear that it is the future home of all the NRMA. I will try to be more clear. 

            Thanks

            Jon


            From: Carolus <eulenhorst@...>
            To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 9:45 PM
            Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal

             
            My concern is that without the framework being established at the outset it will be easy to ignore in the future.  Are we prepared to wait another 50 years for equality of recognition?  This Balkanization of recognition is one of the greatest problems in the SCA today.  We began as a group dedicated to the proposition that the concept of honor and chivalry had good and valid qualities and those qualities should be emphasized in the society in order to prove that they still had a valid place in modern society.  To that aim we minimized the negative manifestations of historical realities..The concept of "...with indoor plumbing and without the Sapnish Inquisition..."  was a good representation of our goals.  Unfortunately, we have moved to a position in which we are forgetting the philosophical aspects and re-enacting the repressive evils of the historical society while compounding it by adopting the modern politics of expediency.  If the BoD wishes to proceed piecemeal and continue to disparage and isolate many participants there is little we can do but by accepting this encroachment of modern society on our organization in our comments without even a mention of better options only weakens the structure further.  As you asked for comments, I am offering mine.  You are in a rather unique position in the Society with your stature and respect.  If you accept the degradation of our principles without striving for a better outcome the rest of us have little hope of influencing the outcome.  This is why I urge that you reconsider your comment and at least add a call for including a statement of principle that the new order is intended at a future date to include other disciplines.  This will make it much easier to add those sub-orders and not simply pretend they don't exist.
            Carolus
            On 8/26/2013 6:59 PM, John Edgerton wrote:
             

            Carolus

            In my next draft I will include the idea of including all the NRMA if and when such an order is created. But, since the BoD is creating the precedent of an involved process of approving single skills to be acceptable for peerage recognition, I feel the best that could be done would be to have the other NRMA listed in the "grand" order as future possibilities pending approval. My original proposal for additional peerage for the NRMA included all of them in one order. But, the BoD wants to do it one step at a time, so I am trying to find a way for them to do so and in the end, still include all the other NRMA without a surfeit of peerages. 

            From what I have read on many other lists is the main reasonable objection is with the idea of too many peerages. I think it likely that if the BoD approves peerage recognition for those skilled in rapier now and perhaps a separate peerage recognition for those skilled in target archery in the future, the other NRMA will fall by the wayside. 

            Jon


            From: Carolus <eulenhorst@...>
            To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 1:57 PM
            Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal

             
            Sir Jon,
            While your proposal has great merit, I see a major flaw in it.  Giving the option to add "sub-orders" at a later date is an easy out for the BoD to do nothing.  In light of past lobbying on the part of existing orders, it has taken far too long to get to this point and only allows further obstructionism to occur.  A fourth peerage for a select group only points out further the disrespect shown by the current powers to the general populace.  The policy of the SCA states that we all represent members of noble families (though not all are nobles) and yet actions like this send the message that many are considered peasants at best and serfs in general.  I believe your influence would be better used if you were to ask for the "sub-orders" or classifications to be included at the time of \creation of the order.
            With greatest respect,
            Carolus von Eulenhorst
            On 8/26/2013 12:43 PM, John Edgerton wrote:
             
            This is a draft of the letter I will sending to the BoD in comment on the "Additional Peerage Proposal" for rapier. However, before I send it, I would like to have your input on the suggestion I am putting forth. 

            Thank you 

            Sir Jon FitzRauf, West
            ***************************************************************



            Greetings

            I 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).  I hope that this proposal continues through the system and is finally approved.  However, if it is approved and implemented thequestion 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. Or it could then happen that those that 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 this 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 wouldbe 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 in the future. 

            This single order, let us call it a "Grand Order or Fellowship" 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.  And the OL still functions well in finding candidates fordiffering 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 Order
                 Shall be Master, which title
                 shall bear also the name of that
                 discipline in which the receiver
                 does 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 the creation of too many peerages. 

            John R Edgerton
            Sir Jon FitzRauf, OC, OL, OP. West
            Membership #1179






          • Joe Klovance
            Carulus ... If you mean to enumerate which other disciplines to be included, that would be over playing our hand. At this point the BoD is looking only for a
            Message 5 of 18 , Aug 26, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Carulus

              > This single order, let us call it a "Grand Order or Fellowship" 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. 
              To me that is a plain statement that the new order would include other disciplines.

              If you mean to enumerate which other disciplines to be included, that would be over playing our hand. At this point the BoD is looking only for a rapier/cut and thrust peerage. John's proposal allows them to keep their objective without having to make a decision on other activities while still keeping the door open for those other activities. By trying to enumerate all other possible activities now just opens up areas of argument.  Let us make future decisions in the future and keep the present decisions a small as possible. While it may make it easier in the future it will also make it much harder in the present. It is much easier to answer yes to "rapier/cut and thrust now and possibly others later" than to "rapier/cut and thrust now and target archer, combat archery, equestrian, siege engines, thrown weapons and equestrian later". It is infinitely harder in the future if the rapier peerage gets shot down in the present due to demanding too much right now.

              I don't see it as another 50 year wait. The biggest issue is that there are factions in all current peerages that do not see NRMA as fitting in their Order and forcing other activities into their peerages would cause too many problems. A new peerage breaks that barrier. After the new peerage is created as John proposes it will be a very small decision to add more categories to it. Once we have a Peerage stating that it want others in their Order it will be much easier to allow it. 

              Gryffyd
              To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
              From: eulenhorst@...
              Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 21:45:23 -0700
              Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal

              My concern is that without the framework being established at the outset it will be easy to ignore in the future.  Are we prepared to wait another 50 years for equality of recognition?  This Balkanization of recognition is one of the greatest problems in the SCA today.  We began as a group dedicated to the proposition that the concept of honor and chivalry had good and valid qualities and those qualities should be emphasized in the society in order to prove that they still had a valid place in modern society.  To that aim we minimized the negative manifestations of historical realities..The concept of "...with indoor plumbing and without the Sapnish Inquisition..."  was a good representation of our goals.  Unfortunately, we have moved to a position in which we are forgetting the philosophical aspects and re-enacting the repressive evils of the historical society while compounding it by adopting the modern politics of expediency.  If the BoD wishes to proceed piecemeal and continue to disparage and isolate many participants there is little we can do but by accepting this encroachment of modern society on our organization in our comments without even a mention of better options only weakens the structure further.  As you asked for comments, I am offering mine.  You are in a rather unique position in the Society with your stature and respect.  If you accept the degradation of our principles without striving for a better outcome the rest of us have little hope of influencing the outcome.  This is why I urge that you reconsider your comment and at least add a call for including a statement of principle that the new order is intended at a future date to include other disciplines.  This will make it much easier to add those sub-orders and not simply pretend they don't exist.
              Carolus

            • Jim Pickette
              Yeah. Too many, JoO
              Message 6 of 18 , Aug 26, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Yeah. Too many,

                JoO

                ---- John Edgerton <sirjon1@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > Carolus
                >
                > In my next draft I will include the idea of including all the NRMA if and when such an order is created. But, since the BoD is creating the precedent of an involved process of approving single skills to be acceptable for peerage recognition, I feel the best that could be done would be to have the other NRMA listed in the "grand" order as future possibilities pending approval. My original proposal for additional peerage for the NRMA included all of them in one order. But, the BoD wants to do it one step at a time, so I am trying to find a way for them to do so and in the end, still include all the other NRMA without a surfeit of peerages. 
                >
                > From what I have read on many other lists is the main reasonable objection is with the idea of too many peerages. I think it likely that if the BoD approves peerage recognition for those skilled in rapier now and perhaps a separate peerage recognition for those skilled in target archery in the future, the other NRMA will fall by the wayside. 
                >
                > Jon
                >
                >
                > >________________________________
                > > From: Carolus <eulenhorst@...>
                > >To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                > >Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 1:57 PM
                > >Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > 
                > >Sir Jon,
                > >While your proposal has great merit, I see a major flaw in it. 
                > Giving the option to add "sub-orders" at a later date is an easy out
                > for the BoD to do nothing.  In light of past lobbying on the part of existing orders, it has taken far too long to get to this point and only allows further obstructionism to occur.  A fourth peerage for a select group only points out further the disrespect shown by the current powers to the general populace.  The policy of the SCA states that we all represent members of noble families (though not all are nobles) and yet actions like this send the message that many are considered peasants at best and serfs in general.  I believe your influence would be better used if you were to ask for the "sub-orders" or classifications to be included at the time of \creation of the order.
                > >With greatest respect,
                > >Carolus vonEulenhorst
                > >
                > >On 8/26/2013 12:43 PM, John Edgerton wrote:
                > >
                > > 
                > >>This is a draft of the letter I will sending to the BoD in comment on the "Additional Peerage Proposal" for rapier. However, before I send it, I would like to have your input on the suggestion I am putting forth. 
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>Thank you 
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>Sir Jon FitzRauf, West
                > >>***************************************************************
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>Greetings
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>I 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).  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. Or it could then happen that those that 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 this 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 in the future. 
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>This single order, let us call it a "Grand Order or Fellowship" 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.  And the OL still functions well in finding candidates for 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 Order
                > >>     Shall be Master, which title
                > >>     shall bear also the name of that
                > >>     discipline in which the receiver
                > >>     does 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 the creation of too many peerages. 
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>John R Edgerton
                > >>Sir Jon FitzRauf, OC, OL, OP. West
                > >>Membership #1179
                > >>sirjon1@...
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
              • Jim Pickette
                Carry the muse on and on. JoO ... Sent from my Galaxy S®III ... From: Jim Pickette Date: 08/26/2013 8:20 PM (GMT-06:00) To:
                Message 7 of 18 , Aug 26, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Carry the muse on and on.

                  JoO

                  ---- otlcp1 <otlcp1@...> wrote:
                  > Gleann Abhann has only an AOA level award called arrow and bolt...at this time there is not a GOA level award but as a marshall in Gleann Abhann I am campainging for one.



                  Sent from my Galaxy S®III

                  -------- Original message --------
                  From: Jim Pickette <pickette@...>
                  Date: 08/26/2013 8:20 PM (GMT-06:00)
                  To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                  Cc: Janyn Fletcher <janynfletcher@...>
                  Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal

                  I am satisfied that all Kingdoms polled have a GOA and an AOA level Archery/thrown missiles award.

                  If this is not universally true the please post it here.

                  James of Odo, Fidelibus

                  ---- Janyn Fletcher <janynfletcher@...> wrote:
                  > Sir, John while I applaud your efforts and cant say I disagree with your logic presented in principle,  I feel it leaves a bad taste for some of us. Of course I am speaking for Archery and will include the now considered Rapier group as well. I have never seen additional peerages ever taking away from Chivalry but maybe that is because I am not a Knight? I also have not been able to wrap my head around why in this society that we are all paying members of, why they would alienate anyone?
                  >  
                  > Again it sounds like sour grapes and I'm not trying to make it sound that way but it seems like Rapier and possibly (or not) Archery would have to "settle" to gain peerage status even though there is evidence of all of these disciplines in period being recognized. Not trying to open any can of worms here but I just feel like it will come down to an all or nothing approach which is unfair and should not be acceptable in the end. I think your idea is a very level headed approach but I would hate to see all the others simply lumped into one group labeled "Chief cooks and bottle washers..."
                  >  
                  > In Service,
                  >  
                  > Janyn
                  >
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From: John Edgerton <sirjon1@...>
                  > To: "SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com" <SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com>; sca-4peerage@yahoogroups.com
                  > Cc: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>; "SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com>; "SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
                  > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 3:43 PM
                  > Subject: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  > This is a draft of the letter I will sending to the BoD in comment on the "Additional Peerage Proposal" for rapier. However, before I send it, I would like to have your input on the suggestion I am putting forth. 
                  >
                  > Thank you 
                  >
                  > Sir Jon FitzRauf, West
                  > ***************************************************************
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Greetings
                  >
                  > I 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).  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. Or it could then happen that those that 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 this 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 in the future. 
                  >
                  > This single order, let us call it a "Grand Order or Fellowship" 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.  And the OL still functions well in finding candidates for 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 Order
                  >      Shall be Master, which title
                  >      shall bear also the name of that
                  >      discipline in which the receiver
                  >      does 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 the creation of too many peerages. 
                  >
                  > John R Edgerton
                  > Sir Jon FitzRauf, OC, OL, OP. West
                  > Membership #1179
                  > sirjon1@...
                  >
                • drosen105
                  the East only has the Sagittarius. It s an AoA level award. Rupert Dave Rosen drosen105@aol.com ... From: Jim Pickette To:
                  Message 8 of 18 , Aug 27, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    the East only has the Sagittarius.  It's an AoA level award.

                    Rupert


                    Dave Rosen
                    drosen105@...


                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Jim Pickette <pickette@...>
                    To: SCA-Archery <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
                    Cc: Janyn Fletcher <janynfletcher@...>
                    Sent: Mon, Aug 26, 2013 9:21 pm
                    Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal

                     
                    I am satisfied that all Kingdoms polled have a GOA and an AOA level Archery/thrown missiles award.

                    If this is not universally true the please post it here.

                    James of Odo, Fidelibus

                    ---- Janyn Fletcher <janynfletcher@...> wrote:
                    > Sir, John while I applaud your efforts and cant say I disagree with your logic presented in principle,  I feel it leaves a bad taste for some of us. Of course I am speaking for Archery and will include the now considered Rapier group as well. I have never seen additional peerages ever taking away from Chivalry but maybe that is because I am not a Knight? I also have not been able to wrap my head around why in this society that we are all paying members of, why they would alienate anyone?
                    >  
                    > Again it sounds like sour grapes and I'm not trying to make it sound that way but it seems like Rapier and possibly (or not) Archery would have to "settle" to gain peerage status even though there is evidence of all of these disciplines in period being recognized. Not trying to open any can of worms here but I just feel like it will come down to an all or nothing approach which is unfair and should not be acceptable in the end. I think your idea is a very level headed approach but I would hate to see all the others simply lumped into one group labeled "Chief cooks and bottle washers..."
                    >  
                    > In Service,
                    >  
                    > Janyn
                    >
                    >
                    > ________________________________
                    > From: John Edgerton <sirjon1@...>
                    > To: "SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com" <SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com>; sca-4peerage@yahoogroups.com
                    > Cc: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>; "SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com>; "SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
                    > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 3:43 PM
                    > Subject: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal
                    >
                    >  
                    >
                    > This is a draft of the letter I will sending to the BoD in comment on the "Additional Peerage Proposal" for rapier. However, before I send it, I would like to have your input on the suggestion I am putting forth. 
                    >
                    > Thank you 
                    >
                    > Sir Jon FitzRauf, West
                    > ***************************************************************
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Greetings
                    >
                    > I 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).  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. Or it could then happen that those that 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 this 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 in the future. 
                    >
                    > This single order, let us call it a "Grand Order or Fellowship" 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.  And the OL still functions well in finding candidates for 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 Order
                    >      Shall be Master, which title
                    >      shall bear also the name of that
                    >      discipline in which the receiver
                    >      does 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 the creation of too many peerages. 
                    >
                    > John R Edgerton
                    > Sir Jon FitzRauf, OC, OL, OP. West
                    > Membership #1179
                    > sirjon1@...
                    >

                  • Janyn Fletcher
                    Sir John, sorry did not mean to imply you wrote that. It was from research and words I was told from the BOD in past gatherings that Chivalry members were
                    Message 9 of 18 , Aug 27, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Sir John, sorry did not mean to imply you wrote that. It was from research and words I was told from the BOD in past gatherings that Chivalry members were feeling threatened by the potential other peerages. I do agree with your thoughts on 12 peerages and I am sure most archers for example would be fine with a combat / target combined to help in this area. Its funny you bring up the Laurels, my wife and I are both apprentices and that was the talk we had last night about it being one order. I wish I had some helping words of wisdom for you but honestly I don't. This is a tough decision and way forward and I know everyone of us have no shortage of opinions, but not nearly as many solutions. I applaud you for your efforts, it is the level-headed and supportive ones I believe will make the difference.
                       
                      In Service,
                       
                      Janyn Fletcher, DEM Target Archery Atlantia

                      From: John Edgerton <sirjon1@...>
                      To: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>; "SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com" <SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com>; "sca-4peerage@yahoogroups.com" <sca-4peerage@yahoogroups.com>
                      Cc: "SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com>; "SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 9:42 PM
                      Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal
                       
                      Janyn

                      I posted this for comment and thank you for your comment. 

                      But, could you explain your comment of "I have never seen additional peerages ever taking away from Chivalry..." I do not understand how anything I wrote would indicate that I feel an additional peerage or peerages would take anything away from the Chivalry. I do not believe that.  The problem I see, from reading comments on many other lists, is that although many SCA members would support peerage recognition for the NRMA such as: Rapier, target archery, combat archery, thrown weapons, siege and equestrian, they are not comfortable with the idea of a surfeit of peerages. If all of the NRMA were to have their own peerage this could lead to a total of 12 peerages, counting the existing peerages and this is very unlikely to happen. I would rather see all the NRMA eventually get peerage recognition under one "grand" order, than only or two e.g.  rapier and target archery ever receive recognition.  I am trying to avoid an "... all or nothing approach...". So, I guess I did not make my idea clear. Could you suggest, what I should do to do so?  All of the Arts and Sciences have simply been lumped into one group labeled the Order of the Laurel and this has worked quite well over the years.  If it were possible, I would prefer that all the NRMA be included under the Order Chivalry, but that is no longer possible. 

                      Jon

                      From: Janyn Fletcher <janynfletcher@...>
                      To: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>; "SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com" <SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com>; "sca-4peerage@yahoogroups.com" <sca-4peerage@yahoogroups.com>
                      Cc: "SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com>; "SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 5:39 PM
                      Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal
                       
                      Sir, John while I applaud your efforts and cant say I disagree with your logic presented in principle,  I feel it leaves a bad taste for some of us. Of course I am speaking for Archery and will include the now considered Rapier group as well. I have never seen additional peerages ever taking away from Chivalry but maybe that is because I am not a Knight? I also have not been able to wrap my head around why in this society that we are all paying members of, why they would alienate anyone?
                       
                      Again it sounds like sour grapes and I'm not trying to make it sound that way but it seems like Rapier and possibly (or not) Archery would have to "settle" to gain peerage status even though there is evidence of all of these disciplines in period being recognized. Not trying to open any can of worms here but I just feel like it will come down to an all or nothing approach which is unfair and should not be acceptable in the end. I think your idea is a very level headed approach but I would hate to see all the others simply lumped into one group labeled "Chief cooks and bottle washers..."
                       
                      In Service,
                       
                      Janyn

                      From: John Edgerton <sirjon1@...>
                      To: "SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com" <SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com>; sca-4peerage@yahoogroups.com
                      Cc: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>; "SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com>; "SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 3:43 PM
                      Subject: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal
                       
                      This is a draft of the letter I will sending to the BoD in comment on the "Additional Peerage Proposal" for rapier. However, before I send it, I would like to have your input on the suggestion I am putting forth. 

                      Thank you 

                      Sir Jon FitzRauf, West
                      ***************************************************************



                      Greetings

                      I 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).  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. Or it could then happen that those that 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 this 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 in the future. 

                      This single order, let us call it a "Grand Order or Fellowship" 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.  And the OL still functions well in finding candidates for 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 Order
                           Shall be Master, which title
                           shall bear also the name of that
                           discipline in which the receiver
                           does 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 the creation of too many peerages. 

                      John R Edgerton
                      Sir Jon FitzRauf, OC, OL, OP. West
                      Membership #1179
                      sirjon1@...
                    • John Edgerton
                      Janyn I have been on my kingdom and the SCA Chivalry list for a long time and you are right that some of the members do feel threatened at the thought of other
                      Message 10 of 18 , Aug 27, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Janyn

                        I have been on my kingdom and the SCA Chivalry list for a long time and you are right that some of the members do feel threatened at the thought of other peerages being created.  But, the number of the members of the OC that feel that way are only a percentage of the total membership of the SCA.

                        What I have learned from those lists and others is, aside from those that are against the idea entirely, the most common complaint is the idea of creating too many peerages. 

                        Thank you 

                        Jon


                        From: Janyn Fletcher <janynfletcher@...>
                        To: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>; "SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com" <SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com>; "sca-4peerage@yahoogroups.com" <sca-4peerage@yahoogroups.com>
                        Cc: "SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com>; "SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 2:35 PM
                        Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal

                         
                        Sir John, sorry did not mean to imply you wrote that. It was from research and words I was told from the BOD in past gatherings that Chivalry members were feeling threatened by the potential other peerages. I do agree with your thoughts on 12 peerages and I am sure most archers for example would be fine with a combat / target combined to help in this area. Its funny you bring up the Laurels, my wife and I are both apprentices and that was the talk we had last night about it being one order. I wish I had some helping words of wisdom for you but honestly I don't. This is a tough decision and way forward and I know everyone of us have no shortage of opinions, but not nearly as many solutions. I applaud you for your efforts, it is the level-headed and supportive ones I believe will make the difference.
                         
                        In Service,
                         
                        Janyn Fletcher, DEM Target Archery Atlantia
                      • brotherjohn66
                        To put it simply, I am not satisfied. But, I completely agree that there should not be a plethora of peerages. Ergo, Sir Jon s idea of a single NRMA peerage
                        Message 11 of 18 , Aug 28, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          To put it simply, I am not satisfied. But, I completely agree that there should not be a plethora of peerages. Ergo, Sir Jon's idea of a single NRMA peerage has a great deal of appeal to me. Just my two cents worth....

                          john Wayland
                          --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, Jim Pickette <pickette@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > I am satisfied that all Kingdoms polled have a GOA and an AOA level Archery/thrown missiles award.
                          >
                          > If this is not universally true the please post it here.
                          >
                          > James of Odo, Fidelibus
                          >
                          > ---- Janyn Fletcher <janynfletcher@...> wrote:
                          > > Sir, John while I applaud your efforts and cant say I disagree with your logic presented in principle,  I feel it leaves a bad taste for some of us. Of course I am speaking for Archery and will include the now considered Rapier group as well. I have never seen additional peerages ever taking away from Chivalry but maybe that is because I am not a Knight? I also have not been able to wrap my head around why in this society that we are all paying members of, why they would alienate anyone?
                          > >  
                          > > Again it sounds like sour grapes and I'm not trying to make it sound that way but it seems like Rapier and possibly (or not) Archery would have to "settle" to gain peerage status even though there is evidence of all of these disciplines in period being recognized. Not trying to open any can of worms here but I just feel like it will come down to an all or nothing approach which is unfair and should not be acceptable in the end. I think your idea is a very level headed approach but I would hate to see all the others simply lumped into one group labeled "Chief cooks and bottle washers..."
                          > >  
                          > > In Service,
                          > >  
                          > > Janyn
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > ________________________________
                          > > From: John Edgerton <sirjon1@...>
                          > > To: "SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com" <SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com>; sca-4peerage@yahoogroups.com
                          > > Cc: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>; "SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com>; "SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
                          > > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 3:43 PM
                          > > Subject: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal
                          > >
                          > >  
                          > >
                          > > This is a draft of the letter I will sending to the BoD in comment on the "Additional Peerage Proposal" for rapier. However, before I send it, I would like to have your input on the suggestion I am putting forth. 
                          > >
                          > > Thank you 
                          > >
                          > > Sir Jon FitzRauf, West
                          > > ***************************************************************
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Greetings
                          > >
                          > > I 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).  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. Or it could then happen that those that 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 this 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 in the future. 
                          > >
                          > > This single order, let us call it a "Grand Order or Fellowship" 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.  And the OL still functions well in finding candidates for 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 Order
                          > >      Shall be Master, which title
                          > >      shall bear also the name of that
                          > >      discipline in which the receiver
                          > >      does 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 the creation of too many peerages. 
                          > >
                          > > John R Edgerton
                          > > Sir Jon FitzRauf, OC, OL, OP. West
                          > > Membership #1179
                          > > sirjon1@...
                          > >
                          >
                        • Janyn Fletcher
                          Thank you for the reply and information Sir Jon!   Janyn     ________________________________ From: John Edgerton To:
                          Message 12 of 18 , Aug 28, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Thank you for the reply and information Sir Jon!
                             
                            Janyn
                             
                             

                            From: John Edgerton <sirjon1@...>
                            To: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>; "SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com" <SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com>; "sca-4peerage@yahoogroups.com" <sca-4peerage@yahoogroups.com>
                            Cc: "SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com>; "SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 8:49 PM
                            Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal
                             
                            Janyn

                            I have been on my kingdom and the SCA Chivalry list for a long time and you are right that some of the members do feel threatened at the thought of other peerages being created.  But, the number of the members of the OC that feel that way are only a percentage of the total membership of the SCA.

                            What I have learned from those lists and others is, aside from those that are against the idea entirely, the most common complaint is the idea of creating too many peerages. 

                            Thank you 

                            Jon

                            From: Janyn Fletcher <janynfletcher@...>
                            To: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>; "SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com" <SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com>; "sca-4peerage@yahoogroups.com" <sca-4peerage@yahoogroups.com>
                            Cc: "SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com>; "SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-West-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 2:35 PM
                            Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal

                             
                            Sir John, sorry did not mean to imply you wrote that. It was from research and words I was told from the BOD in past gatherings that Chivalry members were feeling threatened by the potential other peerages. I do agree with your thoughts on 12 peerages and I am sure most archers for example would be fine with a combat / target combined to help in this area. Its funny you bring up the Laurels, my wife and I are both apprentices and that was the talk we had last night about it being one order. I wish I had some helping words of wisdom for you but honestly I don't. This is a tough decision and way forward and I know everyone of us have no shortage of opinions, but not nearly as many solutions. I applaud you for your efforts, it is the level-headed and supportive ones I believe will make the difference.
                             
                            In Service,
                             
                            Janyn Fletcher, DEM Target Archery Atlantia
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.