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

Re: [SCA-Archery] Additional Peerage Proposal

Expand Messages
  • drosen105
    the East only has the Sagittarius. It s an AoA level award. Rupert Dave Rosen drosen105@aol.com ... From: Jim Pickette To:
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.