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

Re: [SCA-Archery] APEC proposal

Expand Messages
  • Chris Ivins
    Sir Jon, That is concise and well-worded, thank you for addressing this issue and taking the time to write this letter! - IS,         Iurii ... Sir Jon,
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 28, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Sir Jon,

      That is concise and well-worded, thank you for addressing this issue and taking the time to write this letter!

      - IS,
              Iurii



      From: John Edgerton <sirjon1@...>
      To: "SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com" <SCAPeerageSurvey@yahoogroups.com>; sca-4peerage@yahoogroups.com; "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>; ArcheryGuild-Period@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:34 PM
      Subject: [SCA-Archery] APEC proposal



      Below is what I sent out regarding the additional peerage proposal. 

      Note, that I also sent a copy to the  board director in charge of the APEC and the APEC itself. 

      lmay@...
      peerageexploratorycommittee@...   

      This was in the hope that someone would actually read it. 

      Please send in your comments on the proposal.  If you should happen to agree with the suggestion in my letter, you could mention that as well. If you do support my suggestion, please feel free to forward this post to any other lists or persons that you think might be interested. 

      Jon
      *******************

      Potential New Peerage

      from John Edgerton to recipients
      August 28, 2013
       
      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) which at this time include: Target archery. Combat archery. Thrown weapons. Siege. And equestrian.  I hope that this proposal continues through the system and is finally approved.
       
       However, if it is approved and implemented the question of peerage recognition for the the remaining NRMA will come up. The idea of separate peerages for each of the current or future NRMA creates a problem with many Society members. And I agree, the thought of perhaps eleven or more peerages is excessive and could cause extreme resistance to the idea by many members. If more individual peerages were not created, it could then happen that those that do have the PLQs and excel in the other NRMA would never receive peerage recognition for their excellence in these martial skills.
       
      I have a possible solution for this future problem and it is based upon existing SCA practice. The Order of Chivalry is composed of Knights and Masters of Arms. It is really one order with two "sub-orders". If an all encompassing order for NRMA were to be created with rapier/cut thrust as the first of the sub-orders, then there would be only one additional peerage order created which would include the other sub-orders. Other NRMA could be added in the future using the same process as is now being used for rapier. The BoD, with input from the membership, would have the say as to which other activities would be added and when. The process should be easier in the future, having already gone through the process for rapier. This would cover the current NRMA and any new NRMA that might develop. 
       
      This single order, let us, for now, call it a "Grand Order" in the sense of grand meaning all-inclusive, would function much as the OL does. The OL covers a wider diversity of skills from armoring, calligraphy, lace making, cooking, etc than a NRMA order would include.  Moreover, the OL still functions well in finding candidates for vastly differing skills and presenting them to the Crowns in its Peerage Circles. 
       
      Each sub-order could have its own name, just as the knights and masters do and its own badge which could combine the badge of the "Grand Order" with the sub-order, and regalia.  The first members of the OL had their skill given as part of their title.  Which for the first two were Master Artificer and Master Musician.
       
      "And the rank of this 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 attempting to create too many peerages.  If this were to be implemented, I feel that it is important that it be clearly stated that the “grand order” would be the future home of the other NRMA as they are approved.
       
      John R Edgerton
      Sir Jon FitzRauf, OC, OL, OP. West
      Membership #1179
      sirjon1@...




    • Carolus
      Excellent, Sir Jon! This phrasing covers exactly what I was hoping for with my comments. Carolus ... Excellent, Sir Jon! This phrasing covers exactly what I
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 28, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Excellent, Sir Jon!
        This phrasing covers exactly what I was hoping for with my comments. 
        Carolus
        On 8/28/2013 12:34 PM, John Edgerton wrote:
         
        Below is what I sent out regarding the additional peerage proposal. 

        Note, that I also sent a copy to the  board director in charge of the APEC and the APEC itself. 


        This was in the hope that someone would actually read it. 

        Please send in your comments on the proposal.  If you should happen to agree with the suggestion in my letter, you could mention that as well. If you do support my suggestion, please feel free to forward this post to any other lists or persons that you think might be interested. 

        Jon
        *******************

        Potential New Peerage

        from John Edgerton to recipients









        August 28, 2013
         
        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) which at this time include: Target archery. Combat archery. Thrown weapons. Siege. And equestrian.  I hope that this proposal continues through the system and is finally approved.
         
         However, if it is approved and implemented the question of peerage recognition for the the remaining NRMA will come up. The idea of separate peerages for each of the current or future NRMA creates a problem with many Society members. And I agree, the thought of perhaps eleven or more peerages is excessive and could cause extreme resistance to the idea by many members. If more individual peerages were not created, it could then happen that those that do have the PLQs and excel in the other NRMA would never receive peerage recognition for their excellence in these martial skills.
         
        I have a possible solution for this future problem and it is based upon existing SCA practice. The Order of Chivalry is composed of Knights and Masters of Arms. It is really one order with two "sub-orders". If an all encompassing order for NRMA were to be created with rapier/cut thrust as the first of the sub-orders, then there would be only one additional peerage order created which would include the other sub-orders. Other NRMA could be added in the future using the same process as is now being used for rapier. The BoD, with input from the membership, would have the say as to which other activities would be added and when. The process should be easier in the future, having already gone through the process for rapier. This would cover the current NRMA and any new NRMA that might develop. 
         
        This single order, let us, for now, call it a "Grand Order" in the sense of grand meaning all-inclusive, would function much as the OL does. The OL covers a wider diversity of skills from armoring, calligraphy, lace making, cooking, etc than a NRMA order would include.  Moreover, the OL still functions well in finding candidates for vastly differing skills and presenting them to the Crowns in its Peerage Circles. 
         
        Each sub-order could have its own name, just as the knights and masters do and its own badge which could combine the badge of the "Grand Order" with the sub-order, and regalia.  The first members of the OL had their skill given as part of their title.  Which for the first two were Master Artificer and Master Musician.
         
        "And the rank of this 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 attempting to create too many peerages.  If this were to be implemented, I feel that it is important that it be clearly stated that the “grand order” would be the future home of the other NRMA as they are approved.
         
        John R Edgerton
        Sir Jon FitzRauf, OC, OL, OP. West
        Membership #1179

      • John Edgerton
        I hope that someone will actually read it.  But, I think it just as likely that it will glanced at and noted as either approve of proposal  or other and
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 29, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          I hope that someone will actually read it.  But, I think it just as likely that it will glanced at and noted as either "approve of proposal"  or "other" and just tabulated with it really never being considered. 

          Jon


          From: Carolus <eulenhorst@...>
          To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:12 PM
          Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] APEC proposal

           
          Excellent, Sir Jon!
          This phrasing covers exactly what I was hoping for with my comments. 
          Carolus
          On 8/28/2013 12:34 PM, John Edgerton wrote:
           
          Below is what I sent out regarding the additional peerage proposal. 

          Note, that I also sent a copy to the  board director in charge of the APEC and the APEC itself. 


          This was in the hope that someone would actually read it. 

          Please send in your comments on the proposal.  If you should happen to agree with the suggestion in my letter, you could mention that as well. If you do support my suggestion, please feel free to forward this post to any other lists or persons that you think might be interested. 

          Jon
          *******************

          Potential New Peerage

          from John Edgerton to recipients









          August 28, 2013
           
          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) which at this time include: Target archery. Combat archery. Thrown weapons. Siege. And equestrian.  I hope that this proposal continues through the system and is finally approved.
           
           However, if it is approved and implemented the question of peerage recognition for the the remaining NRMA will come up. The idea of separate peerages for each of the current or future NRMA creates a problem with many Society members. And I agree, the thought of perhaps eleven or more peerages is excessive and could cause extreme resistance to the idea by many members. If more individual peerages were not created, it could then happen that those that do have the PLQs and excel in the other NRMA would never receive peerage recognition for their excellence in these martial skills.
           
          I have a possible solution for this future problem and it is based upon existing SCA practice. The Order of Chivalry is composed of Knights and Masters of Arms. It is really one order with two "sub-orders". If an all encompassing order for NRMA were to be created with rapier/cut thrust as the first of the sub-orders, then there would be only one additional peerage order created which would include the other sub-orders. Other NRMA could be added in the future using the same process as is now being used for rapier. The BoD, with input from the membership, would have the say as to which other activities would be added and when. The process should be easier in the future, having already gone through the process for rapier. This would cover the current NRMA and any new NRMA that might develop. 
           
          This single order, let us, for now, call it a "Grand Order" in the sense of grand meaning all-inclusive, would function much as the OL does. The OL covers a wider diversity of skills from armoring, calligraphy, lace making, cooking, etc than a NRMA order would include.  Moreover, the OL still functions well in finding candidates for vastly differing skills and presenting them to the Crowns in its Peerage Circles. 
           
          Each sub-order could have its own name, just as the knights and masters do and its own badge which could combine the badge of the "Grand Order" with the sub-order, and regalia.  The first members of the OL had their skill given as part of their title.  Which for the first two were Master Artificer and Master Musician.
           
          "And the rank of this 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 attempting to create too many peerages.  If this were to be implemented, I feel that it is important that it be clearly stated that the “grand order” would be the future home of the other NRMA as they are approved.
           
          John R Edgerton
          Sir Jon FitzRauf, OC, OL, OP. West
          Membership #1179



        • Taslen
          Let s hope so and also that Janyn gets nominated to the BOD. Gaelen Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 29, 2013
          • 0 Attachment

            Let's hope so and also that Janyn gets nominated to the BOD.

            Gaelen

            Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android



            From: John Edgerton <sirjon1@...>;
            To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>;
            Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] APEC proposal
            Sent: Thu, Aug 29, 2013 5:32:24 PM

             

            I hope that someone will actually read it.  But, I think it just as likely that it will glanced at and noted as either "approve of proposal"  or "other" and just tabulated with it really never being considered. 

            Jon


            From: Carolus <eulenhorst@...>
            To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:12 PM
            Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] APEC proposal

             
            Excellent, Sir Jon!
            This phrasing covers exactly what I was hoping for with my comments. 
            Carolus
            On 8/28/2013 12:34 PM, John Edgerton wrote:
             
            Below is what I sent out regarding the additional peerage proposal. 

            Note, that I also sent a copy to the  board director in charge of the APEC and the APEC itself. 


            This was in the hope that someone would actually read it. 

            Please send in your comments on the proposal.  If you should happen to agree with the suggestion in my letter, you could mention that as well. If you do support my suggestion, please feel free to forward this post to any other lists or persons that you think might be interested. 

            Jon
            *******************

            Potential New Peerage

            from John Edgerton to recipients









            August 28, 2013
             
            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) which at this time include: Target archery. Combat archery. Thrown weapons. Siege. And equestrian.  I hope that this proposal continues through the system and is finally approved.
             
             However, if it is approved and implemented the question of peerage recognition for the the remaining NRMA will come up. The idea of separate peerages for each of the current or future NRMA creates a problem with many Society members. And I agree, the thought of perhaps eleven or more peerages is excessive and could cause extreme resistance to the idea by many members. If more individual peerages were not created, it could then happen that those that do have the PLQs and excel in the other NRMA would never receive peerage recognition for their excellence in these martial skills.
             
            I have a possible solution for this future problem and it is based upon existing SCA practice. The Order of Chivalry is composed of Knights and Masters of Arms. It is really one order with two "sub-orders". If an all encompassing order for NRMA were to be created with rapier/cut thrust as the first of the sub-orders, then there would be only one additional peerage order created which would include the other sub-orders. Other NRMA could be added in the future using the same process as is now being used for rapier. The BoD, with input from the membership, would have the say as to which other activities would be added and when. The process should be easier in the future, having already gone through the process for rapier. This would cover the current NRMA and any new NRMA that might develop. 
             
            This single order, let us, for now, call it a "Grand Order" in the sense of grand meaning all-inclusive, would function much as the OL does. The OL covers a wider diversity of skills from armoring, calligraphy, lace making, cooking, etc than a NRMA order would include.  Moreover, the OL still functions well in finding candidates for vastly differing skills and presenting them to the Crowns in its Peerage Circles. 
             
            Each sub-order could have its own name, just as the knights and masters do and its own badge which could combine the badge of the "Grand Order" with the sub-order, and regalia.  The first members of the OL had their skill given as part of their title.  Which for the first two were Master Artificer and Master Musician.
             
            "And the rank of this 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 attempting to create too many peerages.  If this were to be implemented, I feel that it is important that it be clearly stated that the “grand order” would be the future home of the other NRMA as they are approved.
             
            John R Edgerton
            Sir Jon FitzRauf, OC, OL, OP. West
            Membership #1179



          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.