I want to thank both Ragnar and Kaz for their respective and thoughtful
posts. They each raised a number of concerns that we need to take into
consideration. I particularly found Kaz's analysis of the peerage issue of
interest. That was a perspective I will need to think on. I have often
thought of the Laurel in terms of period chivalry with the area of prowess
being one or another art rather than the chivalry as a Laurel with the
form being heavy weapons. Kaz has probably been aware that I have had,
for years, strong philosophical convictions that both the Laurel and the
Pelican circles need to recommend to the Crown the elevation of archers
when the work falls within their scope. Perhaps we need to better
articulate what sort of archery artistry and service is appropriate for
such recognition. This will make both members of the orders and the crowns
more comfortable when considering such peerages.
I think that the entire discussion on either the guild or fellowship (and
the distinction is not always clear) needs to not only establish solid and
agreed upon goals, but we need to be sure that the means towards those
goals are the best to achieve them. I fear that some of the things
proposed will have serious negative effects. While there are many ways in
place already to achieve some of the goals discussed. We should never
create bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy.
Finally, I am concerned that seldom in our discussions has the question
been asked: what did they do in period? I would be much more comfortable
with a discussion at this point of the royally chartered company of
archers under Henry VIII or the Schutzenguilds in the Holy Roman Empire.
But this would possibility lead us back to local solutions to local
situations. There were differences between realms (and over time) in
period that far exceeds even the considerable differences between kingdoms
in our Society.