Royal Titles
david director friedman
I am Tom Courtney, using David Friedman's account.
Lorell has noted that changing the meaning of "count" and "duke"
would essentially be unfair to the counts and dukes. The logic is
that "reserved title" means "you've been promised this". Having said
that, let me now say that I personally wouldn't mind if the
nomenclature could be revamped, somehow. I think for most people who
hold the title in the SCA, "count" and "duke" are not appropriate to
them.
The problem is really that the meaning of count and duke is variable
over time. In Roman times, the titles meant roughly what we mean: war
leaders. However, I think by the time of 11th century France, we are
talking about people far more powerful than is commensurate with
people's personas.
Example 1: Vissevald comes from Latgale, and lives in Byzantium.
Given the number of people I commanded at this last Pennsic, my title
would have been hekatontarchos. If I had commanded the entire
Northern Army, it would be komes, or count (the current size and
organization of the Northern Army is a close approximation of the
Byzantine bandon). Duke, in the sense of the Duke of Normandy or the
Duc du Berry, is well beyond anything Vissevald could expect to
achieve. After all, how many people get to be Harald Sigurdsson?
Internally, I tend to translate duke to "dux belloram" (war leader),
and even this is too grandiose for Vissevald's actual rank. If I ever
became the leader of the Varangians (whose title was Akolouthos, "the
Acolyte") I think this meaning of duke would be appropriate. I don't
think this limited meaning is what is commonly meant by duke.
Example 2: in the OED, there are several definitions for the word
"earl". They range from "strong warrior" to "Norse under-king" to
"English landed nobility". In the SCA, we give the title count in the
first sense, yet tend to think of the rank count in the third sense.
Example 3: the SCA has at least two people who style themselves as
medieval dukes: Michael of Bedford and Aonghais Dubh. Their styles
cause a lot of consternation amongst the populace. Many folks object
to these people having large households, expecting preferential
treatment, and acting with a sense of pomp and ritual far greater
than most of our monarchs do. But at least part of what they are
doing is trying to live up to the titles they have received. If we
award ranks that were far above that of a typical nobleman, we
shouldn't be surprised that folks receiving those ranks become
elitist over time.
The Duke of Normandy conquered England. What SCA duke would have the
temerity to claim to have done likewise? As King of the East, I was
able to raise an army sufficient to defeat the Midrealm. As Duke Sir
Vissevald, I would be hard pressed to raise a force which could stand
10 minutes against them. I don't like structures in the SCA which
force me to distinguish between my role in the SCA and my persona.
The current system of rank is such a structure.
Tom Courtney
aka Vissevald Selkirksson
david director friedman
"We haven't decided where to do the ceremony yet - my lady wants it
to be as public as possible... but I also sympathise with the "Oh,
No! Not another piddly household wanting to take court time with
their tedious business!" point of view." (Jost zum Drachenstein)
My solution to this problem is to take squires publicly but not in
court. I want witnesses but do not want a captive audience. Ideally
the witnesses include my friends, the new squire's friends, some of
my fellow knights, and my liege lord and lady if they happen to be at
the event.
Owain ap Emrys suggests that one of the reasons for not letting
minors fight is lethargy--"it would take too much trouble to change."
But the old rule had to be changed; minors were not always forbidden
to fight. I am pretty sure that Akbar won his first crown before he
was eighteen.
Cariadoc
DD...@Midway.UChicago.Edu
James Cummings
>
>My solution to this problem is to take squires publicly but not in
>court. I want witnesses but do not want a captive audience. Ideally
>the witnesses include my friends, the new squire's friends, some of
>my fellow knights, and my liege lord and lady if they happen to be at
>the event.
>
a Much nicer solution, I think most would prefer this method. It
would not only make the squiring more personal, but those who did
witness would feel that they had been involved in a more special moment
than they would if they were 'captive' as an audience in court. I hadn't
ever considered that before.
>Owain ap Emrys suggests that one of the reasons for not letting
>minors fight is lethargy--"it would take too much trouble to change."
>But the old rule had to be changed; minors were not always forbidden
>to fight. I am pretty sure that Akbar won his first crown before he
>was eighteen.
But that I see as different. ( I know that appears as a double standard
but let me explain. ) IMHO, people are more willing to enact legislation
of one sort or another (Especially where it appears safety may be one of
the factors), than they are to repeal already existing legislation.
Though of course I speak only from my own, limited, experience, but
I can see (or think I understand) that people felt more of a need for
such a law when there wasn't one, but now that it has been there for
,well a long time, it may be unecessary, or unwanted, but would take
change back. While this would involve changing (or removing) a rule
(which is set in many minds), it was enacted where no rule existed
before. (Though that is an assumption, perhaps you could tell me more
accurately whether the rule replaced one already in existance, or simply
filled a gap in the rules?). Nevertheless, to me, it seems to boil down
to human nature, and whether someone is willing to put out the effort for
something that they believe in, rather than compromise their values.
Cheerfully yours,
Owain
ow...@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca