"Sir" vs. "Dame" ???
Joseph Erhard-Hudson
I gather that most female knights use the appelation "sir". It is
my understanding that "dame" is the equivalent mundane title for a
woman who has entered an order of knighthood. Why is this title not
used in the sca? I'm sure the knights in question have their good
reasons, I'm simply curious what they are.
Is it because the title is OOP?
Did female knights of period use either title?
Do the worthy knights of today simply like "sir" better?
Sorry if this has all been hashed out before.
--
Joseph Erhard-Hudson
i925...@wsunix.wsu.edu
Embrace the tiger and return to the mountain.
JkrissW
Who were they?
Daveed of Granada, AoA, CHA
From the Barony of Lyondemere in fair Caid
mka J. Kriss White in smoggy L.A.
jkr...@aol.com
Zach
I gather that most female knights use the appelation "sir". It is
my understanding that "dame" is the equivalent mundane title for a
woman who has entered an order of knighthood. Why is this title not
used in the sca? I'm sure the knights in question have their good
reasons, I'm simply curious what they are.
Dame *IS* used in the SCA. A while back it was decided that any female
peer could use dame. I know a few who do.
Guiliam
Frank Holland
Erhard-Hudson) writes:
According to legend, Sir Trudy started it with that (in)famous line,
"ain't NOBODY gonna call ME a DAME!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mindrakken van der Zilver (aka Frank Holland)
Barony of Caerthe, The Outlands (aka Denver CO)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conrad Claus
The Noble Company of the Rose (a modern chivalric order recognized
worldwide as granting a valid, real-world (tm) knighthood) recently gave
its female members who held knighthood the chance to call themselves
"Dame." The overwhelming majority decided that they preferred "Sir."
Conrad
"And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accur's they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
Victoria Gilliam
: In <D5IAH...@serval.net.wsu.edu> i925...@unicorn.it.wsu.edu (Joseph
: >
: >I gather that most female knights use the appelation "sir". It is
: >my understanding that "dame" is the equivalent mundane title for a
: >woman who has entered an order of knighthood. Why is this title not
: >used in the sca? I'm sure the knights in question have their good
: >reasons, I'm simply curious what they are.
: >
: >Is it because the title is OOP?
: >Did female knights of period use either title?
: >Do the worthy knights of today simply like "sir" better?
It may be because the SCAdian women that are knighted are fighters, while
many/most (don't hold me to this, I really don't know) mundane women that
are knighted are not.
My 2 cents
Ellsbeth L. MacLabruinn (A Knight wannabe--but first a fighter wannabe)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Disclaimer: Any errors in spelling, tact, or fact are transmission errs.
Brain fried -- core dumped.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vycke' Gilliam z009...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
IVA...@delphi.com
Quoting i9253209 from a message in rec.org.sca
> Is it because the title is OOP?
No, it means Lady, as Seigneur meant Lord.
> Did female knights of period use either title?
Don't think there were any, as there were no non-fighting knights in period,
and most women didn't fight.
> Do the worthy knights of today simply like "sir" better?
That is my understanding, and is why "Dame" has been released for the use of
Laurels and Pelicans.
Carolyn Boselli Host of Custom Forum 35 SCAdians on Delphi
If you're not new at something, you're not growing.
The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism.
Rainbow V 1.13.0 for Delphi - Registered
John D Krueger
In article <3kkjvk$e...@cs6.rmc.ca> 2Lt Aryeh JS Nusbacher <nusba...@rmc.ca> writes:
>> Did female knights of period use either title?
>
>I'm not aware of any pre-1600 female members of chivalric orders or
>other knights who did not hold a higher title.
>
Like Elizabeth, Queen of England and thereby Knight of many great orders
including the Garter.
Dave Montuori
>Don't think there were any [female knights in period],
Didn't somebody post stuff a couple of months ago about a knighthood
order that was all or mostly female?
>as there were no non-fighting knights in period, and most women didn't fight.
While the latter is true, I suspect the former is an overstatement.
Certainly knighthoods were given out for non-fighting accomplishments
in period; Geoffrey Chaucer and Thomas More are the best known English
examples. But I'm not sure off the top o' me 'ead if they were
"non-fighters." Anybody else with evidence on this?
Nevertheless, it's pretty certain that in period,
1) the majority of knights were fighters,
2) the majority of knights were male,
3) knighthood did not carry an automatic peerage (by the way).
Evan da Collaureo, warming up for a 2-event weekend.
Support the Great Atlantian Breeding Program (tm) - Ask about franchises!
dmontuor%telene...@uunet.uu.net
Henry Troup
Montuori) wrote:
> While the latter is true, I suspect the former is an overstatement.
> Certainly knighthoods were given out for non-fighting accomplishments
> in period; Geoffrey Chaucer and Thomas More are the best known English
> examples. But I'm not sure off the top o' me 'ead if they were
> "non-fighters." Anybody else with evidence on this?
>
> Nevertheless, it's pretty certain that in period,
> 1) the majority of knights were fighters,
> 2) the majority of knights were male,
> 3) knighthood did not carry an automatic peerage (by the way).
Some English king made knighthoods mandatory for those with 40 pounds
value of property. Was it Henry VII?
(Anyone have an on-line equivalent to _The Timelines of History_?)
--
Henry Troup - h...@bnr.ca disclaimer - as usual
Guilty of thoughtcrime