Female knights
va...@meryl.csd.uu.se
Someone wrote, in the Archer-peerage discussion:
>Was Joan of Arc actually a knight? I really dont know this, but I dont
>imagine she was raised to be a knight.
This is an interesting question. We have established that there were
female fighters/soldiers/warriors in the middle ages, but come to think
of it, I haven't ever seen documentation of a woman being knighted.
Does anyone know more? Regrettably, my book on Joan of Arc has no index
and I can't find any info there.
William
Phyllis Gilmore
(Michael H Cole) wrote:
>
>As far as I am aware, to this very day (and people are still knighted
>occaisionally in this century) a woman has never been knighted. I have done
>some research into this topic.
>
>Eros
>
I beg to disagree with you on this point, Eros. Today, ladies are knighted,
but they are addressed as Dame So-and-So, not Sir So-and-So. Such
knighthoods are no more or less "honorary" than today's male knightings.
The Queen herself is a member of the Order of the Garter, as is her
mother (and, I think, at least one other female family member--NOT Di).
But I think the original question still applies: When did this practice
begin? Also, was "Dame" used before this practice began as a title? If
so, was it some reflection of nobility or near nobility, or was it a
courtesy title like "Mrs."?
Philippa de Ecosse
Michael H Cole
As far as I am aware, to this very day (and people are still knighted
occaisionally in this century) a woman has never been knighted. I have done
some research into this topic.
Joan of Arc was never knighted, she was a peasant girl who had a spiritual
experience and through her charisma, won the support of the French nobility.
But she was never a knight. Mundanely, knighthood has ever been a male order.
On the other hand, there's a female knight in Seosaidh's household (Blacksword)
who dented my helmet last Pensic in the bridge battle, one of the most skilled
and chivalrous fighter's that I've ever encountered.
Eros
Eric A Hope
-> William de Corbie has a question.
->
-> Someone wrote, in the Archer-peerage discussion:
->
-> >Was Joan of Arc actually a knight? I really dont know this, but I
-> >dont imagine she was raised to be a knight.
->
-> This is an interesting question. We have established that there were
-> female fighters/soldiers/warriors in the middle ages, but come to think
-> of it, I haven't ever seen documentation of a woman being knighted.
->
-> Does anyone know more? Regrettably, my book on Joan of Arc has no index
-> and I can't find any info there.
->
-> William
Off the top of my head, most of the cultures (that I can think of) that
had any large numbers of female warriors were before the concept of
knighthood existed. I could be wrong, this _is_ off the top of my head.
-Edric
gunw...@astro.dasd.honeywell.com
> As far as I am aware, to this very day (and people are still knighted
> occaisionally in this century) a woman has never been knighted. I have done
> some research into this topic.
I thought the Queen knighted Margaret Thatcher after she was no longer
Prime Minister.
Gunwaldt
Michael H Cole
Of course, Madam, you are correct. I have checked sources and discovered you to
be in the right.
My apologies for my earlier inaccuracies if I have led anyone astray.
Eros
as...@aurora.alaska.edu
>
> This is an interesting question. We have established that there were
> female fighters/soldiers/warriors in the middle ages, but come to think
> of it, I haven't ever seen documentation of a woman being knighted.
>
> Does anyone know more? Regrettably, my book on Joan of Arc has no index
> and I can't find any info there.
B.T.W. In Gibbon's "Decline and Fall.." Under the second crusade
there is the following passage.... (this is from memory)
"And in the Company of Conrad rode a troupe of Women in the Attitude
and Armoure of men. And their leader was called the 'Golden footed Dame'."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My understanding of mid-twelfth century armour places the only metal on
the foot being spurs, and are not Gold spurs the tradmark of Knighthood? Also
in modern usage Dame is the title given female knights in Britain.I have been
unable to find more on this group save the one reference but, If Gibbon can be
trusted there was at least one female knight in the 2nd Crusade.
- Gwawrddurr
Dan Meehan
>From: va...@meryl.CSd.uu.SE
>Subject: Female knights
>Date: 26 Apr 1994 19:55:02 -0400
>William
From what I can remember from the one book I read (the one by Mark Twain),
the inquisition at Vaucoleurs allowed her to dress as a man, in order to
preserve modesty in the presence of so many men.
I don't recall that she ever underwent any knighting ceremony - she asked for
what she needed (an army) and she got it. She received some training in riding
a horse, and her voices led her to where she found the sword she bore, but I
don't remember whether she had any training in using it. She had no training
at all in leading an army, but she evidently led it quite well. (God usually
gives rather good instructions! :)
Damien of Baden
Altavia/Caid
Michael H Cole
Actually, I read in one book that Jean d'Arc *never* used her sword, but
fought entirely with a standard that bore the banner of the Virgin Mary (or
at least, her image).
I am not certain that this is correct. . . .
Eros
Zebee Johnstone
Nope, made her a peer - Baroness Thatcher of somewhere, can't remember
where. Pretty common thing to do to people who've been high ranking
pollies for ages. Especially Tory pollies, though I think there is an
ex-Labour PM in the HOuse of Lords too.
They are usually life peerages, although some folks have been made real
ones, with the title passing to their heirs.
Silfren
--
Zebee Johnstone ze...@guest.adelaide.edu.au
Adelaide City Council GPO Box 2252 Adelaide SA 5000 AUSTRALIA
(08) 203 7566 fax (08) 203 7575
meg
> In article <1994042623...@meryl.csd.uu.se>, va...@meryl.CSd.uu.SE writ
> >William de Corbie has a question.
> >
> >Someone wrote, in the Archer-peerage discussion:
> >
> >>Was Joan of Arc actually a knight? I really dont know this, but I dont
> >>imagine she was raised to be a knight.
> >
> >This is an interesting question. We have established that there were
> >female fighters/soldiers/warriors in the middle ages, but come to think
> >of it, I haven't ever seen documentation of a woman being knighted.
> >
> >Does anyone know more? Regrettably, my book on Joan of Arc has no index
> >and I can't find any info there.
> >
> >William
>
> As far as I am aware, to this very day (and people are still knighted
> occaisionally in this century) a woman has never been knighted. I have done
> some research into this topic.
>
> Joan of Arc was never knighted, she was a peasant girl who had a spiritual
> experience and through her charisma, won the support of the French nobility.
> But she was never a knight. Mundanely, knighthood has ever been a male order.
>
> Eros
>
Megan adds,
I have the Ceremonies of the Order of the Garter at home...I recall that
there is a chapter that deals with Orders of Women fighters as well as
individual instances of woman knights. I will look this up tonight.
Megan
==
In 1994: Linda Anfuso
In the Current Middle Ages: Megan ni Laine de Belle Rive
In the SCA, Inc: sustaining member # 33644
YYY YYY
m...@tinhat.stonemarche.org | YYYYY |
|____n____|
Mike.Andrews
va...@meryl.CSd.uu.SE writes:
>Hello from William. Gwawrddurr, you wrote:
>
>>"And in the Company of Conrad rode a troupe of Women in the Attitude
>>and Armoure of men. And their leader was called the 'Golden footed Dame'."
>
>>If Gibbon can be
>>trusted there was at least one female knight in the 2nd Crusade.
>
>Thanks for your quote from Gibbon. I think you are drawing too much
>from it, however. The quote says that several women rode in the attire
>and armor of men. This would more probably mean that they DRESSED UP
>as knights. Not that they were knighted. At least, that is not what
>the text says.
>
>William
Greetings to the Lord William de Corbie.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I tend to believe
the words as they are written, rather than to interpret them
as turned diametrically opposite to their explicit meaning. Why
would you do otherwise?
--
Pray for the repose of the soul of Katherine Godfrey (1955-1994),
much loved and greatly missed.
Michael Fenwick of Fotheringhay, O.L. (Mike Andrews) Namron, Ansteorra
]ke Eldberg
Michael Fenwick of Fotheringhay wrote:
>In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I tend to believe
>the words as they are written, rather than to interpret them
>as turned diametrically opposite to their explicit meaning. Why
>would you do otherwise?
I think we must be communicating badly. My interpretation was an
attempt to understand the words as they stood. The women rode in
the attitude and armor of men, i.e. they were dressed up as men.
The remark about the golden foot may indicate that one of them
was even wearing knightly spurs. The text, as you quote it, does
not say that there was a troop of female knights, does it?
William
Mark B. Wroth
[...]
>
>As far as I am aware, to this very day (and people are still knighted
>occaisionally in this century) a woman has never been knighted. I have done
>some research into this topic.
Dame Agatha Christie springs to mind as a counter-example to this assertion.
--
Eirikr Mjoksiglandi Sigurdharson
...uunet!astrid!eirikr Shire of Heatherwyne
astrid!eir...@uunet.UU.NET Kingdom of Caid
70327...@compuserve.com
meg
Megan here. Well, I retrieved the Tome from the shelf. Muckin' big book.
'The Institution, Laws, and Ceremony of theMost Noble Order of the
Garter" by Ashmole, first published in London 1672 (yes OOP) and my copy
is the facsimile of 1971.
Chapter 111, section 111 speaks of The Feminine Cavaliers of the Torch in
Tortosa.
I quote:
"And now, in close of our discourse of the orders of Knighthood, give us
leave to bring up the rere, with a memorial relating to Feminine Valour,
and of the Later Age (for we shall not need to instance in the Amazons of
old, whose fame in Arms is so generally known) since some of that Sex,
having aquired honour and renown, by their personal courage and valiant
exploits, have had bestowed on them the priviledge of living after the
manner, and i the esteem of Knights.
"The example is of the Noble Women of Tortosa in Aragon, and recorded by
Josef Micheli Marquez, who plainly calls them Cavalleros or Knights, or
may I not rather say Cavalleras, seeing I observe the words Equitissae
and Militissae (formed from the Latin Equites and Milites) heretofore
applied to Women, and sometimes used to express Madams or Ladies,though
now thesse Titles are not known.
"Don Raymond, last Earl of Barcellona (who by intermarriage with
Petronilla, only Daughter and Heir of King Ramiro the Monk, united that
principality to the Kingdom of Aragon) having in the year 1149, gained
the City of Tortosa from the Moors, they on the 31 of December following,
laid a new Siege to that place, for the recovery of it out of the Earls
hands. The Inhabitants being a length reduced to gread streights, desired
relief of the Earl, but he, being not in a condition to give them any,
they entertained some thoughts of making a surrender. Which the Women
hearing of, to prevent the disaster threatning their City, themselves,
and Children, put on mens Clothes, and by a resolute sally, forced the
Moors to raise the Siege.
"The Earl, finding himself obliged, bythe gallentry of the action,
thought fit to make his acknowlegements thereof, by granting them several
Privileges and Immunities, and to perpetuate the memory of so signal an
attempt, instituted an Order, somewhat like a Military Order, into which
were admitted only those Brave Women, deriving the honor to their
Descendants, and assigned them for a Dadge, a thing like a Fryars
Capouche, sharp at the top, after the form of a Torch, and of a crimson
colour, to be worn upon their Head-clothes. He also ordained, that at
all publick meetings, the women should have precedence of the Men. That
they should be exempted from all Taxes, adn that all the Apparel and
Jewels, though of never so great value, left by their dead Husbands,
should be their own.
"These Women (saith our Author) having thus aquired this Honor by their
personal Valour, carried themselves after the Military Knights of those
days."
There's more, if you would like it. I changed the f to s where it
applied, to make it more readable. (all s's not ending a word were
printed as f's. Not eafy to tranfribe, I affure you!) Also, many words
were italicised, impossible in ASCI (or is that AFCI?)
Well, the source I quoted is secondary, but he directly translated a
primary source, which I can hunt up and quote if you _really_ need it.
That's about all I have ever found about female orders, but I have seen
mentioned an occasional woman fighter. I think you would have to read the
rolls of each order to find female names to substantiate a claim for a
female knight, however. Not impossible, just time consuming. I have the
rolls of the Garter up to the publication of this book...I will look at
it later.
In defence of Feminine Valour,
Megan, not ever likely to be a Knight, even if they do eventually admit
archers and fencers.:-)
Arval d'Espas Nord
Megan Laine quoted a passage from Elias Ashmole, "The Institution, Laws,
and Ceremony of the Most Noble Order of the Garter", in which he discussed
the Noble Women of Tortosa, which he construed to be women knights. I am
not familiar with that passage, but I have studied much of Ashmole's book
and have read modern analyses of it. Modern scholars consider his
historical material to be thoroughly unreliable: He is known to have
included incorrect information and to have invented details. I have not
encountered description of this order of women knights before; it may well
have some basis in fact, but Ashmole's account cannot be taken as
definitive proof of anything.
> Well, the source I quoted is secondary, but he directly translated a
> primary source, which I can hunt up and quote if you _really_ need it.
We have no way to know whether the source mentioned by Ashmole is primary
or secondary or tertiary, only that Ashmole based his account on that one.
> That's about all I have ever found about female orders, but I have seen
> mentioned an occasional woman fighter. I think you would have to read the
> rolls of each order to find female names to substantiate a claim for a
> female knight, however. Not impossible, just time consuming. I have the
> rolls of the Garter up to the publication of this book...I will look at
> it later.
There were women associated with the Order of the Garter, though I have
never found specific names. However, even if they are mentioned as
"companions of the order", that does not imply that they were knighted:
Women were admitted to the order under a different set of rules than men,
and knighthood was not a pre-requisite as it was for men. Companionship in
the order did not confer knighthood; rather, male candidates had to be
knighted before they could be considered.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord mit...@watson.ibm.com
Mike Andrews
I went back and reviewed the bidding, as it were; the quote from
Gibbon's *Decline and Fall ...* is:
"And in the Company of Conrad rode a troupe of Women in the Attitude
and Armoure of men. And their leader was called the 'Golden footed Dame'."
A good deal depends on Gwawrdurr's memory of Gibbon; I
haven't verified his quote. Given that it _is_ accurate, it
is distinguished for what it leaves in question, much more
than it is for what it answers directly.
It appears to be Gwawrrdurr's contention that the term "dame", whether
capitalized or not, refers to Knights, judging by his language:
> My understanding of mid-twelfth century armour places the only metal on
>the foot being spurs, and are not Gold spurs the tradmark of Knighthood? Also
>in modern usage Dame is the title given female knights in Britain.I have been
>unable to find more on this group save the one reference but, If Gibbon can be
>trusted there was at least one female knight in the 2nd Crusade.
> - Gwawrddurr
Although I wonder about the accuracy of Gibbon's book here, I
think the quote is readable as saying that there was at least
_one_ female who might have been a knight in that troop.
Whether or not the other members of that "troupe of Women"
were knights, they rode horses and wore armor, which I find
significant, though not conclusive.
You respond to his post with:
>Thanks for your quote from Gibbon. I think you are drawing too much
>from it, however. The quote says that several women rode in the attire
>and armor of men. This would more probably mean that they DRESSED UP
>as knights. Not that they were knighted. At least, that is not what
>the text says.
>William
Unfortunately, the text says nothing at all explicitly, and
so we must start drawing inferences from internal evidence
and our (admittedly shaky, in my case) knowledge of the
times and circumstances.
How probable is it that women would wear armor? It was
expensive, at least mildly awkward, somewhat less than
completely comfortable, etc., etc. And it was sufficiently
a male prerogative that Joan of Arc, when she led her "army",
was specifically pointed out as having _worn armor_, or so
I recall. I am old, my memory is dimming ... .
Women would have ridden horses at this time, given that they
had them for their use, so this signifies little or nothing.
The quote of Gibbon says nothing about whether any of these
women bore weapons, and so we have no evidence therein either
for Gwawrdurr's thesis or against it.
About the appellation "Golden footed Dame": it breaks down
into the adjectival descriptor "Golden footed" and the noun
"Dame". The modern English usage of "Dame" is as a female
member of an Order of Chivalry, I believe; usage in the
Crusades is something I must leave for discussion by others.
"Golden footed" is interesting; there is nothing about it that
directly leads to knighthood. While Gwawrdurr's thesis is
interesting, I don't find it compelling; the alternatives I
can find (golden shoes or slippers, etc.) are unsatisfactory.
However, I conjecture that the "average Knight" and the
"average Noble" on a crusade would not have put up with a
woman in armor, wearing spurs, mounted on a horse, on a
Crusade, unless she were a Knight (and noble, perhaps?).
This is not a provable conjecture, however, and so I must
accordingly render the Scotch verdict: "Not proven", which
in modern usage translates roughly to "Not guilty, and don't
do it again.".
I won't say that any of these women was a Knight; I can't prove
it. The evidence is tantalizing and inconclusive. Drat Gibbon,
anyway!
Do we understand one another any better now? Thank you for your
post.
I apologize for my prolixity.
--
Mike Andrews
uds...@ibm.okladot.state.ok.us (192.149.244.2)
David Salley
> >As far as I am aware, to this very day (and people are still knighted
> >occaisionally in this century) a woman has never been knighted. I have done
> >some research into this topic.
> Dame Agatha Christie springs to mind as a counter-example to this assertion.
Just to add more fuel to the fire, I looked up "knight" in Webster's 2nd to
see if gender is specified in the definition. The definitions state "Any
member of an order ..." but use masculine pronouns. However a definition
a few lines down proved interesting...
From Webster's 2nd [p1370]:
knight'ess (n) Rare. a) A female knight; a woman who fights like a knight.
b) A woman who is a member of an order of knights. c)A knight's wife.
- Dagonell
SCA Persona : Lord Dagonell Collingwood of Emerald Lake, CSC, CK, CTr
Habitat : East Kingdom, AEthelmearc Principality, Rhydderich Hael Barony
Disclaimer : A society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
Internet : sal...@niktow.cs.canisius.edu
USnail-net : David P. Salley, 136 Shepard Street, Buffalo, New York 14212-2029
LaForge : "Sir, I've fixed the problem in the uniform materializer."
Picard : "Very good lieutenant, make it sew!" <*tug*> <*tug*>
Marten B
from the Oxford English Dictionary (First Edition, in the Compact version on p.
1547 of vol.I, which corresponds to pp. 783-84 of the I-K volume of the full
set)
a. A woman who fights like a knight. b. A female member of a knightly order.
c. The wife of a knight.
a1553 Udall *Royster D*, iv. viii. (Arb.) 78 Too it againe, my knightesses,
downe with them all. 1693 tr. *Emilianne's Hist. Monst. Ord.* II. ii. 238
The Order of the Nuns Knightesses, Sword-bearers of St. James in Spain.
[More recent citations omitted]
The use in *Royster Doyster* is undoubtedly in jest, probably referring to
ladies in some sort of minor scuffle. The 1693 reference, however, is much
more interesting.
Tarik Ghbeish
: a1553 Udall *Royster D*, iv. viii. (Arb.) 78 Too it againe, my knightesses,
: downe with them all. 1693 tr. *Emilianne's Hist. Monst. Ord.* II. ii. 238
: The Order of the Nuns Knightesses, Sword-bearers of St. James in Spain.
: [More recent citations omitted]
: The use in *Royster Doyster* is undoubtedly in jest, probably referring to
: ladies in some sort of minor scuffle. The 1693 reference, however, is much
: more interesting.
The Royster Doyster reference is indeed somewhat in jest. The play is
a comedy ( I suppose ) and the line you refer to is said by a widow
who is, with her entourage, defending herself from the town "fool" who
is courting her although she is already engaged.
It's a crummy play really. We performed it last fall here in the West.
It went off sort ok, but it is REALLY poorly written. The cast has
done a number of other period plays, and no-one really liked this one.
Tarik ibn Jamal-addin
meg
> To add to Dagonell's notes from Webster's, consider the entry for "knightess"
> from the Oxford English Dictionary (First Edition, in the Compact version on
> 1547 of vol.I, which corresponds to pp. 783-84 of the I-K volume of the full
> set)
>
> a. A woman who fights like a knight. b. A female member of a knightly orde
> c. The wife of a knight.
>
> a1553 Udall *Royster D*, iv. viii. (Arb.) 78 Too it againe, my knightesses,
> downe with them all. 1693 tr. *Emilianne's Hist. Monst. Ord.* II. ii. 238
> The Order of the Nuns Knightesses, Sword-bearers of St. James in Spain.
>
> [More recent citations omitted]
>
> The use in *Royster Doyster* is undoubtedly in jest, probably referring to
> ladies in some sort of minor scuffle. The 1693 reference, however, is much
> more interesting.
>
>
Megan here. Ah, these are the times I regret leaving New York City for
the hills of New Hampshire. PPlease, somebody, look this up. I am
fascinated, on a number of levels, the Darkover connection not being the
least of them.
Megan
Arval d'Espas Nord
> The Royster Doyster ... It's a crummy play really. We performed it
> last fall here in the West. It went off sort ok, but it is REALLY poorly
> written. The cast has done a number of other period plays, and no-one
> really liked this one.
A thought for you: If a popular medieval play does not appeal to us, does
that make it a "crummy play" or "poorly written", or is it evidence that we
have more to learn about medieval theater and aesthetics?
B Webb
>Marten B (mar...@aol.com) wrote:
>: The use in *Royster Doyster* is undoubtedly in jest, probably referring to
>
> It went off sort ok, but it is REALLY poorly written. The cast has
> done a number of other period plays, and no-one really liked this one.
I don't agree! We did it as a play-reading (a highly recommended
activity, pick a period play, get lots of copies, assign parts and read
through it together) last year and enjoyed it enormously. Doesn't it
have that neat bit with the letter that changes meaning when the
punctuation is changed? And all sorts of fun misunderstandings. Not
"poorly written" at all.
Caitlin de Courcy
David Bedno
-Tarik wrote:
-
-> The Royster Doyster ... It's a crummy play really. We performed it
-> last fall here in the West. It went off sort ok, but it is REALLY poorly
-> written. The cast has done a number of other period plays, and no-one
-> really liked this one.
-
-A thought for you: If a popular medieval play does not appeal to us, does
-that make it a "crummy play" or "poorly written", or is it evidence that we
-have more to learn about medieval theater and aesthetics?
Yes.
Popular does not always mean good. Fifty million Elvis fans *can* be wrong.
However, I'm sure we do have quite a bit to learn about medieval theater and
aesthetics.
And, not to put down the performance of Tarik and the other Golden Stag
players (who performed Royster Doyster, which I did see) but...I'm sure a
proper medieval performance group, one which rehearses every day and
depends on their performing to live, would have done a better job and may
not have had to cut so much material. Alternately, seeing the performance
done on a real stage, with real(er) props, in a professional atmosphere
would also have helped the play.
I'm not convince medieval plays can't be done; just that some are harder to
throw together than others.
David ben Avraham Brisk, critic at large...
KGO...@artspas.watstar.uwaterloo.ca
>> The Royster Doyster ... It's a crummy play really. We performed it
>> last fall here in the West. It went off sort ok, but it is REALLY poorly
>> written. The cast has done a number of other period plays, and no-one
>> really liked this one.
>A thought for you: If a popular medieval play does not appeal to us, does
>that make it a "crummy play" or "poorly written", or is it evidence that we
>have more to learn about medieval theater and aesthetics?
Though the person does say "The cast has done a number of other period
plays, and no-one really liked this one." which implies that people liked
the other ones but didn't like this one. Which would argue that their
audience does like some medieval theater but not this play.
If this current play is significantly different from the others then they
may need to learn about medieval theater and aesthetics, or he could be
right that the play itself isn't as good. Is it possible to find any
reviews on the play from the time period?
Eyrny
Bettina Helms
AdN> Tarik wrote:
> The Royster Doyster ... It's a crummy play really. We performed it
> last fall here in the West. It went off sort ok, but it is REALLY poorly
> written. The cast has done a number of other period plays, and no-one
> really liked this one.
AdN> A thought for you: If a popular medieval play does not appeal to us,
AdN> does that make it a "crummy play" or "poorly written", or is it
AdN> evidence that we have more to learn about medieval theater and
AdN> aesthetics?
AdN> =======================================================================
Maybe it's an earlier expression of the phenomenon we know so well in
this day and age: the public in general knows what it likes, but does
not necessarily know what is good -- and the two are not necessarily
synonymous. "Popular Hits" have always included both crummy plays and
good ones -- and ever since the invention of the printing press, enough
copies of both have been produced that both have survived.
(Flanders & Swann apparently did not think highly of "Ralph Royster
Doyster" either -- one of their skits revolved around a 16th century
attempt to turn it into a musical ("anything to keep it from being done
straight!") and the need to find a "first-half closer", which turned out
to be "Greensleeves". "And under the title of "Doxies Without
Smocksies", it ran for years.")
... Conform, go crazy, or become an artist.
* Origin: The Writer's Block, Jacksonville FL * 904/399-8854 (1:112/38.0)