NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/org/sca/17005

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 3.7 KB

From: [e-mail] (Tim)
Sender: [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!convex!news.oc.com!utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!ocitor!FredGate
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Fighting in crown: a thought
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:26:29
Lines: 62

    Elwyn of Thornbury wrote:

 DB> Lord Aryk Nusbacher, earlier in this discussion, asked, "Why on earth
 DB> would you want to open the possibility of becoming SCA royalty to
 DB> non-fighting couples?"

 DB> Perhaps, my lord, because some of us do not believe that the ability
 DB> to fight well and the ability to rule effectively are either
 DB> inherently or exclusively connected.

 Nor, to my knowledge, has anyone at any time ever suggested that they
 were. So what?  There is no method of choosing a "crown", be it sortition
 or plebiscite or computer dating, that will guarantee that the "winner"
 will be able to "rule effectively". That being so, the question becomes,
 how can we most easily reconcile the populace to the fact that the "ruler"
 may or may not be competent?

 I suggest that the current system has two virtues not possessed by any
 other system yet known: (1) the process is open to anyone to cares to
 participate, provided that he or she fits whatever threshhold criteria the
 individual kingdoms choose to erect (and this is to some extent true even
 of the physically handicapped -- we have a one-legged knight in Ansteorra
 that has killed a Duke or two on occasion); (2) every other participant in
 the process, by accepting that killing blow, has publicly stated, "It's
 *not* me." That's about as democratic as it gets, folks. I'll be happy to
 entertain ideas that can beat those two aces; but it hasn't happened yet.

 DB> I personally find the idea that such a person should have to abandon
 DB> that work and ignore their own carefully developed persona history and
 DB> nature in order to become King or Queen to be, at the least,
 DB> disappointing.  The SCA is an organization that, at least in theory,
 DB> encourages individual efforts toward authenticity and consistency.
 DB> Does it really make sense that its rules should actively *discourage*
 DB> such work?

 BEEEP. Confusion Warning. Kings in period were fighters, and descendants
 of fighters (and ruling queens were allowed only when fighting became less
 important than heredity ... and that seldom). Those who were by "persona
 history and nature" not fighters had even less chance in Period of being
 crowned than they do in the SCA - since in the SCA people can "switch
 careers" in mid-life, which would have been difficult or impossible
 throughout most of the Middle Ages. Authenticity and consistency, in and
 of themselves, require that monarchs be either fighters or heirs of
 fighters. Your cart seems to have gotten in front of your horse.

 How about people like me? Before hitting the Current Middle Ages I was an
 Irish monk, and I know more about medieval Christianity than most knights
 know about which end of the stick to hold. The summit of my ambition, "in
 persona", is not King, but Pope/Patriarch (Archbishop would do...). My
 "natural career path" BY DELIBERATE DESIGN DOESN'T EVEN EXIST in the SCA,
 despite the fact that the Church had orders of magnitude more impact on
 the Middle Ages than "chivalry" ever dreamed of. Shall we complain about
 "lack of authenticity and consistency"? Then I'll go first.

 Metaphorically speaking, don't be so quick to gripe about not getting to
 ride the fancy horse unless you've given some thought to those of us who
 don't even get shoes.

    Tadhg, Obelisk


 * Origin: Herald's Point * Steppes/Ansteorra * 214-699-0057 (1:124/4229)