ext_288892 ([identity profile] baron-steffan.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] msmemory_archive 2008-01-08 01:31 am (UTC)

Is it possible to differentiate between a tradition that has changed and a tradition that is "currently very frequently screwed up"? It seems to me that this is going to be an unsolvable argument, muchly analogous to the religious wars between linguistic prescriptivists (a language's rules are such as are prescribed in the grammar books) vs. descriptivists (a language's rules are what people say when they talk, ain't they?).


You'll find that most senior heralds and most long-time peers adhere to the old tradition. When I'm at a feast and it's clear that I'm among the senior bestowed peers (which is not infrequent, given my Date of Rank of 8/17/84), but I'm pre-empted by a Royal Peer, I never argue the point. I figure it isn't worth it. But, I have to admit that part of me thinks it is, because that's how you lose this sort of right. I recall the story of a saintly local lord in the Real Middle Ages who often forgave the rents due him from poor widows and the like, and who was warned by his steward that if he did not require them, he could lose his rights to his properties. His steward, of course, was right. That's how it works. And I gotta tell ya, part of me thinks that maybe we're too complacent in the name of SCA "Courtoisie" [tm] and not nearly medieval enough in our thinking and reactions. Just sayin'.


Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting