Precedence

[msmemory_archive]

I definitely need to whip together the list of Civil Peers By Seniority. I was prompted to do Carolingia's list following the Frosty Revels Ball, when we spent a little time scurrying around so as to give the right answer to jdulac, when the toasts were due. It's clear I need to have the same list set up for the kingdom, and a copy stuck in my feast basket, not just on my pc.

It seems last night that jducoeur (May 1992) was in fact the second-most-senior non-Royal peer at feast. As far as we could tell, there was one pair of Count/Countess (Griffyth & Aikaterine, seated next to us), and one Pelican (Quentin), who outranked him, plus the Crown. All the other elder peers had gone home or out instead of staying to feast.

Comments

[jducoeur]

Huh. Hate to say it, but that tradition has passed -- and passed long enough ago that I didn't know it *had* been the tradition. By the time I started being senior enough to wind up involved in the toasts (maybe 5-7 years ago), the Royal Peers were always factored into it. I do sympathize with guarding the privileges, though: it's why I always sit inside the Crown Finals list, despite it frequently being a worse view.

So out of curiosity: it is also now pretty clear tradition that the local Baron toasts the King, to start things off. Was that part of the original design?

[baron-steffan.livejournal.com]

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'.

[jducoeur]

Is it possible to differentiate between a tradition that has changed and a tradition that is "currently very frequently screwed up"?

Not clearly, no. But when I haven't seen it *not* screwed up in many years, it's hard to think of it as a living "tradition" any more. (Then again, I *am* a self-professed descriptivist.)