msmemory_archive | Not as bad as 33

The list I have of Crown entrants is 35 people. Perhaps a little attrition will happen and they'll get down to a perfect 32 by Saturday morning.

Luckily for me, since I'm not able to take tomorrow off to make the journey, THL

alethea_eastrid is going to take care of forming up the procession according to my numbered list. (Any of my readers wanting a copy of the sequenced list in advance may contact me. I might even get arm-twisted to post it here.)

ETA: OK, OK. Why not. ETA2: Corrected.

1 (Herr) Lienhart Fischer von Torum
2 Damon Von Drachenklaue
3 Matthew of Wiltshire
4 Lord Joseph of House Serpentius
5 Lord Horace of Serpentius
6 Lord Atreides Coridan
7 Lord Sawney of Distant Shore
8 Lord Manfred
9 Lord Turi MacKinnon
10 Lady Cornelia Vande Brugg
11 Lord Asgar Roulfsun
12 Lord Big Damn John (Big Damn Lord John?)
13 Lord Perceval Gower
14 Lord Nicholas of Losthaven
15 Lord Ragnar the Frogg
16 Lord Guthfrith Yrlingson
17 Lord Barnabus O'Pheylan
18 Lord William Lancton
19 Lord Ceawlin Alreding
20 Lord Edmond O'Rourke
21 Baron Aethelhawk Keyfinder
22 Baron Diomedes Sebastianus
23 Baron Wulfhere of Stonemarche
24 Baron Berach MacTavish
25 Baron Lachlan Mac an Toisich of Benchar
26 Sir Edward Grey of Lochleven
27 (Syr) Yesungge Altan, Bahadur
28 Sir Wilhelm von Ostenbrücke
29 Master Julien de LaPointe
30 Pan Jan Janowicz Bogdanski
31 Sir Kenric of Warwick
32 Count Sir Gryffith Fitzwilliam
33 Jarl Valgard Stonecleaver
34 Duke Darius Aurelius Serpentius
35 Duke Andreas Eisfalke Von Ulm

I'm feeling eld. Kenric, little brother, is the senior bestowed peer in the list, other than royal peers. Yikes!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I have some geeky technical questions

1 (Herr) Lienhart Fischer von Torum
Is this just a reminder to whomever is reading that he's Herr and not Lord, if so, why then do some listings read as:

5 Lord Horace of Serpentius
or
6 Lord Atreides Coridan?

I don't have a question about this, it just amuses me.
12 Lord Big Damn John (Big Damn Lord John?)

13 Perceval Gower Esq.
Is Esq. really an accepted term of address in the SCA? (I know its period, but...)

Along the lines of Question 1, why do we have this:
27 (Syr) Yesungge Altan, Bahadur
vs
28 Sir Wilhelm von Ostenbrücke
Aren't they both pronounced the same, or is there something else going on here?

29 Master Julien de LaPointe
30 Pan Jan Janowicz Bogdanski
31 Sir Kenric of Warwick

Jesus, I'm old.

Ivan has commented that one thing he'll find weird if he ever fights again is that people who used to be in front of us have moved behind us.

*sigh*

Why some read lord and others don't.
The first four people on my list I have no record of having an AOA, so they do not have Lord listed. (Herr = Lord as far as I know).
Ragnar the Frogg has an AOA, but I forgot to type in his title, my bad.

Yep, he's Big Damn John. Then he got an AOA - now I don't know whether he wants it as a prefix or an infix. :)

Perceval Gower, Esq.
I have no problem with him using Esquire as his title of rank. But I didn't actually check the College of Heralds list of equivalents.

Syr Yesungge Altan, Bahadur
I inferred from places that I had seen it written that Yesungge was using Bahadur in place of Syr as his title. Since it would be silly for him to be Syr Yesungge Sir, I added the parens around one of them. Am I off-base here? I'm sure someone more knowledgable than I will tell me. (Hello, Adhemar? Tangwystl?)

Perceval Gower, Esq.
I have no problem with him using Esquire as his title of rank.

I have a problem with it, but not enough of one to bother with. In the grand scheme of things, it barely registers.

Didn't Andreas & Gabriella give Joseph of Serpentius an AoA? I remember reading that scroll.

I know I haven't dealt with the Mudthaw report yet for one.

If your memory works like mine and you can remember what the site/event was, that would be a great help!

It was Mudthaw, I'm 99% sure of that.

Those court reports are on my LJ.

If I see it I will let you know.

Was there only once that the consort counted?

I think that's kinda cool.

I thought I'd read something about this once, so I went digging. From the LoAR of Master Wilhelm von Schlüssel, Laurel King of Arms, July 1982 (emphasis mine) -

In answer to the question of Squire and Esquire as titles, Squire as a title rather than a job description was used in period for a landed noble of the lesser nobility (non-peerage). When William the Conqueror raised the greater Barons up to the peerage, the lesser Barons were not included, and they later became the country Squires. Esquire was the designation given to those members of the gentry who were placed above the rest of the gentry in law. This included justices, lawyers, military officers, and some ministers of state. They had the title of Esquire to indicate that they were of higher rank and so could presume to judge other gentles. Neither Squire nor Esquire as titles are appropriate for use for fighters in training under a knight in the SCA. The use of squire as a job description is appropriate.

The confusion is also in period. Squire had both uses in period, like many other multi-valued English words. In some cases, the uses overlapped. Knights were often of high rank, with a number of subordinates who were also noble. Thus a knight could have several men-at-arms under his command who filled the role of squire and of man-at-arms in battles, who actually held the rank of Squire. The nearest equivalent to the period title of Squire in the SCA is that of a holder of a Grant of Arms. I even considered allowing Grantholders to add Esquire after their names, but there was too much opposition to thise. It certainly is not proper for a non-armigerous fighting trainee to use Esquire. For Esquire to be allowed, there would have to be ranks of squires, with Esquire reserved for those who had received an Award of Arms and satisfied other criteria set down by the Crown or Corpora. To attempt to interfere in knight/ squire relationships in this manner would meet violent opposition from many of the knights. In consideration of all of this, I decided to forbid the use of Esquire entirely, to avoid the problem of defining its use, and to state that squire, like apprentice and protégé, is a job description, not a formal title.

Edited 2008-04-24 19:56 (UTC)

I mildly object to the use of Esq. in the SCA on the grounds that I had to go through three years of law school and pass a bar exam to get that title. I find it disconcerting to see someone assuming a title still in use as a modern professional title (like Doctor) without having the qualifications. But, as I said, it's only an "eh, I wish he wouldn't do that" and I'm not about to expend a whole lot of energy on it beyond two LJ posts.

Oh, I just remembered this data point. I've read and heard on more than one occasion that if one is a degreed college graduate, one is, at least by courtesy, entitled to the designation, by some British custom of which I know little else. I have no idea when that became custom, but I've run into it in more than one instance, including myself as it happens. Back in the days of hard mail, I subscribed to the newsletter of The Heraldry Society, and it came addressed to Steven Mesnick, Esq. I find it hard to believe that THS of all folks (founded by J.P. Brooke-Little) would mess that up, and I assume it was correct by some obscure Brit lights. I've also been told by a (non-lawyer) graduate of Cambridge that she had that right by virtue of her degree.

The restriction of "...,Esq." to attorneys appears to be a particular American custom. Of course, I Am Not A Lawyer, and I'm not claiming infallibility, but that's what I've been led to understand.

We don't generally get worked up about the assumption of ecclesiastical titles, for example. Why then be upset about an SCA squire using "Esquire", for which -- it may well be argued -- he has a far stronger right?

BTW...I call my Pelican proteges and Laurel apprentices "esquires", on the analogy of Knights of the Bath, who were (and are, IIRC) entitled to name two Esquires of the Bath at their investitures.

Jeez, I remember reading that precedent first-run. (Yes, I'm old).

Keep in mind that the precedents of the earlier Kings and Queens of Arms are widely* deprecated, and Wilhelm's probably most of all. Just sayin'.

Nevertheless, I'm of two minds here. On the one hand, it would appear to violate, in a barely significant way, the unspoken Rule #1 of the SCA: Thou Shalt Not Be Tacky. At least I believe many would find it to do so. OTOH, it is "Internal Law", and in such cases authenticity trumps the letter of the law, at least in my mind, and it is the period thing to do.

* (albeit not universally, and not by me for the most part)

Squire is NOT a rank. It is a job one takes on when one enters service with a Knight. I'm a cranky old lady, I know, but this IS one that bothers me.

Not as bad as 33

Geeky Questions

Re: Geeky Questions

Re: Geeky Questions

Re: Geeky Questions

Re: Geeky Questions

Re: Geeky Questions

Re: Geeky Questions

Re: Geeky Questions

Re: Geeky Questions

Re: Geeky Questions

Re: Geeky Questions