[SCA-AE] Master & Mistress & a view on Land

[fridrikr at rochester.rr.com]

That depends on your point of view :)  Master & Mistress are generally
reserved for companions of the Peerage orders (Laurel & Pelican &, on
rare occasions, Chivalry).  How important and/or common they are is in
the eye of the beholder.... though the SCA considers them to be fairly
significant titles.

Here I'll piggyback a comment on where Barons & Baronesses fit in the
Order of Things.  Please note that I argue against myself here (as both
Baron & Peer) and that it has very little cosequence as AEthelmearc
almost never (and I do mean NEVER) holds a Precedence March. 

Just my opinion, mind you, that the title of Baron/Baroness should rank
above Master/Mistress/Sir/Dame or whatever else you call a Non-Royal
Peer.  The concept has to do with Land and Power.  In the real Middle
Ages, the Landed Barons were major power brokers in England becaue they
were among the wealthiet of men because they held land. So did Dukes &
Counts.  In Aethelmearc, only 7 Barons can claim any "ownership" of
land; neither Counts, Dukes, nor old retired or Count Barons can do so.
 However, their titles indicate the rank of great landowner. 
Master/Mistress etc. do not.

So, just for argument's sake, and not looking to ruffle the feathers of
the Pelicans orv the leaves of the Laurels or... well, the metaphor sort
of tails off... why DO we rank the Non-Royal Peers ahead of the Barons?
 Why not follow the period model & rank Barons ahead of Non-Royal Peers?

::FRIDRIKR::

----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher House <chris at english-setters.net>
Date: Thursday, April 20, 2006 4:04 am
Subject: Re: Alternate Titles of Rank - (was RE: [SCA-AE] OT
Constitutionallawwas Some persona help)
To: discussion at aethelmearc.org

> I was actually more interested in the placement of things such as 
> Master and 
> Mistress.  Now in my limited usage of such things they were the 
> more common 
> everyday titles akin to goodman or goodwoman.  Is this not the 
> case?  Are 
> they in fact something more important?
>