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

[Donald Luby]

On Apr 20, 2006, at 7:05 AM, fridrikr at rochester.rr.com wrote:

> 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.

*Almost* never - combattants and consorts at Crown process in in 
Precedence order, so for some small chunk of the populace (50 - 60 
people, twice a year).

> 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?

Because in period, I'm led to believe, that a) the titles we assign to 
the Royal Peers did in fact outrank Barons (regardless of how much land 
or power either might have had at any given time), and b) in period, 
those with those Royal Peerage titles did, in fact, have land; If I'm 
wrong on this, please say so.

What we should do to fix your issues with the model we're using, then, 
is actually assign land to the various Royal Peerages and 'unlanded' 
barons, but that would get very messy, very quickly, IMO, especially 
given the number out there already.


> ::FRIDRIKR::


Koredono