🚀 go-pugleaf

dburgdor@cwis.unomaha.edu (Darryl Burgdorf) writes:
] I am not at all sure that being royalty is "the appropriate reward" for
] all excellence.  I simply feel that, as (arguably) the highest station to
] which one can rise, it ought to be open to those who excell in *any* area,
] rather than only one particular one.  One can attain a peerage, after all,
] through excellence in any endeavor; why cannot one likewise aspire to the
] throne similarly?

In my own renownedly humble opinion, and meaning no disrespect at
all for current or former Crowned heads, I personally have am more
impressed by the titles Knight, Master-at-Arms, Laurel and Pelican
than for royal titles.

You become King, Queen, Princess or Prince by virtue of a single
tourney of excellence. You become Duchess, Duke, Count or Countess
by service to the SCA for one or two reigns. On the other hand, Knight, 
Master-at-Arms, Laurel and Pelican are usually given in recognition 
of years of dedicated activity. So these non-Royal peerages seem
to me the more valuable achievement.

Of course, all the Royal peers I know are also members of at least
one of the non-royal Peerages. Which seems probable, yes ?

--
Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com