🚀 go-pugleaf

> mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman) writes:
>>...........................................  I've run into that
>>notion frequently, across the SCA, often tied to the idea that these
>>relationships confer rank on the dependent (which idea I certanly don't
>>attribute to you, Godfrey).  I find this a peculiar notion.

and icklinck@cayley.uwaterloo.ca (Ian "Rhys" Klinck) writes:
>I think it's from the (also mistaken) idea that protegees/apprentices/squires
>are specifically "Pelicans/Laurels/Knights in training", and that you have to
>be a squire to become a knight, etc...

	However, I have heard it said that in practice that it is the 
squire's knight or master who nominates said squire for consideration for 
the Chivalry.  That would seem to make squire-hood a prerequisite for 
knighthood.
	Please correct me if I'm wrong on this  (--- oh yeah, like I have to
ask on _this_ group :-}).
					dp
-- 
___________________dp  ==> dprosser@student.umass.edu______________________
``Cowboy coffee, chemical cream --- Ride ride ride on my stallion of green.
	Midnight showers, sleep in the flowers, and dream hurricane, 
     break-neck-speed, rapid-fire dreams!'' ---the mighty, mighty bosstones