🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan27.004037.26919@watson.ibm.com> mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman) writes:
>
>You seem to have the notion that a protege/apprentice/squire has to
>demonstrate skill in order to "earn" his position.  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.
>
>Why do people think this happens?  Is it a misunderstanding caused by the
>behavior of some/all peers?  Is it built into the system?  
>

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...

No matter how often I hear someone (and usually a Peer) explain that this is
by no means the case, popular belief remains otherwise...

Rhys