![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A Question of Fealty
Oct. 30th, 2013 12:53 pmAccording to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “Fealty” is the fidelity (strict observance of promises) of a vassal or feudal tenant to his lord.
The reason that I bring this up is because this concept has once again come up in the SCA recently as a philosophical discussion – not as a bad one, but just as a philosophical one. For SCA purposes, I really cannot say that I agree with the dictionary definition. Why? Because to me fealty is a two-way street. It is that bond and agreement between a vassal and a lord. But to me this doesn’t just mean that the vassal is subservient. It means that there is an agreement and understanding between two parties. It is effectively saying, “You aren’t REALLY a King and I am not REALLY lesser. But for all intents and purposes in this game, let’s both pretend to take on these roles out of respect for one another. As long as you respect me, I will respect you. And if either of us does something stupid to show disrespect, there will be repercussions”.
This is where I tend to differ from some individuals in the SCA who view fealty as effectively meaning that they will follow the King even into the depths of hell. In my view, it is my job to advise the Crown and (hopefully) prevent the Crown from doing something foolish. And if the King decides to try and lead the Kingdom into hell, I will indeed follow him… to the doorway… where I will then give him one last opportunity to turn around before I grab the crown off of his head as he plummets into the abyss. Luckily, this hasn’t happened. But yes, there have been times here and there over the decades where it has come close.
But then there is the question about how often fealty needs to be sworn. And ya know, that is an interesting question. Is fealty a reign-to-reign thing or is it permanent? Is it sworn to a Kingdom and Crown, or to a particular King? And what does it mean to not swear fealty for a reign? All interesting questions. While I am not interested in messing with Caidan tradition, I don’t know that I believe fealty needs to be sworn by all people at all times. In my own SCA experience, I can only think of a few times when I believe fealty really needed to be sworn:
Those times when I have served as a Kingdom officer
When I was elevated to the Laurel
When the coronet of Wyvernwood was placed upon my head
When I moved to Caid
When the coronet of Gyldenholt was placed upon my head
When I was elevated to the Pelican
But beyond that? To me, I think there is a difference between those individuals whose roles are explicitly part of a reign and those who are passively part of a reign. While I mean no disrespect to any of the peerages, a peerage is not conditional upon a reign. What do I mean by that? I mean that once one is elevated, one is elevated. One swears fealty to Crown and Kingdom upon elevation. In my mind, that is it. It is done. The die is cast. Fealty need not be sworn again as a peer. One is in fealty to Crown and Kingdom. But then there are those who, by the nature of their roles, need to have the endorsement and fealty of the Crown. Kingdom officers, for instance, need to be able to work with the Crown. There has to be an agreement and understanding and good working relationship between them. Thus, in my mind, they need to swear fealty. Then we have the landed nobility. The landed nobility rule their Baronies on behalf of the Crown. That simply can NOT be done without having fealty between Crown and Coronets. Thus, they need to swear fealty. But does anyone else really NEED to? Not in my mind.
I know I already said I didn’t plan to mess with Caidan tradition… but if I WERE to do something like that (please save your groans), I would completely remove the section from Coronation where the peers swear fealty at all. Instead, at the very end of the ceremony after TRM are invested with all of their trappings, and the court and guard are installed, and the mandatory swearings of fealty are completed, I would create one general section where all members of the populace may swear (or reswear) fealty to Crown and Kingdom if they so choose to do so. Why? Simple. I believe in that inclusiveness. I believe that everybody –whether one has been a peer for 20+ years or a newcomer of 20+ days - craves to be a part of that medieval vision and dream. I believe that we should give people that chance and opportunity to bow before the royal couple, in all their shiny glory, and believe for one moment that they are looking upon Arthur and Guinevere (you know, before all that nasty Morgana and Mordred stuff).
Some people take “fealty” in a dead-serious manner. Despite the fact that I’ve gone on at length about it in this post, I really don’t take it as seriously as some. To me it is as simple as this. Fealty means mutual respect. We walk into this game assuming that we all want to make it fun and make it better each and every time. And the swearing of fealty is in many ways like pledging to continue to do that. I am proud to be in fealty to the Crown and Kingdom of Caid. In in my eyes, the royals of Caid do indeed rule a kingdom.
Why? Because I believe.
The reason that I bring this up is because this concept has once again come up in the SCA recently as a philosophical discussion – not as a bad one, but just as a philosophical one. For SCA purposes, I really cannot say that I agree with the dictionary definition. Why? Because to me fealty is a two-way street. It is that bond and agreement between a vassal and a lord. But to me this doesn’t just mean that the vassal is subservient. It means that there is an agreement and understanding between two parties. It is effectively saying, “You aren’t REALLY a King and I am not REALLY lesser. But for all intents and purposes in this game, let’s both pretend to take on these roles out of respect for one another. As long as you respect me, I will respect you. And if either of us does something stupid to show disrespect, there will be repercussions”.
This is where I tend to differ from some individuals in the SCA who view fealty as effectively meaning that they will follow the King even into the depths of hell. In my view, it is my job to advise the Crown and (hopefully) prevent the Crown from doing something foolish. And if the King decides to try and lead the Kingdom into hell, I will indeed follow him… to the doorway… where I will then give him one last opportunity to turn around before I grab the crown off of his head as he plummets into the abyss. Luckily, this hasn’t happened. But yes, there have been times here and there over the decades where it has come close.
But then there is the question about how often fealty needs to be sworn. And ya know, that is an interesting question. Is fealty a reign-to-reign thing or is it permanent? Is it sworn to a Kingdom and Crown, or to a particular King? And what does it mean to not swear fealty for a reign? All interesting questions. While I am not interested in messing with Caidan tradition, I don’t know that I believe fealty needs to be sworn by all people at all times. In my own SCA experience, I can only think of a few times when I believe fealty really needed to be sworn:
Those times when I have served as a Kingdom officer
When I was elevated to the Laurel
When the coronet of Wyvernwood was placed upon my head
When I moved to Caid
When the coronet of Gyldenholt was placed upon my head
When I was elevated to the Pelican
But beyond that? To me, I think there is a difference between those individuals whose roles are explicitly part of a reign and those who are passively part of a reign. While I mean no disrespect to any of the peerages, a peerage is not conditional upon a reign. What do I mean by that? I mean that once one is elevated, one is elevated. One swears fealty to Crown and Kingdom upon elevation. In my mind, that is it. It is done. The die is cast. Fealty need not be sworn again as a peer. One is in fealty to Crown and Kingdom. But then there are those who, by the nature of their roles, need to have the endorsement and fealty of the Crown. Kingdom officers, for instance, need to be able to work with the Crown. There has to be an agreement and understanding and good working relationship between them. Thus, in my mind, they need to swear fealty. Then we have the landed nobility. The landed nobility rule their Baronies on behalf of the Crown. That simply can NOT be done without having fealty between Crown and Coronets. Thus, they need to swear fealty. But does anyone else really NEED to? Not in my mind.
I know I already said I didn’t plan to mess with Caidan tradition… but if I WERE to do something like that (please save your groans), I would completely remove the section from Coronation where the peers swear fealty at all. Instead, at the very end of the ceremony after TRM are invested with all of their trappings, and the court and guard are installed, and the mandatory swearings of fealty are completed, I would create one general section where all members of the populace may swear (or reswear) fealty to Crown and Kingdom if they so choose to do so. Why? Simple. I believe in that inclusiveness. I believe that everybody –whether one has been a peer for 20+ years or a newcomer of 20+ days - craves to be a part of that medieval vision and dream. I believe that we should give people that chance and opportunity to bow before the royal couple, in all their shiny glory, and believe for one moment that they are looking upon Arthur and Guinevere (you know, before all that nasty Morgana and Mordred stuff).
Some people take “fealty” in a dead-serious manner. Despite the fact that I’ve gone on at length about it in this post, I really don’t take it as seriously as some. To me it is as simple as this. Fealty means mutual respect. We walk into this game assuming that we all want to make it fun and make it better each and every time. And the swearing of fealty is in many ways like pledging to continue to do that. I am proud to be in fealty to the Crown and Kingdom of Caid. In in my eyes, the royals of Caid do indeed rule a kingdom.
Why? Because I believe.
