First off, what a great question and a great answer. I've always had this vague idea of what "makes a Laurel" -- this sums it up very nicely.

Second, I'm going to hijack your post and ask another question: based on these requirements, why is it so hard to get a Laurel for something other than just the "usual suspects"? Specifically (and you knew this was coming since I am obsessive) why do we have hardly any fencing Laurels?

From your descriptions, I can rattle off a few people I know personally that fit this bill with fencing. They all have superior skills in historical fencing, they can rattle off about DiGrassi and Lovino at the drop of a hat (any hat), they take Cadets, they run practices, they try to run period tourneys... I can say with conviction that from your criteria I think these people deserve a Laurel.

However, I've been informed that the highest award for fencing is the White Scarf. That seems to imply that fencing is not worth a Peerage...which, IMHO, sucks.

Again, I've hijacked your discussion. :) Sorry about that. You just got me thinking.

Second, I'm going to hijack your post and ask another question: based on these requirements, why is it so hard to get a Laurel for something other than just the "usual suspects"?

I think the general answer to this one is: because the Laurels have to become educated enough to evaluate a new field, and this can take time. For example, if a scribal candidate shows up, there'll be a dozen people in the order who can speak in detail about the strengths and weaknesses of the person's work. If, on the other hand, the candidate's art is early-period glass-blowing, there will be few if any people in the order who can speak to the subject. So we'll go off and try to learn about this -- taking the candidate's classes, networking with people in other kingdoms, and whatnot -- but in the mean time lots of people will abstain from the vote. Royalty don't like to see lots of abstensions; they view it as lack of support. Sometimes that's the case, but in these kinds of cases it's lack of current knowledge.

Do some Laurels fail to educate themselves so they can move beyond an abstension? Yes, of course, for various reasons -- but I think most of us really do want to make the effort here. Besides, learning new things is neat! But all of this means that the candidate in an "obscure" or "new" field usually has a longer journey to the Laurel than someone else does. It's unfortunate, but I'm not sure what we can do differently. (Input welcome.)

Now on to your specific question...

Specifically (and you knew this was coming since I am obsessive) why do we have hardly any fencing Laurels?

First, remember that this is my list, not the order's official list. I personally think a fencing Laurel is a spiffy idea.

If someone is doing period-style fencing (not modern sports), including using appropriate equipment, and is teaching that period style and encouraging people in it and all the other things you list, and he meets the personal criteria I gave above, then I would support him for a Laurel. There will always be people (peers and royalty) who think fencing belongs with the martial order or nowhere, but my perception is that this was much more a problem in the East kingdom than here in AEthelmearc. I believe that a candidate in this area would receive a fair hearing in AEthelmearc.

So, have you written letters of recommendation? While sometimes the Laurels propose candidates directly, much of the time -- and especially in uncommon fields where there isn't already a champion in the order -- the recommendations come from outside. You should definitely write to the royalty, and you can copy the clerk of the order as well. (Royal recommendations get passed on to the order, but the speed and reliability do depend on the organizational skills of the royalty in question...)

However, I've been informed that the highest award for fencing is the White Scarf. That seems to imply that fencing is not worth a Peerage...which, IMHO, sucks.

I think part of the problem is that some people fixate on the idea of a single peerage for fencers. Fencers who are doing historically-accurate work should be candidates for the Laurel; fencers who are doing butt-loads of work to make fencing happen should be candidates for the Pelican; and fencers who are pursuing a modern sport, no matter how good at it they are, should either not expect a peerage (just as one shouldn't expect a Laurel for web design) or should be candidates for Chivalry. Really, the problem is that our order of the Chivalry is anomolous; it's for a modern sport, rattan fighting, but it's an ancient and venerable order for a modern sport so it's not going to change. The people who are only midling fighters but are doing amazing stuff with medieval tournament companies aren't going to be knighted, either, but they are fine candidates for the Laurel.

So, have you written letters of recommendation?

I knew that one was coming. :) Not yet, but I will be. I am also very glad to hear your comments that a fencing candidate would receive a fair hearing here in our fair AEthelmearc.

Mutter, mutter. Now I have to go and do research and write things. Mutter, mutter. :)

[W]hy is it so hard to get a Laurel for something other than just the "usual suspects"?

If you do calligraphy, there's thirty two thousand calligraphy persons out there you can be ranked against. "Well, his Roman half-uncial is actually better than Lisa's, but his Gothic Litera hand is worse than George's!" Your skills can be pigeon holed to an uncanny degree of precision.

If you are, Ghod/dess help you, unique, then there's no one to compare you against. There is an individual in Rhydderich Hael, (Monica knows who I'm talking about) who has the persona of a 14th c. English ship's navigator. He IS a ship's navigator. He has a trunk full of navigation instruments that he built in his workshop. They are all functional and he knows how to use them. He's a member of the Buffalo Maritime Society which owns a historical replica of a 17th c. merchant ship and they've used his stuff on tours. After I spearheaded a MAJOR campaign to get him a Laurel, getting people to write recommendation letters, etc. their majesties awarded him a Sycamore.

Specifically (and you knew this was coming since I am obsessive) why do we have hardly any fencing Laurels? ... However, I've been informed that the highest award for fencing is the White Scarf. That seems to imply that fencing is not worth a Peerage...which, IMHO, sucks.

This is no longer a question of "Is person X good enough for a peerage?", this is now "Why isn't there a peerage for what X does?" As far as the BoD is concerned, there's Knighthood for Martial Arts, Laurel for peaceful arts, and Pelicans for everything else. This question just came up (again!) to the BoD within the past year and the BoD said that the majority of their mail was against creating a peerage for fencers or archers. It's not that people don't want to give out peerages, it's that we've been told we can't.

The awards only have 'lesser distinction' on the books. Watch how White Scarves are awarded in court. That is, for all intents and purposes, a peerage ceremony. They are treated with the respect of a peerage. When a White Scarf talks about fencing, he's listened to with the attention as a Laurel talking about garb. And it seems to be that AEthelmearc is not giving out Laurels but Pelicans for this sort of thing. Connor Bowsplitter who was peeraged this past Pennsic is pretty much a peerage for archery.

This question just came up (again!) to the BoD within the past year and the BoD said that the majority of their mail was against creating a peerage for fencers or archers. It's not that people don't want to give out peerages, it's that we've been told we can't.

This is something of a Catch-22. Per your comments, the BoD says that Knighthoods are for Martial Arts. Fencing is a martial art. However, as far as I know, the only Knighthoods ever given are for heavy fighting. So, fencing is precluded from ever getting a martial peerage.

The awards only have 'lesser distinction' on the books. Watch how White Scarves are awarded in court. That is, for all intents and purposes, a peerage ceremony.

I would agree with you on this -- mostly. The White Scarf treaty and/or fencing is not in every Kingdom. Also, Laurels are apart of a larger community than White Scarves -- they can comment on more than just their field of speciality.

You have some very valid points -- a White Scarf is very much like a peerage -- but not exactly. And it's that "not exactly" that seems to bother me a little bit. It is as if fencing is considered the red-headed step-child of the Society and that does not seem quite so fair to me.

So, fencing is precluded from ever getting a martial peerage.

Yeah, I wish our peerage orders had evolved differently. If "knighthood" didn't have such a strong Arthurian lure, it would have actually been better to have just two: "doing stuff" and "making stuff happen". Then skill at fighting and fencing and horsemanship and music and cooking would all be lumped in together.

Yup, yup. We're in agreement here. :)

This question just came up (again!) to the BoD within the past year and the BoD said that the majority of their mail was against creating a peerage for fencers or archers. It's not that people don't want to give out peerages, it's that we've been told we can't.

The ruling was against creating a peerage specifically for fencers and archers. I agree with that ruling, for the same reason that I think the kingdom-level awards for the various martial specialties are a bad idea. (I understand why the White Scarf has to be separate, but we didn't need to separate out archery, thrown weapons, equestrian....) We don't have individual peerages for cooking and illumination and weaving and music; we lump them together under the Laurel. We've already seen how absurd things can get when you try to split things out; our grant-level awards are screwy and it is no longer possible to receive a "generalist" martial award. If you're a decent fighter and a decent archer but not stellar at either you will receive no award; in the arts, you would still be eligible for an award.

In my far from humble opinion, every legitimately-recognizable pursuit in the SCA can be fit into one of the three existing peerages. Not everything done in the SCA is suitable for a peerage -- for example, I do not feel it is appropriate to recognize raw skill with modern archery, or photography, or web design with a peerage no matter how good the person is at it. If he's doing enough work that it's Pelican-level service then do it that way. If he's doing actual recreation (period archery, for example) then it belongs with the Laurel. If he's very skilled at period-style archery or fencing or hound-coursing or whatever, that too belongs with the Laurel. If he's just pursuing a modern sport, well, that's not really the point of our society (though see below).

As I said before, our Chivalry order is anomolous. Rattan fighting goes all the way back to the beginning and for most people it has a special place that no other martial activity will ever have. This is unfortunate, because I would like to see top-notch fencers be eligible for knighthood, but in reality it's never going to happen. Creating a parallel martial peerage for fencers won't fix that, though. It would just create an also-ran that would never be perceived as equal -- and that does a disservice to the fencers who would otherwise be sound Laurel candidates.

At the risk of sounding like a me-too here, I think it's ridiculous that fencers, archers, and equestrians are left out to some extent. It makes sense to me ( a heavy fighter) that the Chivalry is the place for those who excel in the arts martial - all of them, not just those which involve rattan. It likewise makes sense that the Laurel is the place for those who excel in the arts and sciences. To my mind, if a fencer has the qualities of a P/peer, and is a top-notch athlete in his or her sport, s/he should be made a Knight. If a heavy fighter does incredible research on arms, armor and the theories of battle in period, by all means Laurel her! I don't think they'd make the latter a Knight, so why make the former a Laurel? Of course, this is all 'in a perfect world'. I'm also one of the crazy ones who thinks all the orders should be renamed to Knight of the Order of the Laurel/Chivalry/Pelican, or without fealty to be Master of the Order, etc. But that's just me... not a Peer of any kind. :)

... eight years later ...

Rattan fighting goes all the way back to the beginning and for most people it has a special place that no other martial activity will ever have. This is unfortunate, because I would like to see top-notch fencers be eligible for knighthood, but in reality it's never going to happen.

There's a duke in the Midrealm who had a recommendation I liked. Right now, the Order of Chivalry has two equal branches: the knights and the masters-at-arms. If we created a third branch, called, oh, the masters-of-defense, we would be keeping the knights separate and unique, and still recognizing peer-like rapier fighters in the order where they belong, the order of direct competition.

Wow. Jenn and I were discussing that on the way home Sunday, and I really didn't have a detailed answer. That's really well thought out and objective. Thanks so much for posting that. It's no wonder you have your two peerages.

Speaking of your two peerages.....how about what you look for in a Pelican? :-)

I should have expected that somehow. :-) Some items on my list aren't specific to the Laurel and I feel they should apply to all peerages: peer-like qualities, tenure, some variant on impact, and enabling others to also do the things you do. Skill in arts can be replaced with skill in some area(s) of service that in turn enriches the society. This does not have to mean holding offices, by the way; yes, people who hold (say) kingdom offices are more visible (think of this as kind of analogous to the "30,000 calligraphers" problem), but one can have a good body of service without being an officer and can be recognized for ti with a Pelican. (We've had some recent examples.)

Also with Pelicans, I look for something that could be called "leadership" but isn't quite. Maybe "inspiring others" is a better characterization. That is, there's a difference between showing up to wash dishes at all the local events and helping to make dish-washing run more smoothly (e.g. coordinating the volunteers so you have people at the right times, or noticing that we have these recurring bottlenecks and doing something about it, or whatever). This isn't a requirement; we've certainly had candidates who were seen as "good Indians but not good chiefs" -- but when a person is a good leader, that scores points.

Note that a person who does all the work himself and doesn't delegate is not only not a good leader but a bad leader, IMO.

There's also the issue of scope. Basically, the more localized the work, the longer you generally have to do it before it's Pelican-level service. The broader the impact (and assuming the work is done well, of course :-) ), the sooner the Pelican tends to come.

Great thread!! I love seeing conversations like this. It's too easy to perceive the Peerages as a popularity contest - it's always nice to have the facts reinforced. ;)

A question I like to ask of Pelicans, which you touch on... Are vast amounts of minor local service Pelican-worthy? For example, if someone is /always/ in the kitchen, every event, cleaning, cooking, whatever needs doing to clean up, and this is consistent for, oh, ten years, but they never hold a lofty office, are they someone you would consider as a candidate? My former Pelican had the standard of a 'Pelican sized hole' - will they leave a hole that big if they simply ceased to exist. I agree with that, but we disagreed on whether the scenario I just presented would qualify. I think it is possible to become such a fixture as clean-up crew, or gate staff, or kitchen help, or whatever, that if you ceased to exist it would be a Pel-sized hole, although certianly of a different nature than one who changes the way we play the game at a Society level. Opinions?

(Deleted comment)

Mmkay. I can see that. It makes more sense to me thatn some of the previous explainations I've seen on the topic, in any case. I'm not entirely sure I agree with it, but I understand it.

I think in general I do agree, but I think there are definite exceptions. It's a spectrum thing, as I see it, with the constant, endless little jobs on one end and the one huge act of Society-level service on the other. I don't think that someone can consistently and relentlessly perform even a simple task such as doing the dishes without providing leadership, if only by example. I don't think everyone who washes dishes should eventually get a Pelican, but there are a few incredible souls out there who do, IMO.

I don't think that someone can consistently and relentlessly perform even a simple task such as doing the dishes without providing leadership, if only by example.

I agree with this. If we're talking about that level of service (and not, say, the guy who shows up a couple times a year and washes dishes when he does), then yeah, he's going to end up leading and inspiring other people just by being there. And if it goes on for long enough and consistently enough then he could receive a Pelican for it.

I think it depends on how the person goes about it. I'd personally like to see some amount of leadership, organization, etc -- to continue this example, he doesn't have to autocrat bazillions of events or become local seneschal or regional minister of arts and sciences or the like, but I'd like to see him organize the cleanup crews sometimes, or be responsible for the gate at some events, and stuff like that. Work is a component of a Pelican, of course, but -- to varying levels -- when we recognize someone as a Pelican we're saying that he's one of the organizers, part of the glue that holds the society together, one of the people who Makes Things Happen. You can't lead X without having done X (and often continuing to do it), but you should be paving the way for the next wave of people who are going to do that job, and you should be looking for ways that their job can be easier than yours was. Stuff like that.

Does that help at all?

Three comments:

First, a person should have performed to the extent that they have stretched themselves. IMO that would not be covered by simple drudge work. The leadership principle applies. Certainly, each candidate for a peerage should be judged on their own merits, but I can see the cheif cook at several dozen events getting a Pelican. I could not see that for the water boy.

Second, I think what we are discussing is "high service". Whether it be an office or a management position, high service should be a considerstion for all peerages. Peers should be leaders not only by example but by their ability to manage.

Third, (and you can get out your rotten fruit, now) fencers, riders and archers should NOT be added to the Chivalry. It's a case of apples vs. a fruit basket of other items. They may be delicious, but they are not apples. Perhaps some form of Field Peerage, but probably not. There just doesn't seem to be the necessary support fot this.

She'erah, thank you for the succinct analysis of what you look for in laurel and pelican candidates. It is always enlightening to learn your viewpoint.

I have recently added to what I look for in a laurel candidate. This would fit in with your 'Inquisitiveness' label. The person should be interested in furthering knowledge, not just of their subject, but of arts, etc, in general. I look for evidence that the person not only teaches, but learns. There are two facets to this.

First, the person should be interested in learning from others who work in the same field. This suggests to me that the candidate probably does not have a swelled head about their own knowledge and will probably be open-minded to others' hypotheses.

Second, the person should be interested in learning new things that are not necessarily in their field. One of a laurel's responsibilities is to encourage people in any artistic endeavor. Being interested in the efforts of others is a good indicator that this will occur.

Regarding the pelican candidate, the leadership quality is also analgous to encouragement. Someone who increases the volume of people willing to/able to contribute shows leadership, even if they aren't the person in charge.

Regarding peerages for martial activities, a laurel or pelican candidates is not judged on their athletic prowess the way that rattan fighters are judged for the Order of Chivalry. I am not saying that this is the only area - there are many elements that make up a Chivalry candidate, however, excellence in fighting is a major element.

This does leave a hole for recognition of athletes in other arenas, and while I agree with you that the Order of the Chivalry is the appropriate order for prowess in a martial activity, the order is unlikely to widen in perspective.

As written above, the Chivalry feel that anything other than fighting is a different fruit and should not be considered together. (the evil voice whispers "you mean like glassblowing and costuming, or cooking, or woodworking, or C&I, or...")

It is never going to happen, but my preference would be to include fencing, archery, equestrian, and thrown weapons under the title of Master of Arms.

Regarding the pelican candidate, the leadership quality is also analgous to encouragement. Someone who increases the volume of people willing to/able to contribute shows leadership, even if they aren't the person in charge.

Bingo. Thanks for articulating that!

(Deleted comment)

I agree with you, but I want to quibble over one detail:

the Chivalry isn't based on the sport of fighting, but on honor and courtesy and championing the weak and that type of stuff.

Knighthood is, yes. What about masters of arms? Pity that the SCA calls both of them "chivalry" when one is clearly based on the chivalric model and the other isn't.

I take exception to that. And so, for that matter, does Corpora. I don't need to tell you that the orders are entirely equivalent except for the swearing-fealty thing. Yes, there are some MoA's who revel in being "Northern Army Thugs". But are you going to call Kobayashi Yutaka and Randall of the Dark unchivalrous?

The existence of MoA's is the fault of the SCA's hardwired notion of "Global Solutions for Local Problems". If, so long ago, the King of the West (was that Henrik I ?) had said to Richard the Short, when Richard couldn't "swear" due to mundane religious convictions, "Oh, okay, Rich. Then don't. ARISE SIR RICHARD!", we wouldn't need or have Masters of Arms today.

I am certainly not saying that masters of arms do not behave chivalrously; we can both think of examples that prove otherwise. What I meant is that the conceit of the knight is King Arthur's knights of the round table; you are accepting that kind of role by taking the belt. By taking the baldrick you might well behave every bit as chivalrously (if you are known to be way off the mark you'll probably have trouble being elevated), but it isn't part of the conceit. Or at least, it doesn't come through very clearly if it is. As you point out, MoA is kind of an accident, something that grew that way rather than being planned, so it doesn't have a well-developed story.