I'd like to assume that anyone reading this already has a good idea of the usual definitions of the three polling orders of peerage, and the royal peers, and instead wish to look at this from the more complex side ...

When a person joins the SCA, they do so for any number of reasons -- these can include being actually interested in period research and/or re-creation, and can range to "it's a great place to get drunk and get laid".

I've found that, in most cases, the longer a person is involved in the SCA the more they find that their interests change at least some, usually toward the research and/or re-creation side. This of course varies from person-to-person, and this doesn't happen for everyone, but many folk eventually start feeling like perhaps they have a stake in this organization. This, in my opinion, is where the peerage really starts. You can tell you feel this way when someone suggests changing something and you really spend some time thinking about it, rather than immediately either jumping on the bandwagon or deciding it's a bad idea (although a knee-jerk "don't change that lightbulb!" reaction is common to a lot of us old-timers ...) ...

Most of this following discussion deals with the three polling orders of peerage (The Chivalry, Laurels and Pelicans). This is not to denigrate the Royal Peerages, because I know that when done right, sitting a throne is a real job, but the requirements to become a Royal Peer are not the same as the polling orders, nor are the expectations from the populace of a Royal Peer the same as those of the other peerages (not to mention the fact that I have no direct experience in the 'throne-sitting' department).

"Ok, So, What Is a Peer?"
A person being considered by one of the three polling orders should have some feeling of having a stake in the organization. They should be active in more than one aspect of the SCA. They should be interested in at least some research and helping make the SCA look and feel right. They should be capable of participating in more than just their specialty (Knights should be able to do more than go out on the field and fight ..., Laurels should be able to do more than sit in a corner and embroider (or whatever their speciality(s)) and Pelicans shouldn't just be in the background running events or being officers ...). I am certainly not stating that a Knight has to be a great dancer or autocrat, but they should, in my opinion be able (and willing) to participate at that level. They should be "paid" members of the organization, and should, in an attempt to enhance the SCA, have a registered name and registered arms (and be displaying their arms) ...

There have been lots of nebulous discussions about the "Peerage Qualities" that define what a peer is. I've been involved in some of these. They're interesting in that no one person can make a definitive statement that everyone else can agree on. I hope that in these pages I manage to define at least some of what I feel these "Peerage Qualities" are ...

In my opinion, a peer is someone special in some fashion. Here are at least some of my thoughts on those nebulous peerage qualities I can manage to pin down ...

• I see a peer as being someone that people can, in general, look up to as an example. They may not be a great "leader". I know some really wonderful people, some of whom are good peers, who would make lousy leaders. This doesn't preclude them from whatever it is that makes a person a peer. (There's a certain charisma that goes with being a good leader, and very few people have that ...) I don't think of myself as being a "great" leader (maybe a "good" leader <grin>).

• People must be able to respect that person. This is not the protocol or custom of bowing to anyone wearing a crown or coronet or using titles, required as part of the ambience of the SCA. Respect is earned. A person can occupy a position, or legally possess a title and not have the respect of the people. You do respect to the Crown, but you feel respect for individuals according to their merits. They must earn that respect, it is not automatically given. This is not to state that there is no respect given to all peers -- being a peer does automatically have a certain status within the SCA -- however, if there is no respect by the populace for that person, then that individual's being a peer is, in my opinion, meaningless.

• A peer must be able to work with people in such a way that the people they work with are not made uncomfortable. This requires "people skills". The peer must know when to apologize when they have made a mistake (and mean it!) ...

• A peer must be able and willing to stand up for their convictions. And by the same token, be graceful under the opposition that may follow. Standing up for your convictions does not mean brow-beating people. You have to be responsible, because people do listen to what you say -- they may not agree with you or like you for saying it. When you do open your mouth, it better be good! Every body sits in corners with their cronies and vents. When you're a peer you have to be careful about that. Your job is not to fix everything in the SCA. Let the 'little things' go, and only concentrate on a big issue if you understand it, and the implications of what you are trying to do!

  You should be willing and able to talk to the person(s) involved, and deal with a situation where you percieve a problem. (But, in the West, use the proper grievance procedures ...) (On a slight tangent, sitting around and bitching only causes rumors and bad feelings -- it's really not worth it and is often bad for the SCA, the Kingdom, and/or people in your surrounding area ...)

• A peer must be able and willing to advise the Crown when needed, however, they must also understand that there are times when their advice will go unheeded because the Royalty have a differing viewpoint or perhaps have "made their decision", and be willing to back off. (If in fealty, the line "to speak and to be silent" is important!)

• A peer should not let the fact that they have been recognized for their works get to their egos to the point that they give the peerage a bad name -- too many people let it go to their heads. Some feel, for example in the case of the Laurels, that once the medallion is placed around their necks they are instant experts at everything. In doing so, they often lose credibility, and often lose the respect of both their fellow peers and the populace. No one is, or can possibly be, an expert in everything (on the flip side, members of the populace shouldn't expect a costuming Laurel to be an expert at jewelry making, unless they actually happen to be ...).

• A peer must inspire others with their enthusiasm. They should make others feel better about the SCA and themselves.

• The whole point of being made a peer is that you are enriching the Kingdom/SCA in whatever area(s) you were recognized for. Remember that -- elevating a person to the peerage does not make them a better person -- it just recognizes that they already have qualities that others feel deserve recognition.

There are a lot of people in the SCA. The official paid-membership count is close to 30,000 members, and I've heard numbers ranging from 2-3 unpaid people attending events for each paid member. Most of those (I don't want to try to deal with statistics here) people do not have all of these qualities discussed above.

Is this bad? No, I don't think so. In the 'real world', you can see the same thing. There are 'leaders' and there are 'followers'. In the SCA there are people who are peers, there are people who are recognized as peers who do not have the qualities I mention above (each of the Orders has made their share of mistakes ...), there are those who may eventually become peers, those who will eventually become peers, and those who will never become peers (for whatever reasons).

Some folk could become peers, but they aren't interested. They just enjoy doing what they're doing, and when the peers come along and talk to them, they tell them to go away. Ok ... As far as I'm concerned, that's their prerogative. Some of these may, in all ways, be a peer, except that they have not been acknowledged. Should we force it on them? I don't think so, because I feel that being a peer is a job, and I don't want to force anyone to take a job that they're not interested in.

Do I see the list I gave above as some sort of check-list? In short, no -- the 'merit-badge system' of the Boy Scouts is not appropriate in the SCA. That list gives a sort of 'ideal' that I feel that we, as peers, should be looking for. I seriously doubt that I live up to every single item in the list perfectly -- I'm only human ... One can only strive to live up to ideals, most people fall short in some way or other.

The current West Kingdom polling-order-peerages have, as part of the ceremony to elevate a new member to their ranks, an opening paragraph, provided by a friend of mine, that equates the peerages to the legs of a tripod: "The strength and stability of the Kingdom lie in these virtues of its people: service, chivalry, and creativity - for if any of these are lacking, the Kingdom fails." This may sound presumptuous, but it is ceremony after all. Think about though. The SCA would be deadly dull without the fighting. The SCA would fall apart without the services of the volunteers who hold offices and autocrat events. The SCA would be boring for those who don't fight without all the other areas of interest that are often lumped under the "Arts and Sciences".

Remember that a peerage is not an award -- it is an acknowledgment that you are a peer, or equal, to the current members of the Order you may be asked to join. (See the New Peer packets ...) This means that at some point, enough members of the Order (or the Crown) have decided that you are their peer (check the dictionary -- 'peer' means 'equal'), and worthy of recognition as such, and have petitioned the Crown to recognize you as their peer -- and the Crown has agreed.

Back to the Peerage page

Previous Topic      Next Topic