> >But elevating hitting people with wooden sticks above archery and equestrian is not a slap in the face of those folks? > >Stefan We would not be "elevating" rattan combat. It has been the center of a peerage since literally Day One. Adding a peerage for fencing in its various forms would elevate it, leaving the other non-rattan martial arts behind. The other forms will, no doubt, and with a level of justification, eventually request and demand peerage recognition. Shall we then increase the number of peerages to six? Shall we shoehorn the archers and equestrians into the fencing peerage, knowing that the fencers will likely be just as reluctant to allow their club to be expanded to outsiders, just like the chivalry have? It is my thought that six peerages is ludicrous, and four peerages (as currently proposed) is unsustainable. Whether there should be three peerages, with or without recognition of "ancillary martial arts", or four peerages with the fourth including all three of those activities is a reasonable question to discuss. The current proposal condemns the Society to another decade arguing what is worth a peerage. Thank you for asking the question that allowed me to crystallize my thoughts on the matter in such a terse (for me) fashion. Andrixos > >But elevating hitting people with wooden sticks above archery and equestrian is not a slap in the face of those folks? > >Stefan > >> On Dec 4, 2014, at 11:04 AM, Rex Deaver <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Second, if we were to have a Fourth Peerage, it should include all non-rattan martial activities. Elevating rapier above archery and equestrian is a slap in the face of those folks, and I am ashamed and disgusted it has gotten this far just on that basis alone. >> >> Mathurin > -- Manage your subscription at http://listserv.unl.edu. listserv.unl.edu lists do not accept incoming email from Yahoo.com, AOL.com or Dropbox.com due to their DMARC policies.