>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. I've occasionally thought that the best way to do this is reduce everything to one peerage. You become a Master/Mistress of the SCA. There are no Laurels for metalworking, there are just Laurels; there are Pelicans, not Pelicans for paper-pushing; Chivalry for rattan? Nope, just Chiv; ditto Masterhood.... One Peerage covering everyone. It would avoid the whole brouhaha about whether or not equestrianing or arching or fencing or rattaning should join this order or that order or have their own; and it would cover _all_ future issues. The scroll would, of course, if the recipient wished it, include the fields for which the peerage is being given, much as (at least in Calontir) AoA and GoA scrolls do know. ....and it would cover previous lapses in historical knowledge (I believe the MSCA was pretty much a spur-of-the-moment creation, because the person being knighted, errr, mastered was in seminary and could not swear fealty to any earthly person). They didn't give out differenced peerages in period, they gave out one. So should we. [Permission is hereby granted to improve this argument, correct any historical mistakes, pass it along for amusement, and/or jump all over me, "courteously".] :-) Alban -- 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.