fealty-msg - 5/17/14

Fealty in SCA and period. Feudalism. References.

NOTE: See also the files: fealty-art, Fealty-n-t-SCA-art, knighthood-msg, squires-msg, Chivalry-art, chivalry-msg, 2Squire-r-Not-art.

************************************************************************
NOTICE -

This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.

This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org

I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter.

The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors.

Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s).

Thank you,
    Mark S. Harris                  AKA:  THLord Stefan li Rous
                                          Stefan at florilegium.org
************************************************************************

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: jbeltzner at TrentU.CA
Subject: Re: SCA fealty vs. Medieval fealty
Organization: Trent University, Peterborough
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 04:46:05 GMT

Mikjal Writes:
>I'd asked for an explanation of the medieval usage of "fealty", since
>my limited readings on the subject didn't match up with what the SCA
>normally calls "fealty".  Baron Ioseph of Locksley responded with his
>well known treatise on SCA-style fealty.  While a most comprehensive
>document, to me, anyway, it seems to only explain how the SCA does
>things, rather than how the medievals did things.

8< SNIP!

>This doesn't correspond to my (again, limited) readings.  I'd thought
>that fealty and hommage, while related, were two seperate things.  One
>could be in fealty without doing hommage, and vice versa.  Fealty is,
>indeed, a contract, but I've always seen it as much more of a two-way
>contract than the SCA does (except for landed baronage).  More along
>the lines of "in exchange for military and financial support, I give
>you this estate to manage".

8< SNIP!     

	From my limited research, Mikjal, feudal fealty *WAS* a two way
relationship.  The lord would grant a fief to a freeman who would then use the
fief to support himself and a horse, as well as his armour and weapons, so that
the freeman could become a knight in the lord's service.  The freeman got a lot
from the deal as well.  I'll quickly outline the details as I can remember them
(come on... I was just researching this last month... why won't my brain work?)

The lord gained: 1. Military service (usually fourty days a year offensive
action, all the defensive action necessairy, and some "garrison duty" in the
lord's keep.  The vassal would have to provide all of his own equipment.  For
larger fiefs, the lord may have to provide more warriors than himself, which
led to the layering system (ie, King would give land to barons, who would give
land to knights, etc.)
		2.  Prestige.  The lord could summon his vassals to him when
entertaining visitors.  The more vassals, the more prestige.
		3.  Advice.  The lord could call upon his vassals for advice
and counsel.

The Vassal gained: 1. Land.  And all the goodies that go with it (ie, status,
wealth, etc.)
		2.  Security.  A lone warrior could not defend his lands from
raiders.  However, if involved in a feudal realtionship with a lord, the fealty
required the lord to come to the vassal's aid (usually with the other vassals
too...)  For this reason, many free men who owned land would turn their land
over to a stronger lord in order to be made a vassal... makes sens, doesn't it?
		3.  Insurance that if something happened to him, the lord would
care for his family.

The feudal relationship could not be broken without a very good reason, which
meant that when you swore fealty in this sense, it was for keeps.  There were a
couple of provisos for exiting, such as one doesn't keep his end of the defense
bargain, or if one sleeps with the other's family, and stuff like that, but
again it was pretty hard to get out of it.

Anyways, hoping I'm not completely off base, that's how I understand fealty --
a two way relationship between lord and vassal, which comprises much more than
could ever really be expected in the SCA...

Hoping to have been of some help in this discussion,
Malachai Shel Ha Cheitz Shavar
Petrea Thule, Septentria, Ealdormere.


Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: jheinen at cymbal.aix.calpoly.edu (Jeffrey John Heinen)
Subject: Re: SCA fealty vs. Medieval fealty
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 08:04:58 GMT

Whilw it is difficult to state with certainty what the terms "fealty"
and "homage" mean, as they are words whose meaning has changed through
time, the most accepted definitions are that fealty is the oath or
promise to serve one's lord and homage is the formal, ritualized, public
declaration of such service, involving the placing of the hands of the
kneeling vassal between the hands of the lord and a ritual kiss. Thus it
is possible to owe fealty without doing homage. This is the case in
England during the high middle ages where barons would often renew their
homage to the King, even though they were already under the obligation
of fealty to the Crown. Historically, fealty is associated with the
Roman tradition of the benefice and homage is associated with the
Germanic custom of becoming the "sworn man" of the chief of the
war-band. From this we can understand how fealty came to be an
obligation that could exist amongst the free peasantry, but homage
existed primarily between nobility.

My $.02. 
+----------------------------------------------------+
| Jeff Heinen  |   "Necessitas non                   |
|              |    habet legem." -St. Augustine     |


From: sclark at epas.utoronto.ca (Susan Clark)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Baronial Power/Author
Date: 19 Jan 1994 17:55:05 -0500
Organization: EPAS Computing Facility, University of Toronto

Greetings....
	On the subject of homage and fealty from the perspective of
historians, I stongly recommend Marc Bloch's _Feudal Society_,
wherein we discover that homage and fealty are not the same thing
(you can swear fealty without doing homage).  The term _fealty_
denotes a plege sworn to one's lord to be faithful;  this is done
on holy relics.  Homage is more dramatic: In the ceremony of homage,
the lord places his hands around those of the vassal, the vassal declares
himself to be the "man" of the lord, and a kiss of friendship and accord
is exchanged (on the mouth, BTW).  Homage can be done only once within
the lifetime of two given people, whereas fealty can be renewed repeatedly.
Incidentally, the words _fealty_ and _fief_ are not directly related:
The fomer is from the French _foi_ and the latter from the German _Vieh_.
There is no special attachment between fealty and land, though when one
swears homage, there usually is some sort of land or property involved.
	Homage and fealty are often thrown together in the SCA.  They
shouldn't be.  Homage is a personal arrangement between two people,
while fealty is much broader.  I have yet to do homage and swear fealty
to any king in the SCA--but I would be quite willing to swear fealty alone.
Homage is something reserved to lords (or ladies) with whom I have a direct
relationship--the day I do homage to someone in the SCA, if it ever comes,
will be a special one, indeed, as I would consider it binding for life.
	As always, your mileage may vary.  I'm a 13th century Englishwoman.
(It shows, doesn't it?)

Cheers!
Nicolaa/Susan
sclark at epas.utoronto.ca


Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: mittle at watson.ibm.com (Arval d'Espas Nord)
Subject: Re: What is fealty?
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 20:03:45 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research

Greeting from Arval!

Morgan Drachenwald wrote:

> Fealty = Trust and Honesty

How do you mean that?  Do you mean that keeping fealty requires trust
between the two parties and honesty by each toward the other?  While those
are certainly valuable qualities in a relationship -- and arguably
integral to chivalry -- I do not think that fealty, per se, requires them.
Here's an authentic-style contract of fealty: "I will fight at your command
for 20 days each year in return for control of ten hides of land."  Without
trust or honesty, it would be harder to ensure that this contract were
fulfilled on both sides, but it isn't impossible.

Let me note that my reason for starting this thread was to illuminate the
confusion in the SCA between fealty and other medieval institutions and
ideologies. 

Nicolla posted the Midrealm knights' oath:

> I here swear fealty and do homage to the Crown of the Middle Kingdom,
> to ever be a good knight and true,
> reverent and generous,
> shield of the weak
> obedient to my liege-lord
> foremost in battle,
> courteous at all times,
> champion of the right and good.

Do all knights swear this oath?  Are they required to do so?  Cariadoc, do
you swear this oath, or do you swear an oath of your own choice privately?

This oath is not really fealty.  It is homage, which is a formal acceptance
of one's overlord and his laws.  If this oath is taken as fealty, then the
terms of that fealty must be the customary ones: The Crown will maintain
the knight in his rank and station, protecting him and his household; the
knight will fight and comport himself as a peer.  Some elements of that
relationship are included in the oath above, but those most important to
its being "fealty" are omitted.  It is historically accurate for an oath of
fealty to leave the details to customary practice; it does open all sorts
of interesting legal debate should either party ever accuse the other of
violating the fealty.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord                                   mittle at watson.ibm.com


From: mabr at sweden.hp.com (Morgan "the Dreamer" Broman)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: What is fealty?
Date: 11 Mar 1994 09:02:28 GMT
Organization: HP/SCA/SKA/FSTS/AMTS/SLRP/ETC Sweden

Arval d'Espas Nord (mittle at watson.ibm.com) wrote:
: Greeting from Arval!

: Morgan Drachenwald wrote:

: > Fealty = Trust and Honesty

: How do you mean that?  Do you mean that keeping fealty requires trust
: between the two parties and honesty by each toward the other?

	Yes, because if these things are not present then the rest is
worthless. BTW, I do understand your distinction between "fealty" and
"homage".

	The problem we run into in the Society is the fact that we do
not really hold anything in "fealty" from the Crown, unless we are an
Officer or Landed Nobility.

	Since the Crown cannot simply withdraw titles, even that is not
really dependant of any oath of "fealty".

	As far as oaths goes I, personally, refuse to swear an oath that
I have not myself consented too the contents of.

: its being "fealty" are omitted.  It is historically accurate for an oath of
: fealty to leave the details to customary practice; it does open all sorts
: of interesting legal debate should either party ever accuse the other of
: violating the fealty.

	We have heard some of that recently on the Rialto.... ;) It is
largely a matter of perception and tradition, obviously..;)

	As far as I understand that is a VERY "Period" problem too...;) !

Regards
Morgan//
Who just may be a little too simple-minded at times....;)
--
HP   : Morgan Broman				mabr at sweden.hp.com


Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: mittle at watson.ibm.com (Arval d'Espas Nord)
Subject: Re: What is fealty?
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 13:58:50 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research

Greetings from Arval!  Morgan Drachenwald wrote:

> 	Yes, because if these things are not present then the rest is
> worthless. BTW, I do understand your distinction between "fealty" and
> "homage".

Homage is a formal recognition of one's liege lord, accepting his laws and
affirming his liege rights.  A pledge of loyalty is essentially part of
homage.  One can do homage only once.  I have done homage to the Crown of
the East.

Fealty is a personal contract between two people, exchanging service for
service.  In the classic model, fealty is an exchange of military service
for landed tenure.  By the 13th century, fealty often involved other kinds
of services on both sides; for example, the service of a courtier might be
return with a pension, room and board, etc.  One can enter into many fealty
relationships with many lords, as long as they do not conflict.  William
Marshall, for example, for much of his career held lands in fealty from the
King of France and others in fealty from the King of England.  Even when
those two kings were at war, he maintained both contracts.  I am in fealty,
variously, to the King & Queen of the East, the Defender of the Summits,
and the Viceroy of Ostgardr.

> 	The problem we run into in the Society is the fact that we do
> not really hold anything in "fealty" from the Crown, unless we are an
> Officer or Landed Nobility.

Knights hold their rank in fealty, since they must swear fealty in order to
receive it.  Most other fealty from the Crown is only part of the game; my
fealty to the Crown of the East is meaningful only because I consider it to
be so.  On the other hand, my vassals' fealty to me is meaningful, in that
we exchange specified service and support.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord                                   mittle at watson.ibm.com


From: greg at bronze.lcs.mit.edu (Greg Rose)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: What is fealty?
Date: 13 Mar 1994 04:17:45 -0500
Organization: MIT LCS guest machine

My friend Arval writes:

>Homage is a formal recognition of one's liege lord, accepting his laws and
>affirming his liege rights.  A pledge of loyalty is essentially part of
>homage.  One can do homage only once.  I have done homage to the Crown of
>the East.

Historically this is not so.  Commendatio or homagium was the ceremony by
which one undertook to become the "man" or dependent of another for some
purpose, usually protection or receipt of a holding in land (although there 
is evidence for quite a number of other purposes).  One might be commended
to any number of others.  As the complexity of such commendation relations
increased in the 11th century, the concept of liegancy evolved to help
prioritize commitments.  One's liege might be, according to the laws of 
various regions, the first lord to who was commended, the lord from whom
one's principle fief was held, or the lord from whom one's fief of
residence was held.

>Fealty is a personal contract between two people, exchanging service for
>service.  In the classic model, fealty is an exchange of military service
>for landed tenure.  By the 13th century, fealty often involved other kinds
>of services on both sides; for example, the service of a courtier might be
>return with a pension, room and board, etc.  One can enter into many fealty
>relationships with many lords, as long as they do not conflict.  William
>Marshall, for example, for much of his career held lands in fealty from the
>King of France and others in fealty from the King of England.  Even when
>those two kings were at war, he maintained both contracts.  I am in fealty,
>variously, to the King & Queen of the East, the Defender of the Summits,
>and the Viceroy of Ostgardr.

No, the contract was in the commendatio.  The pledge of fealty, or
fidelitas, was originally an oath reinforcing the commitment made in
the commendatio.  Over time it became customary to restate in the
fidelity oath the terms of the commendation to further reinforce the
binding effect of the oath for those specific purposes.  When we see
these terms explicitly spelled out in a fidelity oath, the convention
is to call such an oath an oath of fealty rather than simply an oath
of fidelity.  However, the feudal jurisprudents were unanimous in
locating the actual contract in the commendation (specifically the contract
was offered by the supplicant offering his hands and accepted by the
lord by receiving the supplicant's hands in his -- hence _commendatio
in manu_ -- all the customaries and compendia assume this).  Indeed, when, 
over time, specification of the terms was dropped from the commendation
ceremony and included only in the fealty oath, the jurisprudents argued
that the fealty oath was only an explicit restatement of what was
implicit (but unspoken) in the commendation.  And, BTW, William the
Marshall was formally commended to both kings of France and kings of
England.

I am writing here of dominant trends.  I can think of several dozen
regional or temporal variant counterexamples to everything I've said
here.  It's why I'm writing a book about it (well, was writing a 
book about it prior to January 22 -- I wish the damned BoD was just
accept reform so I can get back to it).  It's a very complicated
subject.

Hossein/Greg


From: sclark at epas.utoronto.ca (Susan Carroll-Clark)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Maurice Keen "Chivalry"
Date: 21 Feb 1996 12:34:08 -0500
Organization: University of Toronto -- EPAS

Greetings!

>let me recommend _Fiefs and Vassals_ by Susan Reynolds (Oxford,
>Oxford University Press, 1994 isbn-0-19-820458-2. 

This one's on my reading list, if I can just tear myself away from editing
my text for my dissertation.  It's one of those "thought provokers", from
what I've been told, which seeks to update our understanding of medieval
society beyond the classics of feudalism written 20, 30 years ago.

Cheers!
Nicolaa de Bracton
sclark at epas.utoronto.ca


Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 21:37:33 -0400
From: greg at bronze.lcs.mit.edu (Greg Rose)
To: ansteorra at eden.com
Subject: Re:  MOA

I mean no offense, but I think someone should point out that Mastery of
Arms has no historical basis in the real Middle Ages.  It is purely a
creation of the SCA.  In the SCA it grew out the distaste of some modern
people to taking oaths -- in some cases a religious objection, in many
other cases a variety of other reasons.  The problem is complicated by
the notion of "fealty" in the SCA, which also has little historical basis.
Looking at the central tendency of medieval political economy in Western
Europe, knights and other retainers (particularly those who received either
a holding or the proceeds of a holding in land) entered into the
relationship of _commendatio_ with the lord from whom they held, usually
in a public ceremony.  The usual elements of that ceremony involved the
supplicant kneeling before the lord, his hands between those of the lord,
and enunciating a statement that he was the "man" of the lord and pledging
specific services; this was followed by the lord enunciating an acceptance
of the supplicant as his man and a statement of the reciprocal benefits
which the supplicant would receive for his commendation.  This was, in turn,
followed by a solemn oath on relics by the supplicant, calling on God and
the saints whose relics were present to witness the truth of his pledge to
provide services. This latter ceremony was called a _iuramentum_ (oath) or
more commonly a _iuramentum fidelitatis_ (oath of fidelity).  It is from
_fidelitas_ that the word fealty comes.

	I know of no case where formal knighthood existed in the Middle Ages
where the commendatio/iuramentum fidelitatis pattern was not followed.  Those
who bore arms but were not commended men (either as knights or as men at
arms) were usually called _latrones_ (bandits), not Masters of Arms, by 
authentic medieval documents.

	This pattern was usually followed even with respect to mercenary
forces until quite late, i.e., post-1300, when scutage had almost completely
divorced military service from knighthood in most of West Europe.

	It is for these reasons that I have difficulty understanding the
existence of kingdoms in the SCA which have such hostility to the MSCA.
After all, it is something the SCA itself made up.  If the SCA actually
recreated the social and military structure of the early and high middle
ages (i.e., if barons outranked knights, if laurels and pelicans didn't
exist but were rewarded with baronial or higher rank, if commendatio and
iuramentum fidelitatis replaced "fealty"), then they might have grounds for
objecting.

	I suppose I should shut up now before I start retailing current
scholarly opinion on the origins of knighthood: the Peace of God movement
and Bernard of Clairvaux created it to civilize and Christianize a 
protection racket being run in France by armed thugs... :-)

Hossein Ali Qomi
Gregory Rose
(who does medieval political economy for a mundane living)


Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 23:20:18 -0500
To: ansteorra at eden.com
From: Burke McCrory <burkemc at ionet.net>
Subject: Re: About oaths...

At 10:28 PM 6/8/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Reading all the recent posts about SCA oaths (i.e. Oaths of Fealty)
>possibly conflicting with mundane-life oaths made me think about
>something not yet mentioned, and I was curious what other thought of
>this...
>
>I have, as I've mentioned before, very strong beliefs about oaths. One
>thing I believe about oaths is that any previously made oath must always
>take precedence over an oath sworn afterwards. I think it is immoral to
>swear an oath with the INTENTION of claiming precedence to a previously
>made oath in order to avoid part of the second oath, but I also believe
>that in a an unforeseen situation (for example, the person in the
>military who wouldn't swear because he thought there might be a conflict
>with military secrets) were there are conflicts, it would be
>automatically (and honorably) understood that a previous oath would be
>the more binding of the two. For the example, this would negate the
>possiblitiy of a conflict, since the military oath was made first. Does
>this seem reasonable or unreasonable to everyone else?
>
>William FitzBane

One thought here.  William Marshell refused his King's order for him to go
to war with France because he had sworn fealty for his French lands to the
French King.  He did this with the complete permission of his King
(English) to whom he was in fealty.  This is a case where one oath took
precidence over another.

Sir Burke Kyriell MacDonald
Kingdom of Ansteorra


Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 14:53:49 -0700
From: "Timothy A. McDaniel" <tmcd at crl.com>
Subject: Re: ANST - Re: long courts
To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG

Garth wrote:
> True, but in theory and within the legal framework of Fuedalism all
> oaths led directly back to the King.

or Emperor, or what have you ... 

But there are two qualifications:

- not all oaths are the same.  "The only difference between the duke
of the Normans and the king of the French is that the duke swears
fealty to the king, and the king does not swear fealty to the duke."
A lot of feudal ties could be very loose along the chain.

- a fundamental principle was that "the vassal of my vassal is not my
vassal" / "the lord of my lord is not my lord".  I used this example
when my liege lady and I both lived in the Middle: if she said,
"Daniel, nock an arrow and shoot the King of the Middle", I would
reply, "Certainly.  On your head the sin" and let fly.  I've sworn no
oath to the king, so I am not a traitor.  My oath is to her.  *She*
has probably sworn fealty, so she is probably forsworn, but *she's*
the traitor.  In fact, if I *don't* fire, *I'm* the traitor, for
betraying the one oath I do have.  For a (late) period example, see
the campfire conversation by Henry V in Shakespear's play of that ilk,
before the prayer to Heaven.

William the Conqueror tried to change that in England in the oath of
Salisbury Plain, when he tried to get all the leading men of England,
whether vassals or vavasours, to swear liege fealty to him directly.
I don't think English kings managed to establish that principle
(until perhaps the Tudors managed it?).
-- 
Daniel de Lincoln
Tim McDaniel.   Reply to tmcd at crl.com
tmcd at tmcd.austin.tx.us is not a valid address.


From: Mjccmc01 at aol.com
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 11:23:56 -0400 (EDT)
To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG
Subject: Re: ANST - Re: Fealty oaths in period - was long courts

In response to the discussion on whether or not the oaths we take in the SCA
are based on territorial oaths, my admittedly very limited research into the
area has revealed the following:

1.  Every one I've been able to run down in period is religious - swearing
"upon the Holy Gospels," relics, or whatever.  Obviously, an SCA oath is not
going to be able to match this element without a huge uproar, violation of
Corpora, etc. 

2.  They are predominantly concerned with land.  The text of the oaths quite
often outlines, in lawyerly detail, which estates are held, which rivers they
are bounded by, etc.  So, the oaths of the landed barons are at least
somewhat reminiscent of this. 

3.  In the actual legal records of oaths taken, there is not much of this
"love what you love, hate what you hate" language.  They read like what they
essentially are, legal contracts.  They are also very specific about what
constitutes breaking the oath, and what penalties result.  I've never seen
one with an "at will of the Sovereign" type of clause.  Now, the more
romantic language we tend to prefer for SCA oaths does appear, but in
literature.  What I theorize (and this is just my idea), is that the oaths
related in the various literature were more concerned with illustrated the
chivalric ideals of the time than in portraying fealty oaths and lord/vassal
relationships accurately, kind of like the way courtly love portrayed
romantic ideals as opposed to the real relations between the sexes.  However,
since most in the SCA are more interested in the romantic ideals held in the
Middle Ages (as it "should have been") than in the actual practice, I think
these more romantic oaths at least have some period roots.

If any of you are interested in reading the text of a period fealty oath, you
can find one very easily in "The Medieval Reader," ed. Norman Cantor.  This
book is an anthology of various documents from the period and contains, among
other wonderful stuff, the text of the fealty oath taken by the Viscount of
Carcassonne to the Abbott of St. Mary of Grasse in 1110, and the military
debenture between John, Duke of Bedford and the mercenary captain Sir John
Fastolf, made in 1425.  Or, e-mail me and I'll send you a copy of the text.

Sorry for the mini-lecture.  Never ask a research Laurel a question like that
when she's being held hostage waiting for repairmen.

Yours,
Siobhan


Subject: ANST - fealty
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 98 11:12:30 MST
From: ALBAN at delphi.com
To: Ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG

I just joined this discussion, so if I could wedge myself in . . .

Alina said
>The answer(s) I seem to have gotten to my question have kinda been the
>same. When one gives oath or fealty, it is to the the position of the crown,
>not of the person who holds the crown. You can or not choose to do the
>oath to the person. I suppose the same goes for kingdom and/or local
>officers, whether or not they are kingdom or local.

From the replies I've seen (which may not include all of them), I'd like to
add minor points:

1) Why do people swear fealty to the Crown during a court? Because it
serves to bind person to Crown, and Crown to person, in a way that
swearing an oath in private doesn't. It's for the same reason you get
married with witnesses, rather than just with the two participants and the
priest.

2) In period, you would not swear fealty to an abstraction like The Crown;
you'd swear fealty to the King. It was the person, not the office, that was
important, for, after all, how could An Office promise anything in return?
An abstraction couldn't lift a sword to defend you anywhere near as well
as the King could. . . Now, here in the SCA, people can say "Here do I
swear my fealty and do homage to the Crown of  <whatever>" without a
qualm, swearing to the abstraction and not to the person. It's an acceptable
(but not strictly historical) SCA tradition. . .

3) In several kingdoms, The Crown and the Baron/Baroness are not the
only people you can swear fealty to. There are examples within the SCA of
someone swearing fealty to a Bestowed Peer. Both parties have to agree
beforehand, of course; you couldn't just walk up to someone you admire
and swear service, fidelity, and the rest of the nine yards without being
sure he/she wouldn't mind. . . And such things cover a wide field of
expectations and ceremonies, all the way from "Here's a belt; I expect you
to learn from me" and "Yessir" to the other extreme of a period-oid Fealty
and Homage Ceremony, with the household in attendance, historical oaths,
pledges and promises made and accepted on both sides, feudal contracts
worked out, land exchanged for promises of garb. . . Sometimes they're
done in Court, sometimes not. Sometimes one or the other of the Crowns
may be in attendance, sometimes not. Sometimes the promises exchange
apply only within persona and within SCA functions, sometimes it spills
over to mundanity. There's a wide variety. . .

Alban St. Albans (Standing Stones, Calontir)


Subject: RE: ANST - Fealty
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 98 17:18:03 MST
From: "Rollie W. Reid" <carcassonnais at geocities.com>
To: "'ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG'" <ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG>

To add to what Lyonel said,

I have seen period oaths of fealty, from the 14th and 15th Century
that were so specific, that they specified that the vassal would
fight beside his Lord in tournament and in war, and how many horses
the Lord would provide to the vassal for each of these endeavors.

Also, in the SCA we seen oaths of fealty sworn to the Crown, and
oaths of fealty sworn by students (squires, apprentices and proteges)
to Peers (Knights, Laurels, and Pelicans).  In period, every noble,
whether Duke, Count, Baron would have had Knights swearing fealty to
him.  In fact many Knights would have had other Knights in fealty.
 This is another way in which we have altered the medieval model.

Conor
lucetis sicut luminaria in mundo


Subject: Re: ANST - What Does Pledging Allegiance Or Giving Oath Mean?
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 98 19:21:06 MST
From: Burke McCrory <burkemc at ionet.net>
To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG

>What exactly does pledging allegiance or giving oath mean? What does it mean
>when a knight/laurel/pelican pledge their allegiance or oath to our kingdom
>sovereign? What do they actually give to their majesty? What does their
>majesty give in return? I see it all the time in courts, but don't understand
>the point and/or purpose of it. Next, same question but different twist.

>Are kingdom officer expected to give the same to their majesty, their 
>allegiance or oath? Is the same expected from local officers to give their 
>majesty and to their local BB (baron and baroness)?

No, Kingdom officers give an oath of service not an oath of fealty.

This whole topic was decided many years ago by the BOD. their decision is
that an officer gives an oath of service to the Kingdom and the Crown.
That oath is to do their best at the job that they have been given and to
follow the rules of the Society.  Knights ( and some other peers if they
choose) give oaths of fealty to the Crown, not the individual wearing the
Crown.  This does not preclude people form giving personal oaths of fealty
to people, it just means that the required oath of fealty is to the Crown
not to the person.  You would have to ask each individual what their
personal view of their fealty means to them, it varys from person to
person.  To me, I gave my oath to the Crown of Ansteorra on the field at
the Outlands war, when I was Knighted.  Each time that I go before the
Crown, I reaffirm the oath that still exists between me and the Crown.
That oath is not something that expires at the end of each reign.  Recently
I was made Baron of Wiesenfeuer,  at that time I took and oath of fealty to
the Crown for the lands they were placing under my responsibility.  This
oath is an expansion of my previous oath as a Knight.  It will last as long
as I an Baron.  Going before the Crown at Coronation and retaking this oath
is a reaffirmation that the Crown wishes me to continue my duties as Baron.

>It's been a sticky question I have been trying to figure out.
>
>Alina (Mitchell)
>lg_photo at texas.net

Sir Burke Kyriell MacDonald
Baron of Wiesenfeuer
Kingdom of Ansteorra

mka. Burke McCrory
burkemc at ionet.net


Subject: Re: ANST - What Does Pledging Allegiance Or Giving Oath Mean?
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 98 20:45:27 MST
From: Paul Mitchell <pmitchel at flash.net>
To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG

Burke said:
> >> This whole topic was decided many years ago by the
> >> BOD. their decision is that an officer gives an oath of
> >> service to the Kingdom and the Crown.  That oath is to do
> >> their best at the job that they have been given and to
> >> follow the rules of the Society.

Then Daniel wrote:
> >I can't seem to find that in Corpora or in the Governing and
> >Policy Decisions.  No occurrences of "oath", and "swear"
> >only occurs for the three main peerages (knights, masters of
> >arms, laurels, pelicans.  Three.).

And Burke replied:
> It was handed down by the BOD at the Ansteorran BOI in 1979.

And now Galen points out:

Sorry Burke, but the Board of Inquiry that met here in '79
to adjudicate the upsets of that time _wasn't_ the Board
of Directors of the SCA.  It was the Steward (that time's
equivalent of what we now call the Society Seneschal),
Countess Bevin Fraser of Stirling (author Katherine
Kurtz), the Marshal of the Society, Earl Kevin
Peregrine, and a third officer whom I don't recall.
(All that detail is for those who weren't there, as
Burke was.)  But it wasn't the BoD.

In most kingdoms, I believe, Great Officers do
swear fealty.  But you're right Burke, that the tradition
in Ansteorra of officers swearing not-fealty-but-service
dates back to our earliest times, to the days of the
first reign of Lloyd & Jocelyn as King and Queen.

But it's Ansteorran tradition (a good one, I believe),
not SCA law.

- Galen of Bristol


Subject: Re: Reswearing fealty?
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:31:18 EST
From: EoganOg at aol.com
To: atlantia at atlantia.sca.org

cosby at erols.com writes:
> Question please.  Did a king ever have his vassals reswear fealty?  For
>  what reasons?  Because he felt dissent amoung them?

First I'd like to apologize for the delay in answering this.  Exam week and
all has me a little rush....  but I'd like to answer this question now that
I have had time to think about it.  (By the bi, if such questions bother
you--don't answer!  Hey, you don't even have to read them--or the answers
following.)

To my knowledge, there were three times when kings asked their vassals to
reswear fealty--King William the Conquorer of England, King Robert the Bruce
of Scotland, and King Philip of France.

King William asked all English noblemen to swear fealty directly to him upon
his taking the English throne.  This ensured that their utmost loyalty be to
the king regardless of any other loyalties they might have to other lords.
In effect, it strengthened his power and secured his reign.

Robert Bruce did the same upon his taking the throne of Scotland.  Although
he took the throne in 1306, he was not strong enough to demand such a thing
unil 1314.  After his victory at Bannockburn he demanded that all men who held
lands in both England and Scotland relenquish their holdings in one country
(preferably England) and swear their fealty to one king (preferably him). It
was made illegal to hold lands from two kings.  Any Scottish lord who supprted
the English could re-ally himself to Scotland by giving up all English titles
and swearing fealty to King Robert.  Robert could do this because he was
powerful enough.  This act basically secured his position, as it did in
William's case.

Philip did much the same thing when he managed to oust the English from most
of France.  He made it illegal to hold lands in France from Enland, and made
all nobles swear their fealty to him.  He did this, as before, to secure his
position.

In all three cases the kings were able to exert that kind of power because
they were strong, and because they needed to affirm their hold on their
nobles.  I'm sure the same was done on individual basises for similar
reasons, but these are the only times I can remember when it was done en masse.

Eogan


Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 08:24:05 +1000
From: Braddon Giles <braddongiles at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Lochac] Fealty, How many times?
To: "The Shambles: the SCA Lochac mailing list"
	<lochac at lochac.sca.org>

On 30 January 2011 10:14, Jenny Andersen <jla_mni at hotmail.com> wrote:
<<< Here's another question to ask - of those members of the populace who swore fealty to the crown at 12th Night just gone (which is the first time I've ever seen it done) why did you go up and do it?

Maeve >>>

Members of the populace were given the chance to offer "homage", not
fealty. I took it. I said "You are the Crown - don't kill me, please".
They said "We are the Crown - you may live." :) So far the only
respondant to this thread who has perceived the difference between
homage and fealty is Master Thorfinn. Technicalities matter.

Fealty is a two way honour commitment; homage is an expression of
loyalty. Knights, Greater Officers and Territorial Barons and
Baronesses are required to be in fealty to the Crown; other Peers may
choose to be in fealty. Nobody else is obliged to be in fealty. On the
other hand, anyone can offer their homage to the Crown.

While I was a Territorial Baron I had a reason to be in fealty. The
Crown promised to protect the people and the land. In return I raised
an army to serve at the Crown's disposal, and directed a cut of the
tax income to the Royal coffers. I was the Crown's direct
representative in St Florian de la Riviere, and the people's
representative to the Crown. Now that Sir Bain and Lady Bianca are the
B+B (Vivat!) I am a private citizen. I might enter into a two way
honour commitment with Sir Gabriel or Duena Constanzia as individuals
if that was what we both chose, but there is currently no reason for
the Crown to offer me It's fealty. I bring no army, I am not a Greater
Officer, I am not a Peer.

However, I can offer my homage to the Crown, and to the people who
wear the Crowns. So at 12th Night, I did.

Giles Leabrook.


Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:52:59 +1000
From: Braddon Giles <braddongiles at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Lochac] New Discussion - Fealty, How many times do you
	need/have to give it?
To: "The Shambles: the SCA Lochac mailing list"
	<lochac at lochac.sca.org>

I was initially confused by Sir Oze:

On 30 January 2011 10:06, Oz <bksiroze at gmail.com> wrote:
<<< ... but at the time I was under the belief that a Knight _must_ swear fealty (what makes a Knight different from a Master). >>>

... so I had a look at Corpora. Under VIII Personal Awards and Titles,
A Patents of Arms, 4 Patent Orders, a The Chivalry. This is the prime
difference between a Knight and a Master of Arms, the two parts of the
Order of Chivalry. "To become a Knight, the candidate must swear
fealty to the Crown of his or her kingdom during the knighting
ceremony. Masters of Arms may choose to swear fealty, but are not
required to do so." In subsequent section the Laurels and Pelicans are
offered the option but not the obligation to swear fealty.

So there it is in black and white. To *become* a Knight I must swear
fealty. There is no law or guidance on when *if ever again* a Peer
should or must swear fealty. That makes every subsequent oath an act
of generosity, on both parts.

Then I was confused by Bat:
<<< ...prevents those who are in fealty being forced to support an "evil"
king and queen during some kind of upheaval.  If the king and queen
depart their throne, ie get booted out or make an illegal move, those
who are in fealty are not bound by their oath to go against their
consciences. >>>

I was confused because fealty should never be confused with blind
obedience. Not everyone loves the wording of our most common fealty
oath, but the words are instructional. I'm going to choose three
lines. To do and let be... To speak and be silent... upon the Lawful
command of the Crown.

The task of fealty is *not* to charge over the cliff with the King.
That is the task of obedience. The task of fealty is to yell out "Hey!
Look! it's a cliff, Your Majesty!" (sound of a distant thud) "Ooh!
That will leave a mark! Ok, we'd better have a Crown Tourney..."
Fealty enables the swearer to charge over the cliff or veer aside (to
do or let be) as they see fit, to speak or be silent over the
consequences, and to consider whether the order to charge over the
cliff is a lawful one or not.

The final position of safety for a person in fealty is to obey their conscience.

<the end>
Edited by Mark S. Harris	fealty-msg	Page 16 of 16