[SCA] oaths

[cellio]

Coronation is coming up soon. In this kingdom, it's customary for the peerage orders to be called into court (each order separately), and for a spokesman of the order to acknowledge the new king and queen and promise to uphold the laws of the kingdom and keep doing the things that peers do. Sometimes this goes well and sometimes the spokesman says things on behalf of the order that not all order members agreed to. I've begun agitating for a fixed text from within the order.

So anyway, today the incoming king and queen sent email to the peers about ceremonial stuff, including an innocent mention of the orders swearing their oaths of service. This has caused some... discussion... on the pelican list. (The pelican is the peerage for service; among things, we have a high concentration of rules wonks.) The laurel list (arts), so far, has been silent. I cannot speak to the chivalry, as I'm not a member.

After some of us said "um, not quite", one of our newer members asked "why such animosity that you don't want to swear an oath of service?". Well, there are a couple issues, but at least for me, they have nothing to do with animosity. I have nothing against the incoming royalty. These are purely matters of principle -- but important, strongly-held principle.

First and foremost: the word "oath" (or "swear", which to me implies "oath"). I do not swear oaths to people. An oath is a grave matter involving God; this is not a matter for participation in a hobby, no matter how much I enjoy that hobby. I don't even "swear" when being seated on a jury; I'm sure not going to do it in the SCA. I don't care whether my persona would have (though I think she wouldn't); my persona must always be limited by what I, real-world me, am permitted. The SCA is not play-acting in the way that a theatre production is; while we take on personae, we are also still us. We are not merely portraying characters.

So I won't "swear", but I will "promise" or "affirm". If my word is not good enough unless accompanied by the word "oath", then there is a deeper problem. But I don't think that's the case -- within the SCA, I think my word as a peer and as an honorable person is good enough, so why require extra stringency?

(There is a secondary matter of just what we are promising to do. Some people make vague oaths "to serve the kingdom", without defining the parameters. That's bad, and a lie -- we all have concerns that would trump the SCA. I will not say that lie, and I don't like being asked to ascent when someone else says that lie. Yes, we all know what is really meant, but words are important. As peers and presumably role models, we should strive to say what we mean and mean what we say.)

It's gotten to the point where I hesitate to go up when the order is called, because I'm not sure what the spokesman is going to say and I might not want to be seen to be bound by it. And sometimes the spokesman has the clue but the king and queen don't, so they'll say something like "we'll hear your oath now" and the spokesman doesn't correct them becuase that's seen as rude. Oh well; more often than not I don't even make it to Coronation anyway. (This time, for example, it is being held on Erev Pesach.) If I were going, I would just try to get that spokesman role for myself. But maybe, by having this discussion, we've raised just a little bit of awareness, and maybe it will still be there the next time this comes up.

Comments

[alfiechat.livejournal.com]

I always thought that only the chivalry had to swear fealty. I never understood why the other orders were called in to do so. I always thought that members of the Laurel and Pelican would swear oaths privately if they so chose. Thanks for the post, it's an interesting topic.

[cellio]

I think what happened is that first the knights (masters at arms need not swear fealty) went up because they have to, and then someone said "we shouldn't leave out the other orders", and some people didn't pick up that the other orders were pledging service, not swearing fealty, and things got muddled from there. And if the herald or royalty don't pick up that subtlety, someone will say "oath of fealty" from the stage and that will help reinforce the mistake among the populace. Lather, rinse, repeat twice a year.

Mistakes can magnify pretty quickly in any community; the SCA is no exception.

[msmemory.livejournal.com]

I like the East's custom, where the Crowns sit in state most of the afternoon between courts, accepting gifts, oaths/promises/affirmations, and congratulations. This means that I can selectively happen not to queue up to swear fealty to Crowns I don't much like. I think the last Crowns who had mass oaths were Brion and Anna (and they caught flak for Foreign Customs for it, too). And I don't have to sit through hours of Shire of Very Small Place presenting the Crowns with six napkins and a bottle of beer, either.

[cellio]

I like having the royalty sit in state, and ours usually do that as well. Somewhere along the line the custom arose of having each peerage group participate in the Coronation ceremony, and that participation naturally included words, and the knights were swearing oaths so sometimes people think the other orders should, and it gets muddled.

I'd actually be perfectly fine with a Coronation ceremony that includes oaths or pledges from the kingdom officers and from the landed barons but not from the other peers, with the expectation that individuals will do this later and privately. Besides, contrary to popular opinion, knights do not need to renew their fealty each reign. That fealty is a condition of knighthood; they're in fealty regardless of whether they show up and say it.

[jducoeur]

I think the last Crowns who had mass oaths were Brion and Anna (and they caught flak for Foreign Customs for it, too).

True, but this was actually my first hint that Brion and Anna were more clueful than the average bear. When we rules-wonks caught wind of their intention to have a mass "oath", and made a stink, they worked *with* us to fix it.

The end result was carefully-enough worded that even I could participate, and I've never sworn fealty to any monarch. IIRC, it wasn't really an oath of anything; rather, it was mainly a mass acknowledgement that they were the rightfully crowned heads of state, along with a very lightly-worded promise to support the Kingdom. Generic and safe enough that pretty much everyone felt comfortable joining in, while still getting the mass-acknowledgement bit of ritual that they were shooting for. It was really quite well-managed.

I agree that it hasn't happened since, though. It's not normal Eastern custom, and I think any Royals with less management clue would probably find it blowing up in Their faces...

[yorkshirelad.livejournal.com]

You a Goddess among women. The issue of oaths and the SCA has come up quite often between melanisuzanne and I. She(and others) don't understand why I have such issues with swearing an oath or even kneeling in court. You have said it better then I ever could.

My issues also center around the oath involving God. Or in my case Gods as I am a Norse Re-constructionist(ie Norse Pagan). When I swear an oath it has repercussions WAAAAAAAAAAAY beyond the SCA. I won't bore people with the whole Wyrd thing.

But suffice to say oaths and paying homage in the SCA make playing VERY difficult for me. Thank you for putting into words what I have not been able to.

[cellio]

Thank you.

AS for kneeling, while it doesn't help with a Norse persona, I have heard the phrase "one knee for kings, two knees for God" from people who do high middle ages. No idea is that has any basis in history, but I throw it out there anyway.

[dagonell.livejournal.com]

"One knee for thy king, two for thy God!!!" -- Cromwell
It's period. -- Dagonell

[dragontdc.livejournal.com]

In Meridies, the martial Peerage has recognized that some people are prevented by their beliefs from swearing oaths of fealty. The rank of Master of Arms is equivalent to that of Knight, and is indicated by a white baldric instead of belt.

[cellio]

We have that too, though in practice we have very few masters at arms. But yes, only knights are required to be in fealty; masters at arms are not, just as pelicans and laurels are not.

[asim.livejournal.com]

Very thought-provoking, thanks.

It would be a bit of a persona thing, for me, as SCA Royality more-or-less is a Franji (European) court, and there's little change of a good subject of the Sultan swearing fealty to them! However, it does not preculde me for offering services, just as the reverse occurred. In fact, I was reading DOMENICO'S ISTANBUL last night; Domenico was the 3rd Court Physician to Murad III in period, and Jewish, but served with distinction and honor.
I admire your principles, and suspect that a large part of the issue is that "oath" means very little in our Society. Internally, I have few of those, and none currently in the Society that are acknowledged as such. To me, though, "oath" is something you do, not just say when the time is right, and I've turned down lovely chances to do things because I would not make that level of commitment that the word "oath" implies.
However, to many people, it’s just not that important, it's "part of the game". Which makes me wonder if I want to be that high up in The System.

Not a lot of help, I know. But thank you, anyway, for the chance to mutter….

[cellio]

Thanks for the feedback. I certainly have no problem with serving my kingdom or even with promising to do so to the best of my ability; the problems come with oaths and with open-ended promises that can be interpreted in ways that you didn't intend.

I hadn't considered the angle that oaths can be implied by behavior. That's an interesting idea that I'll have to think more on.

However, to many people, it’s just not that important, it's "part of the game". Which makes me wonder if I want to be that high up in The System.

The "it's just a game" (implied: so chill) response bugs me. People sometimes use it as a way of dismissing people and blowing off obligations they accepted. If it's just a game, then why accept those obligations in the first place? On the flip side, the SCA is not real life; if the SCA starts interfering with your job or school or family or health or religion, it's time to step back and deal with what's important. Not because "it's just a game" -- rather, because some things are just more important.

[nobble.livejournal.com]

Well I think that your comment is pertinent to me and my view of swearing oaths. In a relatively new kingdom, explaining to K&Q why I wanted to delete the oath in my laurelling ceremony was interesting. They were very understanding. But you are right, some things are just more important. I just try to be absent when they call the orders to swear. I know another couple of peers, both jewish and non-jewish who do the same thing.

[lyev.livejournal.com]

I don't care whether my persona would have (though I think she wouldn't); my persona must always be limited by what I, real-world me, am permitted. The SCA is not play-acting in the way that a theatre production is; while we take on personae, we are also still us. We are not merely portraying characters.

Thanks for putting some of this in better terms than I ever could. Lots of things to mull over.

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

I think part of what's going on here is the use of the term "oath" in the more generic sense of a solemn promise, no? If the text of it contains neither reference to God nor the word "swear", would you still refuse it because it was inaccurately labelled an oath?

[dr-zrfq.livejournal.com]

Atlantia doesn't do mass fealties at coronations except for (a) the Kingdom GOOfS (Great Officers Of State), and (b) the Propertied White Trash (landed baronage). Just as well, as I'd have a tough time going up myself.

In fact, there was some difficulty at my peerage ceremony b/c I wished to pledge service, not swear fealty -- as an incoming Corporate Officer at the time, I did not feel that I was allowed to be in fealty to any single Crown. At some point I should probably talk to His Grace about that.