This has been quite an eventful discussion, here, in
sca_snark and in other people's LiveJournals.
I got an IM tonight from someone I respect a great deal that said, "You're wrong, you know."
I wasn't sure if it was about the peerage proposal or just an overall statement about me. A rather lengthy discussion ensued.
I have learned a lot in the reading and discussions.
No, I am not about to declare my support for the extra peerage. ;)
I want to be clear that I oppose this proposal, as it is structured.
And just because I believe that fencers have two paths to the peerage already, doesn't mean I do not think they should have a path to a peerage for skill.
I do not like the current proposal because I feel as though it makes a "Minor Sports" peerage, and I do not believe that fencing, archery, siege weaponry, thrown weapons and equestrian do not all fit nicely in the same package.
That is something I had not really thought of until I read other people's LJs.
I had also been convinced that most fencers of my acquaintance felt the same way I did about the extra peerage. I find there are some who really feel that there should be a skill-based path for fencers, but that this proposal -- and or this moment -- are not right.
During one of these conversations, I wondered aloud about this:
Have the Board of Directors make the Order of the White Scarf a Society-wide order and have it carry a patent. Heck, some knights have said for years that that's all it was anyway, a "stealth peerage."
Let's uncloak. ;)
Yes, I know that folks will say this is not the right time, but it's an idea.
So is the single peerage.
And for those who are offended or feel I am naive because I look at knights in a different way than I look at Pelicans or Laurels, I do not mean to offend you. This is simply my opinion.
Thanks for everyone who has been taking part in these discussions.
Edited to add: Right after I shut down and went to bed last night, I realized that simple making all White Scarfs peers wouldn't work because, at the time they were elevated, there was no assumption of peer-like qualities. Comportment, most likely, but not necessarily peer-like qualities.
I know some folks are not comfortable posting publicly on some of these issues. I am always interested in your opinion. Please e-mail privately if you would like.