From: corun@access5.digex.net (Corun MacAnndra) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Levels of fealty (was Re: KSCA/MSCA) Date: 6 Jan 1998 07:51:44 -0500 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 46 Message-ID: <68t9d0$h8g@access5.digex.net> References: <34b2102e.0@news.netacc.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex!digex.net!not-for-mail Thomas Ireland-Delfs wrote: > >Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant to say, or should have said, that I swear >fealty to the Crown and through them to the Kingdom & her people. I guess >it that pesky "democracy" thing coming through. No, you were quite clear. Again it's that tendency among many in the SCA to equate the Crown (i.e. the amorphous Body Politic if you will) with the person wearing it. When you swear fealty to the Crown, you are not (or should not be IMO) swearing homage to the person wearing it. Your oath should be to the kingdom itself. Personal oaths of homage can be made, but be very sure you can uphold such an oath before making it. Do not make it lightly. To digress a bit, I have always felt that when a person swears fealty upon receiving any of the three Society level awards (Knight, Laurel, Pelican), the oath should be made to the Society first, the kingdom second. Or maybe to the Order first, Society second, kingdom third. Instead, I often see people equating these awards with the given kingdom and oaths of fealty made to that kingdom alone. They are not kingdom level awards, they are Society level awards and cross all borders equally, and the service of those awards, while performed in the kingdom of residence by virtue of that residence, should be done to improve the overall quality of the Society. Thus the oath sworn should reflect that. The swearing to a king is most often seen when one is inducted into the Order of the Chivalry, and the oath made by a knight is sometimes seen as one of personal service to a given king. This is not always the case, but I have seen instances where knights of long standing have been threatened with banishment for not swearing fealty to a king who was not even the one who knighted them. In my considered opinion the oath of fealty of the Peers should be to the Society. They are the exemplars of whatever ideals of chivalry we hold to, regardless of how inauthentic those ideals might be considered by some. In service, Corun -- Corun MacAnndra | Dark Horde by birth | Moritu by choice ================================================================ Though we are not now that strength, which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. One equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fates, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find and not to yield. ###### From: Thomas Ireland-Delfs Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Levels of fealty (was Re: KSCA/MSCA) NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup5.redsuspenders.com Message-ID: <34b2102e.0@news.netacc.net> Date: 6 Jan 98 11:06:22 GMT Lines: 17 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.28.142.4!news.netacc.net!dialup5.redsuspenders.com Jan Frelin writes: > Josh Mittleman wrote: > > > Corun made one important point: fealty and homage are not the same thing, > > though they are routinely confused in the Society. > > While homage should/could only be done to one person. However, there's > another point underlying this discussion: the assumption that you can > swear fealty to a "legal person" such as a Kingdom, rather than to the > King. I believe this wasn't done in period; does anyone have evidence to > the contrary? > Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant to say, or should have said, that I swear fealty to the Crown and through them to the Kingdom & her people. I guess it that pesky "democracy" thing coming through. FRIDRIKR ###### From: Josh Mittleman Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Levels of fealty (was Re: KSCA/MSCA) Date: 6 Jan 1998 16:41:57 GMT Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Lines: 16 Message-ID: <68tmsl$621@news1.panix.com> References: <34b2102e.0@news.netacc.net> <68t9d0$h8g@access5.digex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.nfs100.access.net User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-971224 (UNIX) (SunOS/4.1.4 (sun4m)) Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!panix!news.panix.com!panix2.panix.com!mittle Greetings from Arval! Corun MacAnndra replied to Fridikr. > When you swear fealty to the Crown, you are not (or should not be IMO) > swearing homage to the person wearing it. Your oath should be to the > kingdom itself. I disagree completely. When I swear fealty to the Crown, I am promising service to _those_ people. One of the things I promise is to provide certain services to the Society at large, but my obligation is to the King and Queen personally. That's why I'm so very careful what I promise. The personal nature of obligation is a basic difference between medieval and modern societies, and for me, the importance of personal obligation is one of things that makes the Society so interesting. Arval ###### From: tadhg@bigfoot.com (Tim of Angle) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Levels of fealty (was Re: KSCA/MSCA) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 03:30:45 GMT Organization: EDS Lines: 18 Message-ID: <401302BEBE6E95D2.A7B87A9B1BA82052.E17F71266A456954@library-proxy.airnews.net> X-Orig-Message-ID: <34b4f657.12891780@news.airmail.net> References: <34b2102e.0@news.netacc.net> <68t9d0$h8g@access5.digex.net> Reply-To: tadhg@bigfoot.com NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library.airnews.net NNTP-Posting-Time: Tue Jan 6 21:31:45 1998 NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp03-51.ght.iadfw.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.onenet.net!news.oru.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!nntp.flash.net!news.airnews.net!cabal11!thereisnocabal!news-f.iadfw.net!usenet Scripsit corun@access5.digex.net (Corun MacAnndra) : > >Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant to say, or should have said, that I swear > >fealty to the Crown and through them to the Kingdom & her people. I guess > >it that pesky "democracy" thing coming through. > > No, you were quite clear. Again it's that tendency among many in the SCA > to equate the Crown (i.e. the amorphous Body Politic if you will) with the > person wearing it. When you swear fealty to the Crown, you are not (or > should not be IMO) swearing homage to the person wearing it. Your oath > should be to the kingdom itself. A concept that would be totally alien to anyone in period. ("Authenticity? What's that?") ================================================================================ Fra Tadhg Liath OFT tadhg@bigfoot.com The Grumpiest Pelican ###### From: corun@access5.digex.net (Corun MacAnndra) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Levels of fealty (was Re: KSCA/MSCA) Date: 7 Jan 1998 07:52:39 -0500 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 81 Message-ID: <68vtqn$9tt@access5.digex.net> References: <34b2102e.0@news.netacc.net> <68t9d0$h8g@access5.digex.net> <401302BEBE6E95D2.A7B87A9B1BA82052.E17F71266A456954@library-proxy.airnews.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!newsfeeds.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!sol.net!howland.erols.net!news2.digex.net!digex!digex.net!not-for-mail Tim of Angle wrote: >Scripsit corun@access5.digex.net (Corun MacAnndra) : > > > No, you were quite clear. Again it's that tendency among many in the SCA > > to equate the Crown (i.e. the amorphous Body Politic if you will) with the > > person wearing it. When you swear fealty to the Crown, you are not (or > > should not be IMO) swearing homage to the person wearing it. Your oath > > should be to the kingdom itself. > >A concept that would be totally alien to anyone in period. ("Authenticity? >What's that?") I assume you mean that the concept of swearing to the Kingdom would be totally alien to anyone in period (which period btw). Please correct me if I misread, but, going on the above assumption, you're likely correct that swearing fealty to a Kingdom would not have occured. A Knight or other servitor (no Laurels or Pelicans, grumpy or otherwise in period) would have sworn to the King or Queen. However, that King or Queen would have reigned to the end of their life, and not for a mere six months at a time (unless the died within six months of assuming the reign of course). I have learned a lot in the many years I have been in the SCA, and I now strive for a greater authenticity than I once used to. However one must realize that there are severe limitations to the extent one can be authentic in the SCA. We have invented Orders (one of which you are a Companion of) that would not have existed in period. We are not allowed, due to mundane law or Political Correctness , to recreate such Orders as the Knights Templar due to the religious connotations of such an Order. One can not even display a fylfot for fear of evoking memories of the Nazi movement. We place Kings and Queens on the thrones by Trials of Combat, and we have former Kings and Queens who are still living. And so we make concessions to this hobby of ours. We attempt, each individual according to their own skills/interests/time/finances, to recreate some portion of the 900 or so years and hundreds of cultures which spanned those years as authentically as we can. One can not, nor should not, expect every person who plays in the SCA to attempt to recreate as authentically as, say Cariadoc (not having met you I can not use you as an example). And so we must sit back and say, "this will do until something better comes along." Many go on to Living History groups who actually compete (MTA in Jamestown is one such competition for reenactors) and who achieve a higher level of authenticity than one generally sees in the SCA. Such levels require a huge expenditure of time and money which vary in proportion to one another depending on the period one chooses. The SCA is made up largely of college students or "weekend warriors" who don't have as great an interest as the living history buffs. My point, regarding fealty to Kingdoms rather than Kings/Queens, is simply this; Kings/Queens come and go every six months, and I could not in all conscience swear the same oath to each one. And so I prefer to swear to what I consider a higher ideal, the people with whom I play. It is my duty (as I perceive it) to be the best person I can, regardless of what titles I might hold. In fact, the higher my titles, the greater my obligation (again, as I perceive it). We must be exemplars of the three tenets upon which this Society is founded; Honour, Courtesy and Chivalry. We must be prepared to share our knowledge and skills, to teach rather than chastise and upbraid. We must also be prepared to be denigrated by those who can not or will not strive to the same goals we set for ourselves. They are the small ones who will pass more quickly from memory, or be remembered only for how small they truly were. In closing I will add this; there may come a time when some man or woman sits the throne of Atlantia (or whatever Kingdom in which I happen to reside at that time) for whom I would truly swear personal homage or personal fealty. So far it hasn't happened. Until then, my duties are to the people of the SCA as a whole and those with whom I directly interact specifically. In service, Corun MacAnndra Baron of Storvik, Atlantia Companion of the Order of the Golden Dolphin (just in case any of those titles means anything to anyone else) -- Corun MacAnndra | Dark Horde by birth | Moritu by choice ================================================================ Though we are not now that strength, which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. One equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fates, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find and not to yield. ###### From: moondrgn@bga.com (Chris and Elisabeth Zakes) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Levels of fealty (was Re: KSCA/MSCA) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 13:04:45 GMT Organization: Real/Time Communications Internet customer posting Lines: 27 Message-ID: <34b37cf8.4946128@news2.bga.com> References: <34b2102e.0@news.netacc.net> <68t9d0$h8g@access5.digex.net> <401302BEBE6E95D2.A7B87A9B1BA82052.E17F71266A456954@library-proxy.airnews.net> Reply-To: moondrgn@bga.com NNTP-Posting-Host: apm0-56.realtime.net X-RTcode: c6b21c2434c90c27a4b37d84 X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!nntp.kreonet.re.kr!xfer.kren.nm.kr!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.texas.net!feed1.realtime.net!news3.realtime.net!not-for-mail tadhg@bigfoot.com (Tim of Angle) wrote: >Scripsit corun@access5.digex.net (Corun MacAnndra) : > > > >Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant to say, or should have said, that I swear > > >fealty to the Crown and through them to the Kingdom & her people. I guess > > >it that pesky "democracy" thing coming through. > > > > No, you were quite clear. Again it's that tendency among many in the SCA > > to equate the Crown (i.e. the amorphous Body Politic if you will) with the > > person wearing it. When you swear fealty to the Crown, you are not (or > > should not be IMO) swearing homage to the person wearing it. Your oath > > should be to the kingdom itself. > >A concept that would be totally alien to anyone in period. ("Authenticity? >What's that?") Excuse me, Tadhg, but *what* are you talking about? I don't see the word "authenticity" anywhere in the posts you quoted. -Tivar Moondragon Ansteorra C and E Zakes Tivar Moondragon (Patience and Persistence) and Aethelyan of Moondragon (Decadence is its own reward) moondrgn@bga.com ###### From: mclean1382@aol.com (McLean1382) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Levels of fealty (was Re: KSCA/MSCA) Date: 8 Jan 1998 03:06:45 GMT Lines: 8 Message-ID: <19980108030600.WAA05937@ladder02.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder02.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com References: <68vtqn$9tt@access5.digex.net> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!sdd.hp.com!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!152.163.199.19!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <68vtqn$9tt@access5.digex.net>, corun@access5.digex.net (Corun MacAnndra) writes: >and we have former Kings and Queens who are still living. They had those. They just usually didn't have them for very long...... Galleron ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.nospam@ccw.ch (remove .nospam) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Levels of fealty (was Re: KSCA/MSCA) Date: 08 Jan 1998 04:50:15 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 84 Message-ID: References: <34b2102e.0@news.netacc.net> <68t9d0$h8g@access5.digex.net> <401302BEBE6E95D2.A7B87A9B1BA82052.E17F71266A456954@library-proxy.airnews.net> <68vtqn$9tt@access5.digex.net> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Scripsit corun@access5.digex.net (Corun MacAnndra) : > No, you were quite clear. Again it's that tendency among many in the SCA > to equate the Crown (i.e. the amorphous Body Politic if you will) with the > person wearing it. When you swear fealty to the Crown, you are not (or > should not be IMO) swearing homage to the person wearing it. Your oath > should be to the kingdom itself. Tim of Angle wrote: >A concept that would be totally alien to anyone in period. ("Authenticity? >What's that?") corun@access5.digex.net (Corun MacAnndra) added to this: >A Knight or >other servitor (no Laurels or Pelicans, grumpy or otherwise in period) >would have sworn to the King or Queen IMHO at least in later period Knightship was given not just for military service, but for any form of service to the ruler. Laurels and Pelicans really only exist in the SCA because Knighting is restricted to fighters (most likely right for earlier periods). >However, that King or Queen would >have reigned to the end of their life, and not for a mere six months at a >time (unless the died within six months of assuming the reign of course). Instead of using this ahistoricity to justify no fealty (one badness leads to annother...) why not suggest to mend the broken bit. It would certainly improve the SCA attempt at depicting society if Crown lasted until removed (either by stepping down (no interest any more), death or by force). Good Kings would last longer (good) and bad ones would lose more and more barons until they could be beaten by a pretender in a succession war (a period reason for a war!, also good). >We have invented Orders (one of which you are a >Companion of) that would not have existed in period. IMHO period orders were groups that self-selected members. Each had their own charter. That did not have to be militarical proficiency (Order of the Garter comes to mind here). > We are not allowed, >due to mundane law or Political Correctness , to recreate such >Orders as the Knights Templar due to the religious connotations of such >an Order. One can not even display a fylfot for fear of evoking memories >of the Nazi movement. Forbidden by mundane law is an acceptable reason, same also dangerous, unsanitary, too expensive, too time consuming. But making an as period as possible noble society doesn't collide with any of these. Just with not knowing any better or lazyness. The first can be solved (and it is the SCA charter to do so). The later, well, see the recent iscussions:-) > We place Kings and Queens on the thrones by Trials of Combat See above for improving that. > and we have former Kings and Queens who are still living. And Henry VI of England? For non 15th cent personas: He was kicked off the throne in 1461, then again back on in 1470. Made him former King in between. IIRC (can't find source) he was kicked off again in 1470 and spent until his death 1471 as twice former King, a SCA-Duke:-) >And so we make concessions to this hobby of ours. There exist justifiable and non-justifiable concessions. Trying to justify false society structures, rituals, titles etc is not going to be easy. I await the attempts at it. >We must be exemplars of the three tenets upon >which this Society is founded; Honour, Courtesy and Chivalry. We must be >prepared to share our knowledge and skills, to teach rather than chastise >and upbraid. We must also be prepared to be denigrated by those who can >not or will not strive to the same goals we set for ourselves. Sure. But don't sacrifice authenticity unnecessarily. BTW: I do know that crown list are demanded by corpora. And no I don't think that getting that changed will be a picnic. Now why is someone calling me authenticity nazi:-) -- Neil.Franklin.nospam@ccw.ch (remove .nospam), http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: ###### Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.nospam@ccw.ch (remove .nospam) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Levels of fealty (was Re: KSCA/MSCA) Date: 08 Jan 1998 04:50:15 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 88 Message-ID: References: <34b2102e.0@news.netacc.net> <68t9d0$h8g@access5.digex.net> <401302BEBE6E95D2.A7B87A9B1BA82052.E17F71266A456954@library-proxy.airnews.net> <68vtqn$9tt@access5.digex.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.192.233.108 X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 It seems from dejanews and altavista that this never made it out. So I am reposting it, sorry if it did and I am now waisting your time. Scripsit corun@access5.digex.net (Corun MacAnndra) : > No, you were quite clear. Again it's that tendency among many in the SCA > to equate the Crown (i.e. the amorphous Body Politic if you will) with the > person wearing it. When you swear fealty to the Crown, you are not (or > should not be IMO) swearing homage to the person wearing it. Your oath > should be to the kingdom itself. Tim of Angle wrote: >A concept that would be totally alien to anyone in period. ("Authenticity? >What's that?") corun@access5.digex.net (Corun MacAnndra) added to this: >A Knight or >other servitor (no Laurels or Pelicans, grumpy or otherwise in period) >would have sworn to the King or Queen IMHO at least in later period Knightship was given not just for military service, but for any form of service to the ruler. Laurels and Pelicans really only exist in the SCA because Knighting is restricted to fighters (most likely right for earlier periods). >However, that King or Queen would >have reigned to the end of their life, and not for a mere six months at a >time (unless the died within six months of assuming the reign of course). Instead of using this ahistoricity to justify no fealty (one badness leads to annother...) why not suggest to mend the broken bit. It would certainly improve the SCA attempt at depicting society if Crown lasted until removed (either by stepping down (no interest any more), death or by force). Good Kings would last longer (good) and bad ones would lose more and more barons until they could be beaten by a pretender in a succession war (a period reason for a war!, also good). >We have invented Orders (one of which you are a >Companion of) that would not have existed in period. IMHO period orders were groups that self-selected members. Each had their own charter. That did not have to be militarical proficiency (Order of the Garter comes to mind here). > We are not allowed, >due to mundane law or Political Correctness , to recreate such >Orders as the Knights Templar due to the religious connotations of such >an Order. One can not even display a fylfot for fear of evoking memories >of the Nazi movement. Forbidden by mundane law is an acceptable reason, same also dangerous, unsanitary, too expensive, too time consuming. But making an as period as possible noble society doesn't collide with any of these. Just with not knowing any better or lazyness. The first can be solved (and it is the SCA charter to do so). The later, well, see the recent iscussions:-) > We place Kings and Queens on the thrones by Trials of Combat See above for improving that. > and we have former Kings and Queens who are still living. And Henry VI of England? For non 15th cent personas: He was kicked off the throne in 1461, then again back on in 1470. Made him former King in between. IIRC (can't find source) he was kicked off again in 1470 and spent until his death 1471 as twice former King, a SCA-Duke:-) >And so we make concessions to this hobby of ours. There exist justifiable and non-justifiable concessions. Trying to justify false society structures, rituals, titles etc is not going to be easy. I await the attempts at it. >We must be exemplars of the three tenets upon >which this Society is founded; Honour, Courtesy and Chivalry. We must be >prepared to share our knowledge and skills, to teach rather than chastise >and upbraid. We must also be prepared to be denigrated by those who can >not or will not strive to the same goals we set for ourselves. Sure. But don't sacrifice authenticity unnecessarily. BTW: I do know that crown list are demanded by corpora. And no I don't think that getting that changed will be a picnic. Now why is someone calling me authenticity nazi:-) -- Neil.Franklin.nospam@ccw.ch (remove .nospam), http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: If I go missing, its one again my newsfeed that has craped ###### From: tadhg@bigfoot.com (Tim of Angle) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Levels of fealty (was Re: KSCA/MSCA) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 12:30:52 GMT Organization: EDS Lines: 28 Message-ID: X-Orig-Message-ID: <34b5c49f.33319179@news.airmail.net> References: <34b2102e.0@news.netacc.net> <68t9d0$h8g@access5.digex.net> <401302BEBE6E95D2.A7B87A9B1BA82052.E17F71266A456954@library-proxy.airnews.net> <68vtqn$9tt@access5.digex.net> Reply-To: tadhg@bigfoot.com NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library.airnews.net NNTP-Posting-Time: Thu Jan 8 06:31:53 1998 NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp03-46.ght.iadfw.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.flash.net!news.airnews.net!cabal11!thereisnocabal!news-f.iadfw.net!usenet Scripsit Neil.Franklin.nospam@ccw.ch (remove .nospam) : > >We have invented Orders (one of which you are a > >Companion of) that would not have existed in period. > > IMHO period orders were groups that self-selected members. Not always. In many cases children were offered as "oblates" to congregations of the Benedictine Rule for the express purpose of becoming members when they reached an appropriate age. One must make a distinction here between the original meaning of the term "order", a congregation of men or women living a religious life according to a Rule, and the later derivative meaning of membership in an elite group honoris causa. Although the latter arose out of the former, they aren't the same thing. > Each had their own charter. The honorific "orders" usually did, other "orders" might or might not. > That did not have to be militarical proficiency > (Order of the Garter comes to mind here). Actually, the Order of the Garter was originally military in nature, being a select group of distinguished knights fashioned to emulate Arthur's Round Table. It wasn't until both the religious and the military nature of knighthood had faded that the Garter became merely another dangly.