ModernChivalry.org

Main => The Round Table => Topic started by: Naythan on 2014-02-20, 04:54:57

Title: A Knight and Love
Post by: Naythan on 2014-02-20, 04:54:57
Very much of chivalry includes being very kind to women. In many story's and romanticized paintings knights are usually involved with a damsel of some sort.
If a knight does not have a lady or does not even know love. Will he truly be able to be a knight? In his community or just upholding the knightly code? It just seems to be something that is hand In hand.
It's a sketchy question.
Title: Re: A Knight and Love
Post by: Sir Patrick on 2014-02-20, 13:11:14
Yes he is still a knight. Courtesy is a knightly virtue, being in love is not.  Much of what is described in art and poetry is courtly love, which is not a pure, knightly virtue by any means as it typically involves an adulterous relationship where one or both parties are married to another. For example, Guinevere and Lancelot had a courtly love. Here's a link to more info:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love)
Title: Re: A Knight and Love
Post by: Sir Edward on 2014-02-20, 14:36:03

Let's also not forget all of the celibate orders of knights, such as the Templars. ;)
Title: Re: A Knight and Love
Post by: Sir Douglas on 2014-02-20, 16:59:04
Phew! I'm in the clear then. Maybe I should become a Templar. ;)

Courtly love is certainly an...odd concept, if I understand it correctly. In theory, wasn't it basically the idea that a knight would love and pine after a lady he knew he could never have, usually because she/he/both were already married? It was considered a purer form of love or something like that.

In practice, however, I'm sure it wasn't quite that "innocent". All of those illegitimate children have to come from somewhere....
Title: Re: A Knight and Love
Post by: Sir Brian on 2014-02-20, 17:57:44
In practice, however, I'm sure it wasn't quite that "innocent". All of those illegitimate children have to come from somewhere....

In practice, however, I'm sure it wasn't quite that "innocent". All of those illegitimate children have to come from somewhere....

Well certainly, then again the flower of chivalry in those days idolized the Arthurian legends where a mere lad is given ‘supreme executive power because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at him’  ;)
Title: Re: A Knight and Love
Post by: Mike W. on 2014-02-20, 19:47:08
As I recently stated in another post, my opinion of chivalry (in its purest and ahistorical sense) is not some rigorous code with various rules and exceptions, but rather one simple rule: Love others. Or if you're a religious type: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." And loving yourself doesn't mean narcissistic, arrogant love, but a nurturing, caring, and disciplined love necessary to make ourselves better so that we may better serve others.

Romantic love is something that we can become blessed with in our lives, but it is no way a requirement for being a good person. Now mind you all of this is from an ahistorical perspective. Sadly, I am not entirely familiar with the historical rules and rituals of romantic and courtly love.
Title: Re: A Knight and Love
Post by: SirNathanQ on 2014-02-20, 20:18:53
The resident Teutonic Knight and single guy takes a moment to confirm that a lady isn't NEEDED to be a knight, just a nice bonus!  ;)
The thing is, you usually get the damsels after you start acting knightly. Few things the ladies like more than non-douchey confidence.  :)
Title: Re: A Knight and Love
Post by: Sir William on 2014-02-20, 20:24:46
"Moistened bint" - I've not heard that term in years, but it is a favorite of mine.  lol

In any case, the art of courtly love really started in the Angevin era, per Wikipedia, in the ducal and princely courts of Aquitaine, Provence, Champagne, ducal Burgundy and the Norman Kingdom of Sicily at the end of the eleventh century. In essence, courtly love was an experience between erotic desire and spiritual attainment that now seems contradictory as "a love at once illicit and morally elevating, passionate and disciplined, humiliating and exalting, human and transcendent".

The whole point of chivalry (from a historical standpoint) was to institute a set of rules and regulations so that those of the knightly orders would have something besides maiming and killing as their joie de vivre.  It was to make natural born killers (and in a lot of cases, rapists, thieves, usurers, outright murderers even) into something like normal human beings; it was better than doing nothing at all I suppose.  What wilburnicus suggests as his definition of chivalry should not be confused with what chivalry was  back then- and love had little to do with it.

Courtly love should not be confused with what is shared between a man and wife; while it is true much of what a man and woman do behind closed doors may seem similar, it isn't always the case.  Not to mention, with courtly love, there was no guarantee that said love would ever be consummated (although it was, and often as history has shown us).

Sir Nathan, you are a consummate gentleman and a scholar. 
Title: Re: A Knight and Love
Post by: Sir James A on 2014-02-20, 20:28:38
Courtly love is certainly an...odd concept, if I understand it correctly. In theory, wasn't it basically the idea that a knight would love and pine after a lady he knew he could never have, usually because she/he/both were already married? It was considered a purer form of love or something like that.

Yep. The name escapes me, but I remember someone who was married and had "courtly love" with a married woman. He hurt his finger at tournament and wrote to her about it. She said not good enough. He cut off his finger and sent it to her.

I don't plan to be *that* knightly. :)

I believe part of the intent of "courtly" love followed "courting" - the process men go through when trying to win a woman's love. As Sir William said, I also don't think it was ever particularly meant to be consumated, though it certainly did happen in some instances.
Title: Re: A Knight and Love
Post by: Aiden of Oreland on 2014-02-20, 21:34:26
Lets not forget how the table cracked.
Title: Re: A Knight and Love
Post by: Mike W. on 2014-02-20, 21:40:12


Yep. The name escapes me, but I remember someone who was married and had "courtly love" with a married woman. He hurt his finger at tournament and wrote to her about it. She said not good enough. He cut off his finger and sent it to her.

I don't plan to be *that* knightly. :)

I believe part of the intent of "courtly" love followed "courting" - the process men go through when trying to win a woman's love. As Sir William said, I also don't think it was ever particularly meant to be consumated, though it certainly did happen in some instances.

Box of chocolates? F*** that, I'm sending her a box of body parts!
Title: Re: A Knight and Love
Post by: Aiden of Oreland on 2014-02-20, 21:54:57
Sir James you speak of Sir Ulrich Von Lichtenstein of Gelderland. You know, the person Sir William from Knight's Tale impersonates.
Title: Re: A Knight and Love
Post by: Naythan on 2014-02-20, 22:34:51
Well it seems I'll become a Templar. When my family questions me being kit in relationship ill just tell them because I'm a Templar.

Makes me think of Ironclad. He was still chivalrous towards the lady but he didn't want any sexual relations.
In the end love and chivalry is just a misconception then isn't it?
It's all good feed back, Sir Patrick really nailed it first thing. As did sir William.

As I recently stated in another post, my opinion of chivalry (in its purest and ahistorical sense) is not some rigorous code with various rules and exceptions, but rather one simple rule: Love others. Or if you're a religious type: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." And loving yourself doesn't mean narcissistic, arrogant love, but a nurturing, caring, and disciplined love necessary to make ourselves better so that we may better serve others.

Romantic love is something that we can become blessed with in our lives, but it is no way a requirement for being a good person. Now mind you all of this is from an ahistorical perspective. Sadly, I am not entirely familiar with the historical rules and rituals of romantic and courtly love.

That seems more along the lines of compassion wilburnicus. Which is still an important part of chivalry.
Title: Re: A Knight and Love
Post by: Sir James A on 2014-02-20, 22:59:26
Sir James you speak of Sir Ulrich Von Lichtenstein of Gelderland. You know, the person Sir William from Knight's Tale impersonates.

Aha! That sounds right. I kept thinking Marshal, but I knew it wasn't Marshal, and knew it was from an old Mike Loades joust show that mentions Marshal - and he does indeed mention Ulrich too. Well done!
Title: Re: A Knight and Love
Post by: Aiden of Oreland on 2014-02-20, 23:28:09


Yep. The name escapes me, but I remember someone who was married and had "courtly love" with a married woman. He hurt his finger at tournament and wrote to her about it. She said not good enough. He cut off his finger and sent it to her.

I don't plan to be *that* knightly. :)

I believe part of the intent of "courtly" love followed "courting" - the process men go through when trying to win a woman's love. As Sir William said, I also don't think it was ever particularly meant to be consumated, though it certainly did happen in some instances.

Box of chocolates? F*** that, I'm sending her a box of body parts!

Hey, everyones doing it, Sir Ulrich Von Lichtenstein, Vincent van Gogh...
Title: Re: A Knight and Love
Post by: Sir William on 2014-02-21, 14:02:57
Makes me think of Ironclad. He was still chivalrous towards the lady but he didn't want any sexual relations.
In the end love and chivalry is just a misconception then isn't it?

But he does succumb to her advances before the final battle; that's Hollywood for you (I found that scene unnecessary) right?

In any event, I do not see them as mutually exclusive; hopefully should you ever fall in love, you'll be the very paradigm of courtly chivalry to your lady!  I also view chivalry as a means of, maybe not loving your fellow man, but being concerned for your fellow man- in some ways, responsible for them.  As modern era knights, we are not tasked with charging enemy lines or experiencing the joys (and horrors) of the sort of combat that is romanticized by books, movies and, in no small way, people with similar interests as ours. 

I do it because it is something that has been a part of me since I was a kid but I realize that our part is to instill the desire to explore this period in time, and educate and encourage those who would pursue it, whether purely on a scholarly level or as with most of us, inclusion of a more energetic route.  Seeing young men like yourself and your brother hold such an interest in knightly pursuits is edifying (not all kids are rotten lol) and I hope you two stay on the Path.
Title: Re: A Knight and Love
Post by: Aiden of Oreland on 2014-02-22, 05:16:12
Makes me think of Ironclad. He was still chivalrous towards the lady but he didn't want any sexual relations.
In the end love and chivalry is just a misconception then isn't it?

But he does succumb to her advances before the final battle; that's Hollywood for you (I found that scene unnecessary) right?

In any event, I do not see them as mutually exclusive; hopefully should you ever fall in love, you'll be the very paradigm of courtly chivalry to your lady!  I also view chivalry as a means of, maybe not loving your fellow man, but being concerned for your fellow man- in some ways, responsible for them.  As modern era knights, we are not tasked with charging enemy lines or experiencing the joys (and horrors) of the sort of combat that is romanticized by books, movies and, in no small way, people with similar interests as ours. 

I do it because it is something that has been a part of me since I was a kid but I realize that our part is to instill the desire to explore this period in time, and educate and encourage those who would pursue it, whether purely on a scholarly level or as with most of us, inclusion of a more energetic route.  Seeing young men like yourself and your brother hold such an interest in knightly pursuits is edifying (not all kids are rotten lol) and I hope you two stay on the Path.


There were reasons these stories were told to youth, this subject reminds me of William Faulkner's Acceptance Speech. It spoke about how stories of today have lost a certain element. Moral. That people today write about physical fears and write "not from the heart, but from the gland"(Faulkner, Acceptance Speech).

Im sorry but when he puts on the armor and rides out to meet his enemy was really awesome... Until his horse had to drag his sorry butt into the castle lol. As you said Sir William, this is something that we grew up with. This path me and my brother chosen almost calls to us. Hopefully I will be able to start a school club in my school to truly educate people about these things. Who knows, maybe it will make high school drama in my school more romantic and chivalrous hahaha. As young as we are, I find it sad when I sit in my english class and not a single person(besides me) knows what a damsel is! A damsel!!! I was actually upset. I tell you there is something lacking now and days in todays youth. "Thou saucy fellows". Ever think about Gandalf's quote about how what you read about isn't in your books, its out there. I do all the time. Every time I read a book.
Title: Re: A Knight and Love
Post by: Sir Robert on 2014-03-21, 04:40:41
I'm not sure I even want to register on this, but while perhaps a lady to pine over may be a good bonus, knights are overly romanticized, indeed while most professed a devotion to god, and perhaps some were "perfect" knights, there were more that we're not. So no lady required, many served perhaps, but not a requirement to be a knight, perhaps a good virtue but these were men, and let's say that modern ideals today did not apply....
Title: Re: A Knight and Love
Post by: Aiden of Oreland on 2014-03-21, 19:16:34
I'm not sure I even want to register on this, but while perhaps a lady to pine over may be a good bonus, knights are overly romanticized, indeed while most professed a devotion to god, and perhaps some were "perfect" knights, there were more that we're not. So no lady required, many served perhaps, but not a requirement to be a knight, perhaps a good virtue but these were men, and let's say that modern ideals today did not apply....

Maybe not a requirement to be a knight, but expected as a person of that time. Around my age even correct?