Chivalry & Knighthood Traditions (Facebook Post)

[Joshua Santana]

I came across this post from an acquaintance of mine and it struck a chord that I felt compelled to post it here.  The following is the original statement:

Before I accepted the Faith, I always tried diligently to tip-toe around the subject of knighthood. I can recall one uncomfortable situation where I ended up "knighting" some young folks as part of a graduation ceremony, but I didn't feel good about it even though a couple of adolescents said it was the greatest day of their young lives. The problem was, it was a sham, and I wasn't happy to do it. We've got a heck of a lot of people running around and "knighting' each other these days. Should a green belt karate practitioner wear a black belt? Should a novice fencer wear a maestro's black? How can we say we honor tradition and heritage when we cheapen them by creating our own hierarchies and use them as we will?

He then added further comments which are the following:

The thought came up yesterday in a conversation at the estate. I am privileged to be acquainted with an honest-to-God knight who holds his title as sacred. I looked at my friend, who has known the knight far longer than I, and I asked him what the chevalier would think of all of these societies where knighthood is bestowed by a group's own validity, and nothing more. His answer echoed my thoughts exactly.

A number of years ago, I had the honor to fight before a fairly young German Duke, who also happens to be a Prince whose ancestors had been Electors in the Holy Roman Empire. He, personally could trace his paternal line back to about the 11th century. Far from being a backward-looking feudal stick-in-the-mud, or a modern playboy, he has a degree in agronomy (farm sciences, I guess), and he is an outspoken champion and defender of Western Civilization, as well. As we were dining, after the demonstration, he told me that he had gone to a medieval renaissance fair in Germany, and the actions of the players were so ridiculous and gave such a slanted and prejudicial view of medieval life that he couldn't restrain himself, and he stepped forward and chastised the actors for their disgraceful performance.

Every so often, I get a well-wishing student who thinks they are honoring me by calling me "maestro". Bless their hearts. I appreciate the sentiment, but these folks have no idea about hierarchies. I cringe when people call me a fencing master, or they address me as "Sir Roark". I correct them, gently. I do not wish to be dressed in borrowed robes. Speaking of robes, we can all have shining armor, sumptuous cloaks, and stately crowns.... But none of them a knight, king, or queen make. Henry V speaking his mind in the play; "Tis not the balm, the sceptre, and the ball,
The sword, the mace, the crown imperial,
The intertissued robe of gold and pearl,
The farcèd title running fore the king,
The throne he sits on, nor the tide of pomp
That beats upon the high shore of this world—
No, not all these, thrice-gorgeous ceremony..." The knights and noblemen I am acquainted with are not amused by "let's pretend"....

To me, the gentleman is absolutely right!  Because I use to have a similar view that Knighthood could be bestowed by oneself. What I didn't realize was that Knighthood was an Honor bestowed from the outside and it is a Tradition that is earned not given freely to be misused or abused. I almost fell victim to what Don Quixote believed and almost made a fool of myself and mocked what I believe. To me, living by the Code of Knighthood/Chivalry starts in the moral heart (speaking only about the application of the Code) and you earn Knighthood when you have proven worthy of it by making good choices or by keeping your integrity in check. This of course takes a lifetime to accomplish (original comment).

What do you Brethren think? 

[Sir Edward]

I think there are several angles to look at this, and a lot of it revolves around your definition of knighthood... and that part can be a bit sticky, since you have to ask "what century and which country?"

To be a modern knight in a country that still has knighthoods, then it simply must be bestowed by the governing body there. In the UK, you're a knight when the queen knights you.

Historical knighthood doesn't exist anymore, since we're removed from it by several centuries. No one can be a 13th Century knight, for instance, because it is now the 21st century.

However, I don't see an issue with historical recreations that depict knights. Nor do I see a problem with private organizations (Orders, the SCA, etc) having their own version of it. Is it the same thing? No, of course not. It's a different interpretation.

And while the accolade will come from an external source, you don't need a tap on the shoulders to be chivalrous. Arguably, you must be knightly first, before you will be knighted by someone. Or in the case of the UK, you just need to be very successful or famous.

Knighthood and chivalry have evolved so much over the centuries that the later versions show very little resemblance to the earlier versions.

I certainly understand where he's coming from. But I don't see the point of railing on private organizations, especially if they're historical recreations, or hobbies. True, not everyone is going to get their facts straight. There are still many misconceptions out there.

So to me, there are many forms of knighthood today. And I don't have any trouble or conflict in keeping them all in my brain at once. I think it's OK to have historical recreations, private clubs, private Orders, hobbyists, and so on, alive and well today in addition to the living tradition of knighthood that still exists in only a small number of countries. I don't see these things as mutually exclusive.

[Thorsteinn]

<EDIT>: The below comes out way harsher than I meant. I am merely musing without any emotional attachment. Thinking out loud.

I can tell you that the SCA got carte blanc from the folks in the UK about bestowing Knighthoods as we were not asking that Mundane life honor the title.

When you say that Knighthood must be bestowed from the outside is to me having the same problem as California saying "all blackbelts are deadly weapons" in that you say (to continue the metaphor) that a man with a black belt in Tae Kwon Do is more deadly than a man who studies 5 different martial arts but only got to sub-Blackbelt rank.

Remember what Terry say's in Redbelt here?:
http://www.reelz.com/trailer-clips/33486/redbelt-clip-7/

What does a real Knight use the belt for? Are you a real knight if you aren't even sure what end of the horse has the teeth?

Now I am with Balin of Ibilin on this too:
Bishop, Patriarch of Jerusalem: Who do you think you are? Will you alter the World? Does making a man a knight make him a better fighter?
Balian of Ibelin: [pause, turn slowly to face Bishop] Yes.

Finally this: Is Scott Farrell (ska Sir Guillaume de la Belgique) not a Knight even as he write about it on Chivalry Today?

[Joshua Santana]

I think there are several angles to look at this, and a lot of it revolves around your definition of knighthood... and that part can be a bit sticky, since you have to ask "what century and which country?"

To be a modern knight in a country that still has knighthoods, then it simply must be bestowed by the governing body there. In the UK, you're a knight when the queen knights you.

Historical knighthood doesn't exist anymore, since we're removed from it by several centuries. No one can be a 13th Century knight, for instance, because it is now the 21st century.

However, I don't see an issue with historical recreations that depict knights. Nor do I see a problem with private organizations (Orders, the SCA, etc) having their own version of it. Is it the same thing? No, of course not. It's a different interpretation.

And while the accolade will come from an external source, you don't need a tap on the shoulders to be chivalrous. Arguably, you must be knightly first, before you will be knighted by someone. Or in the case of the UK, you just need to be very successful or famous.

Knighthood and chivalry have evolved so much over the centuries that the later versions show very little resemblance to the earlier versions.

I certainly understand where he's coming from. But I don't see the point of railing on private organizations, especially if they're historical recreations, or hobbies. True, not everyone is going to get their facts straight. There are still many misconceptions out there.

So to me, there are many forms of knighthood today. And I don't have any trouble or conflict in keeping them all in my brain at once. I think it's OK to have historical recreations, private clubs, private Orders, hobbyists, and so on, alive and well today in addition to the living tradition of knighthood that still exists in only a small number of countries. I don't see these things as mutually exclusive.

You have a good point here Sir Edward, I have considered that and I have deemed the different version of Modern Knighthood to be a good thing.  You are right that private Orders and what the SCA does are good things that evoke the true meaning of Knighthood.  My purpose was to see what you guys think about this.  I have read from the original gentleman who posted these comments that he had a chance to meet authentic European nobility.  I think he was coming from that perspective.  However you and RauttSkegg are correct indeed.  It is not the title that makes a man a knight, rather it is how he lives by the Code and defends his beliefs.

[Sir Edward]

Indeed.

And historically speaking, putting aside all modern forms for the moment, there were so many flavors of knighthood it's hard to keep track.

By the 16th century it had pretty much become a title that was at the bottom rung of nobility (prior to that, it wasn't nobility at all). At this time, people actively avoided getting knighted, because of the responsibilities and financial burdens it placed on them. It had ceased to be a type of warrior.

Back in the 14th, knights were very influential, but were not nobility, yet were still elite warriors. This is mostly true of the 13th as well, but we don't see all of the pageantry yet.

Going back prior to the 11th, knighthood was just a means for existing knights to bring other fighters into the club, so to speak. They were elite warriors, and it was a way to recognize another warrior's qualities.

Before that, it was just a name for anyone who was a fighter with enough wealth for horses and gear.

And even before that, the term simply meant "servant boy".

Many knights earned their titles through deeds and qualities. Others were made knights just because they were on hand when there weren't enough knights. Some knightings were purely political.

So we have to be careful about how our rose-tinted view of history may also influence what we perceive real-world knighthoods to be.

[Sir Brian]

Could Wyatt Earp be considered a knight? How about Mahatma Gandhi? How about Queen Esther from the bible or Queen Eleanor the matriarch of the Plantagenet royal line? The true ideals of knighthood cannot be confined to a selective groups perspective. One side would say those I have listed above were not for this obvious reason or another. What is essentially the common denominator for all those listed above is their courage, honor and perseverance to remain true to themselves and their convictions. When you are armored and armed with such fortitude you will out shine Sir Galahad.

[Joshua Santana]

Could Wyatt Earp be considered a knight? How about Mahatma Gandhi? How about Queen Esther from the bible or Queen Eleanor the matriarch of the Plantagenet royal line? The true ideals of knighthood cannot be confined to a selective groups perspective. One side would say those I have listed above were not for this obvious reason or another. What is essentially the common denominator for all those listed above is their courage, honor and perseverance to remain true to themselves and their convictions. When you are armored and armed with such fortitude you will out shine Sir Galahad.

If this was a question to me, I would answer Yes to all of the individuals you have mentioned Sir Brian.  The common denominator was their courage, Determination and Integrity especially Sir Galahad.  I am in full agreement with you.

By the 16th century it had pretty much become a title that was at the bottom rung of nobility (prior to that, it wasn't nobility at all). At this time, people actively avoided getting knighted, because of the responsibilities and financial burdens it placed on them. It had ceased to be a type of warrior.

That is true especially in England towards the 17th Century it becomes the case. Whereas in other countries such as Italy or Spain there were individuals that were part of Chivalric orders or were able to afford Knighthood. 

Many knights earned their titles through deeds and qualities. Others were made knights just because they were on hand when there weren't enough knights. Some knightings were purely political.

Very true, and this to me speaks well about Knighthood throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance, but we cannot forget those who lived by the Code and became famous because they stuck on to what they believed in.  We must the same.

[Sir Edward]

Many knights earned their titles through deeds and qualities. Others were made knights just because they were on hand when there weren't enough knights. Some knightings were purely political.

Very true, and this to me speaks well about Knighthood throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance, but we cannot forget those who lived by the Code and became famous because they stuck on to what they believed in.  We must the same.

I bring it up mostly to point out that without knowing the context, we can't automatically assume that every single knight was out there gaining glory and saving damsels in distress. Having a personal lineage or unbroken tradition brings a potential mixed bag.

If I could trace my lineage to a specific knight, I'd want to know what kind of man he was. Did he earn it with his deeds, or was he knighted out of convenience? Did he buy it, or was it thrust upon him? Was he nothing more than a minor noble who was uncouth and dishonest, but had the wealth, or was he a paragon of virtue? I think these things matter.

[Sir Brian]

Many knights earned their titles through deeds and qualities. Others were made knights just because they were on hand when there weren't enough knights. Some knightings were purely political.

Very true, and this to me speaks well about Knighthood throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance, but we cannot forget those who lived by the Code and became famous because they stuck on to what they believed in.  We must the same.

I bring it up mostly to point out that without knowing the context, we can't automatically assume that every single knight was out there gaining glory and saving damsels in distress. Having a personal lineage or unbroken tradition brings a potential mixed bag.

If I could trace my lineage to a specific knight, I'd want to know what kind of man he was. Did he earn it with his deeds, or was he knighted out of convenience? Did he buy it, or was it thrust upon him? Was he nothing more than a minor noble who was uncouth and dishonest, but had the wealth, or was he a paragon of virtue? I think these things matter.

Many knights earned their titles through deeds and qualities. Others were made knights just because they were on hand when there weren't enough knights. Some knightings were purely political.

Very true, and this to me speaks well about Knighthood throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance, but we cannot forget those who lived by the Code and became famous because they stuck on to what they believed in.  We must the same.

The precise perception all should always keep in mind when applying any measure of reverence for any person or caste is to adhere more to their actions than their titles or renown. To paraphrase from the words of the messiah, ‘A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit; neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.’

[Joshua Santana]

I bring it up mostly to point out that without knowing the context, we can't automatically assume that every single knight was out there gaining glory and saving damsels in distress. Having a personal lineage or unbroken tradition brings a potential mixed bag.

If I could trace my lineage to a specific knight, I'd want to know what kind of man he was. Did he earn it with his deeds, or was he knighted out of convenience? Did he buy it, or was it thrust upon him? Was he nothing more than a minor noble who was uncouth and dishonest, but had the wealth, or was he a paragon of virtue? I think these things matter.

Indeed, I would do the same if I were to discover any famous Knight in my family genealogy.  I would have investigated any and all documents to see if the Knight was a paragon of virtue in his time or did he earn for service to King, Country etc. 

The precise perception all should always keep in mind when applying any measure of reverence for any person or caste is to adhere more to their actions than their titles or renown. To paraphrase from the words of the messiah, ‘A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit; neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.’

Indeed and Amen!  That is exactly it!