Is it Honorable to win, then say the loser should reign?

[Thorsteinn]

A question of Honor came up today:

Imagine two fighters reach finals of an SCA Crown/Coronet. X beats Y after a hard fought match. In that moment of victory X suddenly realizes that Y would make a great King/Prince, while X would not. X then declares Y to be the winner for Y would be who X would want for the Crown/Coronet.

Is X being dishonorable? Is X wrong?

[Sir Brian]

I would say that is very honorable. Also humble and noble of X for he put the welfare of the kingdom ahead of his own glory. Whether he was correct or not in his self estimation of his qualifications to rule, he relinquished the glory of victory for an even greater and more noble accolade. Truly your kingdom is blessed to have such honorable knights to serve them. 

[Ian]

Within the bounds of the SCA I think that's kind of weird.  A crown tournament's sole purpose is to determine the next King right?  And a tournament is the only way that Kings are determined in the SCA.  You know before entering that you're fighting for that title and that title alone.  If you think you'd be a bad king, why would you enter the tournament in the first place?  It seems like a question that should have been answered before taking the field.  It's one thing if he just feels like the other guy would be better, but if fighter X felt he would make a bad king from the start he should not have entered the tournament.

I think it puts fighter Y in an awkward position.  If he is king now, he knows he did not earn it through combat at arms, which is the SCA way.  So that could affect his ability as King.  It may cause him to second guess his validity.

[Sir William]

Maybe X just wanted the competition; I'm confused, what exactly does 'rule' entail that he would be bad at it?

[Sir James A]

I second Sir Ian's question about SCA context in it. If suitability as a King is determined solely through martial combat, and X has beaten Y, then shouldn't X be king. What qualification(s) is it with Y that makes X think that Y should be king instead? And why would this suddenly be recognized at the end of a tournament bout?

If I threw myself into that as Y, I would decline X's offer as having not been legitimately beaten by him/her.

If I threw myself into that as X, I would take the crown as earned, and when able to speak with Y privately, tell them I feel they would make a better King and ask if they wish to take over. I could see it as being very demeaning to Y for X to imply "I beat you and I earned this, but you take it instead"; it's being given something that wasn't earned.

[Sir Douglas]

Hmmm...I don't know. That's a toughie there. I agree that it would be noble of X to step down if he didn't feel he could reign properly, but at the same time, I also agree that it puts Y in an awkward position.

Granted, I'm not really familiar with SCA rules so take this for what it's worth, but I think it depends on the circumstance. Did X go in with the intent to win, but had some last-minute "epiphany" after he had won? In that case, I think the thing to do would to be discuss it with Y and make sure he was okay with accepting the reign instead of just saying, "Y'know what? I don't really wanna be king. It's all on Y now."

Or did he go into the competition with no desire to be king and just want to fight or want bragging rights?

Basically, I guess it kind of depends on whether X had some kind of ulterior motive, or if was it an honest change of heart.


Edit: ninja'd by Sir James.

[Sir William]

If I threw myself into that as Y, I would decline X's offer as having not been legitimately beaten by him/her.

If I threw myself into that as X, I would take the crown as earned, and when able to speak with Y privately, tell them I feel they would make a better King and ask if they wish to take over. I could see it as being very demeaning to Y for X to imply "I beat you and I earned this, but you take it instead"; it's being given something that wasn't earned.

That begs the question- did Y in fact take the crown from X?  If X is honorable to accede the throne, is Y necessarily honorable in taking it- since it has been noted that victory via trial by combat is the only way to take it?

[Sir Edward]

I find it hard to decide as well. On one hand, I agree with Sir Brian's assessment about his selfless and honorable act to concede, based on his assessment of their relative ability to lead as King.

But... if I were the one who lost the fight, I would feel I didn't earn that position. That it needed to be gifted to me. It would be a hollow "victory", because it was gained in defeat.

[Ian]

I just think it comes down to the fact that no one should enter a Crown Tourney that they don't want to win.  It's not a secret that the reason the tournament exists is to determine the new King.  If you don't want to be King, don't compete in the one thing that's sole purpose is to become the King.  There are plenty of other opportunities to fight and compete. 

Did fighter X just suddenly have this realization at the end, after he won?

[Sir Brian]

Did fighter X just suddenly have this realization at the end, after he won?

That very well could be the case as this is discussion is nothing more than hypothetical and based upon rudimentary information, it could have been a situation where X was so focused on the combat aspects of the tournament that he didn't truly consider all his qualities needed to truly lead until during the tournament when he had perhaps witnessed Y's qualities were greater than his own? 

[Thorsteinn]

Yes, it was an in situ realization. The point being that hot fighters don't necessarily make great Kings. That no one ever talks about winning and saying "bet the other guy/girl would have done better".

In that moment of victory X suddenly realizes that Y would make a great King/Prince, while X would not.

[Ian]

The point being that hot fighters don't necessarily make great Kings.

True, but someone forgot to tell the SCA that because that's the only way to make a King!

[Lord Chagatai]

Well...while honorable I think the SCA and reigning royalty would have an issue with it cause it goes against the oath that you as a fighter took at the beginning of the tournament. It also goes against the letter of intent that you, along with your consort, sent into the crown to fight in the first place. And if you did that what would it do to the honor of your consort, who thinks you would make a good king or would not have agreed to be your consort?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Thorsteinn]

And if you did that what would it do to the honor of your consort, who thinks you would make a good king or would not have agreed to be your consort?

That's a whole different Kettle of Fish. Just ask Viscount Annora Rains of Cynagua whom became Princess cause the nice Knight asked the day before the lists, not knowing he had won the Coronet several times before and was known to be an absentee Prince. Were it not for the fact she was a member of the war unit Tribe RotMahne she'd have been screwed.

Well not to mention he thought he'd get laid for winning, even though she said she'd not sleep with him just cause she was his consort this causing innumerable problems, especially when she started dating her Ex again midway through the reign (it's OK now, she & her Ex since married and are very very awesome people).

I asked the same question on a Facebook page called Ask The Knights.

[Lord Chagatai]

And if you did that what would it do to the honor of your consort, who thinks you would make a good king or would not have agreed to be your consort?

That's a whole different Kettle of Fish. Just ask Viscount Annora Rains of Cynagua whom became Princess cause the nice Knight asked the day before the lists, not knowing he had won the Coronet several times before and was known to be an absentee Prince. Were it not for the fact she was a member of the war unit Tribe RotMahne she'd have been screwed.

Well not to mention he thought he'd get laid for winning, even though she said she'd not sleep with him just cause she was his consort this causing innumerable problems, especially when she started dating her Ex again midway through the reign (it's OK now, she & her Ex since married and are very very awesome people).

I asked the same question on a Facebook page called Ask The Knights.

My point exactly...and that was not very knightly of him...I would of recommended to take his spurs, chain and belt away....

I am also a member of ask the knights on facebook....as a squire I find it very informative...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD