Talk:Master at Arms: Difference between revisions
From Cunnan
Jump to navigationJump to search
Paul Matisz (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Masters of Arms are part of the Chivalry, but are not Knights. Basically, it's a knighthood for people who, for whatever reason, can't or won't swear Fealty to the Throne. [[User:Paul Matisz]] Aug 30, 12:10 EST |
Masters of Arms are part of the Chivalry, but are not Knights. Basically, it's a knighthood for people who, for whatever reason, can't or won't swear Fealty to the Throne. [[User:Paul Matisz]] Aug 30, 12:10 EST |
||
* So Masters of Arms contribute to the polling just as much as knights? - [[User:Cian|Cian Gillebhrath]] |
|||
Revision as of 11:10, 31 August 2006
So is it Master at Arms or Master of Arms? Or both? What does the SCA corpora and the heraldic laws say? - Cian Gillebhrath 14:47, 8 Jun 2006 (EST)
Also, I was under the impression that Masters at Arms are not actually part of the Order of Chivalry and therefore not considered knights. Is this so? - Cian Gillebhrath 13:01, 30 August 2006 (EST)
Masters of Arms are part of the Chivalry, but are not Knights. Basically, it's a knighthood for people who, for whatever reason, can't or won't swear Fealty to the Throne. User:Paul Matisz Aug 30, 12:10 EST
- So Masters of Arms contribute to the polling just as much as knights? - Cian Gillebhrath
