All kingdoms recognize them, and anyone who considers there to be a difference needs a good kicking. The option exists for members of the Chiv who do not wish to or cannot for personal reasons swear fealty. Some folks have personal reasons to take that seriously, and more power to them.
An Tir has very few MoA, and has not made any new ones in decades.
However, the few we do have are Highly Respected.
I might even go so far as to say that if anything, as individuals they might be more respected than any random knight. That's my own impression though.
They often come out during the Coronation to toast the new Royals in lieu of swearing fealty, and it is a lovely bit of ceremony too.
I would be very sad to see the institution of the MoA die out. I think it's an important facet of the game.
But culturally, there's just an assumption that the Order of the Chiv = Knights, and it would take a brave soul to go against that.
I am in An Tir, as well, but have only heard of one MoA by name, the MoA who’s also a blacksmith. :)
However, I agree with this - even just hearing talk of the MoA’s and the possibility of more, it’s always been very respectful. The reasons behind not being able to swear fealty are accepted as simple facts of life and not always commented on unless the MoA chooses to be super open about it.
I have heard that some will swear service rather than fealty, but that’s dependent on on the individual involved.
(Now this next coronation will be my first, as it’s close enough for me to attend, so maybe I’ll get to see the elusive MoA of the kingdom. :D)
There are three MoAs in An Tir.
One is also a Laurel, won Forged in Fire, and is a blacksmith.
One no longer plays, but played (and lived) in the Principality of the Summits.
One lived out of kingdom for a long time and recently returned to An Tir.
Depends which Kingdoms you're in. The 'inferior' perception (from my observation) only seems to be held by the Knights. The other peerages and gen-pop really could care less.
If I'm the 'he' you're referring to, whoever you made the bet to should be DMing you to collect their winnings. The only negative comments I've personally heard regarding Masters of Arms came from Knights. That was all I based my comment on.
I am a Master of Arms from the East. Much of my line of Chivalry choses the baldric for a variety of reasons, but some of it is a tradition. Master Feral Von Halstern was my Great GrandChiv so to speak, and we tend to be proud of that.
It is true even here some don’t like it, but that is the minority and frankly it doesn’t much matter what they think, ultimately. It doesn’t affect my life and on the whole see no difference in the level of respect.
~ Master Kit, East
Ealdormere has many "knighthood" designations. They are usually what the persons persona is. We treat them like knights, there being no inequality to rank. I do believe this is a requested privilege.
So, they're equivalent but distinct from Knights. They're a Member of the Order of the Chivalry, but unlike Knights they don't swear fealty as an expectation (though individually they can choose to). They also wear a white baldric in place of the belt and chain.
> unlike Knights they don't swear fealty as an expectation (though individually they can choose to)
I have never seen a Master of Arms swear fealty. In the West, if they especially like the incoming royals, they will offer them a toast after the Knights swear fealty. I've seen that a few times.
I personally find that to be very meaningful because unlike the fealty swearing, you know they're doing it because they want to and not because they have to.
Depends on the Master of Arms. I and the ones I am close friends with rarely do. If asked this, I would have said it isn’t unheard of, but it isn’t common. If it happens it is a statement.
I once saw a MoA swear fealty in An Tir. It was after a socially challenging reign and the Kingdom was emotionally bruised.
The new King wept.
Many Knights wept.
The MoA was given at least 3 chains to wear by fellow Chiv.
It was cathartic.
I don't believe this MoA had ever sworn before and to the best of my knowledge has not since.
Artemisia recognizes Masters at Arms, although they are rare.
I don't personally know any knights who will admit out loud they think MSCA are lesser chiv. If any that I know think that way, they keep it to themselves because they know I'll call them on it.
-Marcello, 15 years a knight this september.
Masters of Arms are pretty common in the East Kingdom. Here it is a personal choice. They are more common in some households than others.
I'm an Eastern Knight, and I certainly consider Masters to be my equals. I think most of the Order in the East feels similarly. We do have a tradition in which a King who is not a Knight will have a Knight also put their hand on the sword when dubbing a new Knight. Although Masters are not required to swear fealty, I think many do here.
We've had a few people (maybe 4? 2 of each) switch from Master to Knight or vice versa, and I think generally the way we do it is that they resign their peerage and are re-polled, although I'm not sure we did that in every case.
Caid apparently shares the same feels as Trimaris, anyone here seeking an MoA has been told they will be a Knight or they will not get made a member of the Chiv. Period, end of story. We’ve got a guy actively seeking an MoA and knights have said that shit to his face.
That's crazy tbh
And of course a violation of Corpora, but good luck proving that the "only" reason they won't elevate is that.
Wonder how much the BOD would care even if you had undeniable proof.
The BoD likely wouldn’t care. No one has ever written it down, so proof is hard to come by. As I said, most of them say it verbally, likely to make it less documentable. Some do take it on themselves to try and persuade him to just be a Knight, not really understanding that he has reasons for not wanting to swear fealty.
It could work. He’s just stubbornly honest and keeps stating he wants to be an MoA. We’ve both been having discussions about how we can find the validation outside of the peerage path and basically redefine our victory conditions (him for martial arts and me for Pelican). I think that might also be a healthy option as well.
Pelicans have no required Oath.
For martial arts, he can always go the Order of Defense or whatever they call the ranged one if he won't at least be noncommittal about Knight vs. MoA and "force" it at his elevation.
It's *only* Knights that have to swear fealty by default. Every other Peer it's optional.
Right, I know they have no required oath. Caid just doesn’t like to elevate social activists so that’s my hang up (as far as I know anyway, no one has informed me otherwise). I only mentioned my path as a reference point to say that my friend and I are having these conversations as people facing similar issues with regards to backwards thinking in the Circles here.
There was a period in Atenveldt where there was conflict centered around the debate between Knights vs. Masters at Arms. The last Master at Arms was made in Atenveldt in 1995.
I have had a few discussions with Knights around this and I don't believe that they think that Masters at Arms are inferior in some way, they expressed to me their general distrust of one of their Order who would refuse to swear fealty, as they see fealty as a core part of what they do. And that distrust has long roots dating back to debates stemming from Atenveldt's early days when there was a lack of faith in the Crown and a misunderstanding of fealty as blind obedience.
Duke Arthur of Lockehaven discussed this circa 2000:
>I must say that I am confused at the negative reaction I have found common in some parts of the SCA, and in some Kingdoms, regarding the title of Master at Arms. I can only assume that they must have evolved from a different set of understandings, and beliefs than I have, regarding this issue. I would not presume to suggest to any other member of the Chivalry, let alone to to any other Kingdom, how they should do things. I would only say that, in my mind, if a candidate for elevation to the Chivalry does not agree to "follow the rules" (Corpora, Rules of the Lists, Kingdom Law etc.) then that candidate should NOT be elevated. But if someone fulfills ALL of the requirements for elevation to Knighthood, and yet for some personal reason finds themselves unable to take the specific oath, then they should be offered the title Master at Arms.
>If a candidate does not fulfill all of the requirements for Knighthood, then they should not be offered the title "Master at Arms" either. The title, "Master at Arms" is not (in my mind) "a lesser form of Knighthood", nor it is for someone who is "almost" a Knight; it is ONLY for one who would be a Knight except for the one statement of difference, found in Corpora, and that is being required to "take the oath".
Everyone should read this if they are interested in the topic: [https://www.florilegium.org/files/CHIVALRY/25-years-late-art.text](https://www.florilegium.org/files/CHIVALRY/25-years-late-art.text)
This is how I’ve always understood it, that MOAs were offered entrance to the Chiv but that they do not swear oaths for personal, religious, or other reasons.
So it’s interesting to see that some MOAs do swear fealty, sometimes. In those cases I’m curious why the choice to be a MOA rather than a Knight.
As Knights were required to be in fealty, MoAs wanted the option to not be in fealty. Some MoAs never swore fealty, especially early on when the idea of fealty varied wildly among different Kingdoms, as they never wanted to think that they might be forced to either break their oath or do something that they disagreed with. That was largely resolved philosophically, as Duke Arthur of Lockehaven discussed:
>Fealty has two sides. Being asked (theoretically) to knowingly and willfully break Corpora, mundane law, or the Rules of the Lists, etc. would mean, to me, that the Crown has already broken their bond with me, and my oath, by demanding that I cast aside my primary responsibility - to the organization. I support the Crown because it personifies the organization and an organization must support its own law in order to survive. If a Crown knowingly and willfully violates this structure - the very structure which supports it - then it has broken it's fealty and has lost its rightful authority. My oath is held dear, and I take it seriously, and it can even force me to accept some things which I don't fully agree with (but which do not violate any law), but my oath is not absolute.
this is really interesting because it doesnt sound much like an affirmative case for a master of arms any longer now that at least this duke understands fealty differently
It would be hard to get to the point of being offered without folks knowing the reason. The average time from AoA to Knighthood in Atenveldt is about 8 years, currently, meaning that you have likely been active in the SCA and fighting with the Chivalry for a decade before your offer.
And if someone was offered and chose Master over Knight, they would definitely be asked why if it was not already known that it was for a specific reason. At this point, we have not elevated a Master at Arms for 29 years and I do not know of any active proponents of the idea or Masters at Arms actively still fighting within the Kingdom.
Literally the only negative comments I have ever heard about the existence of Masters at Arms are from knights. The overall impression is not liking to have folks who are considered their equals in skills but aren't controllable through Order politics and horse trading.
What a weird attitude. Masters at Arms are part of the Order of Chivalry. Besides which, the idea of trying to control Chiv with politics is completely foreign to me as a Western knight.
They're a Member of the Order of the Chivalry, but unlike Knights they don't swear fealty as an expectation (though individually they can choose to). They also wear a white baldric in place of the belt and chain.
Also, depending on the Kingdom, could be rare to non-existent so not hearing of them may not be a huge surprise. I didn't even know they existed until it got brought up briefly in some context I don't even remember now.
Some folks choose it because of that. I've known a couple who were military or government officials who felt it more appropriate given their oaths of office as well, or who take fealty as a concept seriously enough to not want to put themselves in a position of being expected to swear to every crown.
That's the reason it was invented... in the early days of the SCA they wanted to knight a Quaker, and when he said he couldn't swear fealty they invented a thing just for him.
My kingdom’s rapier guild adopted alternate wording options when people from a couple of faith traditions including Quakers pointed there are issues swearing oaths, and for Quakers to monarchs. Since most in the sca take the oaths very seriously it was a reasonable argument that mundane rules (and historic traditions) apply.
Master Eirik from Munitions Grade Arms is a Master of Arms. From what I understand he went that route due to him doing business with the entirety of the SCA, not just the Midrealm
Master of Arms were big in Atenveldt in its early days, as a few of the earliest members of the Chivalry were made as MoA's and spread the practice for a while. It stemmed from Atenveldt's general distrust of the (at that time) "foreign" Crown and early misunderstanding of fealty as mindless obedience.
Ideas about fealty progressed and the last MoA made in Atenveldt was in 1995. A number of the remaining active MoAs eventually resigned their MOA and accepted knighthood, such as the inimitable Sir Arik in 2004.
Duke Arthur of Lockehaven discussed it in one of his articles:
>At the beginning, in Atenveldt, I can attest that the issue of fealty was discussed a great deal; (at least it was amongst the fighters.) When I was first offered Knighthood, by the King of the West, (in April of AS 4 when Atenveldt was still a Principality of the West), I chose to decline and become a Master at Arms, in part because of our/my (mistaken) belief/understanding that "once you accepted Knighthood you had to do anything the King told you to do!" (I should emphasize that we seemed to come up with this idea on our own, as it was not proselytized by anyone from the West, as far as I remember. Exactly how this view was generated in Atenveldt I am not entirely sure; but it was what we thought, and it was what I was told, and it is what I mistakenly believed to be "true".)
[https://www.florilegium.org/files/CHIVALRY/25-years-late-art.text](https://www.florilegium.org/files/CHIVALRY/25-years-late-art.text)
Anyone who thinks Masters of Arms are inferior to knights is someone whose opinion is worthless. -Sir Kean
All kingdoms recognize them, and anyone who considers there to be a difference needs a good kicking. The option exists for members of the Chiv who do not wish to or cannot for personal reasons swear fealty. Some folks have personal reasons to take that seriously, and more power to them.
An Tir has very few MoA, and has not made any new ones in decades. However, the few we do have are Highly Respected. I might even go so far as to say that if anything, as individuals they might be more respected than any random knight. That's my own impression though. They often come out during the Coronation to toast the new Royals in lieu of swearing fealty, and it is a lovely bit of ceremony too. I would be very sad to see the institution of the MoA die out. I think it's an important facet of the game. But culturally, there's just an assumption that the Order of the Chiv = Knights, and it would take a brave soul to go against that.
I am in An Tir, as well, but have only heard of one MoA by name, the MoA who’s also a blacksmith. :) However, I agree with this - even just hearing talk of the MoA’s and the possibility of more, it’s always been very respectful. The reasons behind not being able to swear fealty are accepted as simple facts of life and not always commented on unless the MoA chooses to be super open about it. I have heard that some will swear service rather than fealty, but that’s dependent on on the individual involved. (Now this next coronation will be my first, as it’s close enough for me to attend, so maybe I’ll get to see the elusive MoA of the kingdom. :D)
There are three MoAs in An Tir. One is also a Laurel, won Forged in Fire, and is a blacksmith. One no longer plays, but played (and lived) in the Principality of the Summits. One lived out of kingdom for a long time and recently returned to An Tir.
Depends which Kingdoms you're in. The 'inferior' perception (from my observation) only seems to be held by the Knights. The other peerages and gen-pop really could care less.
[удалено]
Nor are you.
How much do you want to bet that he is either a knight who looks down on the masters of arms, or is a master of arms who feels inferior.
If I'm the 'he' you're referring to, whoever you made the bet to should be DMing you to collect their winnings. The only negative comments I've personally heard regarding Masters of Arms came from Knights. That was all I based my comment on.
No, I was asking you about Iambroom. Iambroom is “he” in the above question.
I am a Master of Arms from the East. Much of my line of Chivalry choses the baldric for a variety of reasons, but some of it is a tradition. Master Feral Von Halstern was my Great GrandChiv so to speak, and we tend to be proud of that. It is true even here some don’t like it, but that is the minority and frankly it doesn’t much matter what they think, ultimately. It doesn’t affect my life and on the whole see no difference in the level of respect. ~ Master Kit, East
Ealdormere has many "knighthood" designations. They are usually what the persons persona is. We treat them like knights, there being no inequality to rank. I do believe this is a requested privilege.
So, they're equivalent but distinct from Knights. They're a Member of the Order of the Chivalry, but unlike Knights they don't swear fealty as an expectation (though individually they can choose to). They also wear a white baldric in place of the belt and chain.
> unlike Knights they don't swear fealty as an expectation (though individually they can choose to) I have never seen a Master of Arms swear fealty. In the West, if they especially like the incoming royals, they will offer them a toast after the Knights swear fealty. I've seen that a few times. I personally find that to be very meaningful because unlike the fealty swearing, you know they're doing it because they want to and not because they have to.
In the East, it's rare that a MoA *doesn't*. Social anthropology is fascinating.
Depends on the Master of Arms. I and the ones I am close friends with rarely do. If asked this, I would have said it isn’t unheard of, but it isn’t common. If it happens it is a statement.
I once saw a MoA swear fealty in An Tir. It was after a socially challenging reign and the Kingdom was emotionally bruised. The new King wept. Many Knights wept. The MoA was given at least 3 chains to wear by fellow Chiv. It was cathartic. I don't believe this MoA had ever sworn before and to the best of my knowledge has not since.
That sounds like a beautiful moment. Thank you for sharing that story.
Sorry, I have a question. What do you mean by 'requested privilege'?
You talk to the Crown about your preferences, instead of Crown saying "You are a Master of Arms now"
Artemisia recognizes Masters at Arms, although they are rare. I don't personally know any knights who will admit out loud they think MSCA are lesser chiv. If any that I know think that way, they keep it to themselves because they know I'll call them on it. -Marcello, 15 years a knight this september.
Masters of Arms are pretty common in the East Kingdom. Here it is a personal choice. They are more common in some households than others. I'm an Eastern Knight, and I certainly consider Masters to be my equals. I think most of the Order in the East feels similarly. We do have a tradition in which a King who is not a Knight will have a Knight also put their hand on the sword when dubbing a new Knight. Although Masters are not required to swear fealty, I think many do here. We've had a few people (maybe 4? 2 of each) switch from Master to Knight or vice versa, and I think generally the way we do it is that they resign their peerage and are re-polled, although I'm not sure we did that in every case.
Caid apparently shares the same feels as Trimaris, anyone here seeking an MoA has been told they will be a Knight or they will not get made a member of the Chiv. Period, end of story. We’ve got a guy actively seeking an MoA and knights have said that shit to his face.
That's crazy tbh And of course a violation of Corpora, but good luck proving that the "only" reason they won't elevate is that. Wonder how much the BOD would care even if you had undeniable proof.
The BoD likely wouldn’t care. No one has ever written it down, so proof is hard to come by. As I said, most of them say it verbally, likely to make it less documentable. Some do take it on themselves to try and persuade him to just be a Knight, not really understanding that he has reasons for not wanting to swear fealty.
What if he just shrugs, they elevate and during the ceremony he says, "Master of Arms please" I think it'd be too late to revoke by then.
It could work. He’s just stubbornly honest and keeps stating he wants to be an MoA. We’ve both been having discussions about how we can find the validation outside of the peerage path and basically redefine our victory conditions (him for martial arts and me for Pelican). I think that might also be a healthy option as well.
Pelicans have no required Oath. For martial arts, he can always go the Order of Defense or whatever they call the ranged one if he won't at least be noncommittal about Knight vs. MoA and "force" it at his elevation. It's *only* Knights that have to swear fealty by default. Every other Peer it's optional.
Right, I know they have no required oath. Caid just doesn’t like to elevate social activists so that’s my hang up (as far as I know anyway, no one has informed me otherwise). I only mentioned my path as a reference point to say that my friend and I are having these conversations as people facing similar issues with regards to backwards thinking in the Circles here.
There was a period in Atenveldt where there was conflict centered around the debate between Knights vs. Masters at Arms. The last Master at Arms was made in Atenveldt in 1995. I have had a few discussions with Knights around this and I don't believe that they think that Masters at Arms are inferior in some way, they expressed to me their general distrust of one of their Order who would refuse to swear fealty, as they see fealty as a core part of what they do. And that distrust has long roots dating back to debates stemming from Atenveldt's early days when there was a lack of faith in the Crown and a misunderstanding of fealty as blind obedience. Duke Arthur of Lockehaven discussed this circa 2000: >I must say that I am confused at the negative reaction I have found common in some parts of the SCA, and in some Kingdoms, regarding the title of Master at Arms. I can only assume that they must have evolved from a different set of understandings, and beliefs than I have, regarding this issue. I would not presume to suggest to any other member of the Chivalry, let alone to to any other Kingdom, how they should do things. I would only say that, in my mind, if a candidate for elevation to the Chivalry does not agree to "follow the rules" (Corpora, Rules of the Lists, Kingdom Law etc.) then that candidate should NOT be elevated. But if someone fulfills ALL of the requirements for elevation to Knighthood, and yet for some personal reason finds themselves unable to take the specific oath, then they should be offered the title Master at Arms. >If a candidate does not fulfill all of the requirements for Knighthood, then they should not be offered the title "Master at Arms" either. The title, "Master at Arms" is not (in my mind) "a lesser form of Knighthood", nor it is for someone who is "almost" a Knight; it is ONLY for one who would be a Knight except for the one statement of difference, found in Corpora, and that is being required to "take the oath". Everyone should read this if they are interested in the topic: [https://www.florilegium.org/files/CHIVALRY/25-years-late-art.text](https://www.florilegium.org/files/CHIVALRY/25-years-late-art.text)
This is how I’ve always understood it, that MOAs were offered entrance to the Chiv but that they do not swear oaths for personal, religious, or other reasons. So it’s interesting to see that some MOAs do swear fealty, sometimes. In those cases I’m curious why the choice to be a MOA rather than a Knight.
As Knights were required to be in fealty, MoAs wanted the option to not be in fealty. Some MoAs never swore fealty, especially early on when the idea of fealty varied wildly among different Kingdoms, as they never wanted to think that they might be forced to either break their oath or do something that they disagreed with. That was largely resolved philosophically, as Duke Arthur of Lockehaven discussed: >Fealty has two sides. Being asked (theoretically) to knowingly and willfully break Corpora, mundane law, or the Rules of the Lists, etc. would mean, to me, that the Crown has already broken their bond with me, and my oath, by demanding that I cast aside my primary responsibility - to the organization. I support the Crown because it personifies the organization and an organization must support its own law in order to survive. If a Crown knowingly and willfully violates this structure - the very structure which supports it - then it has broken it's fealty and has lost its rightful authority. My oath is held dear, and I take it seriously, and it can even force me to accept some things which I don't fully agree with (but which do not violate any law), but my oath is not absolute.
I see! Thank you for the explanation, it makes sense. It’s also interesting to hear more about how these things evolved over time.
this is really interesting because it doesnt sound much like an affirmative case for a master of arms any longer now that at least this duke understands fealty differently
Pretty much, yeah. There are some religious folks that might still take that path, but that's it.
is the “no explanation required” part of the MoA still there, or would people expect you to justify it now?
It would be hard to get to the point of being offered without folks knowing the reason. The average time from AoA to Knighthood in Atenveldt is about 8 years, currently, meaning that you have likely been active in the SCA and fighting with the Chivalry for a decade before your offer. And if someone was offered and chose Master over Knight, they would definitely be asked why if it was not already known that it was for a specific reason. At this point, we have not elevated a Master at Arms for 29 years and I do not know of any active proponents of the idea or Masters at Arms actively still fighting within the Kingdom.
10 years in and this is the first I'm hearing of them.
Had my ass kicked plenty by both. I would never assume MoA are inferior to a Knight..
Lets be real: knight / Sir is a cooler title
Only considered inferior by knights
really? Why do you say that?
Literally the only negative comments I have ever heard about the existence of Masters at Arms are from knights. The overall impression is not liking to have folks who are considered their equals in skills but aren't controllable through Order politics and horse trading.
What a weird attitude. Masters at Arms are part of the Order of Chivalry. Besides which, the idea of trying to control Chiv with politics is completely foreign to me as a Western knight.
What's a MSCA?
From what I've read, it's the shorthand for Master of Arms (of the SCA); basically, the equivalent to saying KSCA, OP, OL, etc. but for the MoAs.
Oh I don't think I know what that is then. I know master of defense for rapier, but this sounds like a heavy thing from your post.
They're a Member of the Order of the Chivalry, but unlike Knights they don't swear fealty as an expectation (though individually they can choose to). They also wear a white baldric in place of the belt and chain. Also, depending on the Kingdom, could be rare to non-existent so not hearing of them may not be a huge surprise. I didn't even know they existed until it got brought up briefly in some context I don't even remember now.
Oh! Is that for the religious reasons that they can't swear fealty to anyone but God?
Some folks choose it because of that. I've known a couple who were military or government officials who felt it more appropriate given their oaths of office as well, or who take fealty as a concept seriously enough to not want to put themselves in a position of being expected to swear to every crown.
That's the reason it was invented... in the early days of the SCA they wanted to knight a Quaker, and when he said he couldn't swear fealty they invented a thing just for him.
My kingdom’s rapier guild adopted alternate wording options when people from a couple of faith traditions including Quakers pointed there are issues swearing oaths, and for Quakers to monarchs. Since most in the sca take the oaths very seriously it was a reasonable argument that mundane rules (and historic traditions) apply.
A common reason I've heard but not the only one.
Master Eirik from Munitions Grade Arms is a Master of Arms. From what I understand he went that route due to him doing business with the entirety of the SCA, not just the Midrealm
Master of Arms were big in Atenveldt in its early days, as a few of the earliest members of the Chivalry were made as MoA's and spread the practice for a while. It stemmed from Atenveldt's general distrust of the (at that time) "foreign" Crown and early misunderstanding of fealty as mindless obedience. Ideas about fealty progressed and the last MoA made in Atenveldt was in 1995. A number of the remaining active MoAs eventually resigned their MOA and accepted knighthood, such as the inimitable Sir Arik in 2004. Duke Arthur of Lockehaven discussed it in one of his articles: >At the beginning, in Atenveldt, I can attest that the issue of fealty was discussed a great deal; (at least it was amongst the fighters.) When I was first offered Knighthood, by the King of the West, (in April of AS 4 when Atenveldt was still a Principality of the West), I chose to decline and become a Master at Arms, in part because of our/my (mistaken) belief/understanding that "once you accepted Knighthood you had to do anything the King told you to do!" (I should emphasize that we seemed to come up with this idea on our own, as it was not proselytized by anyone from the West, as far as I remember. Exactly how this view was generated in Atenveldt I am not entirely sure; but it was what we thought, and it was what I was told, and it is what I mistakenly believed to be "true".) [https://www.florilegium.org/files/CHIVALRY/25-years-late-art.text](https://www.florilegium.org/files/CHIVALRY/25-years-late-art.text)
Ansteorra just made a Master, I think it was Skeggi at Warlord. I hadn’t seen anyone become one since Atenveldt.
No Skeggi is a Knight. It was Set Sette who was made a Master.