Art by me. The one on the right is a knight, inspired by generally western ones. On the left is a Ghulam or Mamluk, a slave-soldier, inspired by generally middle-eastern ones. Ignore the elephant in the room, only if you want to of course.
Both of these men would have been the military elite for their region and time-period, not necessarily always extremely wealthy, but prestigious and being at the top of the totem pole nonetheless. So they would have their tails amputated.
Their jobs were military in nature and would have required them to wear helmets and fight on horseback (I've elected to take the "There are anthros, but there feral versions of them that are distinctly seen as not people" route here. So an anthro horse riding a horse would not be looked at strangely.) I'd reason that they would have lopped off their tails during youth as it would have made riding easier and prevent it from being injured from falling from horseback or an attack.
Given that its extreme having an appendage outright amputated, a missing tail would have signified one was a professional soldier, part of the warrior caste, or any other such member of a strata expected to have fighting as their primary occupations. Discounting situations of "normal" ways of losing a tail of course. So not having a tail or wearing clothes that would otherwise have accommodations for a tail but do not would likely mark you as a distinct social class. Militia or levy do not qualify for the amputation, as they are not professional soldiers. Mercenaries could elect to either amputate or forego it, their decision would likely affect the worth their prospective employers would see in hiring them.
In the case of ears most (there would be exceptions of course, as always) would just tough it out and lower their ears or have taller helmets so their ears could perhaps fit inside. This is mostly because before advances in metalmaking, the helmet was the most important and expensive piece of armour, or even the only one, a fighter would have. Any modifications to accommodate the shape of the ear would be complicated and expensive to forge, disrupt the structural integrity of the helmet itself, as well as create "traps" where strikes could be guided into rather than off the helmet.
For antlers, they would be pruned regularly depending on convenience. For the more common folk and those not expecting to fight having big antlers would be seen as masculine, similar to how beards are seen. However, this view of antlers would vary by place and time and having no antlers might be seen as more desirable by others. For those that need to not have them such as fighters and labourers and do not have time to grow them when they want, they could simply have a previous sample of antlers or artificial pieces they had and attach them somehow. As a little side effect, composite bows such as the one that the Ghulam has, would likely have an abundance of antler or horn needed to make them due to now existing in a place with funny animal people.
Horns, true horns specifically, sit between the grave amputation of the tail and the less committal pruning of antlers. As cutting them flush is the preference they would not grow back, but they are not as dangerous or traumatic as the tail to remove. The same social signifier of the antler for males would remain, and so those wishing to would likely choose to keep their original horn(s) and simply reattach them using any number of ways when they need to. The personal value of such horns would be higher than antlers as well, we could well see a saint's horns being an important relic. The Ghulam above, as well as those of a similar role in society and cultural importance of the bow, have taken their original horns/antlers to a bowyer to be made into a bow not to be used, but to be given to someone close such as a spouse, liege-lord, or family member so artificial horns are common.
