ANST -confused about titles again(was sword facts)

[Lord Larkin O'Kane]

On Tue, 7 Apr 1998 16:24:33 -0500, heatherford.manor at juno.com (Kateryn
Heathrydge) wrote:

>
>On Tue, 7 Apr 1998 12:10:31 -0700 "Timothy A. McDaniel" <tmcd at crl.com>
>writes:
>>Larkin quoted and wrote:
>
>>
>>> HRM could appoint
>>
>>No, TM could appoint.  "Crown" = "King and Queen".  "HRM"
>>is a notion devised when there were imperial Majesties to be
>>distinguished from garden-variety plain royal Majesties and
>>should be stomped out in the SCA pronto.  Not that I have a strong
>>opinion on this, mind you ...
>
>OK, I am now confused again.  I was under the impression that HRM was
>His/Her Royal Majesty and an appropriate way to refering to a singular
>Majesty.  I'll hazard that it's the "Royal" bit to which you object?  
>
>

That was just my  chauvinism showing through. TM is the crown [both
together].f  I said HRM  [His Royal Majesty] out of pure disregard for
the "polliticaly correct" manner of speaking.  I have heard others object
to the use of "royal" as redundant.


Larkin      I will not purposly offend anyone in a public forum:
===         If this post offends you, please tell me privately.
         
============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.