[Ansteorra] Royalty - Same Sex Consorts

[Chris Zakes]

At 07:24 PM 11/2/2011, you wrote:


>Sent from my iPod
>
>On Nov 2, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Chris Zakes <dontivar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>At 08:03 AM 11/2/2011, you wrote:
>>
>>>You see, I like that we're an historical re-creative group and with
>>>a few exceptions {deodorant, toothpaste, store bought fabric, etc 
>>>} we try to adhere to that. Personally I feel that if we become too
>>>PC we're in danger of becoming merely a "dress-up" costume party.
>>>That being said, if it was done in written history, then why not?
>>>Sincerely, Anna Mirofanova
>>
>>
>>Well, that's part of the problem: the examples of same-sex rulers
>>given by the "pro" folks were generally *relatives*--parent and
>>child or brothers--not gay lovers, so re-creating that particular
>>bit of history isn't as clear-cut as it might be.
>>
>>        -Tivar Moondragon
>Right, and the only example of opposite sex rulers are married. So by
>that logic the only couples that should be allowed to enter crown
>tournaments would be opposite pairs that can show a marriage license
>or a same sex male pair that can prove familial ties with birth
>certificates. If you are going to tell one group that they must
>document their relationship was allowed on the thrones in period why
>not hold all couples to that standard?
>
>~Eve


Wait a minute. Read what I actually wrote, please, not what you 
*think* I might have written. Specifically "re-creating that particular
bit of history isn't as clear-cut as it might be."

I am *not* saying we shouldn't have same-sex Crowns, my biggest 
concern is the effect it would have on Queen's Champion. And 
realistically, unless we had several male-male Crowns in a row, I 
think we'd survive one reign without a Queen's Champion, or with a 
Consort's Champion. Although it's relatively ancient history now, 
we've survived Queen's who weren't terribly interested in rapier in the past.

         -Tivar
Moondragon