[Ansteorra] Same-Sex Consorts

Adam R Thompson adam.r.thompson1 at gmail.com
Sun Oct 30 12:21:12 PDT 2011


Kings sharing the throne were brothers or fathers/sons generally. In the case of the Eastern and Western Roman Emperors they still each had an Empress and a royal family. 

The other issue that no one seems to be talking about is representation. The current system guarantees a 50/50 split of male/female on the thrones. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 30, 2011, at 12:53, HerrDetlef <herrdetlef at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ansgar,
> 
> What you are forgetting is that there IS a historical precedent (actually,
> there are several) for two or more people of the same sex sharing a
> kingship. It's not just a matter of fairness or anything like that. Nowhere
> in mundane history has anybody said that the kingship must always be shared
> between a man and a woman. For example, if the Prince of Wales were to
> succeed his mother, he will probably not share the crown with his wife out
> of respect for public opinion regarding his first wife. I don't necessarily
> agree with that; the English language only has one word for the wife of a
> king. But still, there is no law in mundane precedent requiring every king
> to have a queen for the duration of his reign. That's artificial. It's also
> artificial for the SCA to say that the king and queen need not be legally
> married. What's NOT artificial is the existence of two or more kings
> sharing a crown at the same time.
> 
> But nobody can say that same-sex consorts should not be allowed because it
> isn't period and then say that same-sex consorts should not be allowed
> because the documentation proving that it IS period is not the prime
> motivation for petitioning the change in SCA practices.
> 
> I've been told that homosexuality should not be tolerated because it isn't
> natural, and it isn't natural because it isn't observed among other
> animals. When scientific evidence proved that homosexuality WAS observed
> among other animals, the argument became that homosexuality shouldn't be
> tolerated because human beings should not engage in behaviors that other
> animals engage in. Changing the rules of the argument in mid-argument is
> illogical at best, and it's often downright insulting. To be told that
> having two kings on a throne is inappropriate because it isn't period, and
> then to be told that having two kings on a throne is still inappropriate
> when documentation is offered to demonstrate that it IS period because THAT
> documentation is not the prime mover in the petition to allow same-sex
> consorts in the SCA really boils my blood.
> 
> The only logical reason I've seen behind not allowing same-sex consorts on
> a throne is the effects that that would have on a rapier community that
> centers itself on the patronage of a queen. Everything else I've seen so
> far has been a pathetic attempt to veil homophobia.
> 
> There. I said it.
> Detlef
> 
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:26 AM, <bsmall at suddenlink.net> wrote:
> 
>> Detlef,
>> 
>> I believe the point is that we are supposed to be studying and recreating
>> the Middle Ages.  It's true that we aren't 100% authentic, but what a lot
>> of people are pointing out is why deviate further from what we are already
>> doing?
>> 
>> In other words, how does adding same sex consorts (for convenience sake)
>> take us away from our declared purpose?
>> 
>> You could argue that we allow modern items at events and avail ourselves
>> of modern medicine, etc., but those arguments really don't support going to
>> same-sex consorts, in my opinion.
>> 
>> Ansgar
>> 
>> ---- HerrDetlef <herrdetlef at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> So I take it you are also against discarding the concept of theocratic
>>> kingship that pervaded the Middle Ages/Renaissance, and I also take it
>> you
>>> are against the concept of crowns stepping down after six months. These
>>> things also do not accurately portray life as it was in the Middle Ages.
>> I
>>> don't know of a single medieval/Renaissance king who only ruled six
>> months
>>> and then willingly stepped down, and I don't know of a single medieval
>>> coronation ceremony that was not actually performed by the Church. Kings
>>> and queens in the Current Middle Ages do not rule/reign "by the grace of
>>> God," and they are not anointed by bishops (the anointing being more
>>> central to a coronation ceremony than the actual act of crowning). We
>>> should bring the Church into the Current Middle Ages (if our kingdoms are
>>> pagan and not Christian, from what gods do our kings claim descent?), and
>>> we should allow our kings to reign for the rest of their lives and also
>>> pass their kingdoms on to their own children.
>>> 
>>> Do you REALLY want to go that route?
>>> 
>>> Detlef
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ansteorra mailing list
>> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
>> In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
>> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Hwæt! We Gardena         in geardagum,
> þeodcyninga,         þrym gefrunon,
> hu ða æþelingas         ellen fremedon.
> Oft Scyld Scefing         sceaþena þreatum,
> monegum mægþum,         meodosetla ofteah,
> egsode eorlas.         Syððan ærest wearð
> feasceaft funden,         he þæs frofre gebad,
> weox under wolcnum,         weorðmyndum þah,
> oðþæt him æghwylc         þara ymbsittendra
> ofer hronrade         hyran scolde,
> gomban gyldan.         þæt wæs god cyning!
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org



More information about the Ansteorra mailing list