ANSTHRLD - Re: Vivat (was Anti-anti-oppressor rant) tmcd at
Sun Jan 23 11:02:55 PST 2000

On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Amy and Bill Morris <awmorris at> wrote:
> The reason some perfectly respectably people refuse to 'vivat
> Ansteorra' is that the evidence tends to make that construction
> post-period.  Vivat and Vivant were used for people, the literal
> sense being 'long live xxx', the intention being to wish a long life
> for the current holder of a position.  Unless one expects Ansteorra
> to die and be replaced, 'vivat Ansteorra' is both ludicrous and
> non-period.

Personally, before mounting a campaign I'd prefer to see some harder
evidence on the subject of use of "vivat" in period -- dictionary
definitions (if OED-like, they may have dates and examples), notes
from scholars who have encountered the word multiple times, et cetera.
The literal meaning is "long live", but words can be extended via
metaphor: was it ever applied to a non-animal and non-human?

Part of my resistance is that I can certainly envision a kingdom dying
metaphorically: where is the Kingdom of Burgundy?  Jerusalem?
Northumbria?  Ulster?

There is also the practical question of what it might be replaced
with.  I hasten to add: if something is an Evil Custom, no replacement
is necessary.  However, it might be more palatable in such a case to
have one ready.

> Returning to subject, it is also slightly strange to separately
> cheer both the crown and the kingdom.  It seems to imply that they
> are separate and unrelated items.

I'm afraid I find this to be slightly silly.  Having two names doesn't
mean "unrelated": we distinguish between Laurel Sovereign of Arms and
the College of Arms without saying they're "unrelated", or "husband"
and "wife", or "night" and "day".

As for "separateness": in SCA constitutional law, kingdom and Crown
are separate terms.  I've not paid great attention to period law, but
I think they'd call them separate things too.  Clearly, one can
continue when the other's existence ends.  English fiefs could go into
abeyance, where the title exists in limbo but there is as yet no
single male heir to get it.  The fief could be forfeited and
re-granted.  There could be multiple claimants to a land.  There were
rules about what could be done with real property.

Daniel de Lincolia
Tim McDaniel (home); Reply-To: tmcd at; 
if that fail, my work address is tmcd at

Go to to perform mailing list tasks.

More information about the Heralds mailing list